Civil and religious marriage *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Jun 30 2008 at 1:18 pm | Filed under: Gay marriage
This is the second in my series of marriage posts. My first draft, which was a failure, tried to trace the history of marriage, something that’s much better done by better informed people. What I realized from that valiant, although pointless and time-wasting effort, is that what I’m really interested in is a religion’s interest in marriage, a state’s interest in marriage, and the intersection between those two in America. This post may ultimately not end up being any more useful or interesting than my abandoned effort, but it still accurately represents some of the things I believe we need to think about before signing off on gay marriage.
Before I dive into the substance of my post, let me say here what I always say in connection with these gay marriage posts. I think gay marriage represents a sea change in human relationships. Since the dawn of time, in all cultures, marriage has involved men and women, and that’s true whether we’re talking polygamy or monogamy. Even in Greece, a culture people like to point to as one that encouraged homosexual relationships, marriage itself was still strictly a male/female event. This traditional approach to marriage reflects basic biology, something I explored more here, in my post about the procreative component of marriage.
In other words, what’s being proposed now is something that runs counter to all of human history — and a facet of human history deeply rooted in human biology. That’s not in and of itself a good reason to issue a categorical “no” to gay marriage. It is, however, a very good reason not to rush into the subject and definitely not to let judges, who are one of the weakest links analytically, intellectually and emotionally in modern society, to make the decision for us. This is a topic that requires debate and thoughtful analysis, and I’m doing my bit here, at my blog. So, back to the post:
Religion and marriage:
As far as I know — and please correct me if I’m wrong — all of the world’s major religions incorporate marriage as a component of faith. The Catholic Church defines marriage as one of the sacraments. For the uninitiated (and I count myself among that crowd), Wikipedia has what seems to me to be a nice summary of what the sacraments are:
According to the Catechism, Jesus instituted seven sacraments and entrusted them to the Church.[46] These are Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony. Sacraments are visible rituals which Catholics see as providing God’s grace to all those who receive them with the proper mindset or disposition (ex opere operato).
In other words, marriage, if it is at all possible to achieve that state, is an integral part of the Catholic faith. Deliberately shunning marriage is, I presume, tantamount, to turning your back on God’s grace. Although I’m shaky on Protestant doctrine when it comes to marriages, I have the sense that, while Protestantism abandoned the terminology of the “sacraments,” it kept the concept, with marriage being an integral expression of religious faith.
Jews too see marriage as an essential act of faith, putting into effect both (1) God’s direct command that his followers are fruitful and multiply, and (2) God’s intention, expressed when he created Eve as Adam’s companion, that men and women form lasting companionable partnerships.
And as we all know Islam also strongly advocates the marital relationship.
A little research reveals that in Hinduism, too, marriage is a sacred religious covenant. About.com has a brief summary, which I quote from here at length, since it leads to my next point about religion and marriage:
In Hinduism, man and woman represent the two halves of the divine body. There is no question of superiority or inferiority between them. However, it is a scientific fact that the emotional side is more developed in women. This does not mean that intellectually, women are inferior. Hindu history is witness to the super-women, like Gargi, Maitreyi and Sulabha, whose faculty of reasoning was far superior to that of ordinary mortals. But owing to organic differences in their physical and emotional constitutions, women are temperamentally more emotional than men.
[snip]
The idea behind the institution of marriage in Hinduism is to foster, not self-interest, but love for the entire family. Practice of self-restraint is the ideal of marriage in Hinduism. It is the love and duty cultivated for the entire family that prevents the break-ups.
[snip]
The present-day Hindu husbands fail to recognize the sacrifices and lofty ideals of Hindu wives, and thus compel them to follow the worst of the West. During the nuptial ceremony in a Vedic marriage, both the bride and the bridegroom take oath for the practice of self-restraint, to work together for the welfare of the family and to help each other to attain spiritual peace. This lofty ideal of sanctity is a great gift of Hinduism to the world at large.
As you probably noticed, the above description has all sorts of pragmatic reasons for marriage: self-restraint, companionship, family and the complimentary nature of male and female emotional lives. Judaism, too, has a focus on marriage that can be seen as very pragmatic, and untied to things spiritual: children and companionship. Indeed, I’m willing to bet that, if you go back in time and study the origin of marriage in each of the world’s religion, you’ll see that it’s tied to some practical goal.
At this point, of course, advocates for changing marriage start to argue that since marriage is a pragmatic means to an end even in the context of religion, religions should be changed to accommodate gay marriage, which is also a means to an end of companionship, family and (through adoption or insemination), children. This argument is plain wrong, though.
Regardless of the reasons the religions advance for marriage, the fact remains that heterosexual marriage is an integral part of each religion, and is seen as a necessary step for any given religion’s practitioners to take to achieve religious fulfillment or commitment. A civil society cannot change these fundamental doctrinal facts, no matter how much it is able to rationalize the reasons for the nexus between marriage and faith. Any given religion’s control over the marriage of its practitioners is sacrosanct and untouchable no matter how much you try to rationalize it away.
The state and marriage:
The modern state encourages marriage. Why? Originally, states were inextricably intertwined with religion. Starting with Constantine, where the ruler went, so went the people. If religion demanded marriage, well then, dammit, so would the religious state. That’s not the case anymore, especially in America. Thanks to the First Amendment, the American government cannot mandate that everyone get married because “X” religion says so, nor can it demand that all who want to get married have to do so under the aegis of “X” religion.
Although there can be no religious element to marriage in American, the state is nevertheless heavily vested in the union of men and women. This involvement is completely separate from religious unions, although, confusingly, they share the same name: marriage. The deal in America is that, if you want to have a solely religious marriage, that’s fine — only you won’t get any of the benefits the state extends to people who simultaneously enter in a civil marriage contract. What are those benefits? Here’s a partial list proponents of gay marriage assembled (from an alleged total of 1400 benefits), along with some comments from me, in blue:
- joint parenting; [This is a biological one: his sperm, her egg. However, it can be circumvented by having the non-biological parent adopt the child, something that has happened in step-families for centuries]
- joint adoption; [My understand of adoption is that both parents have to be vetted. I assume there's an extra procedural hurdle to issue the adoption papers for John Smith and John Doe, as opposed to Mrs. and Mr. John and Jane Doe. However, it certainly hasn't stopped numerous gay couples I know from adopting. Adoption is always a procedural pain in the neck from the stories I've heard.]
- joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); [See above.]
- status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; [This can be arranged contractually.]
- joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; [This can be arranged contractually.]
- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; [This can be arranged contractually.]
- immigration and residency for partners from other countries; [I'll agree that this is definitely a difference between people married, versus people merely committed to each other. Marriage would seem to add some credibility to the claim that the non-resident is involved in a true relationship with the American citizen, rather than a sham for immigration purposes. Given that both our immigration policies and are marital policies are increasingly sham-like themselves, it's hard to believe that this is an insurmountable hurdle.]
- inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; [Write a will. Most married people I know have written wills anyway, because the "one size fits all" of an intestacy statute is a disaster waiting to happen.]
- joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; [In San Francisco, landlord tenant laws are such that this is not a valid reason to claim marriage as a benefit over non-marriage. Once you're in an apartment, you've got squatters rights, which is one of the reasons I refused to yield to my husband's importuning that we buy residential properties in SF to rent. I don't know the law in places that don't protect tenants as much. Again, though, change the contract.]
- inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); [Properties can be held in joint tenancy by non-married people. This is again a contractual matter. You can set up trusts, re-title property, etc.]
- benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; [I have no idea about this, but suspect that it's true that federal government benefits cannot be amended by contract.]
- spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; [I don't know about this -- taxes are a blank slate for me -- but I assume that there are again contractual or commercial steps one can take to circumvent this problem. I freely concede I may be wrong here.]
- veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; [Joint filing of tax returns is no privilege, it's a penalty. I don't know about veteran's benefits but, given that the military won't recognize homosexual relationships, I'm sure it's true.]
- joint filing of customs claims when traveling; [BFD.]
- wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; [If you've adopted the children, I don't believe that they can be deprived of wrongful death benefits. I don't know about the surviving partner, although I assume that, again, most business and insurance companies have set this up so that a person can be named contractually.]
- bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; [Again, adoption solves the child problem; and I don't know about the partner problem.]
- decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; [This can be resolved contractually, if the deceased is an adult.]
- crime victims’ recovery benefits; [Don't know.]
- loss of consortium tort benefits; [Probably depends on the state in which the consortium tort benefits are claimed.]
- domestic violence protection orders; [Depends on the state, I guess. Also, anyone who is the victim if violence can, in theory, get a protective order. The problem is that, whether you're partnered or not, they don't do much good. Also, if you're not married, you theoretically have an easier time getting out of the domestic violence situation than someone who is married and whose life, as a matter of law, is deeply entwined with that of the violent partner. In other words, this sounds redundant.]
- judicial protections and evidentiary immunity [Evidentiary immunity -- no doubt about it. There is no law saying a gay partner cannot be forced to testify. I don't know about other judicial protections.]
Clearly, a lot of the automatic benefits — and burdens — bestowed on married couples require some extra work for gay people. And there are definitely some benefits that won’t go to gay people at all. None of these details, though, change the fundamental question: Is it in the state’s interest to make all these benefits automatically available to gay people? States that have legalized civil unions have said yes, taking away the complaint that the local state government is depriving gays of the same ease of access to government benefits that is granted to straight married couples. Presumably, the federal government could do the same thing without actually calling it marriage.
But I’ve digressed — again. Let me restate my question: Why the heck does a civil state care about marriage to the point where it extends all these benefits? There are lots of answers. I’ll start with a few, and leave you to fill in the rest.
One of the primary reasons is convenience, both for the married people and for the state. Since our culture’s default setting is for heterosexuals to pair up, and since our Judeo-Christian heritage has seen to it that this pairing up falls under the rubric of marriage, it’s infinitely easier if the state treats these pairs as a single entity. Half the tax returns (even if people are penalized for filing them), half the number of adoption forms, half the this and half the that. This also allows for huge numbers of presumptions about parenting — who has genetic rights in the children, who can be relied upon to care for the children, who would want his or her estate to go to the children, etc. The efficiency of treating permanently joined couples as one, and of making certain presumptions about them as a matter of law, is overwhelming. This benefit — to the state and to married people — would not change if marriage were extended to gay couples.
Intangible societal benefits also flow from marriage, and this is one of those things where the state’s benefit is our benefit too. As I’ve mentioned in my first post about gay marriage, marriage stabilizes men by focusing their testosterone on the protection of their wives and children and, by extension, on the protection of a stable, coherent society that will provide the maximum benefit to those same wives and children. Marriage is also beneficial to women since, biologically, they spend a lot of down time being pregnant and caring for children. A stable marriage ensures that they won’t have to be dependent on themselves, strangers or the state for these basic needs.
Stable married couples also tend to demand stable communities. To begin with, they want safe, attractive communities for their children. They also tend to be much, much more sociable. The moment I had children, I realized I’d joined the largest club in the world. It was no longer a matter of sporting the right clothes, or walking a dog in the right neighborhood, or having the right hobby in order to find people to talk to. Everyone who has ever had or wanted a child was an instant acquaintance. This creates intangible community bonds that are invisible to those who don’t have children. These bonds, again, encourage a thriving society where everyone, for his or her own benefit, works for the common good.
Frankly, gays with children can join this club too, and would have these interests too, so the state should be encouraging gays to have children. The question, of course, is whether marriage is a necessary prerequisite to encourage gays to have children. I don’t have the answer to that.
Do the above factors include “encouraging traditional values?” I don’t know. If by “traditional values” we mean having children and raising them to be useful members of society, defending our country, keeping our communities safe and thriving, etc., the factors I’ve set out above are definitely policies aimed at preserving and encouraging traditional values, whether or not civil marriage is extended to gays. If we think “encouraging traditional values” must include as one of those values “heterosexual marriage,” we come to a standstill. In that case, the state cannot simultaneously preserve heterosexual marriage while opening marriage to gays.
At the civil side, it all seems to boil down to what one believes should be the state’s ultimate goals. If one believes that heterosexual marriage is an ultimate goal, or if one believes that the nature of the gay lifestyle is such that, even extending marriage to gays would not bring them into the “stable society” fold, the debate is over. There is no societal virtue in having the state recognize gay marriage. If one believes, however, that gay marriage would increase the state’s ability to impose on its citizens all of the traditional virtues (but for heterosexual marriage, of course), while simultaneously increasing convenience for both the state and its citizens, gay marriage becomes a viable option.
Religious freedom in America versus gay marriage
Again, though, that’s not the end of the analysis. We continue to have problems because of America’s unique nature, which has seen the law develop so that the courts and the government have the power to prevent private individuals and organizations from depriving fellow citizens of rights. Even if we agree that the state will not be compromised by allowing gay marriage, we still run the risk of creating a Constitutional Frankstein’s monster.
As we’ve seen already from legions of newspaper stories, both at home and abroad, gays are routinely, and successfully, suing religious individuals and organizations (or bringing administrative proceedings) in an effort to force them to fall in line with state norms about homosexuality, even if those norms are antithetical to religious norms. Individuals and organizations that don’t want to extend benefits to same sex partners, or who don’t want to arrange adoptions for gay couples, or who don’t want to use their venues to host same sex marriages, or whatever else is being asked of them, are being challenged through the courts and through government bureaucracies. Their religious convictions are being attacked through state vehicles.
These bureaucratic and judicial attacks would seem to run directly counter to the First Amendment’s first clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government is prohibiting the free exercise of someone’s religion if it forces that person to lose his livelihood or his home or his business if he won’t engage in acts antithetical to what are still fairly mainstream religious beliefs.
In other words, no matter how one tries, as I did, to make a pro and con list of the religious and civil aspects of marriage, one still runs into a single, possibly insurmountable problem: For the state, in the form of the federal government, to impose gay marriage throughout American means that Congress will, by definition, have enacted a law prohibiting the free exercise of someone’s religion. That violates the First Amendment. The only way not to violate it is to enact a Constitutional amendment, something that might state “Congress may pass a law allowing gay marriage and that will be the exception to the prohibition against Congress passing a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” Absent that change, which is an enormous undertaking, I actually don’t see how the feds can allow gay marriage without violating the existing Constitution.
Of course, given the increasing activism of the Courts and government bureaucracies, and their routine willingness to subordinate religious freedom to the intangible goal of equality of outcome, my question, while academically interesting is probably moot. I can assure you that, in an Obama Supreme Court, the justices will easily find some intangible right to gay marriage that entirely trumps the First Amendment.
I feel I should state some sort of conclusion here, but I don’t rightly now what my conclusion is. I can summarize my argument, though: Most religions do not and cannot be forced by the state to recognize gay marriage. The state’s more pragamatic interests in marriage probably would not be too greatly compromised by gay marriage. The state’s vision of society might or might not be comprised by gay marriage, depending on what that vision is. But all of that may be moot because it appears that, if Congress recognizes gay marriage, which is the ultimate gay demand, it will create a fundamental clash with the First Amendment that will be resolved only by the Supreme Court. And as the tight victory for the Second Amendment reveals, even the currently composed Supreme Court could go either way. An Obama Supreme Court will toss religious freedom out the window.
As is always the case, the way this should be resolved is through a Constitutional amendment (which is how the abortion matter should also be addressed), but the activists will never go that route when they think they have the Courts in their pockets.
Your thoughts?
UPDATE: Here are to further points. First, this is an example of what happens in a society when men don’t get the calming influence of marriage and the societal-beneficial investment into a family.
Second, I wanted to point out something I hadn’t made clear in my post, namely the fact that, in America, freedom of worship is not limited to doctrinal practices. That is, it’s not simply that the government can’t make a law prohibiting church services or banning the reading of the Torah. In case after case (many involving Jehovah’s witnesses in the 30s through 50s), the Court’s have held that people cannot be forced to engage in day-to-day life practices antithetical to their beliefs. The most obvious example is the fact that the government has routinely issued conscientious objector status to those who can show that they are true adherents of religions that genuinely have pacificism as a core part of the belief system (such as Quakers).
UPDATE II: It’s people like this gentleman (and I’m being generous saying, not only “gentleman” but also “people”), who are common fixtures at gay pride parades, who may give some Americans the impression that gays are agitating for marriage for reasons other than merging with societal norms. That is, perhaps they’re just making a political point: We want it, not because it leads us to our ultimate goals of societal normalcy, but because we currently don’t have it.
UPDATE III: Scott’s comment and an email from DQ both tell me I need to clarify something. Here goes:
The distinction I have in mind when I make my First Amendment argument is predicated on the differences between “mere” cultural practices and core religious doctrine. Both Scott and DQ are correct that there is nothing to stop the state from issuing civil marriage licenses. No one would contend that, if it did so, though, that law would force religious authorities — rabbis, priests, imams, etc. — to perform gay marriages. I know that the state would not get involved in church affairs in that way.
The people I’m thinking about are the ordinary citizens whose lives or livelihoods intersect with the marriage business. Examples of this would be the Massachusetts Catholic charity that was put out of business because it felt doctrinally barred from giving children to gay couples. Another example, which happened in England (but could happen here under new laws) is the owner of a fancy reception hall being fined and put out of business because he won’t open his home to gay weddings.
Incidentally, the ban against polygamy (which DQ mentioned in his email to me as an example of the US messing with religious marital principles) was grossly unconstitutional if one believes that, as of the 1860s, Mormonism was, in fact, a true religion. The only way the US gov got away with it was (1) because Mormonism was not an established religion and (2) Utah wanted desperately to move from being a territory to becoming a state. Islamic polygamy, which is banned under anti-polygamy laws, actually has the same problem, although I don’t know Islam enough to know whether one can argue that polygamy is a cultural practice, not a doctrine. If the former, it can be banned. If the latter, it’s questionable whether it can be.
With the major faiths – Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. – we take it as given that they’re true religions and not merely convenient fictions for certain behaviors (which is the negative view Americans of the 1860s took of Mormonism). Even when we separate core doctrines, central to the religion itself, from practices rising up around the religion, we see that marriage is a central practice to each religion. Given that marriage is not merely a ritual or habit but is, instead, vital to the religion, the US theoretically should not be able to force religious citizens (as opposed to their priests, rabbis and imams) to participate in gay marriage ceremonies – or, worse, to be punished for refusing to participate.
So, again in theory, not only does not the rabbi not have to perform the ceremony, the Jewish caterer should not be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars for refusing to provide the food. It’s the latter person who concerns me at a Constitutional level (the caterer), not the former (the rabbi), whom I know the government will leave alone.
Email This Post To A Friend
137 Responses to “Civil and religious marriage *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear me, so many words.
You’ve succeeded in convincing me you are not versed in the history of women’s rights.
If the Church can’t learn to act in a civil manner, then the state can, should, and has in the past simply taken away it’s right to act in that realm.
Up until the Civil war women were rarely punished by the state (prostitutes were the exception). The Church had the right and the responsibility to punish women for crime and other sins, like speaking your mind.
It must have been chaos considering the wide range of feminine standards in American folk cultures.
The Church proved itself incapable of instituting punishments in a fair way, so the state took over.
The Church is totally unreasonable about gay marriage (hanging on desperately to the idea that gays should be stoned or burned or worse), so it makes sense that the state should take away its right to perform marriages at all.
If you are going to do a history, arranged marriage was the norm world wide!!! It was an agreement between families, or slave owners, or at the convenience of the Landlord. (Your examples show that religion was just a stand in for what we now consider the role of the state. And the idea the Hinduism has a single doctrine is laughable.)
Daoism and Buddhism do not have marriage. Confucianism did insist that men carry on their family line through having children but marriage was/is entirely a civil contract between families.
Scott, I wasn’t talking about women’s rights or prostitution or arranged marriages or the state’s role in protecting those. All of the practices you mention are cultural, not core religious doctrine.
What I was talking about is the fact that (a) all religions advance one form or another of heterosexual marriage as one of the core doctrinal practices of the religion; (b) the state has reasons for supporting marriage that are entirely separate from any religion; and (c) legislation creating gay marriage clashes with fundamental, core religious doctrine.
Again, I was not talking about cultural practices that have grown up around religious doctrine and that can be subject to state pressure. The state, however, is not supposed to push people around on doctrinal issues, and it’s edging perilously close to doing that.
As you may have noticed, I pretty much concluded that, from the state point of view, there’s no reason not to have gay marriage, since the benefits and burdens to the state remain more or less the same. However, passing laws the impinge on core religious doctrines is a First Amendment problem no matter how many other rights you want to protect.
LaShawn is back blogging politics again! (she took a break to blog about music and the music industry) Her post today is on topic.
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/07/01/fatherlessness-as-child-abuse/
The burdens to the state do not remain the same! And that means that the burdens are increased to all for the behavior of some.
The Domestic Partnership Law in the state of OR (Feb. ’08) provides for insurance for homosexual person and partner AND for straight couple who refuse to get married. As in Scandanavian countries, this will just encourage increasing numbers of all people to not get married, period. The state is saying that it is acceptable to parent out of wedlock, period. Lack of a two-parent home (for so many reasons I won’t even begin to address here) is foundational to so many anti-societal behaviors raging through our culture. The state is saying that it is acceptable to tax more and more to become a ‘parent’ to more and more children that result from marriage-less couples who think that it’s not about the children, it’s all about ME, wonderful ME.
Scott must live in Iran – I don’t know any churches that stone or burn homosexuals.
>>As you may have noticed, I pretty much concluded that, from the state point of view, there’s no reason not to have gay marriage, since the benefits and burdens to the state remain more or less the same.>>
I disagree with you on this. Given a population of A,B,and C, with A being married heterosexual couples, B being homosexual couples and C being unattached singles, at the moment, you have certain privileges being granted to Group A. Group B wants to enjoy those same privileges. Suppose that B is given those privileges…why is the government discriminating against group C? Because that’s what it is…if the majority – that is, groups A and B…get certain benefits, what about the minority group C? But if _everybody_ gets the same bennies, then they aren’t bennies anymore – they’re just the rules. If you don’t give the benefits to Group C, then is there going to be a semi-requirement that everybody has a “life buddy”? In other words, you leave home, designate your significant other, change significant other until you find a significant other you want to spend your life with, and then call it a marriage? After all, if you don’t, then you don’t get the bennies. No more “roommates”…just significant others.
So…what is the purpose of the benefits? Some are legal shorthand, I think. Some simplify inheritance. Others were the recognition that women stayed home and had no earnings because they raised children. Should women be required to work? Some are really benefits – meaning something for nothing, in effect – like health benefits.
I guess there are a couple of points here I don’t really follow. First of all — and God knows I hear this in many places — I remain unclear how expanding civil marriage to include same-sex couples affects the religious institution directly. You correctly note that there are religious expansions of marriage we don’t recognize in the USA. There are also religious restrictions on marriage we don’t recognize, eg, my understanding is that the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize a civil marriage made outside the Church, and won’t perform a marriage in the Church unless certain other conditions are met. Yet somehow church marriage has survived.
It also seems to me a little unlikely that expanding civil marriage to same-sex couples would produce a lot of competition for traditional marriage; I very much doubt there are a lot of gays who decide to marry “outside their preference” for the advantages of marriage.
So it seems to me a little hard to credit the argument that expanding civil marriage in another direction will harm traditional marriage.
At the same time, we wouldn’t expect, and I would oppose, any attempt to force a priest to perform, or a hall to rent space for, a marriage of a couple that doesn’t meet their religious conditions, whether it’s because the couple is of the same sex or because one of the members of an opposite-sex couple is from a different religion.
Now, on your laundry list of the options for same-sex couples, there are a few point where I don’t think you’ve got the facts right: for example, you might well give your same-sex partner a power of attorney to act for you if you’re unable to act for yourself, but if so, you’d better be prepared for your partner to bring the power of attorney with you to the Emergency Room at any instant, under any circumstance, and if your traditional next of kin show up, your partner had better bring a lawyer as well and be prepared to litigate the issue. And you’d better hope your next of kin don’t put “do not resuscitate” in your chart while you’re trying to get a court order.
That’s just one point, but it’s an example of the more overarching issue: it’s possible that you can, with the aid of an attorney and a good knowledge of contract law, establish the whole set of conditions needed to in some sense simulate the effects of civil marriage. But you’ll be doing it at $300 an hour, and it’ll be a fair lot of hours; I haven’t seen a recent estimate, but I recall a gay couple I knew in North Carolina telling me that it had cost them upwards of $10,000 20 years ago.
Here in Colorado, the cost of a marriage license is around $20.
Arguing that gays can get the advantages of civil marriage through contract law seems to be arguing that it’s not in some sense a disadvantage that it is 500 times more expensive.
I commend you for taking on such a huge topic. It’s wonderful to have a discussion on this critical issue, hopefully thoughtfully and without rancor. In the end, the constitution does not require citizens to be rational though, and sometimes we can do nothing but fall back on ‘this is what I believe.’ I did not comment on your previous post, but hope to weigh in this time.
It seems there are really two topics that are occuring at the same time– both need to be explored.
1. If you remove religion from the discussion, is there any compelling reason for the government to place restrictions on marriage, or to regulate a ‘family unit’. While the Scandinavians may represent the leading edge of post-Christian thought (at least that’s my impression from my time there), possibly examining the Soviet Union or present day China might offer some insight to a society post-God, since prohibitions to homosexuality are usually considered religious.
2. What are the limits to the first amendment. Can the government compel citizens to violate their deeply held religious beliefs when they conflict with goals the government wishes to advance.
Real men drink Budweiser beer,Jack Daniel’s whiskey and smoke camel cigarettes. And they have sexual relations with real women that have real children and if they are really women even have jobs or own businesses and contribute to society and they even marry.And some men even have done military service (women also) They don’t sponge off of society.And they vote.Any other questions.
OK then I guess I misunderstood you. You weren’t making a historical argument? I was under the impression that “conservative” in its most banal usage means: “don’t change things from the way they were.”
But you seem to be saying that you believe there are “core religious doctrines” which all religions have in common (you have to stretch credulity to get there, but for the sake of argument I’ll give it to you). In other words, this “core” might change over time (since even punishing adultery with death use to be “core doctrine”) but the change doesn’t matter. What IS “core doctrine” right at this moment in time is what matters.
In other words you are arguing that the First Amendment functions as a sort of “temporary insanity” defense for religiously motivated anti-social behavior. Far out.
If you only do catering for people who are members of your Church, the state doesn’t get involved. If you do catering on the open market and you put it in writing that you don’t cater to children, or people who watch sports, or people who kiss in public–that is your right–you can discriminate. But if you put it in writing that you won’t cater to Protestant Irish, Indians, or gays–you are in for a taste of State coercion.
If your so called “core doctrine” is discriminatory, I really don’t see how it can survive in the public domain. What??… since intentional single-motherhood is a violation of “core doctrine” now your Christian Corner Market can argue that they don’t have to sell sodas to single-mothers?
Good thing Wal-Mart had a booth at Gay Pride!
The First Amendment really only protects a very limited definition of religion.
Thank you so much, all of you, for your comments. As DQ and Scott noticed right away, some of my points are definitely muddled. Charlie also picked up on that.
I should give you an idea of my mental starting point, which is a rather obscure one. In England, up until about the middle of the 19th Century, people who were not Church of England could not enter Oxford or Cambridge, nor could they hold government jobs. There was a religious test going on. That religious test already existed when the Founders drafted the First Amendment. Part of the idea behind the First Amendment was that the government could no coerce people into changing core religious beliefs in order to have access to government benefits and programs.
I had this in mind when I thought of the fact that in those states (Massachusetts) and countries (England) that have legalized gay relationships, people are being coerced into changing core religious beliefs. They are being told that they will be deprived of their livelihoods and fined money if they don’t abandon their beliefs. So this is not a case of the government forcing the church to do something; it’s a case of the government forcing the church’s members to do something.
Now, one can always drop of the matrix, so to speak. Orthodox Jews have done that forever. Their women don’t apply for jobs as as Hooters’ waitresses. However, marriage is such a fundamental aspect of life, and civil marriage has so many intersections with just about anything anybody does, that it strikes me as Constitutionally unreasonable to ask people to give up their belief systems to accommodate a newly created concept of gay marriage.
By the way, I also think BrianE is correct when he says that there is also a visceral sense of this is appropriate or this is not appropriate. My libertarian side says that, if we can scootch by the First Amendment problem I foresee, the government should let people of good will marry if they want. However, my conservative side (not politically conservative, just innately conservative) is having a hard time wrapping itself around the concept of deciding by judicial fiat to change the nature of human relations since time immemorial. Of course, if it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do, no matter my gut. I just want to think about it, which is the point of these posts.
Also, once I’ve thought about it, if I decide that gay marriage is the right thing, I still think it’s the subject for a Constitutional Amendment, not for some judge’s idea of “what’s right.” The conservative side of me deeply resents treating the Constitution like silly putty that can be folded, spindled and mutilated to accommodate every new idea, whether or not it can reasonably be read in the Constitution.
I think Scott in SF has already by-passed the discussion of the traditions of marriage and and has moved the discussion to a practical legal one.
Scott in SF, I’m curious, are you in a long-term monogamous relationship, and if you are, would you be offended for or protective of your children if they saw the events at the recent Gay Pride day?
Would you be supportive of ‘civil unions’ for gay couples and ‘marriage’ for heterosexual couples, if both offered the same legal rights? The only distinction would be the name?
Scott: DQ came up with the same argument about the government interceding when people claim religion to discriminate against blacks or people of other ethnicities or nationalities. That’s not a valid argument. Last I looked, there was nothing in Catholicism’s Seven Sacraments about race. Same for Judaism’s core beliefs. And same for the other religions. Religion was an excuse, but spiritual salvation didn’t depend on discrimination. Nor does going to heaven depend on discriminating against gays. But in all those religions, the basic man/woman nature of religion is an essential part of the covenant with God. I think that, for the state to interfere with people’s beliefs in that regard is a First Amendment problem that can be addressed by another Amendment.
Hmmm. Do you suppose you could point out the particular clause of the Constitution that would have to be amended to “grant” the right? (I tend to the “natural law” theory, so I’m only using the word “grant” for convenience.)
It would seem, in fact, that since we’re establishing that a same-sex couple can’t obtain the same legal protections as an opposite-sex couple via contractual agreements(see your post and my comment) without substantially greater difficulty, substantially greater expense, and less certainty of successfully exercising those agreements when they’re most essential, there’s a pretty good case on the face of it that same-sex relationships are not equally protected under the law.
It would also seem that since the Constitution already contains the Equal Protection clause, the need for a specific amendment to grant gay people equal protection is obviated — which is much the same argument as the conservative argument against the Equal Rights Amendment, come to think of it. Are you proposing the need for a Constitutional Amendment that says “With reference to Amendment 14 section 1: where it says ‘equal protection under the laws’, we really meant it, even with respect to homosexuals”?
Just to be emphatic, let me repeat that I think it would be wrong for “equal protection” in that context to be extended to a positive right to, eg, force a priest to perform same-sex weddings. In fact, I think a lot of the existing “anti-discrimination” laws, logically, fail the 14th Amendment too. But the idea that we need a specific amendment at this point to extend equal protection to one group of people seems rather to mock the notion that the text of the Constitution should determine what the Courts should hold.
Brian:
I’m not Scott, but Brian, can you explain to me what relationship you see between same-sex marriage and offensive behavior? Could you perhaps compare and contrast that with the implications toward heterosexual marriage, and whether heterosexual marriage ought to be permitted, when a heterosexual woman flashes her breasts during Mardi Gras?
Would you be supportive of civil unions for everyone, whether opposite sex or same sex? After all, the only distinction would be the name.
(That, by the way, is actually the solution I’d propose. Define a legal relationship, whether you call it “civil marriage”, or “civil unions”, or “Fred”, and distinguish it from traditional marriage in the same way we distinguish Canon Law from civil law.)
Charlie–
Because I don’t know what is considered ‘normal’ and what would be ‘offensive’ in the gay community, I posed the question to determine whether Scott would apply the core parental value that children need to be protected from viewing emotionally traumatizing behavor for his children.
I would be offended and would protect my children from being placed in a position of viewing a woman baring her breast at Mardi Gras, or on TV.
But the San Francisco Gay Pride day included sex– with multiple partners, sadism, and other behaviors that I think most Americans would be offended by.
I know this is straying from the topic, but do a small or significant minority of gay couples seeking to enter a legally binding contract, expect the relationship to be mutually monogamous?
I ask these questions, since as a traditionalist, I view these traits to be basic to both marriage and raising children.
This is from the website Gay.com– “”Happily ever after.” For many men, this means a lifelong monogamous relationship — it’s the storybook romantic ideal. However, for most long-term gay couples, reality involves at least the occasional ménage à trois or “fourgy.” Open relationships are common in our community — and whether this is to our benefit is the subject of heated debate.”
Does this attitude carry over to gay couples that want to raise children?
If one of the benefits to marriage for society is to teach certain values to the next generation– commitment, faithfulness, trust– to name a few off the top of my head, why would society see a benefit to gay couples raising children if they didn’t share those values.
Before you point out the number of heterosexual couples that fail to uphold these standards, these couples at least started the relationship with these expectations.
Leaving children aside for the moment, this recognition by the gay community that monogamy is not even a goal, means that we’re talking about different relationships when describing heterosexual and gay couples.
Does society have a stake in allowing these distinctions to blur?
Brian, you’re confounding two issues (at least two.) One of them is the “equal protection” issue: I argue that there’s a good argument to be made for allowing “Fred” to same-sex couples purely on equal-protection grounds. (Basically, try doing a substitution: can you construct an argument against equal access to marriage for same-sex couples that couldn’t be made into a common argument against marriage for couples of different races 75 years ago, purely by textual substitution?)
As to your “traditionalist” arguments, let’s look at them. You offer the question about people doing offensive things, and wonder if some of the flamers at the Gay Pride Parades are “offensive” in that community? I can promise you they are, and believe me, you’ve never seen social derision until you’ve seen an old queen deriding a leatherboy.
But so what? At least in this context, you wouldn’t think that some heterosexual people doing offensive things was a reason to disallow marriage to opposite-sex couples, would you?
(This is my own little veer, but this is also something where the whole notion of a universal idea of what’s offensive is a little difficult to credit: nudists in this country seem to cope with children seeing naked bodies reasonably well. Naked breasts are pretty common in most other cultures: see any magazine stand in Europe, any Carnival in Brazil, or innumerable issus of National Geographic. It’s not like we blindfold a breastfeeding baby. Animals copulating are offensive to city folks in this country; out on the farm, we manage to stand up to the threat fairly well. But I digress.)
Similarly with monogamy: first of all, extramarital sex is pretty common in heterosexual couples too. Considering the prevalence of accepted mistresses in most of Europe and throughout South America, and of concubinage, mistresses, and open prostitution throughout Asia, the notion that there’s even a general goal of monogamy among heterosexuals seems hard to credit. There does appear to be a goal of ensuring that women be restricted to one male, which is easiest explained by the desire that a male not devote resources to raising another males’ children, but even that is hardly universal.
So is that an argument for the elimination of heterosexual marriage. Is it an argument about marriage in any way?
If not, what’s the place of an argument about monogamy in the acceptability of same-sex marriage?
>>If you do catering on the open market and you put it in writing that you don’t cater to children, or people who watch sports, or people who kiss in public–that is your right–you can discriminate>>
This is already a legal issue…Arizona wedding photographers refused to photograph a gay wedding, and are being sued. Shouldn’t they be allowed to refuse any customers they choose? Churches are being sued if they won’t hold weddings for gays? If these marriages are legal, should the couples be granted that they have grounds to sue?
Written in 2004, these proposals were included in an overall article stressing the need to elect John Kerry:
“Support Civil Unions as a Steppingstone Measure. Where it is proposed, civil union legislation should be supported. ”
“Reposition Same-Sex Marriage as a Family-Friendly Institution. Progressives must wage a PR battle to establish gay marriage as enhancing, not threatening family, values. One compromise might be to trade domestic partners’ benefits for marriage rights. That is, all benefits (financial, estate, legal, adoption, etc.) for all couples, gay or straight, would be tied to marital status. ”
I’m not a lawyer, so the arguments surrounding the 14th amendment may better be left to someone with specific knowledge. The little I know suggests that the state’s interest in preserving traditional marriage would supercede the equal protection clause.
I don’t know about leatherboys and old queen’s, but the report I saw of the event didn’t include any ‘derision’. In fact, the few comments I have made with people familiar with the event, seemed to suggest a sort of ‘frat-boy’ justification of it. It left the impression on my part that these activities aren’t all that unusual, except for the fact they all took place on public streets.
Why this matters is this: With the right of marriage will come the right of gay couples to adopt and rear children. The argument you make suggesting that since heterosexual couples don’t do a very good job raising children justifies extending the priveledge to a group who by their own admission don’t share the values necessary to sustain a traditional society is not logical to me.
I really don’t care what the norms are for Europe or South America or what nudists do. We have PG and PG-13 ratings on our movies because we believe that children should not be exposed to certain behaviors.
I don’t know where you live but ‘extramarital sex’ isn’t all that common here and yes, a notion of heterosexual monogamy is a reasonable goal for society to promote. I also don’t buy the theory that society seeks to restrict only women to monogamous relationships for the convenience of the male, so we don’t have to devote resources to raising someone else’s children.
That’s fine, Brian. I’m challenging you to argue that the state has that interest. So far, you’re primarily asserting it.
I will say though, that the argument that the state’s interest in preserving other traditions superceded equal protection hasn’t worked out very well in, eg, Brown v Board of Education.
I’m not quite clear why you think your assertion of specific ignorance, and generalizations based on second and third hand knowledge, are supposed to be arguments in your favor.
Well, I suspect you’re using a meaning of the term “logical” that’s not familiar to me, since you just raised another red herring here. (Hint: I hadn’t addressed children.) In any case, however, I think you’ll find that heterosexual couples are examined pretty closely for their moral standing; why would homosexual couples be different (except for the obvious point that being a same-sex couple per se wouldn’t be evidence of immorality in such a case.)
Well, again, I’m not clear how either ignorance, or specifically declining to consider contrary evidence, helps your position of making a logical argument, but I am kind of suggesting that if you got out a little more you might discover that there’s less to be so excited about than you think.
Really? What color is the sky on your planet? Here on Earth, in the USA, the usual reports have it as upwards of 40 percent of males, and 20+ percent of females, have had extramarital sex at least once — and there’s every reason to believe that those statistics are somewhat under-reporting reality.
Not to mention ponies for everyone. But I think we’re getting down to it here: you believe that the state ought to promote heterosexual monogamy. That’s fine, I wouldn’t want to challenge your belief. I just don’t feel bound by it. If you want the state to do so based on something other than your belief, then I think you should argue for it. When you do, I think it’s legitimate to challenge those arguments, logically.
So far, though, what you’ve offered are:
The specific statement that you’re ignorant of the background of “equal protection” arguments, so you don’t want to address those; I’ll just point out now that since the equal protection argument was my particular one, this might not have strengthened your case very much.
the assertion that “frat boy” antics at the (admittedly over the top) San Francisco Pride parade prove there’s something about homosexuals that makes them unsuitable for marriage; so, I ask, why is it that admittedly over the top heterosexual antics at Mardi Gras, Fasching, or Karneval parades don’t disqualify heterosexuals?
And an assertion that because some gays are promiscuous, no gays can possibly be fit to marry.
Fine. Argue that point. “I don’t buy it” isn’t one. Then, having argued it, propose another explanation that’s reasonably consistent with real history.
I kind of thought that was the purpose of this thread, to explore the ramifications of same sex marriage.
I was vague about the Gay Pride Week, because the behavior was so completely reprehensible.
Here’s a link to the event.
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
I’ll take your word that people in the gay community are opposed to what went on.
Hint: I had addressed children. In fact that’s important to me– and you’ll have to explain to me how more infidelity in marriage is a good thing.
If it is difficult for heterosexual couples to remain faithful, and they have monogamy as a goal, what benefit is there to include a new type of marriage where the couples don’t even have monogamy as a goal?
That’s assuming monogamy is good for children.
How does not wanting to emulate Europe makes me ignorant? Been there, like it here.
This is an area where we might agree. University of Chicago National Opinion Poll lists the figures as 25% of males and 17% of females. Even if the figure is higher, I’m not sure how instituting a new type of marriage where the percentage of unfaithful spouses will increase is a good thing though.
Ouch! I’m still going to leave the argument to the lawyers, for now.
You made the claim. I doubt your assumption. Please give some facts to back it up.
Are ‘open relationships’, which include multiple partners the norm in long-term committed gay relationships as is claimed by Gay.com?
Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage about 10 years ago. Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. Not sure that’s a benefit to children.
One of the problem with these types of discussions is the time lag. I may have missed some posts.
Charlie in Colorado…
I’m trying to figure out just exactly what your position is here, other than that you’re apparently very much in favor of homosecual “marriage”…
Do you think that the State has any reason to have any say at all in the choice of people to marry?
Brian, frankly, had you quoted the previous sentence as well, you’d have seen them.
Brian, do try to recall that gay people, like all people, have varying opinions. Try (back to logic class) some substitution: we look at some pictures of the more radical things that happen at Mardi Gras, and some of them can be pretty radical. Do some straight people find those things offensive? You say they do. Now, I know perfectly well they do, but play along here: I look at just pictures of Mardi Gras and say “look at these pictures. I don’t see any signs straight people find these offensive.”
You’ve got the population in San Francisco, which was noted for wildness when gays were in the closet; you have the fact that gays moved to San Francisco because it was a place where gays could be “out” with relative safety, giving a subset population of people who wanted to be more openly homosexual; you look at the Pride Parade, which is all about being out, outrageous, and “in your face” in reaction to “the closet”; you then use photographs, which are naturally selected to be interesting; and you look at zombietime, which I think could fairly be said to have a point of view, and based on the most offensive pictures, selected from a conservative site trying to show how vile Pride Parade is, selected from photographs which are naturally chosen to be more striking, of a political event intended to be striking and even offensive, from a population that self-selected for being outrageous, in Sodom-on-the-Bay, and from that you’re inferring that among the 10 to 30 million gay people in the US no significant percentage finds them offensive?
Now, let’s go back to the same-sex marriage thing. Try, at least for purposes of hypothesis, to recall that homosexuals are people like other people: they have jobs, they have homes, they watch TV. The point of the “equal protection” argument isn’t some deep legal sophistry, its just the moral and Constitutional principle that people ought to be treated equally under the law. We started off with our host’s idea that “marriage” could be simulated with contractual agreements; there are a couple of issues with that, the first being that some of the properties of marriage can’t be established contractually in the US, the second being that even if you do, it costs thousands of dollars in legal fees to do it, versus $20 for a marriage license. So I think this establishes that there is a real impediment to same-sex couples getting that equal treatment.
You suggest that there is some reason for society to decide that traditional marriage is important enough that it should supersede the notion of equal protection under the law. I’ll grant you, as a hypothesis, the possibility; I’m just going to point out that you’re going to have a pretty high bar to reach, legally or morally. I’m old enough to remember when black people couldn’t marry white people in many states, and the argument for preserving that was tradition.
You wonder about the wisdom of introducing a “new kind” of marriage, but then I think civil unions are the “new kind”; I just want same-sex couples to be able, at least under the law, to contract the same old kind of marriage.
Having been married, I don’t see any particular reason why gay people ought to get off scot-free: let them face the music along with the rest of us.
Now let me just say again, that doesn’t mean I think that civil marriage ought necessarily be recognized as a religious marriage, any more than I think the government out to try to force the Church to recognize under Canon law a marriage not performed by a priest under Church doctrine; I don’t think people ought to be liable for refusing to rent halls or take pictures for a same-sex marriage if they disapprove, and I think the people who brought those suits are, in the technical parlance, rectums; and if you’re freaked out by same-sex couples, I think you should definitely not invite them over to dinner.
You’re also suggesting that same-sex marriage is somehow causing opposite-sex marriage to break down in Sweden — but beyond the little problem that correlation doesn’t allow you to infer causation, there are the associated issues that Sweden doesn’t actually have same-sex marriage (it has a civil union law) and the fact that marriage was breaking down in Sweden and Denmark before 1989. Nor are you making any attempt to distinguish between the effects of Swedish civil unions and the whole assortment of other things, like the Swedes’ social welfare system, that make marriage less attractive. There are pretty good arguments that marriage is breaking down pretty rapidly in the US in places where social-welfare laws made marriage less attractive, and we don’t have same-sex marriage.
Honestly, are you sure that the underlying issue isn’t just that you think gay people are icky?
Having been married, I’m not sure I’m even in favor of heterosexual “marriage”, but that’s a personal thing.
I think my basic position is really covered by the equal-protection argument: I don’t see why one group of people should be excluded from legal protections and privileges that are open to another group.
There’s still a law on the books in Colorado (or was, last I looked) that made it illegal for me to buy alcohol, because I’m a Choctaw Indian. Oh, it’s no longer enforced, and a charge under that law would be laughed out of court, but it’s there and it certainly was once enforced. Similar laws let the Federal Government make my ancestors walk from Georgia and Mississippi to Oklahoma; I attended graduate school at Duke, where most all old restaurants had take-out windows and old buildings had twice as many bathrooms as they might otherwise have had.
I am, I think it’s fair to say, very suspicious of arguments that “equal protection” ought to be superseded by tradition.
Any say at all? Yeah. I don’t think it ought to be legal to marry someone who is already dead. More seriously, I don’t think it ought to be legal to marry before you’re 18, or if you are mentally incapacitated and unable to understand the contract, and I’d listen seriously to proposal for a “three strikes and you’re out” rule — no fourth marriages after a third divorce.
Well, probably not, I’m just being cynical; I’m old enough that I’ve got friends on their fourth marriages and the deja vu gets to me sometimes.
>>Any say at all? Yeah. I don’t think it ought to be legal to marry someone who is already dead. More seriously, I don’t think it ought to be legal to marry before you’re 18, or if you are mentally incapacitated and unable to understand the contract, and I’d listen seriously to proposal for a “three strikes and you’re out” rule — no fourth marriages after a third divorce.>>
How about if we just took the State out completely? Made marriage strictly an arrangement between two people, and allowed them to function according to whatever religious beliefs they may or may not have, and not have the State involved in any way? Would you find that acceptable?
And just out of curiosity…with your friends on their fourth marriage – why do they keep getting married? do they have children? What’s the point?
More about the children…
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/07/070108ad.htm
Y’all are doing just what I’d hoped would happen: talking about the issue, with some heat, but no personal animosity. This should be the debate society is having.
Incidentally, I spoke with DQ at lunch, and he still professed himself confused by my final point about the Constitutional problem. We finally figured out that I was writing about the Constitutional aspects in a pure world, and he was thinking about them in the world as it is: and the world as it is has the government routinely pushing around individuals to make them respect the rights of other individuals.
It used to be that just the feds had to respect Constitutional rights; then the states had to respect Constitutional rights; and now we all have to respect constitutional rights — with the greatest respect going to those who yell the loudest.
DQ and I both believe that, as long as it’s not a criminal activity, people ought to be allowed to do what they want. If they own property, they can rent to whomever they wish. If they own a store, they can sell to whomever they wish. It’s a libertarian thing.
Under that libertarian view, individual florists and photographers and reception hall owners could say yes or no to whatever couples present themselves and then take the market hit. However, since the 1950s, you can’t do that in America.
And that’s why, even though I’m theoretically correct about a Constitutional clash between religious freedom and civil gay marriage, as a practical matter that battle was resolved decades ago against individual freedoms.
>>I think my basic position is really covered by the equal-protection argument: I don’t see why one group of people should be excluded from legal protections and privileges that are open to another group.>>
But they’re not excluded. They can marry – just not to each other. How about the rights of pedophiles? How about statutory rape? How about polygamy? What about marriage within a family? Aren’t you placing limits in each case upon one specific group ? If sex in general is allowed, why is it prohibited in others? What right has the State to limit marriage or sexual activity at all?
Yeah, pretty much, but what about, eg, Brian? He seems to be arguing that the institution of marriage would be weakened and demeaned by not being established in the traditional form by the state.
I think the best solution is something much like that: have a civil partnership that can be established contractually with the same properties as a “marriage”, but that can be established between any two people of legal majority and competence. (We can leave the question of n>2 for another time.) Then have any religious rituals you like.
Damned if I know. But then I don’t have the nerve to get married a second time.
And here I think you’re getting to a really important point. The notion of “equal protection” has been dramatically weakened over the years in the name of compensating for past failures in equal protection, resulting in a situation in which, just as before, some pigs are more equal than others. My CV moves to the head of the line in academic settings if the search committee knows I’m a Choctaw; it moves back if they look at me as a straight male; it moves up again if they think I’m gay. All in the name of some social value that supersedes the idea of equal protection.
But that appears to be exactly the argument against same-sex marriage. It seems to me that it’s another step down that slope; it happens this time we’re trying to privilege something “traditional”, but the effect is the same.
Honestly, suek, doesn’t that strike you as about the silliest argument ever? Insert “blacks and whites” into it and re-read it: “black people and white people aren’t excluded — they can marry. Just not each other.”
Read back: I said “people of legal majority.” A child can’t consent in an informed way.
It can’t be statutory rape in a marriage, can it? Certainly we allow marriages in some states that would be statutory rape if there were sex without the license. (We also end up with weird edge cases: you can marry legally in Georgia if the male is 19 and the female is 17; however, under Federal law, the male then commits a felony if, over the Internet, the male tells the female that he’s hurrying home so they can start a family. Talking about sex or arranging to meet for sex with an underage person is a Federal felony whether you’re married or not.)
No thanks, I have enough trouble. But let’s save n>2 for another argument, how about? If we can answer the question for n=2, we might find the more general case will fall right out.
Is there another kind? If you mean “what about marriage between two people who are closely related?”, I think it’s a bad idea for any number of reasons. But your notion, which I’m agreeing with, is to simply make it a kind of partnership agreement; you’re now adding in something else — the assumption of sex or procreation, I assume. Would a celibate “marriage” within a family be okay? If not, why not? Is there something wrong, per se, with my young female cousin living with me? How about my father’s unrelated live-in housekeeper?
Sure, and I’m not claiming there can be no reason to do so: I’m in favor of not allowing convicted felons to vote or own weapons. In that case, there seems to be a clear argument that “equal protection” might well be superseded by other concerns.
What I am saying is that every one of the reasons I’m offered for not allowing same-sex couples to “marry” seem to apply pretty much equally well for not allowing opposite-sex couples to marry. Some gays are promiscuous, or have open marriages? So are some straights. Some gays do outrageous and offensive things in public? So do some straights. Gays are prone to divorce? Straights aren’t exactly known for absolute permanence either. Gay partners don’t provide good opposite-sex role models? Neither do single parent families. Gay people might adopt, but not be perfect parents? Do you imagine that straight couples who adopt always are?
I end up with the same question I had for Brian, above: how much of this comes down to “gays are ooky”? To the extent that it does, how is it that “gays revolt me” feeling different from my great grandfather — born in 1861 in Georgia and named after Jefferson Davis — feeling that black people are revolting?
I dunno: why? Give me some specifics. For example, I don’t think sex between an adult and a child — a person sufficiently young to be unable to consent in an informed way — should be allowed, nor when one partner doesn’t consent, nor when one partner is is for whatever reason unable to consent. Concave or convex. On the other hand, convex-convex or concave-concave sex, with competent consent, doesn’t strike me as the government’s business; our laws about such things are religiously based, rather a historical accident, and in any case come from a religious tradition I don’t share.
Given the aspect of competent mutual consent, without intruding on others, not a whole lot I can see.
Now, let me ask some.
First question: can you propose a reason for restricting same-sex marriage that neither applies to opposite-sex marriage nor is based on the idea that sex between people with the same genitals is inherently worse than between people of complementary genitals? Or if not, can you propose a reason for that idea that isn’t inherently based on the particular Abrahamic religious tradition?
Second question: can you propose a traditional argument for restricting same-sex marriage that can’t be re-written as an argument against allowing people of different races to marry that my great grandfather would find convincing?
Third question: let’s assume two males form a partnership and live together. If they don’t tell you about their sex life, how would you know? If you (and others) don’t know, how can they harm you?
Charlie,
I don’t think you can skip ahead on the polygamy argument, since can’t two men and a woman claim the same right under the equal protection clause?
And if you allow an exception, which I would make about same-sex marriage, what test would be sufficient for one and not the other?
One of my concerns is the slippery slope. While, if I understand your position, you want a contractural relationship that confers the same benefits as marriage, others in the gay ‘community’ won’t settle for that– and will only be happy when catholic priests are forced to perform weddings while offering communion to the couple at the same time.
Well, if you think I can’t, I’d suggest you learn to live with disappointment. When you can show me a state in which a polygamous heterosexual marriage is legal, we can talk about polygamous homosexual marriage.
As I say, if we can figure out the n=2 case, we may be able to handle n>2 by induction.
Mistaken assumption: I’m straight as a stick. Why the scare quotes, just by the way?
Well, since I explicitly say I’m not for that, I’d suggest you find someone who is for that and argue with him.
Actually, I’ve got another hypothetical for you all. Let’s say we change the law so that with no other change, including no change in the restriction to opposite-sex couples, we replace the word “marriage” with “domestic partnership”? Would that be acceptable?
>>Let’s say we change the law so that with no other change, including no change in the restriction to opposite-sex couples, we replace the word “marriage” with “domestic partnership”? Would that be acceptable?>>
Why? Why not just get the State out of the marriage business entirely?
>>can you propose a reason for restricting same-sex marriage that neither applies to opposite-sex marriage nor is based on the idea that sex between people with the same genitals is inherently worse than between people of complementary genitals?>>
Yes. The concept of marriage is primarily for the benefit of raising children in a stable environment. Psychologically, it’s been shown that it is more beneficial for children to have a male and a female model during their formative years. (I recognize that one parent or two parents of the same sex may be preferable to having no parent(s).) Therefore if the State has an axe to grind in having citizens raised in the most beneficial conditions, it should encourage the conditions which make stable marriages. Perhaps that raises the question of whether marriage should be reserved for those who intend to have children. Or maybe one should take out a license to have children instead of just getting married.
Up until about 40 years ago, it was assumed that marriage would be shortly followed by children. Childless marriages as the norm is a fairly recent development. Yes, I know that not all marriages produced children, but most used to. So it isn’t the marital condition that has changed – it’s the childlessness that has changed.
And yes – re race vs homosexuality. Skin color does not affect sex. Blacks, whites and reds come in two sexes. Two sexes means that intercourse is natural, and children are likely to result. Intercourse between two males is unnatural. Not impossible, just unnatural. Between two females, it is impossible. Children are not possible as the result of any kind of interaction between two members of the same sex, therefore it seems rather bizarre to consider it a marriage.
Well, I’m kind of in favor of that myself, but I answered your hypotheticals, why not answer mine?
.
Okay, but that avoids my question: what distinguishes same-sex marriages from opposite-sex marriages? We know that opposite-sex marriages are not all that stable, on average; we also know that the state has no obvious way of deciding whether a particular opposite-sex marriage will be stable. We also know that there are stable same-sex relationships of extended duration, even in the face of all the legal impediments and social stigmata, which suggests that in a world with same-sex marriage the likelihood of stable same-sex marriage can reasonably be supposed to be greater than it is now. So, it would seem that if stable marriage per se is the goal, legalizing same-sex marriage is desirable.
Maybe so: would that be acceptable? If so, what about childless couples who are already married? Or couples who intend to have children but are unable to?
Actually, there are a number of places where a marriage wasn’t considered binding until a child was born, including places in Europe. Would that work? How about in the case of adopted children?
True, but childlessness wasn’t considered a valid reason for divorce. I think it’d be really hard to make a successful argument that marriage is solely about children.
Sure happens a lot. Not just in humans, either. If bonobos do it, what makes it “unnatural” for humans? In any case, great-grandfather Jeff sure thought sex between blacks and whites, and particularly black men and white women, was “unnatural”.
You appear to have just defined lesbianism out of existence. You sure you mean to go there?
Okay, so let’s try another couple of hypotheticals: first: is it possible for a sterile male to contract to marry a female? second: if, in a childless married couple, one member of the couple has an accident rendering them permanently and irreversibly infertile, does that automatically end the marriage?
Oh, I could have answered your question more directly, too, so let me come back with that afterthought:
The reason I raise that as a hypothetical is that it’s been argued, both above and elsewhere, that gays ought to be willing to accept something that has exactly the same properties as “marriage” but isn’t called that. I’m fine with that, but if it’s sauce for the ganders, it seems it should be sauce for the geese. Is “marriage” the magic word? If so, what about people who call it”紧密结合”?
>>what distinguishes same-sex marriages from opposite-sex marriages?>>
The possibility of natural children.
>>first: is it possible for a sterile male to contract to marry a female?>>
Legally, of course. I believe that inability to have intercourse (to consummate the marriage) is a valid reason to nullify a marriage, but inability to conceive due to sterility rather than impotence is not.
You don’t care to bring in the religious aspects, I assume?
>>second: if, in a childless married couple, one member of the couple has an accident rendering them permanently and irreversibly infertile, does that automatically end the marriage?>>
Again, legally, no. It could be grounds for divorce, but not for nullification of the marriage.
If your point is that ability to have children is not legally necessary to have a legal marriage, I agree. But nevertheless, this is historically a recent development. Is it a reason to change the laws? Maybe…but it seems to me that there is just as much reason for the State to simply step away from marriage licenses etc entirely as there is to expand who can _get_ that license.
And yes, marriage _is_ the “magic” word. It _means_ a relationship between a man and a woman. It has and does in different places mean more than one woman, but essentially, it is a relationship between two sexes. Single sex relationships may exist, but they are not “marriage”.
>>We know that opposite-sex marriages are not all that stable, on average; >>
I’m not sure we _do_ know that. It’s true that statistics say that xx% of marriages end in divorce, but that also includes a number made up of multiple marriers (just made that word up!). In other words, some people change the numbers by marrying multiple times, each of which is included in the total number. It’s the individuals who are unstable, not the condition of marriage itself.
>>we also know that the state has no obvious way of deciding whether a particular opposite-sex marriage will be stable. >>
True. It might be beneficial to require a waiting time, but other than that, it’s ultimately a personal commitment which the State is unwilling to enforce.
>>We also know that there are stable same-sex relationships of extended duration, even in the face of all the legal impediments and social stigmata, which suggests that in a world with same-sex marriage the likelihood of stable same-sex marriage can reasonably be supposed to be greater than it is now.>>
Are these some statistics you could point me to? I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that the numbers are significant enough to make that conclusion. The interesting thing I’ve seen is an indication that the majority of same sex “marriages” that have occurred since the supreme court decision in California has been between females
I agree to give your religious aspects exactly as much credence as you give mine. I’m a Buddhist, and Buddhism sees marriage as a civil matter, not a religious sacrament. So if the religious aspects control, we’ve got it settled: it should simply be a civil matter.
Didn’t think that’d work, actually, but it was worth a try.
Really? Which? Childless marriages or binding marriages that are childless? Citations?
.
So, either we’re agreeing completely that “domestic partnerships” ought to be a civil matter, perhaps not called marriage, independent of the religious issues; or you’re arguing that there ought to be no mechanism whatsoever for two people contractually to agree formally to share property and be held legally as next of kin. I’m not sure which, though.
You might want to check your history on that, actually. Apparently (according to Wikipedia admittedly, I haven’t looked for primary sources) a relationship called “marriage” — or the equivalent word — between same-sex couples was recognized, eg, in India, Egypt, and Rome. Unless you mean “whatever the word, those aren’t ‘marriage’”, in which case you’re just begging the question.
Well, I just made an existence assertion, so examples are sufficient. Let’s see: Gertrude Stein and Alice B Toklas, my friends George and David, and George Takei and his partner occur offhand. Since for most of the last, oh, 1500 years, such a relationship in Europe could have gotten you killed, I’d be real suspicious either of any statistics we found, or of sample bias.
You may be right about more female-female extended relationships; I don’t know of statistics either way. Anecdotally, I know lots more committed male couples, but then I know more gay males than females by far.
>>So, either we’re agreeing completely that “domestic partnerships” ought to be a civil matter, perhaps not called marriage, independent of the religious issues;>>
Maybe. I’d rather see this than see the government in it at all.
>> or you’re arguing that there ought to be no mechanism whatsoever for two people contractually to agree formally to share property and be held legally as next of kin. >>
This would develop…regardless of whether you called it anything. Law services would offer a plethora of boilerplate contracts to serve every requirement. Some people would disdain the boilerplate and hire expensive lawyers to tailor the contract to their specific needs.
>>I’m not sure which, though.>>
The latter.
>>I’m a Buddhist, and Buddhism sees marriage as a civil matter>>
That’s interesting – why? so, assuming that there was no civil requirement, there would be no marriage? Children belong solely to the mother? If not, how is responsibility determined?
To be honest, you could tell me anything about Buddism…I’d never be the wiser.
Why which, Sue? I’m a Buddhist because it’s, oddly, the most rational religion (or whatever it is) I ever found, and it seemed to meet my needs when I became dissatisfied with Christianity 40-odd years ago. I’ve got a running series on my blog Explorations explaining buddhism that’s been well-received; you could have a look at it if you’re interested. Look at the “Skillful Means” category.
If you mean “why does Buddhism see marriage as a civil matter?”, well, why does Christianity see marriage as a religious matter? Buddhism got started in a place, and at a time, when sexual morés and marriage customs were very different from ours; Hindu gods do things that would make a mink blush. Buddhism spread through a big area in which marriage customs varied wildly; it doesn’t really believe in the idea of a “soul” in the sense we understand it in the west; its ethical teachings have more to do with how to avoid unneeded pain than with some overarching code. My guess is that it doesn’t consider “marriage” as a religious issue because it never occurred to anyone that it should.
Just btw, I am getting a thoroughly unpleasant headache, so I may be away from the computer this evening. If I don’t reply for a while, it’s not that I don’t love you all any more.
>>why does Christianity see marriage as a religious matter?>>
Probably because Judaism did. Judaism probably did because of a need to achieve social order which is frequently a problem in tribal situations, where females are considered property of a sort, and the future of the tribe. The inclinations of males are usually troublesome unless there is an accepted behavioral expectation.
>>Buddhism got started in a place, and at a time, when sexual morés and marriage customs were very different from ours; Hindu gods do things that would make a mink blush.>>
So…whose responsibility are the children? Hindu gods don’t have children in spite of making the mink blush???
Hope you feel better, Charlie. There are a lot of headache sufferers here (myself include), so you certainly have my sympathies.
I used to have headaches, when I was a conservative, but I don’t any more.
Helen, a statement like that runs the risk of being a double edged sword. I suspect you mean it’s because you’ve found intellectual peace, since your values and your politics finally harmonize. However, one could say that being a liberal is the easy way and you’ve stopped working hard to deal with the challenges of the world!
I’d guess that it’s not a predictive thing anyway, as I’m fairly sure a Buddhist Choctaw arguing in favor of gay marriage is gonna have a hard time passing as a conservative, even if he is registered Republican.
“Buddhist Choctaw Republican”. Not a demographic that gets targeted very often.
That, by the way, is the limit of my ability to think coherently. Night.
>>why does Christianity see marriage as a religious matter?>>
Also probably because Jesus refers back to Genesis when he is being bated by the Pharisees about divorce. He tells them that ‘from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. . . Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ He defined marriage as between male and female, held up that standard, and cited that Moses allowed for divorce only due to ‘the hardness of your hearts.”
The normalizing of homosexual behavior throughout the culture is at the core of all the legal dancing which would empty marriage and family of its meaning and power to create a stable society from generation to generation.
I actually think gays in the military is a more important civil rights issue than marriage.
I’m fine with “civil unions” instead of “marriage” for gays, but if they are truly equal than naming them differently is a level of silliness I couldn’t get my second graders to agree to (and that is basically what the California Supreme court said–so Bookworm I still disagree with you on the role of the courts.)
Frankly, folks, I don’t think we would be worried about marriage at all if—–Senior authorities from all the religious and state institutions that have histories of abusing gays would simply publicly and forthrightly apologize!!!
I have zero sympathy for a wedding photographer that is being raked across legal (or social) red-hot burning coals for refusing to photograph gay weddings. What a bunch losers!!! If the gays don’t win it legally, then I think wedding sit-ins or die-ins or some such drama is fair play. And the same goes for any mansion or church that rents to the general public….That guy in England is a loser!!!
Brian ask…
….. whether I would protect my children from Gay Pride. The answer is absolutely not. No way. Children have every right to see these things. Seeing does not cause harm. I think it is immoral for parents to restrict them from seeing such things. You think I’m irresponsible, I think you’re immoral. (I still like talking to you however!)
I grew up in San Francisco, I went to Elementary and Middle School in the famous Castro District and walked home from school. Seeing gay behavior has no negative effects.
I’m 40, I was a child at the absolute center of the sexual revolution, the only other children in the world who were as close to it as I was, are my two sisters. We were exposed to orgies, nakedness, massage, vibrators, prostitutes, masturbation, gay sex, bondage, bad words, film, text and photo porno, sexual furniture, open discussions, ritual, sexual anatomy, physiology and zoology. My sisters an I are and always have been, normal and well informed.
I know people are afraid of sex, but it isn’t actually harmful.
I’m fine with “civil unions” instead of “marriage” for gays, but if they are truly equal than naming them differently is a level of silliness I couldn’t get my second graders to agree to
I guess Amending the Constitution so that black slaves could vote was also a thing of silliness, given that if slaves are men, and given that men can vote, why go to all the trouble of naming things differently just for blacks?
Cause this is reality, and reality requires solutions, not wishes.
The excuse that “oh, those things are the same so we don’t need all this ‘extra’ stuff” is pretty bare.
I know people are afraid of sex, but it isn’t actually harmful.
What people are and should be afraid of is bad thinking and even worse logic caused by a cookie cutter analysis of real events and real people.
Scott, I’m not certain what you think your kids will or won’t be seeing at a Gay Pride Parade. If it were just gay couples being together, that would be one thing. But most gay celebrations (indeed, judging by Bay to Breakers, most City celebrations) have turned into Bacchanals, with people using the streets to engage in overtly sexual conduct that can’t be good for children to see. I know I’m old fashioned, but I prefer not to have my children see naked people pierced, tattooed, bound, whipped, chained, scarred, etc. — all of which is taking place in highly public venues such as Golden Gate Park and Market Street. I do believe that affects my children’s sexuality. If nothing more, it will turn them into celibates based on the gross-out factor.
>>I actually think gays in the military is a more important civil rights issue than marriage.>>
You mean, making it a non-issue is an issue?
Bookworm – you need not feel the necessity to say that ‘maybe I am old-fashioned’ about your political or personal ideas. Old-fashioned is a negative connotation, isn’t it? Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong – but not old-fashioned.
>>Old-fashioned is a negative connotation, isn’t it?>>
That probably depends on whether you think she’s right or wrong! If she’s right, then “old-fashioned = right” and is good. If you think she’s wrong, then the reverse would be true.
But the concept that “old-fashioned” had a negative connotation is interesting. It makes the assumption that “modern” has a _positive_ connotation. Yet we often speak of the “good old days” with fond memories – because we may think those days were “better”. I suspect that the term “I’m old-fashioned” is simply a shorthand for describing a specific position.
Just like the libs calling their philosophy “progressive” when in fact it’s based on the fascist theories developed by Rousseau during the French Revolution, but the conservatives are called “regressives” by them for wanting to return to the basic ideals of our Founders who developed them only a relatively short time prior to the French Revolution. As history goes, they’re practically contemporaneous ideas. They’d be more correct if they named themselves as Statists, and conservatives as Individualists. But that might be too plain speaking…!
>>My sisters an I are and always have been, normal and well informed.>>
And among the three of you, how many children do you have?
How many do you _personally_ have?
Seeing gay behavior has no negative effects.
What’s really immoral is trying to place one standard, just because of your personal likes and dislikes, over the rest of humanity. That’s not democracy and nor is it republicanism.
If the Church can’t learn to act in a civil manner, then the state can, should, and has in the past simply taken away it’s right to act in that realm.
Up until the Civil war women were rarely punished by the state (prostitutes were the exception). The Church had the right and the responsibility to punish women for crime and other sins, like speaking your mind.
We have two fictitious violations here. One is the violation of the separation between Church and State and the other is the myth creation that the Church had some kind of “right” to punish women.
Punishment for crime was dished out by the state, not by the Church. Social ostracization came from religious and cultural values, not the state. When you’re socially ostracized cause of state actions, that’s called a black listing or a felony offense.
so it makes sense that the state should take away its right to perform marriages at all.
For a guy that has imbibed San Fran culture from birth, you sure are intolerant of other people doing things that you wish they couldn’t do.
That’s not immoral in your view, of course. It’s just responsible behavior. But it is not to me.
Suek – your point is well taken. Our son and his fiancee did not live together before their marriage and most of our friends thought this was old-fashioned, definitely a negative. The gross behavior that Scott from SF described as part of his growing up meilieu turns the stomach of many who would be described as old-fashioned. I really think that more people would consider OF as a negative overall.
>>I really think that more people would consider OF as a negative overall.>>
Naah. Just those that aren’t!!
Grrr. Bookworm, WordPress is insisting this is a duplicate post, but it’s not showing up in the comments. I hope this will fool it; if you’ve started moderating me, and my other one is still in the queue, feel free to delete one. –C(C)
=======
Okay, I seem to have survived; instead of going back through the intervening posts and trying to hack at little points bit by bit, first let me start with a little bit of Bernard Shaw:
.
Everyone tends a bit to be a barbarian, with Theodotus; it’s important to remember that some of the things we think are “natural” and “right” and “universal” may not be as universal as we think. Some of them are showing up here: it’s worth remembering that there is a lot of variation in human customs, including some cultures (the Na in China, for example) that don’t have marriage at all. (Commonly, a culture that doesn’t have marriage is also matrilinial and matrilocal, ie, children and property follow the woman’s family, not the man’s.) You could probably make a case that there is the start of a matrilinial and matrilocal society very much like that of the Na in the US. Some of these marriage customs, like those of the Na in Yunnan Province in China, have been suppressed in recent years by more or less colonial powers.
Suek asked me a direct question I don’t want to leave hanging: the children of the Hindu Gods tended to have special advantages, being, you know, Gods. Some of the normal issues of childhood are substantially reduced when your parent(s) are transcendent beings and you yourself can command the universe to your wishes.
Another point here is that we’re assuming that the “natural” organization is the American nuclear family; that hasn’t even been a common situation in America for very long, with clan-like extended families being more the norm.
The other thing here is that the “ook factor” about some behaviors has come up a good bit. Bookworm, when Scott was growing up in the Castro district, I was fairly often visiting the Castro district; I lived in and around San Francisco about then, say ’78 through ’83. (I slipped a couple years in Germany into that time.) Pride Day (it was “Freedom Day” then) wasn’t a lot less outrageous then. As Scott says, kids growing up then managed to survive somehow.
That’s pretty new though — the first Freedom Day was in 1970. But then it’s worth looking at other places: the week before Lent is a period of pretty open wildness in a lot of the Catholic world, with Fasching, Karneval, Mardi Gras, Carnival, and so on. In a lot of those places, degrees of sexual … um, what, license, I guess … way beyond what we’re used to are common.
We also think of things like pictures of a naked penis as “dirty” — but giant erections are part of religious festivals in other places, like Japan. (Google “Kanamara matsuri”.)
In all these cases, I’m not trying to say what’s “right” or “wrong” about any of these choices; I’m just saying “don’t mistake what you think is right according to the customs with which you grew up as being the natural and unquestionable order of things.”
Hmmm. I seem to be having a little trouble posting a comment. Am I going into the spam queue?
Okay, that’s weird.
Okay, I seem to have survived; instead of going back through the intervening posts and trying to hack at little points bit by bit, first let me start with a little bit of Bernard Shaw:
.
Everyone tends a bit to be a barbarian, with Theodotus; it’s important to remember that some of the things we think are “natural” and “right” and “universal” may not be as universal as we think. Some of them are showing up here: it’s worth remembering that there is a lot of variation in human customs, including some cultures (the Na in China, for example) that don’t have marriage at all. (Commonly, a culture that doesn’t have marriage is also matrilinial and matrilocal, ie, children and property follow the woman’s family, not the man’s.) You could probably make a case that there is the start of a matrilinial and matrilocal society very much like that of the Na in the US. Some of these marriage customs, like those of the Na in Yunnan Province in China, have been suppressed in recent years by more or less colonial powers.
Suek asked me a direct question I don’t want to leave hanging: the children of the Hindu Gods tended to have special advantages, being, you know, Gods. Some of the normal issues of childhood are substantially reduced when your parent(s) are transcendent beings and you yourself can command the universe to your wishes.
Another point here is that we’re assuming that the “natural” organization is the American nuclear family; that hasn’t even been a common situation in America for very long, with clan-like extended families being more the norm.
The other thing here is that the “ook factor” about some behaviors has come up a good bit. Bookworm, when Scott was growing up in the Castro district, I was fairly often visiting the Castro district; I lived in and around San Francisco about then, say ’78 through ’83. (I slipped a couple years in Germany into that time.) Pride Day (it was “Freedom Day” then) wasn’t a lot less outrageous then. As Scott says, kids growing up then managed to survive somehow.
That’s pretty new though — the first Freedom Day was in 1970. But then it’s worth looking at other places: the week before Lent is a period of pretty open wildness in a lot of the Catholic world, with Fasching, Karneval, Mardi Gras, Carnival, and so on. In a lot of those places, degrees of sexual … um, what, license, I guess … way beyond what we’re used to are common.
We also think of things like pictures of a naked penis as “dirty” — but giant erections are part of religious festivals in other places, like Japan. (Google “Kanamara matsuri”.)
In all these cases, I’m not trying to say what’s “right” or “wrong” about any of these choices; I’m just saying “don’t mistake what you think is right according to the customs with which you grew up as being the natural and unquestionable order of things.”
Okay, this is weird. Bookworm, I’ve got a fairly long and hopefully interesting comment that I can’t seem to post; it either claims to be a duplicate or it just evaporates. If it’s in your spam queue you’ve got about three copies of it; I’d appreciate if you’re pick and despam one of them. Otherwise, I’ve still got the text iof we can figure out how to post it.
Oh, and who is DQ and what is OF?
DQ is Book’s co-blogger and not her husband.
Just so we don’t go down that oft trot road once more.
If you have posted a comment and it refreshes the page but doesn’t appear, that means it has been Akismet spammed.
Either that or you had an internet hiccup, which shouldn’t be reproducible.
For anyone interested in criminal investigation and police work, they might want to take a look at this argument. Just scroll up a few comments.
Link
Okay, what about OF?
And someone smack akismet for me would you? Sheesh.
OF = Old Fashioned…
Oh. Duh.
Pajamas Media Leaps Into The Breach
I suggest everyone read Elaine Scary’s book: On Beauty and Being Just. She suggests that is our acknowledgment of the errors we have made about what is beautiful is the source of justice, and a guiding principle of democracy.
Yamarsakar, you are very knowledgeable on many subjects, but the history of the state’s use of punishment is not one of them. American women were indeed punished, whipped, put in the stockade, forced to wear metal masks by the church. The state did not get involved.
By the way, did you know that child abuse is a really recent invention. The first cases were brought using SPCA laws protecting animals.
I love your comment that the amendments freeing slaves were unnecessary. I’d have to agree, but only in a purely legal sense of course.
Bookworm, I don’t know how much clearer I can be. Sex, whether you find it yucky or not, is not harmful to see. And the supreme court has been very clear about this too, obscenity is a local process.
This discussion reminds me of one of the ways I end discussions with Lefty Fundamentalists, “Community is just an excuse used to justify oppression.”
“Perhaps the final hang-up is with the terminology. Fine. Call it Contractual Commitment instead of Marriage. Either way, the results are the same: someone wears white, eats a lot of cake, is carried over the threshold, has to cook, clean, work, listens to whining, gets asked if the pants make their butts look big, and shares their loves, laughs and laments, hopefully for the rest of their life.
We all have that right.”
Really bizarre article. Talk about shallow. I copied and pasted some of it to respond to, but honestly, I’m not sure it’s even worth the effort. However. Things are slow…
“At the same time, these same people who berate promiscuity don’t allow for the rewards of monogamy for the gay folks,”
False statement. Gay folks can take vows of commitment to each other and enjoy the rewards of monogamy if they wish, without a license. Free of charge. As you yourself have pointed out, Charlie, the fact that a licensed marriage witnessed by a state approved official exists is no guarantee of monogamy.
“the focus should not specify sex (and how much sex is there really after the honeymoon?) — but a life partnership commitment between two consenting adults”
Fine. They can be life partnership committed roommates. No state license required. It’s even free.
“If it were true that marriage is fully religious in nature, atheists would be refused the right to wed”
No, atheists would _choose_ not to wed. The state license has nothing to do with religious practices. The couple does not need a religious ceremony…a licensed state official can do the job. For a price.
“Say marriage was for the purposes of breeding and procreation. If this was the case, all couples practicing birth control would be barred from marriage (condom clause number 3.14?). Sterile couples would not find happiness together legally, because their pairing would be forever doomed to being defined as promiscuity or ‘shacking up.’ The elderly would be banned from the altar for inability to produce offspring. But as it is, under the Constitution of these United States, these people are allowed to marry. So no; marriage is not for breeding.”
Sex is for purposes of breeding and procreation. Marriage is a means of providing a stable environment for raising children to adulthood. They take a long time to reach adulthood, you know. In fact, some of them seem never to reach that point. When I say that procreation is the _primary_ purpose of marriage, that doesn’t mean it’s the only purpose, but as I said before, up until about 40-50 years ago, the married couple with no children was unusual and even looked upon with pity. It’s only been in the last half century when birth control and abortion became commonplace for couples to be childless. So actually, marriage _is_ for breeding. Primarily. That doesn’t prohibit other facets of marriage, but neither do the other facets negate the primary purpose.
“While we’re flapping our gums over whether or not someone deserves to be married, we should instead be determining why the federal government is in the business of deciding who is fit to marry or not”
Actually, that is a function of state government, not federal government. The only reason the federal government would be involved is to equalize the definition of a married couple nationwide so that people married in one state are considered married in every other state. Additionally, due to the various tax laws that are affected by the condition of marriage, it benefits the feds to have consistency between various states. It has nothing to do with “fitness” or “deserving to be married”.
“If we are truly a nation founded on morality and equality, on wisdom and on the values of ‘equality for all’ from our illustrious forefathers, we must recognize that marriage is not a privilege, and government doesn’t have the right to deny this convention to homosexuals”
If the government has no right to deny marriage, then neither does it have the right to license it. If it has no right to license it, then the question is moot – it becomes a matter of religious preference.
>>American women were indeed punished, whipped, put in the stockade, forced to wear metal masks by the church.>>
For what offense, and during what period?
>>“Community is just an excuse used to justify oppression.”>>
Do you consider _all_ laws as a form of oppression?
American women were indeed punished, whipped, put in the stockade, forced to wear metal masks by the church.
Nobody gave that right to the Church and the Church has never earned it. Except from you, which is the problem.
As I have often said, this isn’t about facts, this is about your interpretation of facts. Which is an entirely different issue.
I love your comment that the amendments freeing slaves were unnecessary. I’d have to agree, but only in a purely legal sense of course.
By your logic they were unnecessary. But since they were, since they were the only way to prevent resurgent white Democrats from using lynch mobs, intimidation, and the KKK to put freed blacks in their place once more, I believe, and reality bears this out, that they were necessary. Yet you think it is silly. That doesn’t say much about what is required, but it does say something about your judgment.
Sex, whether you find it yucky or not, is not harmful to see.
This isn’t about sex. This is about people’s public behavior and their abnormal need for public attention through politics.
Sex has a connotation that it is private, and in that sense, no it does not affect me. Bring it into the political sphere, with the political power to “strip” abilities and rights from others, and it is no longer sex. Now it is power, which is an entirely different issue.
“While we’re flapping our gums over whether or not someone deserves to be married, we should instead be determining why the federal government is in the business of deciding who is fit to marry or not”
Something about the government’s responsibility for domestic peace and tranquility.
Naturally, if woman are bearing sons and they don’t have father roles, this will create violence and war. Not so tranquil now.
Marriage is an economic partnership that has historically been proven to work in raising children, especially the incentive is already there. They are your children, after all.
Apply that to gays and it breaks down. It’s not their children, or rather it is theirs artificially. But since we have adoption, that shouldn’t be a problem philosophically speaking.
In the end, you’re not going to get the church or society to accept gays as normal, even if they are married. They are either going to do so over generations, or they aren’t. Nothing you can do about it, except be extremely counter-productive for a few decades now.
Sorry, Charlie. I just got home and released you from Akismet hell. Thanks for your interesting and thought-stimulating comments. I’ll try to make sure they get posted.
All economic partnerships are backed by law, of one kind or another. The state is interested in commerce and upholding the law. Thus you cannot enter into a legal contract and expect it to be enforced, without government sanction, knowledge, or interference.
You can get the government out of marriage, by making legal assets and what not unenforceable by government power.
You’re not serious.
Suek, give that one some more thought. You might ask yourself, if this is true, why don’t humans only have sex when the female is fertile? And why do people continue to have sex after the woman is no longer fertile?
I actually agree with you here: the question is, given that government does license it, what gives government the right to restrict it without good cause?
I’d suggest that since we’ve agreed that the cause has to be better than mere tradition — else the traditional restriction against miscegenation would be legitimate — then we need some stronger reason.
We’ve been offered up the notion that marriage between opposite sexes is more “natural”, or that no human culture allows for “marriage” between same-sex partners; some historical research contradicts that. We’ve been offered the notion that all major religions establish a sacramental notion of marriage; we’ve seen that’s not true. Similarly, the notion that pair-wise marriage in any sense is universal doesn’t turn out to be true.
We’ve also been offered the argument that we can find homosexuals who do ooky offensive things in public, so gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Unless Brian or someone really wants to come back and try to defend that, I think we can dismiss that one by noting that you can’t tar an entire group with the bad actions of a very tiny group of outliers; otherwise we’d have to figure that all Republicans wear plaid pants and all Evangelical preachers are closeted homosexuals.
We’ve been off on another side-trail with the idea of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and so forth. I don’t have a strong reason for preferring, as I said, if we call this “marriage”, “civil union” or “Fred”. I’d just like to see the hypothetical I proposed earlier be answered: if calling it “civil union” is appropriate, would it be acceptable if the whole state-defined institution were renamed “civil union” for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples? Would this preserve the “sanctity of marriage”?
It would seem that we’re being driven to the conclusion that our choice of marriage customs and constraints is just that, a choice. If we’re going to preserve the idea that the state shouldn’t recognize same-sex marriage equally with opposite-sex marriage — that is, all or nothing, as suek has argued — we’re going to need to defend the idea that one group’s choice of marriage customs ought to command the obedience of another, smaller, group.
That damned fish.
Gracias, Hidalgo.
>>In all these cases, I’m not trying to say what’s “right” or “wrong” about any of these choices; I’m just saying “don’t mistake what you think is right according to the customs with which you grew up as being the natural and unquestionable order of things.”>>
“what you think is right according to the customs with which you grew up ”
That’s an important line there…according to the customs with which you grew up…
If those of us here had moved to a different country with different customs, there’s be reason for your questioning the “natural and unquestionable order of things”. But we haven’t. We have been moved in upon, with those who have moved in upon us intent on dictating the customs they’d like us to become accustomed to. We would rather not, and don’t see that they have any greater right to their customs than we have to ours.
But, Charlie, sex is for procreation. It’s also pleasureable. It has to be pleasureable to achieve its purpose, since otherwise no one would do it and we wouldn’t procreate. And we do it when the woman is infertile because it is pleasureable. What is the problem here?
>>given that government does license it, what gives government the right to restrict it without good cause?>>
Because it licenses it….c’mon. Government does it because it _can_.
As for the rest…it’s pretty much a “to hell with you – I’m right” brush off. You can bring in all sorts of obscure countries and religions, but we’re talking about here in the good ole US of A.
Not a discussion, for sure.
Lobsters manage somehow, Padrón. Ditto oysters. The way Suek put it, I read it as only for breeding and procreation, and it’s just obviously not. We, and all our primate cousins, use sex socially as well.
Haven’t we? Most all of us? I’m not complaining that you don’t follow the Medicine Wheel. For that matter, the whole notion of the United States was founded on questioning traditions, looking for a more just, fairer, more equitable way to organize society; else we’d still consider it “right and natural” to be the subjects of a Monarch.
No, Suek, I’m laying out an argument. If there’s a flaw in any of those steps, you’re welcome to point it out. I could have said “the hell with you” much more easily, and clearly, than that.
I think you might be projecting.
If you read my original question, it was posed to find out what Scott in SF considered appropriate for children, if they were in his care. I suppose my mistake was not using Mardi Gras as the example– but I’ve never seen pictures of people having sex with multiple people in the middle of the day, in the middle of the street at Mardi Gras.
Scott made it very clear what is attitude toward children is. He would expose them to this:
Most of the folks in the fly-over states, you know the ones that cling to their guns and religion, wouldn’t agree that this was healthy for you, would be healthy for any children in your charge, or should be encouraged as some future model of society.
In fact, we’re seeing the effects of this attitude in society today. I’m sure that Scott thinks it quaint that we still have PG-13 ratings, which protect children from some of these symbols of Scott’s liberation.
Scott sounds very angry, and is looking to get even with everyone that made his life what it is. I would suggest Scott is angry at the wrong people.
Since most people still believe that marriage at the core, includes pro-creation, and once society puts its stamp of approval on gay marriage, a logical extension would be more children in these new families.
Since I don’t share Scott’s view on what is healthy for children to be exposed to, by extension, I would not favor putting children in these conditions. Kids adapt, they survive but they struggle for true intimacy, for real trust, for life-long commitment.
It seems the line is drawn. Scott sees a new society where all taboos are eradicated, but of course, that is merely fantasy. As we continue to reject a common authority, the authority of the state will continue to increase. But will our lives be better for it? More excitement maybe, more stimulation– without question, but personal peace or joy or contentment– not so much.
Brian, you might look at the parenthesized part of my cognomen. In any case, if what happens at Pride Parade is an argument against allowing same-sex marriage, then, you’d best lay it out; otherwise it looks like you’re just throwing in a red herring on Bookworm’s original question. Similarly, if you really think what you’re seeing a dozen or so people doing (including, by the way, a bunch of opposite-sex pairs) defines and taints something like 30 million Americans, well, then as I said, it would seem you also must logically conclude all Evangelical preachers are closeted gays and sexually compulsive clients of prostitutes.
It doesn’t sound like Scott is alone in that.
As far as the rights of women were concerned at the beginning of this country, here are the ‘Liberties of Women’ from the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641.
“If any man at his death shall not leave his wife a competent portion of his estate, upon just complaint made to the General Court she shall be relieved.”
“Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense upon her assault. If there by any just cause of corrections, complaint shall be made to authority assembled in some court, from which only she shall receive it.”
While women were certainly mistreated and laws varied among colonies, most of what was described previously applied to England.
This is from the Connecticut General Court, 1650 concerning marriage:
“Forasmuch as many persons entangle themselves with rash and inconsiderate contracts for their future joining in marriage covenant, to the great trouble and grief of themselves and their friends, for the preventing thereof: It is order by the authority of this Court, that whosoever intends to join themselves in marriage convenant shall cause their purpose of contract to be published in some public place, and at some public meeting, in the several towns where such persons dwell, at the least eight days before they enter into such contract, whereby they engage themselve each to other; and that they shall forbear to join in marriage covenant at least eight days after the said contract.”
It appears the state’s interest was the general harmony of society, since divorce was not an option. Marriage was both a contract and a covenant. To be consistent, the state dealt with the contract, the church dealt with the covenant.
Uh, Brian, in 1650 in Connecticut, the Church and the State were pretty much coincident: it was a Puritan Colony with an Established Church.
Charlie,
I was offended by the actions of the participants at the Gay Pride Week activities. They should have been arrested. The same goes to people at Mardi Gras if they’re engaging in the same kind of activity.
What people do in private is their business, but in public, it becomes the public’s business. If you read my responses– I consider this to be a matter of public decency. You’ll have to accept I would be equally outraged if I had seen pictures similar to this at Mardi Gras.
If you read a previous post by Bookworm concerning the event, in her polite way, I got the impression her children were traumatized by the activities. Would Scott have the same attitude if he had had children there?
It is only connected to same-sex marriage in that respect.
You asked me if I would condemn fundamentalist preachers (or something like that–I’m too tired to scroll back through). Depends on what they have done. There is one person who comes to mind that I would say is completely offensive. There is a preacher that pickets gay funerals. That is not Christian, that is disgusting.
I actually like suek’s idea of having to get a license to have a child! Most folks are not qualified! (I’m kidding of course– about the license).
You’re right that in 1650, Connecticut was a Puritan colony and everything was viewed through the prism of Puritanism. In 1639, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was written, which established ‘civil’ authority, elected from members of “approved congregations.” In 1640 Roger Williams established plans for a true “civil goverment” in Providence, which was roundly condemned by the other colonies.
Almost — I suggested that if you’d condemn all gay people for the actions of those few, then you should logically condemn all Evangelicals for the actions of Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart.
As far as being offended, I have to admit that I’d be a little freaked out myself, and I’ve been to probably a dozen Freedom Day or Pride Day parades. But then to some extent that’s the point: in the Creative Anachronists, we used to say “croggle the mundanes.” Pride Day is a day for being out and open that you’re queer; just some of the participants are queerer than others. When I was 24 years old and at Fasching for the first time, that kind of freaked me out too. After a while you learn to say “wow, isn’t it interesting? That’s not like at home!”
But now we’re back to Caesar’s reproach of Britannus. Clearly, what goes on in San Francisco on Pride Day or the Bay to Breakers, or in New Orleans during Mardi Gras, doesn’t offend the locals all that much, else they would get arrested. (And I’d point out that a lot of the scenes, especially of open sex, weren’t very much out in the open; I’d bet cash money that if a cop strolled by he’d at the very least tell them to zip it up and move along.) And try looking up the Kanamara Matsuri — and remember that’s a religious festival, suitable for all little kids.
I’m starting over. Charlie, you throw up all sorts of chaff and it makes it hard to see and hard to breathe!
Marriage has obviously changed over time. It was originally a contract between the heads of two households to combine their children in a productive and reproductive relationship. Women had no choice and no voice in the contract. They were effectively property. The result was a connection between the families that was a form of political treaty, as well as a means of insuring the continuation of the families. I suspect that if you suggested at that time that you’d offer a prince to wed a prince you’d get your head knocked off. Men made their own treaties…women could not. Like it or not, I think the basis of marriage was in line with this until the early 20th century. Maybe earlier – the wild west demanded a full and willing partnership between men and women, and the lack of law enforcement required that certain standards be enforced by the citizens themselves. Women began their steps in this country towards responsibility for themselves and equality. Western civilization has moved along towards the independent woman goal, though with all the examples you’ve come up with, Charlie, I think women in those countries still remain the property of their families.
Even in the early to mid 20th century, it was expected that a man would ask a woman’s father for permission to ask the daughter to marry, and permission, while expected, was not automatic. It was expected that a young man would have the economic means to support himself, a wife and children, or at least an expectation that he would be able to in the future. Marriage was still primarily an arrangement for procreation. So when did this change? probably WWII made a big difference. Women went into the factories in significant numbers, found they could support themselves if they needed to, and too many young men didn’t come back, leaving those women alone – with or without children to support. The women’s equality movement started – not to be confused with women’s lib. Equal pay for equal work. Women’s lib – with it’s attendant scorn for men – came later. Enter birth control. Sex is now _primarily_ a means for pleasure instead of secondarily. The idea that people might go through their entire lives without marriage – or at least without children – became current. Introduce the idea that reproduction is a bad thing…we’re killing mother earth with all our children. Too many people. Sex takes on a life of its own. Homosexuals – who had existed mostly below the level of consciousness of society for centuries began to surge to prominence as sex for pleasure only became a dominant social theme. The entire idea of homosexuality is one of sexuality being a primarily a function of pleasure – even one of being exclusively a function of pleasure. NB Charlie’s “WHAT?” It is the position of eternal immaturity. Narcism and “it’s all about me”ism. What percentage of this in a population can a society tolerate before it self-destructs?
So…what’s with the marriage thing? Why do gays want marriage? It seems to me that there can only be two possible reasons – they desperately want to be “normal”, or they simply want the financial/legal benefits society has granted the reproductive unit that exists as the base of society. All the other reasons mentioned here and other places can be attained without marriage. So the question becomes whether it benefits society to grant the protection of the State to those who call themselves married, or whether we’ve reached a point where marriage is so impermanent, and reproduction is so unimportant that society needs to look at whether it should be subsidizing marriage in any form.
Who is responsible for children? the state or the family? maybe in the end, that’s the arguement – what is the purpose of the state? what is the _function_ of the state?
Scott said:
Brian ask…
Charlie said:
Interesting that both of you appeal to a moral basis for the positions you take. I would also appeal to a moral basis for the position I hold– the moral basis that God ordained marriage between a man and a woman, from the beginning. That moral basis has been rejected by a few California judges, overriding the will of the majority of California residents. The moral basis I am speaking of has a tradition of thousands of years.
I’m curious what the moral basis you are relying on? An inate sense of right and wrong? Some external moral philosophy?
To add to Bookworm’s point, while in California 9 people decided for the majority, in Washington state (which I would point out is another bastion of liberalism) 9 people decided this in 2006:
“On a 5–4 vote, the Washington State supreme court upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, it was revealed Wednesday morning. The majority ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act restricting marriage to a man and a woman, which the legislature enacted in 1998, does not violate the state’s constitution, noting that any change to the law must be made by the legislature.”
(or by initiative).
Leaving moral positions aside, I think a case can be made that society does have an interest in protecting children and not moving the imprimatur of marriage to same-sex partnerships.
We’ve also been offered the argument that we can find homosexuals who do ooky offensive things in public, so gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Actually what the argument is this. We can’t trust Native Americans not to raid us and take slaves from white settlements, when their chief says “peace” but his warriors or another tribe he doesn’t control, haven’t agreed to “peace”.
If gays want to build themselves up into a political faction that can be represented more or less equally across their spectrum, then they need to discipline their own members. If they don’t discipline their own members, then they don’t have a political faction. They just have a mob, and the majority of people do not negotiate with mobs.
Some human beings have incisors, rather than all flat teeth for grinding vegetable matter down.
Does that mean those humans must remove their incisors if they become vegetarians?
If not, then why should birth control and various other human developments, on a tech or social level, have anything to do with sex being for reproduction?
Ignoring the biological imperative, means ignoring God and Nature. You are not more powerful than God and Nature, certainly neither one individually and certainly not both combined.
The point of the “equal protection” argument isn’t some deep legal sophistry, its just the moral and Constitutional principle that people ought to be treated equally under the law.
I can’t marry a person of the same sex as me. I can marry a person of the opposite sex of me, unless certain incest laws or age limits come into play.
The fact of the matter is, the point of the “equal protection” argument is to fabricate an additional “protection” not extended or used by the majority. That’s not “equal”, that’s just lawfare.
Sue, I really think the accusation I’m throwing up chaff is more than a little unfair. I’m trying hard to make this clear and I’ve gone to some lengths to break things down into smaller questions that I think might shed some light — most of which I don’t seem to be able to get answered.
Look, your summary of the history of marriage is entirely conventional and mostly true for western civilization after about 500AD, and at least within shouting distance for Rome back a long ways. It wasn’t not true of the Etruscans to the extent we can tell; it’s not true of many of the Greeks;,the list of societies in which it was not true would take pages. Which is exactly my point: if we’re going to assert that some patterns are just the way things are, we ought be confident that it’s in fact the way things are.
You’re certainly right that in our culture we make a whole bunch of cultural assumptions that seem to be based in the idea that women are more or less property. This is very common in patrilinial and patrilocal cultures — they tend to become patriarchal. All of which we inhert from both the Romans and the Semites; almost all out cultural assumptions really come from there. But once again, that’s not the only way we humans organize things; matrilinial societies tend not to care.
The assertion that sex is really just about procreation is another one tat just doesn’t seem to be the case. There are plenty of species for which this is completely true; oysters, for example. There are lots of species, like all the canids, and all the cats, in which sex only happens when the female is fertile; some of them pair-bond, more or less monogamously, like swans, and some, like cats, don’t.
Primates not so much; we can and do have sex when procreation isn’t an issue. It seems to serve a social function, and interestingly the closer in “genetic difference” to humans, the more it seems to, to the extent that bonobos, our closest genetic relatives, have prostitution, gay sex on both sides, and endless little dramas that would look fine in a telenovela.
The point here isn’t to beat you over the head or throw chaff, though: the point is that we keep asserting that “sex is about procreation” and “marriage is about children.” If we take these assertions as true, we’re going to come to a lot different conclusions than we would if they’re not true.
I’ll grant that I’m challenging these assumptions; I don’t think they match the facts. So far, it really seems the response is coming around to Brittanus’ outrage.
No, I explicitly pointed out that the ones with no marriage in particular are matrilinial and matrilocal, with the women effectively holding both children and property.
In fact, I’d propose that as we’ve broken away from the custom of woman as property — or the weaker version of woman as inherently needing the protection of a man, of not being competent with “worldly things”, which I think is closer to the way our culture treated them in the 19 and early 20th century — that would inherently lead to a change in the structure of families in general. By comparison to other cultures with weaker notions of marriage, like that Na, I’d imagine that would move from our notion of woman as property to a notion of man as sperm bank. Think how many changes that we’re seen could be explained by that.
That’s fine, Brian. I completely believe that your church holds that.
Another red herring: we’re arguing same-sex marriage, not judicial activism. Obviously, from my equal protection argument, I think there’s a good argument for agreeing with the outcome (although the argument itself was pretty… I think the technical word is “flaky”.) Let’s leave the courts out of it and ask whether allowing same-sex marriage is “right” before we argue about flaky California judges.
So does mine.
Or maybe even some other religion? (Hint: use your browser search function and look for the string “buddh”.) Oh, and the tradition of the Enlightenment, starting with Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments?
So you’ve mentioned. What is it?
>>It wasn’t not true of the Etruscans to the extent we can tell; it’s not true of many of the Greeks;,the list of societies in which it was not true would take pages.>>
You must be a lot older than I am.
>>the point is that we keep asserting that “sex is about procreation” and “marriage is about children.” If we take these assertions as true, we’re going to come to a lot different conclusions than we would if they’re not true.>>
Exactly.
>>By comparison to other cultures with weaker notions of marriage, like that Na, I’d imagine that would move from our notion of woman as property to a notion of man as sperm bank. Think how many changes that we’re seen could be explained by that.>>
You must also be a feminist.
Please – since I’m totally unfamiliar with the cultures you describe – tell me what these cultures have accomplished, and how they are “better” than the culture we presently live in.
In other words, what benefits pertain to changing our culture to one in which males are just “sperm banks” (acknowledging once again the reproductive role, by the way). How would society be improved?
>>Another red herring: we’re arguing same-sex marriage, not judicial activism. >>
False. If it weren’t for judicial activism, there would be no argument about same-sex marriage.
Sorry, Suek, I realize I left off one chunk of your points. You’re asking whether there is a State interest in marriage at all, and as I said, I’m more or less on your side in that. If you want to argue that the whole concept of “marriage” as something special ought to be eliminated from civil law and made a religious concept only, I’ll agree and I’ll even send $10 to your advocacy group.
We’re not there, however: there is currently a thing called “marriage” codified in the law. You’ve said that “marriage” is a magic word, and Brian is arguing that there is some special status, an “imprimatur”, given by the word “marriage”.
That’s why I raised this question:
If anyone has taken a shot at actually answering that, I’ve missed it, and I think it’s a pretty core question. It would seem to solve the problems pretty admirably: on the one hand, same-sex couples can be partners; on the other, their partnerships aren’t called “marriage”, which is, according to some of the base assumptions we started with, a Sacrament from God. (As some of you understand God.) So, the Sacrament is “marriage”, and the civil contract is a civil contract.
>>Or maybe even some other religion?>>
Ok…we get it. Some religions – including Buddism – do not have the same idea of marriage. Are you proposing that all homosexuals are Buddists? Or that Buddists are in a majority in the USA? If not, then why should their traditions/rules have any influence on the laws in the USA?
Probably, and I suspect a lot more widely read.
Not by any current meaning of the word. What I am is pretty committed to the notion that “all men are created equal” — in the root meaning of “man”, not males only. Is that a bad thing?
Right after you find the guy who suggested they were better. I’m just saying ours isn’t the only culture in the history of the species.
Again, I suggest you find the guy who argued that it would be improved, and argue with him. You might also look out for the guy who said males don’t have a reproductive role; he needs help.
What I’m suggesting is that once we free women of male domination, let them own property, have jobs, live separate lives without requiring the protection of men, that we’re very possibly changing society so that conventional patrilinial, patrilocal — strictly “virilocal”, “following the male”, rather than “patrilocal”, “following the father”, since we tend to make separate households, unlike the Romans — patriarchal family organizations don’t make sense either.
Interesting as that is, though, it’s still a red herring, another topic for another time maybe. The pending questions still seem to me to be:
- given that we have an existing legal structure that conveys certain benefits to certain pairs of partners, should we exclude same-sex pairs from that legal structure? If so, why?
- given that we don’t exclude same-sex pairs from the equivalent legal protections, is that “marriage” in the law? (I’ll stipulate without hesitation that it wouldn’t be “marriage” in the eyes of the Abrahamic religious traditions.)
Bookworm said:
It’s not a red herring. Bookworm raises the issue and I agree with her.
Buddhism can’t be used as a moral compass for this country, since we are to the point, or are heading this way like a speeding locomotive, where any religious point of view must be rejected merely because it is religious. Unless you don’t count Buddhism as a religion.
I will plead ignorance to Smith’s TMS, but seems to me, it will still lead to majority rule.
But if we are going to accept a religious moral compass, I would suggest that the Judeo-Christian foundation would be a good one.
Maybe they shouldn’t. Maybe the majority religion ought to be able to impose their will on minority religions — or minorities who don’t share the same religious beliefs , freethinkers — without hindrance. They seem to like that notion in Saudi Arabia. The ideas of free practice of religion, religious tolerance, freedom of conscience, are all pretty unusual in human society.
Seems like one hell of an assertion to make on 4 July, though.
Yeah, and the question of what the specific Constitutional change she would suggest is still hanging around up there, unanswered.
That’s another argument for another time, but it could be made: Buddhism doesn’t believe in a everlasting soul, it doesn’t believe in a Creator, and Gautama Buddha, “the” Buddha, tended to dismiss questions about those religious things as “not productive”. But for our purposes I think it’s a religion.
It can be pretty rough going, even to an Enlightenment geek like me. (It’s never come up, but my background is formal philosophy with a strong emphasis on mathematical logic; when I wasn’t looking, mathematical logic turned into computer science and mathematics, so now I are a mathematician. I also got really interested in the Enlightenment as well. Locke, Hume, Leibnitz, Jefferson, Voltaire, all that stuff.) But P.J. O’Roarke treats it pretty usefully in his gloss on The Wealth of Nations, which is good reading in general.
In any case, it doesn’t; it leads more to Golden Rule, if you will. He starts out by observing we all have inherent feelings of sympathy for others in distress — which, 230 years later, turns out to have a physical basis in what are called “mirror neurons” — and builds from there.
>>Right after you find the guy who suggested they were better.>>
Are you saying that they’re not? Why in the world would we want to imitate a culture that is less satisfactory than the one we have?
>> I’m just saying ours isn’t the only culture in the history of the species.>>
No one said that it was – but it’s _ours_. Gays are the ones who are setting out to change what has been largely successful for a very long time…why should we?
>>given that we have an existing legal structure that conveys certain benefits to certain pairs of partners, should we exclude same-sex pairs from that legal structure? If so, why?>>
Why are the benefits given? what is/was their purpose? If their purpose is not served by giving the same benefits to same sex couples, why should those benefits be extended to them? Are married couples somehow “better” than singles? Why does the government discriminate against singles? is there something “wrong” with being single?
>>given that we don’t exclude same-sex pairs from the equivalent legal protections, is that “marriage” in the law? >>
Well, now…that _is_ the question, isn’t it? I’d say no…marriage has a particular meaning in our language. What gays want – other than the legal benefits – is to change the concept that is the definition of the word. Calling wet dry doesn’t make it so – although dry wine may still be wet…. There isn’t much point in having language to communicate with if it doesn’t mean the same thing to one person as it does to another.
Dude, we not only didn’t take white slaves, we never quite got that whole “slave” notion down well at all; when we Choctaws bought black slaves from the white man, they tended to marry into the tribe.
But don’t even start me on the white people not being able to trust the Indians. Just don’t even go there.
(You really just like stirring the, um, pot, don’t you?)
I’m saying that they exist. My grandfather used to say “if the bird and the book disagree, believe the bird.” I’m just trying to observe the bird.
All good questions, but I’m going to be stubborn: answer some of my questions first.
We change the meanings of words all the time. Again, as I say, I’m fine with the notion of calling the civil contract something else.
If, on one hand, it’s “just a word” and gays shouldn’t care about having “civil unions” instead of marriage, then opposite-sex couples shouldn’t either; if not, if there is some “magic” in the word “marriage”, then what justification can be made for restricting the word other than on the basis of the majority religion?
Or are you saying that since the majority religion imposed that definition we ought to leave it alone out of tradition? (Remember, if you use the tradition argument, I’m going to come right back and ask why that tradition is “better” than the one that said blacks and qhites couldn’t marry.)
Oh, and I’m off to my July 4th party; see you all later.
>>If, on one hand, it’s “just a word”>>
Ummmm…I didn’t say it was “just a word”…I said it was a concept expressed by a word. What gays want is to change the underlying concept. Why do gays want to change the concept?
Enjoy your July 4th party…
(emphasis mine)
I arrived at that point from this.
Part of an essay from here:
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l01.html
Maybe I’ll do some reading.
Have a happy Fourth of July.
Just for the record, I’m not angry at all. In fact I’m quite happy that I won the argument.
Wow I just realized that most people don’t know what sex is!
Christopher Hitchens argues this is because religious indoctrination is a form of child-abuse. Hhhhmmm.
I’m available to explain sex to Bookworm’s children if indeed they are experiencing some confusion or cognitive dissonance from trying to shop during Gay Pride last year. (I’m serious, but like everyone else reading this blog, I also know it is highly unlikely.)
Friends, the basis for my morality is indeed religious. But it is a precept of my religion that I don’t proseltyze, so I’m not going to talk about it. The basis for action is an honest assessment of the way things actually are. Not the way we wish them to be.
What I’m amazed at is the amount of arrogance and parochialism inherent in the byproducts of Berkley and San Francisco Leftist culture. You’d think such environments would create cosmopolitan individuals and adults, but they don’t. Cosmopolitanism ends at the state borders, it seems.
This seemed appropriate…
“Civilization in the best sense merely means the full authority of the human spirit over all externals. Barbarism means the worship of those externals in their crude and unconquered state. Barbarism is the worship of nature.” G.K. Chesterton, All Things Considered
Suek, it sounds lovely — but when you figure out how the human spirit can assume full authority over, say, gravity, I hope you’ll teach it to me.
BTW, I’m writing pay copy today, but will zoom back through once the bills are paid.
From the California Supreme Court Ruling.
Here is a link to a thread on the effect of the California ruling in relationship to polygamy.
http://volokh.com/posts/1211292450.shtml
So Charlie, here’s the crux of the matter. Nine people decided the only distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy was the detrimental effect on the family.
So let’s see, same-sex marriage offers:
Divorce rates a magnitude higher than heterosexual marriage.
Children raised in an environment that condones or promotes unfaithfulness.
A confusion of gender identity by the children.
Exposure by the children to many forms of sexual behavior, before the child is psychologically equipped to deal with it.
We still don’t know all the effects of gay relationships on children since it’s such a recent phenomenon, essentially deciding to experiment with the next generation.
A radical change to the family structure, which flys in the face of human history.
Seems detrimental to me.
Oh, by the way, hope all of you had a great holiday.
I live in a suburban neighborhood nestled in a small valley– and watching from the top of a hill as a square mile of fireworks burst from the houses– a skirmish here, a salvo there, was very cool.
“the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.”
a) why does the State care if there is a “sound family environment”? Isn’t that the respnsibility of the individual? That same rationale might also work in prohibiting divorce…
b) who’s to say that polygamous and/or incestuous relationships are potentially detrimental to sound family environment? Did they provide any studies or just make the assumptions?
c) who decides just exactly what a “sound family environment” is? If it’s in the interest of the State to see that there are “sound family environments”, does that mean that children can be removed from families lacking same?
Sounds more like social manipulation than sound law. Quelle surprise.
No, that’s the crux of your red herring. We might argue the detrimental effect, but I’m not interested in the judicial activism argument right now; besides, the definition of judicial activism is generally “I didn’t think it was rightly decided.” Let’s argue out whether it was wrongly decided before we decide it was judicial activism.
Based on 19 years experience in places where divorce rates are very high, and rising, anyway.
Basically, Brian, sez you. You don’t have a good sample, and you don’t strike me as an objective observer.
Again, sez you. What studies I’ve seen suggest that children in those situations don’t have a lot of trouble telling if they’re concave or convex.
Again, sez you. Brian, you’re missing the whole point of my bringing up all the other cultures with other customs: you keep asserting that “people all do this” and “religions all say that” and “children aren’t prepared to deal with the other”, but somehow I keep finding people who don’t do “this”, and major religions that don’t say “that”, and cultures that do “the other” in which the children manage to grow up just fine without psychological damage.
Technically, this is called a “counter-example”, and when you present a counter-example to a general assertion like that, it’s called “a disproof.” Which is to say, “wrong”. “Mistaken”. “Not correct.” “Isn’t the case.”
So is no-fault divorce. So is letting gays be openly gay without legal peril. And letting “colored people” use the lunch counter, the front of the bus, and the same bathrooms. As was allowing women to own property and have careers. Not to mention voting. As was living in a Federal Republic with no monarch.
I understand the impulse to be conservative about these things, but honestly, the wish to keep things from changing is a fool’s dream.
Sorry, disproven by counter-example. What you mean is “flies in the face of that little proportion of human history I’m familiar with and find convenient.”
Interesting thread on your link, Brian. Also longer list of comments, though they’re not numbered. Maybe just as well…it could be discouraging! Doesn’t appear that they reach any more of a conclusion than we have, other than the probabilty of polygamous marriages being legalized is more likely in the event that same sex “marriages” are made fully legal.
In fact, it seems to me that there would be further justification – since if SSM is practiced with any regularity, it would lessen the pool of males available for traditional marriage…!
We already have serial polygamy/polyandry…why not just eliminate the divorce/remarriage portion of the cycle. Save the antagonistic feelings.
I still go back to the question of “if marriage is a “right”, then what business does the state have in licensing it or limiting it in any way?” If it’s _not_ a right, then what is the State’s function in defining who may avail themselves of its licensing? And why?
Charlie,
The fact that divorce rates among gays are 50 to 170% higher in Scandanavian countries since same-sex marriages were adopted in 1993 is just a fact, regardless of what the rate is among straights.
I cited an article from Gay.com, a pro-homosexual website that acknowledges the issue of ‘open relationships’ and said some people in that community consider it a problem. Just a fact, according to them.
The gender identity is not just concave or convex.
I know you keep raising cultural attitudes around the world, but we aren’t deciding these issues for Borneo, just the United States, and we have a particular culture and tradition here– which is exactly why it drives the Europeans crazy– we aren’t them (thankfully).
They still eat people in certain parts of the world. Does that mean we should eat people?
>>I’m not interested in the judicial activism argument right now; besides, the definition of judicial activism is generally “I didn’t think it was rightly decided.” Let’s argue out whether it was wrongly decided before we decide it was judicial activism.>>
Baloney. Judicial activism is defined as judges finding in the law a right that wasn’t in the law as it was intended. Marriage in the US has been defined as between a man and a woman since July 4 of 1776. After 232 years, suddenly a right has been found – a right of legally “marriage” between two consenting adults. Again I say – if marriage is a _right_, then the State has no right to license it. If the State has the right to license it, then it isn’t a _right_.
Try driving without a license.
There really is no point in “deciding” if the decision was “wrongly” decided – it has nothing to do with right or wrong. It has to do with judicial activism – finding “rights” within the law that don’t exist.
Brian, do you have an argument here? I’m not seeing it.
Yes, I understand that Scandinavians have a high divorce rate, and that it’s higher among same-sex marriages. (Which have been legal since 1989, check your facts there.) There are some sub-populations among opposite-sex couples that have very high divorce rates too, eg, grad students and non-commissioned officers in the military. None the less, we let Army sergeants marry.
Yes, I understand that there are open relationships among gay people; there are among straight people too. You say that Ga.com cites it as a “problem”; I thought your high dudgeon above was that you didn’t think gays were offended or worried or saw those non-conventional things as a problem. Pick one, and make your argument.
And yes, this is a place where we’re talking about something different happening. I don’t know how old you are, but I listed a whole bunch of things that are different that changed in my lifetime: integrated schools, integrated washrooms, legal inter-racial marriage, wiretapping restrictions, recognition of the Second Amendment as an individual right; go back a few years, we get women voting, prohibition of marijuana, prohibition and re-legalization of alcohol, the Louisiana Purchase, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Jesse Helms (who was a sweet old man I don’t care what the NY Times said) didn’t believe in a lot of those; still, before he died he had more black staff members in his Senate office than white.
Look, Brian, I’m making this easy for you: I’ve laid out a bunch of pretty precise, specific questions. Maybe if you looked at some of those and addressed them we could get somewhere. Right now, what I’m learning so far is that you think same-sex marriage Is Different and You Don’t Like It. And I think I’ve got that. Could we try to progress a little further?
Suek, let’s try substitution again: From 1776 until Loving v Virginia, marriage was defined as only being between opposite-sex couples of the same race. Then the Supreme Court found a “right that wasn’t in the law as it was intended.” Are you arguing that you would defend that law, proscribing inter-racial marriage, because it was “judicial activism”?
The analogy is especially precise, since this was preceded by Perez v. Sharp, in which the California Supreme Court made a similar ruling in 1948. All of them on Equal Protection grounds, by the way.
Why do you keep hitting me with this one? I’ve said several times that I agree with you.
Suek, it sounds lovely — but when you figure out how the human spirit can assume full authority over, say, gravity, I hope you’ll teach it to me.
Just because civilization protects individuals from hunger and the weather, doesn’t mean it has full authority over gravity. That kind of strawman’s argument is pretty weak.
Y, was that even supposed to make sense? If so, it escapes me tonight.
Do you not comprehend what a straw man is? Do you not comprehend what the benefits of civilization vis a vis barbarism, is?
>>Are you arguing that you would defend that law, proscribing inter-racial marriage, because it was “judicial activism”>>
It could be defensible… To be honest, I don’t know enough law. The Supreme Court’s job is to test laws against the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says “all men are created equal”. Given that, and given that blacks were accepted as “men”, it seems pretty clear. It also took a while before all women were considered as “men” in the Constitution – and equal under the law. Could you accept these principles and still defend segregation and its attendant laws? Probably not – although I’m not sure Jeremiah Wright would agree. There are no perfect societies, just as there are no perfect people.
Again – you can say you agree with my statement of the question being what right does the State have to define “marriage”, but it appears to me that you then ignore the basis of the question. _What_ right has the State, and why? Are you simply accepting that the State has the right to make any rules it chooses? Might makes right? That could, in fact, be the simple truth – the might of the majority… The fact that the State grants licenses to marry indicates that marriage is _not_ a right in and of itself, but that is the basis of the claim of gays – the _right_ to marry.
On, I do, yeah. But she quoted “full authority over all externals.” It’s hardly a straw man if I believe her.
Better, perhaps, than most. Which is exactly why I think the desire of the human spirit to be treated as others are treated, to be able to form one’s own associations and not to be subject to legal impediments for unjust reasons, is so important. So if this is an argument at all, I see it as an argument in my favor.
>>I think the desire of the human spirit to be treated as others are treated, to be able to form one’s own associations and not to be subject to legal impediments for unjust reasons, is so important.>>
You can form your own associations, and you are legally impeded from those associations. What gays want are the benefits associated with a legal status they do not qualify for.
Do you also park in Handicapped parking spaces?
>>you are legally impeded >>
Oops. “you are _not_ legally impeded”…
Suek: Okay, posing the actual question instead of asserting what appeared to me to be a conclusion helps.
I think the thing here is that there are really two questions tied together.
First question: does the state have the right to regulate marriage? Now, I’m reading “right” here as in “natural right”, “Rights of Man”, a “right” as Jefferson used it in the Declaration. And in that sense, no, it’s not a right — it’s merely a law, passed more or less by agreement, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and which is subject to and can potentially be superseded by those natural rights.
Second question: given that the state does assume the authority to make such a law, is that authority being justly administered according to the Rights of Man? My conclusion is that in the case of same-sex marriage, it is not.
Most of the bits of my argument are already above, so I’ll run through it in outline:
- First (and something I think has been a mutual assumption, but I’ll state it outright now), people whose desire it is to form a family with a person of the same sex are indeed members of the human race and inhere all of the Rights of Man.
- Second, that among those natural rights is the right to be treated equally under the law; this was (in my opinion) recognized by the 14th Amendment — recognized as opposed to granted.
- Third, that the ability of the state to define a contractual or civil relationship of marriage is subordinate to that natural right.
Now, as with a lot of these things, we end up with some conflicts among rights. For example, one of the restrictions we put on the ability to form that association is that we don’t allow people below a certain age to marry. This is, at the root, based on when we judge someone is competent, and in fact many states allow marriage with parental consent before it’s permitted otherwise. Many of these decisions are in some sense arbitrary; some states allow first cousins to marry, others don’t.
Some of these restrictions were from tradition and even prejudice which was then imposed as law. In many southern states, that included the rule that people of different races could not marry. In the court cases I cited above, various courts agreed in the 40′s and 50′s that these laws were invalid, superseded by the natural rights, as recognized in the 14th Amendment, of the people involved.
Now, sometimes the state is allowed to legally restrict some person’s natural rights under the Constitution, which is our written agreement about these rights: if you commit a crime, they can put you in jail; if you commit treason, the state can kill you. The state can’t, however, punish or impair under the law, an entire group: equal protection is an individual right. For me to be, for example, forbidden to purchase alcohol because I’m an Indian violates that right. Taking the property of, and imprisoning, all people of Japanese descent because there had been an attack on America by Japan violates that right.
What are the arguments we’ve seen for the state impairing the rights of some people to form that association with someone of the same sex?
(1) Some gay people do ooky things, and that makes gays unfit to marry.
(2) Some gay people are promiscuous, and that makes gays unfit to marry.
(3) Some gay couples may not be as good parents as some straight couples, and so that makes gays unfit to marry.
(4) Some gay couples get divorced, so that makes gays unfit to marry.
All of these are dressed up with statistics, but that’s basically lipstick on the pig, a spurious attempt to make the argument look in some sense scientific: the underlying argument is that because some members of a group behave badly, that justifies punishing and impairing all members of the group.
(5) Marriage is a Sacrament, part of a Covenant with/from (I’m not sure what the right technical phrasing should be) God. Since God says marriage is between a man and a woman, that civil association ought to be forbidden to people of the same sex.
(6) Sexual activity between individuals of the same sex is sinful, and since marriage implies possibly having children (by adoption for both, through sperm donation for women), the civil association ought to be forbidden lest children be exposed to sin.
Both of these then lead to the next question: whose God wins? My God(s) may not be yours, and some people don’t believe in God(s) at all. There’s been the suggestion several times that since the majority believes such and such, the majority ought to dominate the minority. Certainly that’s sometimes the way things work, but the whole point of laying out a Bill of Rights was to establish the places where the majority could not, under the Constitution, impose their will on the minority. The very first one in the list includes the right not to be forced to submit to the majority’s religious opinion.
(7-10) some gay people do ooky things, are promiscuous, may be bad parents, may be more prone to divorce: thus allowing gay people to marry will harm their children. Thus that civil association ought to be forbidden.
Again, all of these may be true for some gay people, but we don’t allow a whole group to be punished or impaired for the behavior of individuals. What’s more, some straight people do ooky things, are promiscuous, are bad parents, and are prone to divorce; we don’t therefore impair the ability of opposite-sex couples to form that civil association. Since we’ve assumed that gay people have the same natural rights inherent to being human, the fact that one group is not impaired for the same kinds of behavior would impel us to see impairing another group for the same behavior as a violation of their natural right to be protected equally.
(11) Allowing gay people to form that civil association — or sometimes, more restrictively, allowing them to form that association and call it “marriage” — will harm the ability of opposite-sex people to form that association, or demean or impair that relationship among people of the opposite sex.
It seems that most all the arguments for that come down to variants of 1–4 or 7–10, and seem to me to fall on the same arguments.
(12) We started, way up above, with the notion that marriage is a Sacrament, and that allowing marriages that didn’t receive (invoke?) that sacrament necessarily degraded those that did. I don’t have an opinion on that per se; I’ve been a Buddhist for 40 years, and before that I went to Baptist Sunday School. We didn’t talk about sacraments, so I don’t know.
But if it’s true, didn’t my marriage, between a genial agnostic raised Methodist and a Buddhist, with no discussion of Sacraments, performed with the “attendance” of K’uan Ssu Yin the Bodhisattva of Compassion, have the same problem? It certainly wouldn’t be considered as having fulfilled the Sacrament of Marriage as I understand Catholic Dogma. That’s why it’s important to Catholics (and a lot of other Christians) to have a “church marriage”, no? For that matter, doesn’t a marriage in a Baptist Church have the same problem for Catholics, ie, it impairs the sanctity of the Sacrament? It’s something called a “marriage” that isn’t a real marriage, no?
Doesn’t this argument, just inherently, come down to an insistence that my concept of “marriage” ought to be subordinate to your religious beliefs?
So, that seems to be the list; have I left any out?
That’s all Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving wanted, too: the benefits associated with a legal status for which, being of different races, they didn’t qualify.
Maybe we can get at this another way: do you think the state of Virginia was entitled to forbid blacks and whites from marrying? Do you think that the Supreme Court was wrong to conclude that “equal protection under the law” was violated by that law?
If so, say so, and explain to me why. If not, then can you explain what argument you have for distinguishing Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving from, I dunno, George Takei and his long-time partner? Is it one of my 1–12 above, or do have one to add to the list?
Damn. “… do you have one to add to the list.” I even previewed it.
>>Allowing gay people to form that civil association — or sometimes, more restrictively, allowing them to form that association and call it “marriage” — will harm the ability of opposite-sex people to form that association, or demean or impair that relationship among people of the opposite sex.>>
There are monetary benefits that derive from the State in order to lend support to the family unit, which the State considers the basic unit of the society. Gays are legally permitted to form “civil unions” – which give them the legal benefits of marriage other than tax and SS benefits. They do not find “civil union” to be enough – it has to be “marriage” in order to qualify for the monetary benefits. I think that’s what it all comes down to.
>>do you think the state of Virginia was entitled to forbid blacks and whites from marrying?>>
Legally I don’t know enough to answer the question. Morally, I’d say no. But that’s here and now. When was the law made and why? There are a _lot_ of really stupid laws on the books, usually made to address certain particular needs of a society at a particular time – and then when the immediate problem is solved, the laws are forgotten until someone decides to use them for something arcane. If the answer is that people thought that blacks were not fully rationable human beings, then it seems reasonable – the idea would be that like children, they didn’t have the reasoning ability to form contractual obligations. Once that assumption is disproved, then it’s no longer valid.
Okay, that sounds like a new one: call it (13). Now, given that these monetary benefits accrue to opposite-sex marriages, doesn’t it violate the right to equal protection to forbid those benefits to same-sex unions?
(And, just to forestall one side-track, I’d agree in an instant that “affirmative action” has the same problem.)
But that’s not consistent with allowing two blacks to marry. I don’t doubt that great-grandfather Jeff might have made just that argument, but as you say, it isn’t true, and it doesn’t seem to fit the situation.
It’s not like the reason for those laws wasn’t well known, even explicitly called out: it was to prevent the “mixing of the races”, miscegenation. The Loving v. Virgina page cites the trial judge:
Of course, seeing as I’m the product of just such a miscegenation, I don’t find this awfully convincing either.