Congratulations to California Same-Sex Married Couples:
In all this talk of constitutional law, it's easy to miss a human dimension: There are lots of same-sex couples in California who are already married under foreign law, who are already married in their own consciences and religious traditions, and who have long wanted to have their marriages recognized in the state in which they live.
Whatever one might think of the social or legal consequences of this sort of decision, it pretty clearly makes them happy, and happy for the right reason -- the common human desire to have them, their families, their love, and their mutual commitment recognized. So congratulations to all these couples, those whom I know well personally and the many more whom I don't.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Countermajoritarian Difficulty as to State Constitutions vs. the Federal Constitution:
- The California Legislature's Enactment of Same-Sex Marriage:
- "Did the California Supreme Court Just Do John McCain an Inadvertent Favor?"
- Congratulations to California Same-Sex Married Couples:
- The Slippery Slope to Same-Sex Marriage:
- California Supreme Court Holds That California Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage:
It's not the purpose of the state to gratify human desires.
And here I thought "the pursuit of happiness" was one of those inalienable rights for which we fought to have self-government some 230 years ago.
It should not be the purpose of the state to STAND IN THE WAY OF human desires, either, so long as no one is physically harmed or defrauded.
The Field poll questions have remained the same during the six surveys analyzed here. In 1985, only 30% of those polled supported same sex marriage. This increased to 38% in 1997, and the average for surveys in 2003-2006 showed support by 43%.
While only 25% of those born before 1940 are in support, that number has grown by 5% over these years. Those born in the 1940's are supportive at 40%, also a gain of 5%. Similar 7 and 8% increases are found for those born in the 1950's and 1960's, reaching above the 40% threshold. Those born in the 1970's and 1980's are in support by 51% and 58%.
The same trends are apparent over time in those who identify themselves as "liberals" (increasing from 43% to 76%, a gain of 33 points) and "moderates" (climbing from 31 to 44%, a gain of 15 points). However, amongst self-styled "conservatives" a reverse trend is seen and the numbers have dipped from 20% support to 15%. There is an astonishing 61% spread between liberals and conservatives on this issue.
The same general patterns hold for partisan identification, with Democrats supportive at a level of 59%, independents at 41%, and Republicans at 23%. There has been a marked shift in increased support over time amongst Democrats and independents, while Republicans are slightly less supportive by 3 points.
Support has increased in every religious group identified, but the lowest level of support is amongst Protestants at 28% and represents a gain of only 4%. Catholics jumped 13% to 38% support. Those with "No religion" had the highest level of support at 71% followed by those who are Jewish at 70% (reported as being a small sample, but with this number being higher it must be of statistical significance), and "Other religions" at 55%.
Asians showed the highest support level based on race or ethnicity at 55%. White non-Hispanics at 46% followed this, then Latinos at 35% and Blacks (a small sample) at 23%. There were strong gains in each of these except for blacks, which were down by 1%, probably statistically insignificant, except in indicating no real change as opposed to other categories.
There appears to be a gender gap with female support at 47% and male support at 39%.
There is a strong correlation with level of education with college graduates supportive at 64%, followed by some college at 41%, and high school or less being at 34%.
No, at Snap On Tools.
You're both right: The state should get out of marriage completely, leaving it purely a matter of contract between consenting adults. Women are no longer a man's property and we don't need a marriage to define who the father is today. Religious institutions may impose their own additional requirements for their constituents as they currently do. Determining custodial arrangements for children is the only place I see a need for state intervention.
Wording may be a bit off, typing from memory here.
Still, as marriage has, across time and many cultures, been considered one man and one woman, I'd rather this issue be decided by the body politic: either voter initiative or legislation (Gov. Arnie is wrong here). I'm perfectly willing to vote for it.
It's not the state's purpose to suppress them either
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
You didn't really want the right to vote after all.
The Republican party has been spooked by the last few special elections where they lost big time. They are looking at huge losses this fall. Bashing gays on this issue will be very tempting as it has worked in the past, and they have few other issues to run on. My guess is that it will hit hard on the issue, but that it won't win them the White House or regain congress. the biggest demographic that is against SSM is the religious right and blacks. But blacks won't vote againt Obama on this issue, so it can only be used as a tool to bring out the religious right vote. That might tip the scale in some close elections, but it won't really help much. Every other poll I've seen says that SSM is way at the bottom of voters concerns. It will only make the Repubs look even more out of touch.
There are probably a portion of American folks who practiced Sharia under foreign law, practice it in their own consciences and religious traditions, and who want to have Sharia recognized in the state they now live. Is everybody on board with Sharia law? Or anything and everything else someone feels strongly about?
That's not a knock on gay marriage, but to say that your defense formulation strikes me more emptily glib than serious. Marriage isn't supported by the state because two folks feel all wovey-dovey about each other. Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman has long been supported by various forms throughout Western Civilization because it's been recognized as both a staple for social stability, and a pretty darn tricky thing to get people to successfully stick with.
I'm open to gay marriage, but some random thoughts: Most people aren't comfortable with the current rate of marriage failures, and loss of nuclear families (especially in places like the African American community). A lot of people also increasingly focus on the rippling, unintended consequences of even well-meaning social action, such as earlier advancement of state welfare past a very small group like war-widows and orphans to a much greater segment of society. Nobody really thinks it was wrong to do, but there certainly has been social decline in attitudes/behaviors based around such public programs.
Where's the public debate about the reality of the social desirability/necessity of a monogamous, opposite sex centered family as opposed to marriage as a concept of a lovey-dovey spiritual union? Where's the debate focusing on the possible social impact of the declining rate of traditional marriages, and how introducing same-sex marriage may or may not affect this situation. Where's the same 'slippery-slope' analysis (as was acknowledged in a post right before this one)that a rather non-trivial portion of gay activists often tout same-sex marriage as a useful stepping stone for the drastic redefining of the very concept of marriage?
Oh, that's right, why do any of that when the judiciary will just make giant cultural decisions for us? Can't be any harm in that. And like Eugene Volokh says, who cares what social or legal consequences occur, cause some people he knows are like, totally happy!!! And everybody knows that being totally happy and cool, and not some dour meanie who wants society to make an open debate about civic/moral concepts and impacts, is all that matters!!
Democracy died a little more today.
Gay Marriage ain't Sharia Law. Not really any kind of analogy there.
Also, the increase in divorce rates preceded gay marriage across the western world.
Comment#1, congratulations. I wondered how long it would be before someone would ignore the entire thrust of my post and dishonestly spin it as 'Uh, Sharia law ain't Gay Marriage'. 10 minutes on Vegas odds. My opening statement obviously isn't comparing Sharia law and gay marriage as social realities, it's pointing out the rather empty, glib logical structure of the portion of the post I quoted.
Did it now? So I assume that you would have had no objection if the Governor had signed either of the two legislative actions that would have established gay marriage last year since those were democratically passed?
Resorting to the courts to make these types of controversial changes is a quick and easy way around the problem of truly changing society. And it can be easily undone....all you need to do is change the membership of the state supreme court.
Their meretricious relationships will forever fail to match opposite sex marriage in which the union of opposites produces children that are the genetic product of the union.
No doubt, Mods will continue to try via surgery and genetic manipulation to approach closer and closer to the ideal. But it's all fake and they know it. And we know it too.
Sodomy, lewd cohabitation, lascivious carriage, adultery, fornication, sex change surgery, plural marriage, serial marriage, etc. all differ from and are inferior to monogamous marriage.
Note that there are many more circumstances in which we feel compelled to hide the above practices (even divorce), than there are circumstances in which we hide conventional marriage.
Eugene attests to the superiority of conventional monogamy by the fact that although a libertarian and an atheist, he married prior to reproduction.
There are probably a portion of American folks who practiced Sharia under foreign law, practice it in their own consciences and religious traditions, and who want to have Sharia recognized in the state they now live. Is everybody on board with Sharia law?
You're familiar with the cliche that your freedoms end where my nose begins, and it should be pretty self-evident why that cliche is relevant to mandatory Sharia. (NB: I'm perfectly fine with a community that decides it wishes to practice Sharia amongst itself.)
So tell me, anybody: How does any particular gay marriage harm you personally?
You would be misinformed if you thought that the Founders understood happiness in modern libertarian terms (i.e. "as long as it doesn't physically harm another person").
There's no doubt that those who wrote and ratified the "equal protection" clause of the California Constitution did NOT intend for it to be construed so as to protect gay marriage.
Thus, the 4 justices in the majority legislated from the bench - substituted their personal views for what the constitution actually means.
The ballot proposition passed by CA residents a few years ago merely refused to recognize SSM from other states. It said nothing about whether CA can grant SSM
Talk"Where's the public debate about the reality of the social desirability/necessity of a monogamous, opposite sex centered family as opposed to marriage as a concept of a lovey-dovey spiritual union? Where's the debate focusing on the possible social impact of the declining rate of traditional marriages, and how introducing same-sex marriage may or may not affect this situation. "
where have you been the past few years? The debate has been going on since at least MA granted same sex marriage. No one doubts that monogamous opposite sex families are good. The question is wehther monogamous same sex families are good too, and the answer so far has been yes. As for the social impact on declining rate of traditional marriages, there has been no effect where SSM has been implemented, such as MA or CAnada. In the Scan countries, though, there has been an slight uptick in traditional marriage, so if anything, it has had a neutral or positive impact.
BTW, how is your marriage holding up (assuming you are married). Are you planning a divorce now that gays can get married? IF not married, have you decided marriage is off the books for you forever because of this? IF not, why not?
Matt Bruce, do you bother to read posts or just cherry-pick what strikes your fancy?
1. I just replied to another poster on how dishonest it is to spin that quote as morally equating gay marriage and Sharia.
2. I spent *four paragraphs* detailing my misgivings about the situation.
Comment#1, congratulations. I wondered how long it would be before someone would ignore the entire thrust of my post and dishonestly spin it as 'Uh, Sharia law ain't Gay Marriage'. 10 minutes on Vegas odds. My opening statement obviously isn't comparing Sharia law and gay marriage as social realities, it's pointing out the rather empty, glib logical structure of the portion of the post I quoted.
I understand what you mean. If you expected someone to pounce on that, perhaps you have an idea of how some people might be take it the wrong way. It's an unfortunate comparison, especially in light of the good news today, no?
I also have to point out that you didn't engage with my second point. You seem to worry about the effects of gay marriage on straight marriage, but things were in decline long before people thought it possible for gays to marry.
I'm going to repeat the question that several other posters have raised since you seem to have missed it.
You ask where the debate is about the various costs, benefits consequences et all of gay marriage. Do the legislative debates and bills by the California Legislature that were veto'd by the Governor (citing this court case as the fig leaf reason for the veto) not count as the debate?
It happened over the last fifty years or so, and the consensus was that we want marriage to be "a lovey-dovey spiritual union," that it's okay for marriage and kids not to coincide, that you should be able to marry just about anyone who wants to marry you, and that you should be be able to get into and out of marriages without much hassle. That's what people have been doing, anyway. It is a little late in the day to be demanding the great public debate over marriage.
Whatever one might think of the . . . decision, it pretty clearly makes [same-sex couples] happy, and happy for the right reason -- the common human desire to have them, their families, their love, and their mutual commitment recognized.
I've always been interested in the dynamics of the SSM debate because it seems to me that this is in fact the main point, on both sides. People talk about health benefits, wills and child rearing, but I don't know of anyone who finds these issues decisive. The decisive question is who/what should be "recognized."
The spattering's of talk radio/editorials/articles that crop up aren't what I would call a comprehensive public debate. The Iraq war is a comprehensive public debate, albeit imperfect. Gay marriage has existed in the public eye as a hodge-podge of editorials and arguments. Social change takes years to show effects, what happened recently in Canada, MA, or Scandinavia is not iron-clad proof of anything, one way or another. If you got in a time-machine and told black families in 1950 that they'd be turning their back on education in droves and viewing marriage as a 'white man's thing' in the future, they'd probably deck you in the face. Social change affects things in completely unintended ways.
BTW, how is your marriage holding up (assuming you are married). Are you planning a divorce now that gays can get married? IF not married, have you decided marriage is off the books for you forever because of this? IF not, why not?
I have zero moral qualms about gay marriage. It doesn't make me feel bright and chipper to be kind of down about something that simply makes a lot of people happy. But to simply go, "Eh, people are happy and this doesn't affect me" is an easy, and cowardly, stance. I'd rather see a much more open and vigorous public debate about the many different aspects of this issue before blindly blundering into something because it makes me feel good. This is like McCain and his showboat antics over torture. Did the country have a tough but honest search over our views, or did we get cheap, sanctimonious demagoguery that if anything has made the issue more murky? That's what I don't like about this judicial fiat stuff, it's short-term feel good-ery without any concern for airing long-term outcomes.
The Federal government will still not apply the rules for Social Security and other federal programs to the same-sex marriages so that will be their next hurdle.
Good luck to all these people.
Two related thoughts.
First, in Massachusetts, voters began the process of passing a constutional amendment to overturn Goodridge. As the process unfolded, two SJC judges, via dicta in a related case, opined that such a constitutional amendment would itself be unconstitutional. That belief was shared by the Mass. Attorney General. Although the constitutional amendment died in the legislature, judges and attorneys general opining that the people of Massachusetts are not sovereign sends shivers up my spine. When decisions such as this are so thoroughly unmoored from the actual constitution, is it a suprise when even judges are free to say that the people cannot amend the constutition?
Second, one interestng difference between Mass and CA is appointed (MA) vs elected (CA) judges. This should be an interesting electoral cycle for them.
Back to Eugene's initial point: yes, now gay and lesbian couples can marry in a few states, and those individuals are justifiably happy. But there are constutional amendments in many more forbidding such marriages as a direct result of Goodridge. The door to gay marriage is closed right now for more people than it is open for because of such activism.
So you're saying that when they wrote "equal" they didn't really mean "equal"; they meant "something like equal, some similar-to-but-not-quite-equal state that can be referred to and marketed as "equal" but not require that anything ever actually change". Got it.
Did it die during Loving? Did it die during Brown? A court affirmed that people have rights. That doesn't kill democracy. It gives it life.
It must be wonderful to be in a position of privilege where no one is going to suggest a referendum on your rights.
The legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already.
The court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. WHICH IS AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
The courts simply interpreted current California law, which is what courts do. Only when it's something you don't agree with is it "legislation from the bench." Don't be pathetic.
If you really are against same sex marriage for whatever reasons, then stop whining like a pathetic victim and go sign a ballot initiate to amend the constitution.
In 50 years it won't matter anyway. Kids today don't care at all. When they are the adults men will marry men and women will marry women all over the country, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
You write: "Whatever one might think of the social or legal consequences of this sort of decision, it pretty clearly makes them happy, and happy for the right reason." Therefore, I guess, whether we agree or disagree with this decision or its "consequences", we should at least be happy for those people whose lives have been made happier.
I'm not really sure what to make of that. It's hard to decipher the real argument on the other side of this debate, but as best I can tell, opponents of gay marriage think it's a morally corrosive idea. That it will break down important traditional bonds, weaken the institution of the family or perhaps our cultural identity, and cause a kind of net loss in social utility and happiness.
I honestly have no idea whether they're right, and I don't think anyone knows for sure. But let's assume they are for a minute, and let's assume you agreed with them. Had the court ruled the other way would you have written:
I'm happy to congratulate same-sex couples in California on their new-found freedom to wed. But I worry that it's doing what you're doing--just focusing on the people we can see--that obscures the hard questions raised by the debate.
It reminds me of Justice Brennan's dissent in CFTC v. Schor, where he complains that the majority has purported to "balance" the interest in something concrete (efficiency) against something as abstract as cultural identity (judicial independence). He explains the error:
“In doing so, the Court pits an interest the benefits of which are immediate, concrete, and easily understood against one, the benefits of which are almost entirely prophylactic, and thus often seem remote and not worth the cost in any single case. Thus, while this balancing creates the illusion of objectivity and ineluctability, in fact the result was foreordained, because the balance is weighted against judicial independence. The danger of the Court's balancing approach is, of course, that as individual cases accumulate in which the Court finds that the short-term benefits of efficiency outweigh the long-term benefits of judicial independence, the protections of Article III will be eviscerated.” 478 U.S. 833, 863-64.
I want to hasten to add that I've never been able to decide who's right about same-sex marriage. But I think the social question isn't as easy as the proponents of change want to make it seem. And hard social choices should be made by legislative process (including, I should add, the cautionary protections of a governor's veto). I'm not so sure we should be happy for those whose happiness may come at our collective expense.
Here's an analogy: you may congratulate someone who's won the lottery, but (keep your seats, libertarians) lotteries are socially bad. They impose more social cost than the benefits they create. And so when a state decides to, say, fund its public education system through a lottery, do we say "Congratulations to all those future winners out there!" or do we say "In little ways, this will hurt us all. Especially poor people and school children, no one of which will be made as sad as the winner will be happy."?
I don't know if gay marriage will hurt us all. But that's the question. And I suspect that by focusing on our attention on the happiness of a few without regard to the "social consequences," you mean to suggest the answer.
"So you're saying that when they wrote "equal" they didn't really mean "equal"; they meant "something like equal, some similar-to-but-not-quite-equal state that can be referred to and marketed as "equal" but not require that anything ever actually change". Got it."
All i am saying is that those who wrote and enacted the "equal protection clause" clearly did not define gay marriage rights as falling within the protection of that clause. They would have laughed incredulously if anyone at the time had asked "does this mean gays now have the right to get married"?
Can anyone doubt that?
Well, no one is blindly blundering into SSM. Usually, it requires getting to know the person first. But if we take your objections at face value, then when does the debate begin? If there are ANY effects of SSM, we simply won't know them unless we implement SSM. So your argument is really, we don't know anything about SSM, so we shouldn't even try. With that logic, you are forever closing the door.
Foolsmate: "Congratulations are in order, if one's objective is to devalue the institution of marriage"
Ah, my favorite objection to SSM! Okay, Foolsmate, how far has YOUR marriage been devalued? Love your wife less now? Maybe you've kicked the kids to the streets. Or if you aren't married, then I suppose you have totally given up on marriage at all?
I guess it's very hard to feel superior to gay people when they now are on an equal footing to you. Don't worry, you can still kick around muslims, from what I hear. I'm sure you are very morally superior to them, at least.
I'm feeling the odd urge to cheat on my wife, just because of this California opinion -- and I live in Mississippi, so lord only knows how badly marriage has been devalued further west!
I blame judicial activism.
No, but I'm willing to bet that they were smart enough to understand that such bold language would eventually lead to changes that none of them could foresee, and perhaps to changes that, if enacted immediately upon passage of the constitution, would have made them uncomfortable.
Those who wrote "All men are created equal" into the Declaration of Independence would likely have been appalled to have that language appropriated during the fight to have voting rights extended beyond wealthy landowners to all white men, then again to all men of any color, and once more to women. But they staked out the principle and left it for succeeding generations to work out the details.
When they wrote the "equal protection" clause into the California constitutions, they surely didn't mean for it to codify the existing balance of equalities and inequalities at the time the phrase was enacted, but to stand as a principle of equality toward which the law should always be striving, so that when some group (i.e, same-sex couples wishing to be married) stands up and says "Hey, we don't seem to be receiving equal protection under the marriage laws here" thr court will turn to that principle.
I'm willing to bet that there are any number of changes, both trivial and significant, flowing from that language that its architects could not have foreseen and would have been discofitted by. Same-sex marriage is surely not the first or the last such.
People who support same sex marriage seem to start from the assumption that homosexuality is a normal condition and that society should not discriminate against people who are born that way. But just because someone is born with a condition does not make it normal. People are born blind and crippled and with all kinds of defects. Biologically speaking, the purpose of sex and love is to propagate the species so homosexual sex and love is deviant behavior that goes against that purpose. Whether homosexuality is caused by a gene or a mother’s hormonal changes, the condition is not normal.
So the question is, should we as a society support or encourage this deviant behavior. In Western societies the birth rate is lower than replacement level, so encouraging homosexuality would be detrimental to society. If as gender studies advocates say, there are not two genders but a range that is flexible, then we should do what we can to discourage flexible members of society from deviating away from being child productive. In societies like China where overpopulation is a problem, perhaps homosexuality should be encouraged and, especially for men since female babies are being aborted at a higher rate and there is a surplus of men.
When people are born, say, without feet, we don’t say “Be crippled and proud” and let them crawl on the ground. We give them artificial limbs to help them be normal. Why is it we encourage gays to be deviant and proud instead of finding ways to help them be normal?
Nor did they think that women were equal to men. Your point is?
In Western societies the birth rate is lower than replacement level, so encouraging homosexuality would be detrimental to society.
Oh, brother. Sure, if you assume that the present level of population must not decrease.
But we're not talking about encouraging homosexuality -- who, exactly, is going to develop a taste for sodomy as a result of this decision?
One could argue as well -- nah, better -- that by promoting the marriage relationship, the law encourages homosexual couples to reproduce (you will recall that this is possible?) and thus will *add* to the birth rate.
If this is true, it scares me too. This would mean that the courts are the true source of the law and that we are all mere subjects of our masters in the black robes.
And I really get ticked off when a spouse in a gay marriage is referred to as "his husband." Why not just "spouse" or "partner"?
Okay, this does not look as outrageous as the comment above led me to believe. I think the amendment process in MASS is hopelessly difficult....but if that's the way they want it, that's the way they get it.
Oh, if only we rubes could see the world through your enlightened eyes. The only morally superior attitude on display here is your own apparent disdain for what in your eyes are ignorant, low-brow proponents of the actually quite reasonable proposition that the institution of marriage is between a man and woman. That is what marriage is understood to be by the overwhelming plurality of voters in California and the U.S. Marriage is also commonly recognized as a cornerstone of successful societies, and yes, I do believe that arbitrary tweaking its definition by judicial fiat, in opposition to the vast majority view, undermines the institution of marriage. Plenty of others hold this view. It is not about lording it over gays and only your own ignorance and intolerance for opposing viewpoints would lead you to say so.
Well...as Bill Maher put it, why don't you call what you're doing a civil union?
This decision was a foregone conclusion once they decided to apply strict scrutiny...interestingly, they dismissed the immutability argument pretty quickly (it was always a piss poor argument, good to see that these Republican judges could see through it).
The same-sex marriage debate is almost always about attacking homosexuals. Sometimes it is about the proper role of the judiciary, that is true, but it is never about marriage. If this was about marriage, we would never have seen the right to contraceptives develop. If homosexuality is so perverse and abnormal, why do we encourage heterosexuals to mimic homosexuality by having non-reproductive sex? Oh right, because we've accepted the ethical principle of individual self-determination in these matters...as long as it involves a penis and a vagina or a couple that do not share the same or similar genitalia. That is what social conservatives have been reduced to arguing about: attack homosexuals, cover it in language about judicial overreach or the sanctity of a version of marriage that doesn't exist now, if it ever truly did, and maybe you can bash the gays just a little bit longer.
Trying to infer a moral lesson from the assumed details of somebody else's personal life has more downside than up for your argument.
Indeed, it did. Teh gayz are taking over -- them and the Muslims and the Amerikkka-hating, black Christian preachers are conspiring to turn us all into Gay-Married, Sharia-practicing, Amerikkka-hating Communists who preach that we need to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps rather than rely on the racist gov'mint.
Interestingly, the patchwork of domestic partnership ordinances, statutes, administrative regulations, etc. may make marriage more problematic for the couples who seek it. Opponents of same-sex marriage, by forcing proponents to compromise in the form of domestic partnerships and civil unions, may have inadvertantly opened the floodgates for those options to be open to opposite-sex couples as well, now that the courts are involved. Prepare yourself for headaches brought on by the litigation that will follow...particularly if an anti-gay amendment is successful in November. By then thousands of couples will have been married and we'll be faced with the question of retroactivity...
Giving gay couples marriage rights in the beginning would have been a much, much simpler and just option.
What rights of "all" Californians is this decision at the expense of? The "rights" to through the majoritarian process make laws preventing gay people from marrying other gay people? If that is what you mean, I am not sure why this is a profound harm, or a harm at all, to those affected.
... er, it's precisely because when federal constitutional amendment 14 was passed, they didn't think that women were equal to men, that ANOTHER amendment had to be passed to give women the right to vote.
Any federal judge who had relied on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause to give women the right to vote would have been guilty of making stuff up about the constitution, just as the california justices did today.
That's rude and uncalled for.
It doesn't matter what they intended, it matters what they wrote. And "due process" means that process which is actually due, regardless of what the person who wrote the words "due process" thinks is due.
The words "equal protection" mean protection that is actually equal. If we are guaranteed equal protection, and can argue that equal protection requires X, then we are guaranteed X.
Chimaxx wrote:
No, but I'm willing to bet that they were smart enough to understand that such bold language would eventually lead to changes that none of them could foresee, and perhaps to changes that, if enacted immediately upon passage of the constitution, would have made them uncomfortable.
Absolutely, which is why they included an amendment process so that future generations could change their handiwork. But judges arbitrarily changing the meaning of what they wrote? How could they ever have thought that acceptable?
Those who wrote "All men are created equal" into the Declaration of Independence would likely have been appalled to have that language appropriated during the fight to have voting rights extended beyond wealthy landowners to all white men, then again to all men of any color, and once more to women. But they staked out the principle and left it for succeeding generations to work out the details.
... and how were federal voting rights extended to african-americans and to women? By judges deliberately (or through ignorance) changing the meaning of the constitution, or by legistlatures and the people passing constitutional amendments? The latter, of course. Which is how the process is supposed to work.
When they wrote the "equal protection" clause into the California constitutions, they surely didn't mean for it to codify the existing balance of equalities and inequalities at the time the phrase was enacted, but to stand as a principle of equality toward which the law should always be striving, so that when some group (i.e, same-sex couples wishing to be married) stands up and says "Hey, we don't seem to be receiving equal protection under the marriage laws here" the court will turn to that principle.
For what you are saying to make sense, we have to imagine that if, say in 1890 (i don't know when the Cali EP clause was adopted, but let's just say 1890), gays had "stood up" and demanded to have their marriages recognized under this clause, those enactors would have agreed that the courts should "turn to that principle" and uphold that right.
Of course, this beggars belief. Those enactors didn't construe their clause to NOT protect gay marriage because gays weren't demanding that right, they construed it that way because they didn't conceive their concept of "equal protection" to cover gay marriage, whether gays liked it or not, protested it or not.
Since we know the enactors would have rejected the idea that a court could legitimately construe their words to mean that gay marriage rights are protected, they would have rejected your contention.
That's bad-faith sophistry in the extreme. It's not hidden homosexual basing to point out that bringing about social change by way of elite opinion, special interest advocacy, and judicial fiat is essentially a troubling 'ends justify the means' solution. That issue is bigger than just gay marriage, it says that using that framework to any end is a legitimate source of social change, and that's good for no one in the long-run.
You argument also arrogantly implies whatever you feel about marriage is self-evidently true, and that no great, democratic public input to massive social change is necessary. I'm open to gay marriage, but I, like many others, view marriage primarily as a difficult-at-times social arrangement that is in the long term interest of society, hence why the state provides benefits for it. To accept same-sex marriage is to accept that marriage has simply become a situation of two people that love each other. Maybe that's true, but let the ballot box speak to that.
Humorously, I see you've also hypocritically tried to head a logical outcome of marriage-as-purely-love off at the pass. By logic, if marriage is now simply an official sounding title to two people living together in love, the state has no compelling interest to offer benefits for this arraignment. People in love is nice, but it's not something in the pressing financial/social benefit of the state. But here's what you say about cutting state benefits from all marriages, straight or gay:
What great fun, suddenly when the goody wagon is threatened you become stuffy Mr. Tradition. Suddenly your same-sex marriage stance seems less progressive understanding of the current state of marriage, and more a whiny grievance narrative directed towards jumping on the good ol' fiscal gravy train. What noble times we live in.
That's bad-faith sophistry in the extreme. It's not hidden homosexual basing to point out that bringing about social change by way of elite opinion, special interest advocacy, and judicial fiat is essentially a troubling 'ends justify the means' solution. That issue is bigger than just gay marriage, it says that using that framework to any end is a legitimate source of social change, and that's good for no one in the long-run.
You argument also arrogantly implies whatever you feel about marriage is self-evidently true, and that no great, democratic public input to massive social change is necessary. I'm open to gay marriage, but I, like many others, view marriage primarily as a difficult-at-times social arrangement that is in the long term interest of society, hence why the state provides benefits for it. To accept same-sex marriage is to accept that marriage has simply become a situation of two people that love each other. Maybe that's true, but let the ballot box speak to that.
Humorously, I see you've also hypocritically tried to head a logical outcome of marriage-as-purely-love off at the pass. By logic, if marriage is now simply an official sounding title to two people living together in love, the state has no compelling interest to offer benefits for this arraignment. People in love is nice, but it's not something in the pressing financial/social benefit of the state. But here's what you say about cutting state benefits from all marriages, straight or gay:
What great fun, suddenly when the goody wagon is threatened you become stuffy Mr. Tradition. Suddenly your same-sex marriage stance seems less progressive understanding of the current state of marriage, and more a whiny grievance narrative directed towards jumping on the good ol' fiscal gravy train. What noble times we live in.
David Schwartz wrote:
Surely when the bill of rights was written, nobody intended freedom of speech to apply to the Internet. Surely when "due process" clauses were written, nobody intended them to apply to DNA testing.
Don't confuse an absence of intent for a different intent. The enactors had no intentions re DNA and the internet because they literally didn't know of their existence.
So since they had no intent, one way or the other, about how those new inventions should be treated, then of course present-day judges have no choice but rely on something other than that (absent) intent when making decisions about them.
In contrast, the enactors of the equal protection clause were aware of homosexuals. And there's no doubt that had someone suggested at the time of enactment that they were enacting a provision that protects and mandates gay marriage, they would have laughed incredulously at it. In this case, there is no absence-of-intent. The enactor's intent would have been clear: No, the EPC does not, and should not be construed to, protect gay marriage.
It doesn't matter what they intended, it matters what they wrote. And "due process" means that process which is actually due, regardless of what the person who wrote the words "due process" thinks is due.
The words "equal protection" mean protection that is actually equal. If we are guaranteed equal protection, and can argue that equal protection requires X, then we are guaranteed X.
Words are nothing but weird symbols scratched on paper sans their meaning. The meaning the enactors intended those words to convey is everything; the words merely vessels to convey that intention.
Since there's no doubt that the enactors would
I was hurrying out of the office when I posted and didn't have time to get links to the Mass. SJC and AG on the potential unconstitutionality of a constitutional amendment.
From the story in the Boston Globe:
"Attorney General Martha Coakley on Friday warned that a proposed state constitutional referendum seeking to ban gay marriage may be unconstitutional and may trigger protracted litigation if voters endorse the change in the nation's oldest state constitution....Coakley said that even though the Supreme Judicial Court ruled last July that the proposed amendment could be placed on the ballot if approved by the Legislature, at least two justices also questioned whether the amendment is constitutional. She quoted a joint court opinion by Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland saying the 2003 SJC decision that legalized same-sex marriage "may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exist, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage" as only between a man and a woman."
So by going for legalized gay marriage through judicial fiat over the ballot box supporters have also codified that judges are now secular God's-made-flesh who can decide the very rationality of existence. Everybody's cool with that, right?
I agree with this, but I think Alec's point is that many people ("social conservatives") who make this argument are primarily motivated by antipathy towards gays and use this because it is the best argument available. Maybe not so much on a law blog, but in general Alec is correct. Principled opposition to process does not constitute the bulk of the objection. That doesn't mean all the objection comes from "God hates fags" style bigots, either, but it seems to me that the supposedly reasonable fear of change doesn't match up with the social reality on the ground where homosexuality is already tolerated.
I just saw your second post above--you'll note I didn't have time to get a link, either :). You have the right decison, and you are correct as to the holding (unanimous) on the key point regarding the constitutional convention. But it was the dicta from Greaney and Ireland, followed by the AG's speech a year or so later, that concerns me. I have no way of knowing if the opinion could have gotten 4 votes if the specific question were at issue, but that any judge could have possibly advanced the theory is scary.
Here is the case, Schulman v. Riley, and here is some short commentary from the Mass Trial Court Law Library
I would have agreed if there was any way to limit this line of argument in an intellectually honest way, but there isn't. That argument would foreclose Brown v. Board, Roe, etc. No one wants to argue that, however, not even Bork's disciples in the Federalist Society.
Moreover, I can make an argument that this decision is not about "social change" at all, since gay couples have been living openly in California for some time. It doesn't really even result in legal change, since they cannot touch federal rights attached to a marriage license and domestic partnerships were providing the functional equivalent of marriage for the last few years. That change was brought about by the legislature, not by the courts.
Additionally, I noted that some commentators have legitimate questions about the role of the judiciary, but most of those who discuss it are really just interested in gay bashing. The Family Research Council wants to arrest homosexuals for having consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes. Those people are bigots, and any argument about judicial overreach, coming from them, is so ruthlessly self-serving that they can be dismissed out of hand. It has become quite clear that there is no principle of judicial restraint that actually guides them.
You argument also arrogantly implies whatever you feel about marriage is self-evidently true, and that no great, democratic public input to massive social change is necessary. I'm open to gay marriage, but I, like many others, view marriage primarily as a difficult-at-times social arrangement that is in the long term interest of society, hence why the state provides benefits for it.
To accept same-sex marriage is to accept that marriage has simply become a situation of two people that love each other. Maybe that's true, but let the ballot box speak to that.
Well first, it is probably going to the ballot box, whether I like it or not, the California Supreme Court likes it or not, or any gay couples like it or not. Second, I didn't create the environment that made gay marriage obvious, reformers over the past century did.
The recognition of same-sex marriage isn't really about "people in love," as you say. Partly about that, because our society has that view of marriage, at least as reflected in the law. I think gay couples with children fall in the category that you speak of (i.e., they're raising the next generation, so we provide for them), but that isn't the situation you describe, is it? Because there is more at stake in not providing them benefits, isn't there?
Third, you're really opposed to the application of strict scrutiny, not in the outcome of this decision. They're not applying strict scrutiny in most cases, but this court did. A debate over the appropriate level of scrutiny will require delving into the nature of human sexuality and sexual orientation. That's the debate the social conservatives are really having, but they're cloaking it in abstraction after abstraction.
What great fun, suddenly when the goody wagon is threatened you become stuffy Mr. Tradition. Suddenly your same-sex marriage stance seems less progressive understanding of the current state of marriage, and more a whiny grievance narrative directed towards jumping on the good ol' fiscal gravy train. What noble times we live in.
You misunderstand what I am talking about. The government is entangled in marriage to such a degree that attempts to force it out of the institution are, well, pipe dreams for the Libertarian Party to debate at its next convention.
No, not really. Did the enactors of the clause understand that homosexual orientation is not a choice? Did they appreciate the difference between heterosexuals choosing gay sex because it was better than nothing (prison, boarding school) and gay people falling in love and wanting companionship? Being aware of same sex sodomy and actually understanding the cruelty of being raised by society to hate yourself are entirely different things.
When Robert Mugabe nullifies an election in Zimbabwe, we cry out in pious indignation. But when it happens here, our tyrants are toasted as enlightened liberators. If the people didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have voted "wrong".
In a sane world, judges such as these would be immediately removed from office for gross incompetence and corruption. Their abuse of power would be regarded as disgraceful; the stuff of dictatorships. Instead, creeping tyranny is celebrated as a normal part of the political process. The voters don't run the show; the voters are merely an obstacle.
You act as though judicial review of statutes, whether passed by the legislature or by the electorate through the initiative process, is new.
This debate is really tiresome. I respect true advocates of judicial restraint, but they are such a small minority of the population (even if I included those without juris doctorates), that I find it difficult to even have a civil debate with the pretenders.
Does anybody think that we should repeal Loving v. Virginia* and restore the anti-miscegenation laws struck down at the state level by state courts because that change in the definition of marriage didn't happen through a popular referendum?
It seems likely to me that anti-gay marriage laws will suffer the same fate of a mix of judicial and statutory change, probably starting with the former (as was the case for anti-miscegenation laws, also struck down early on by the CSC), and in 40 years hardly anybody will regret the result.
* Loving v. Virginia has to be one of the best double-meaning court case names ever.
Good. This pushes towards the separation of marriage &state which is the way it ought to be. Separation of EVERYTHING and state and PRO-CHOICE on EVERYTHING.
Separation of Church &State
"" School &State
"" Marriage &State
"" etc.
For those who bemoan the "lack" of rights for homosexuals to marry, they have always had the right to marry, just like anyone else has. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That IS what marriage is, despite what the California Supreme Court pulled out of its posterior.
Heh. You wish you could afford to live in those neighborhoods where same-sex marriage is the norm.
It's because the CA Supreme Court made this decision as part and parcel of a system of republican government that permits the judicial branch, thank God, to "check" the worst of democracy/mobocracy, such as ballot measures that take away inalienable rights from social groups and individuals.
The Mugabe analogy is stupid to say the least. The Court has absolutely no "sword" power to enforce its decision, which is entirely how Mugabe gets his way.
They had to write a 170 page decision precisely because it has no power of the sword. If the decision is so bad as Mugabe's decisions are, nothing in the power of the court prevents the other branches of government from turning against it. Oh wait. They are on the court's side. The legislature in fact passed same sex marriage and the pro-gay marriage Republican governor said he doesn't support efforts to overturn the Court's decision by state constitutional amendment.
Your stated rationale for opposition to SSM boils down to these parts of your posting:
"...just because someone is born with a condition does not make it normal. People are born blind and crippled and with all kinds of defects. Biologically speaking, the purpose of sex and love is to propagate the species so homosexual sex and love is deviant behavior that goes against that purpose. Whether homosexuality is caused by a gene or a mother’s hormonal changes, the condition is not normal...why is it we encourage gays to be deviant and proud instead of finding ways to help them be normal?"
I'd like to comment on your point of view, but first I have a question or three which will help me to understand it more clearly:
1)Am I right in concluding from your posting that you'd consider sex between an infertile heterosexual man and a fertile heterosexual woman to be deviant behavior, and that you'd be opposed to their marriage being sanctioned by law?
2) Ditto for a heterosexual couple who have decided not to have kids for a) any of a variety of medical reasons, b) unstated reasons of their own?
I think you can see where this is going. I'm trying to tease out whether your opposition truly centers around species propogation, or whether it is based on some as yet unstated beliefs that you may have concerning homosexual behavior per se.
If no one even claimed the existence of such rights prior to 1970 or so, they can hardly be inalienable.
Besides, we've never been a democracy. In fact the Framers wisely saw the danger of too much democracy and explicitly adopted a system that limited the direct power of the people. Now we can talk about the legitimacy of the government and whether that arises from the consent of the government but that then comes down to the question of what role both the public currently and the political class at the time of adoption (as trusted representatives of the people) expect from judicial institutions. But whether conservative or liberal one thing that is depressingly common is that most of the public expects the court to implement what they see as the morally just solution not passive deference to the other branches of the legislature. Given this fact it seems ludicrous to suppose that somehow the courts have usurped power that wasn't legitimately granted them by the people. The truth is most people expect the courts to exercise less restraint than they do now...just in the way they agree with.
Like it or not we have a long tradition of courts as a co-equal branch of government that from time to time gets its hands dirty with the details of policy. Often these actions are widely acclaimed in retrospect (brown) so if you really want a limited judiciary you are the one demanding a change from the model of government legitimized by public acclaim (whatever they think of particular decisions).
Oh wait, I changed my mind. I want to marry my donkey and my sister. Is that a different line?
You bring up an interesting analogy between anti-gun laws and anti-homosexual "marriage" laws. The problem is that it's not a very good analogy.
There is a very clear part of the US Constitution that addresses the issue of gun ownership and gun wielding. There is no part of the US or California Constitutions that address the issue of people of the same sex being recognized as being "married." You see, that really is the point of the objection. These judges have just pulled this supposed "right" out of thin air.
But it's nothing new. Judges have been doing this for quite some time. It still doesn't make it right, though.
Neither is legal in Tijuana, where I last saw your donkey and your sister.
For better or for worse, California during the Progressive era incorporated significant elements of direct democracy precisely in order to limit the power of the people's representatives, including the judiciary, which, in defiance of the people, has just minted a shiny new fundamental right based largely on the acts of the state legislature.
And you're not seriously suggesting that same-sex marriage falls under the category of an unalienable right derived from the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...."
Yep, sounds to me like it is.
They go on and on about how marriage is now devalued, but never ever come up with an explanation of just how that is going to happen. Some are so bitter, they want to come up with a new institution (sorry, but new fashions always start with gay men, not heteros). Then when you call them on it, they say, oh no - nothing against gays! I'm just against judicial fiat and changing an institution.
So terrific. What do you non-gay bashers suggest for two gay men who can't get married but have adopted children? Don't those children deserve married parents? If marriage is the strong instutition that has survived lo these many centuries, how is it that it will crumble with a handful of gay people getting married? We really are that powerful?
Come now. The changes will be insignificant. And if it really bothers you, then don't bring a gift when your gay couple next door invite you to their wedding. Just ignore it. Then everyone is happy, okay?
Clear to you and a new, post-NRA conservative judicial movement. What would probably be clear to most honest textualists is the presence of qualifying language: "A well-regulated militia." Moreover, what is an "arm" that is covered by the amendment? Those available when it was ratified? That is a question beyond the scope of the text, with clear policy ramifications.
For years, the fourteenth amendment was construed to permit separate but equal race relations...in public education, government employment, marriage, etc. Did the clear meaning of the text change to prohibit bans on interracial marriage at the time of the Loving decision? Why was it expanded to invalidate gender distinctions?
It isn't as easy as you have been persuaded to believe by others with an agenda that is, in fact, not the promotion of majoritarianism.
Care to elaborate? I'd really like to see a serious teleological natural law/right argument for SSM. Quoting the self-evident (half-)truth of human equality doesn't strike me as sufficient.
Randy, your smarmy screeds which feature no real argument beyond 'I like the outcome and don't care how it got there' are a good stand-in for most of the same-sex boosting posts on here. Lot's of gloating with no real intellectual defensible position. For all the cries of secret homophobes behind every keyboard, head over to pajamasmedia and you'll find a gay blogger making the exact same 'worried at precedent' case.
The sad thing is so many same-sex marriage boosters immediately adopt this 'Hah, in YOUR FACE' attitude, which sort of runs counter to the 'small, humble numbers of gay couples just waiting for their chance to be married quietly' meme. In fact, it seems more a case of an ideologically hardened group using a limited sector of state power to get their way, then lording it over everyone else. That's exactly what turned public opinion so sour after the MA decision, not gay marriage, but the loud gloating of the same-sex boosting crowd. And if same-sex boosters adopt the same needlessly smarmy jabs that are displayed in this thread this time around, they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory just as they have before.
You bring up the arguable, but incorrect, notion of the right to bear arms being limited to militia membership. Fine. But it's still an arguable point, not concocted out of thin air.
"Separate but equal" is again an arguable notion, though surely wrong because it is not possible to be equal and separate in the real world.
Anti-miscegination laws are clearly wrong because it's none of the government's business who is married to whom.
The point is that marriage is between a man and a woman. The only purposes the government has in recognizing marriage are to more easily denote parentage of children, and to encourage procreation as public policy. Neither of these have anything to do with homosexuality, unless you want to say that public policy should discourage such behavior. Somehow I don't think that would be very popular these days.
There really is no purpose in declaring homosexuals as being "married" except to further a political agenda. I'm not even sure of the aim of this agenda except to convince others to think such behavior is normal. It appears to be succeeding. Anyone watching television or movies in the past few years would conclude that the majority of American men are homosexual, and most of the rest are whimps.
Help you with your bag, sir?
Noted without comment.
Really, for a law blog, this place has a lot of snarkiness and refusal to use argument.
Not to pile on, but I shook my head when I read that to.
You mean they have the temerity, the unmitigated gall, the sheer affrontary, to express their happiness at being granted the same rights as heterosexual couples--in public, no less?
Based on what? That's certainly not how the state supreme court saw it. They believe that, under California's constitution, "the right to marry constitutes a fundamental right protected by the Constitution" (page 51), and that the protected right includes "the freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice" (page 52).
Your *theory* about the state's interest in marriage is not born out by either tradition or law.
Happiness is not in any way the same as a gloating smarminess, and you have to be taking an out-right 'bad-faith' leap not to get the context of that. That exact scenario was very prominent in the public backlash against the MA decision; what I'm talking about isn't some unknown phenomena. The fact that you avoid that reality in order to make some cheap cutsey-poo remark further backs my statement.
And by the by, gay's already had the same rights as heterosexuals. A gay man could marry a woman the same as a straight man could marry a woman, and visa-versa. What you mean is that your pleased the judiciary has imposed a concept of marriage foreign to the way it's been understood for much of recorded history, sans democratic public input.
You bring up the arguable, but incorrect, notion of the right to bear arms being limited to militia membership.
Not my only point. I was also discussing possible limitations on what constitutes "arms." But regardless, it does not *clearly* spell out an individual right to possess handguns. If the framers wanted to, they could have written such an amendment. They did not.
But it's still an arguable point, not concocted out of thin air.
But that's my point. None of these arguments are concocted out of thin air...at least I don't think so. I can see a very logical argument for upholding virtually any anti-gay statute, amendment or administrative rule. I still don't think that the arguments are concocted out of thin air. I believe this is a problem with the talking heads of judicial conservatism: liberals (at least the academic types) would be less turned off if they weren't so arrogant in their pronouncement of what the law "is."
"Separate but equal" is again an arguable notion, though surely wrong because it is not possible to be equal and separate in the real world.
It is only *surely* wrong because of the interpretation provided by justices who were decried as liberal activists at the time. As strict textualists and originalists have it, the "real world" is where policy makers (i.e., legislators) determine the proper role and scope of the law. The constitution, properly interpreted, does not speak to separate but equal, or any other similar concern. It is impossible to be intellectually honest and accept the Brown decision. I just can't see any honest method that would lead to that result.
The only purposes the government has in recognizing marriage are to more easily denote parentage of children, and to encourage procreation as public policy. Neither of these have anything to do with homosexuality, unless you want to say that public policy should discourage such behavior.
Well, that isn't the only purpose. The promotion of monogamy is another purpose, for public health reasons. Encouraging procreation is questionable; infertile couples and couples with no plans of having children are permitted to marry. This would be less of an issue if the court was applying a rational basis test (although the rationale for invalidating regulations prohibiting marriage for infertile couples would be questionable if that were the case). Here, however, strict scrutiny ruled the day. That's where you should be addressing your arguments: whether or not strict scrutiny should apply to laws that distingish individuals on the basis of sexual orientation.
Sorry it came off as "cutesy-poo." I quite seriously meant that a lot of people don't give a crap if you're offended. I feel safe in saying that at this point my gay neighbors don't care if you approve of them or not. They're more interested in legal recognition of their relationships. People celebrating newly-gained rights and then being subjected to "backlash" isn't exactly new in our history.
No they did not. And you know very well they didn't. To say otherwise, in my opinion, is extremely dishonest. And you were shaking your head at Skyler?!
If that's what it takes, yes.
Again, if this is your sole objection to gay marriage, I'm sure you'll get over it when the excitement dies down and all those gay married people get to argue over the bills and their bank accounts and what color to paint the bathroom.
I really don't think so. And in any case, the so-called backlash failed. A clear majority of massachusetts citizens favor SSM now.
Sorry, but we still have to suffer from ignorant posts like that from some people who still think being gay is immoral, deviant, and wrong. When I see people like you stand up to those people, then I will believe you that you don't harbor any anti-gay sentiments.
"What you mean is that your pleased the judiciary has imposed a concept of marriage foreign to the way it's been understood for much of recorded history, sans democratic public input."
But no, you're not bitter about this decision. Okaaaaayyyyy.
Later Skyler: "That IS what marriage is, despite what the California Supreme Court pulled out of its posterior.
Still Later Skyler: "Really, for a law blog, this place has a lot of snarkiness and refusal to use argument."
Pot, please meet kettle. I guess I'm not 'normal' and I have no right to ask, let alone demand, that the laws of our society treat me as normal. And no, you harbor no hostility toward gays. okaaaayyyy.
Apparently not all that sour, since none of the members who refused to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to reverse that decision lost their bid for reelection.
And by the by, gay's already had the same rights as heterosexuals. A gay man could marry a woman the same as a straight man could marry a woman, and visa-versa. What you mean is that your pleased the judiciary has imposed a concept of marriage foreign to the way it's been understood for much of recorded history, sans democratic public input.
[sic]
Yeah, much like a black person can marry another black person, just not a white person? I mean, what are you getting at? A Jew can marry a Jew? A cripple can marry a cripple? But a guy can't marry a guy? Oh, btw, we're all equal?
I already know what you're going to say: marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, blah blah blah. But the definition of marriage is, of course, variable. Marrying outside of one's race or faith was as unthinkable a century ago as was marrying within one's gender, even if it was legally permissible (and in the case of race, more often than not, it was impermissible). You're ironically imposing a liberal, modern definition on marriage even as you seek to prohibit same-sex marriage.
This debate is getting absurd. Everyone is entrenched. Let the voters haggle it out. We'll see what happens in November, I guess.
It was only a matter of time before someone brought out that old saw. Would you care to explain how the same logic does not apply to Loving v. Virginia—that is, that black people and white people had the right to marry someone of the same race, that this is how the concept of marriage had long been understood, and that the Supreme Court should not have overruled it "sans democratic public input"?
Skyler, is this just your opinion, or is there some source for this (in California law or tradition or even otherwise, but really here in order to be relevant I think it would have to be CA)?
If it were accurate, why would the state allow or encourage marriage of infertile opposite-sex couples, or those who just don't want to have kids, or those who are no longer of childbearing age?
And as for the idea that marriage is "between a man and a woman" by definition: There's no "argument" (as you say you wish there were more of on this thread) if you assume your conclusion. If we all agreed with your definitional premise, we would all agree with your conclusion. And if four justices of the Cal. Supreme Court did, we would not be having this conversation. So you'd do better to explain your argument in other terms.
Substantively, are you so certain that this definition is the only correct one because you believe that words (or all legal terms of art) have immutable definitions across all time and place and context, or is there something more nuanced or specific that you're trying to convey here? Because I don't think that claim would hold up.
Where's John Wayne when you really need him?
(Oops. My snarky attitude just cost us Oklahoma. Sorry fellas!)
I'll add that, whenever someone starts a discussion like this by proclaimingtheir open-mindedness but insisting that they just have a few legal concerns, as Talkosaurus did—"That's not a knock on gay marriage, but"; "I'm open to gay marriage, but"; "I have zero moral qualms about gay marriage"—they always end up revealing, yep, moral qualms about abortion. It's as sure as the sun rising in the east.
I got it, at least. Have a good night's sleep.
It causes those who oppose gay marriage to conclude that the only way they can stop it is to put up constitutional amendments specifically forbidding gays to marry. There was one on the ballot here in South Carolina that passed handily. Others have passed in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, and Oregon. Yes, freakin' Oregon. It's safe to say all this was a direct result of the Massachusetts Court's actions.
If the courts can short-circuit the legislative process, then SSM opponents will decide they have to short-circuit the courts, making it harder for gay marriage to eventually be recognized in those states.
No.
1. The rights of gay people to acheieve their victory at the ballot box by persuading their citizens.
2. The rights of all Californians to vote freely for this outcome and actually recognize their fellow citizens as equals.
Why would you want to get in the way of that, unless you were a bigot?
LOL. Yes, as a same-sex "marriage" denialist (my argument is it's impossible, but whatever, the battle is lost ... ), sometimes I think the trump card is let the other guys win. But alas, they've won, and in the time-honored method of judicial fiat.
OK, let's go with it for the moment. I immediate suggest all mothers of gay people to start making sly suggestions that maybe their boyfriends should make honest men out of them.
I guess my next two questions:
1. Should gay people wait to get married before having sex? Is it immoral for them to fail to do so?
2. Will there legally be an expectation of monogamy in a gay marriage? Would failure to maintain monogamy be grounds for divorce?
All you folks enjoying the spoils of victory: Think about it. You're gonna have ONE man for the rest of your life, forsaking all others. And the one you marry: He's gonna struggle with his weight as he gets older, become more flatulent, particularly while sleeping, get grumpier, grow ear and nose hair, possibly become bald, may get laid off and depressed and take to watching television on Sundays while telling you to "shut up and get me another beer and a sandwich."
Good luck. Remember you asked for this :)
2. The rights of all Californians to vote freely for this outcome and actually recognize their fellow citizens as equals.
Why would you want to get in the way of that, unless you were a bigot?"
Do you think the black minority in the 1950s would have been able to achieve their goals of equal access to public education or marriage rights by persuasion of the remainder of the public at the ballot boxes? (We'll ignore the inconvenient problem that they were often restricted from voting to begin with). Do you think they should have had to shoulder that burden, or are there some issues that are properly removed from the whims of the majoritarian process (in this context we tend to refer to such things as individual rights). If you think so, why is the right to marry a person of one's choosing, regardless of race or sex, not among those issues properly removed from the sphere of referenda or legislation?
Might it also make you feel better that these judges were not only appointed by Republican governors (all but one) but were also re-elected by the Californian people? Between all that and the initiative this November, it seems like The People got as involved in this one as they could possibly get.
What did I miss here?
The great thing about gay marriage threads is the utter inability of the homophobes to argue without sounding stupid. It restores my faith in language.
2. Marriage is about establishing an institution that fosters procreation and provides a vehicle to raise offspring.
3. Without procreation, our species will die out. This is an absolute. I would call fostering an institution that allows our collective continued existence a "compelling interest."
4. No matter how much two guys rump bump, no baby is ever going to come out.
5. By trying to frame marriage as something it is not, you are effectively tearing down the institution that has allowed our continued existence for about 6000 years.
That is all.
It's gotten so bad that many people don't even see this as an insult to black people.
and
The assumptions here being, of course, that gay people have no respect for their bodies, are devoid of spiritual and moral fiber, and are incapable of commitment. Therefore marriage, as straight people see it, will impose some intolerable burden on them that they will, by their very natures, fail to shoulder.
BTW, Bill, what is the "legal expectation of monogamy" in a straight marriage?
I thought the whole point of rights being self-evident was that I didn't have to elaborate.
But ok, I'll elaborate. I consider marriage a fundamental, natural right which is an essential component of the pursuit of happiness. I don't think that's a controversial stance. That being the case, I think gays are equally entitled to pursue happiness.
Yeah, yeah, you say procreation, I say then do straight married people have to have kids to get benefits, you say no cause they could have children, I say whabout infertile people, you say shut up. Let's skip past all that and get to your inimitable Point #6:
This, I love. You seem to not only be saying that gay marriage not only illegitimizes (how?) straight marriage, but that it will actually end straight marriage, and that this process will lead to the end of human life on this planet. Sir/Madam, if I could get your autograph, I would.
Golly, did I say all that? I'm pretty sure I didn't say all that.
If only giving a marriage license to people who were capable of procreating and promised to do so I woud sign up for that in a second if it stopped homosexual marriage. Although I think in a freedom loving country we would gasp at the degree of invasive regulation necessary to make this happen.
What were you saying, then?
Then perhaps you should revisit the marriage laws so that Britney Spears can't get drunk one night in Vegas, marry a friend, then divorce less than 12 hours later.
Ooooh, us gay people, the hand ful that will get married, can wipe away an institution that has lasted 6000 years. Well, either we are so all powerful that you should start electing us as demi-gods, or the institution itself is so weak from hetero meddling that it is about to topple anyway. Or you are just bitter and are using hyperbole.
As I've mentioned before, Canada, Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium, inluding Mass., all have gay marriage. The institution is still going strong there.
But hey, what are a few good facts when you can sound the end times?
You mean we can now be just as miserable as hetero people? Where do I sign up!
(And when we stop having sex in our marriage, I'll call my congressman and demand he start another war, 'cause, you know, that's how heteros work).
Who are you trying to fool Randy? Three of those four nations have negative birth rates. Again, the institution is dead in those areas, but they are still using the name to refer to the new institution. It's like tearing down a building on campus that used to be called "Main" and then building a new replacement but it looks total different. The university then calls it "Main." It has the same name, but it is completely different.
As for Britney Spears, etc., there will always be exceptions to the rule. 99.9999999% of the time though marriage is a serious decision that people make. And again, if you would like more onerious regulation to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen I am on board as long as it stops homosexual marriage.
Actually, Randy, you have the right to be as miserable.
Grover:
I was making a little joke, with the subtext being things don't always work out as planned, and in any endeavor, there are tradeoffs.
What about the mothers of lesbians? Why do you only see men marrying men, when you think of the "gays"?
Sounds like heaven till the beer part. Then again if that is your image of straight marriage I am sorry for you.
I didn't want to burden the sentence, and the point, with too many caveats.
As they have well before they instituted SSM. Italy also has very high negative birth rate, and homosexuality still has more stigmas attached to it than in most other countries.
The question is whether SSM affects, directly, or indirectly, birth rates. There is no correlation. So no, I'm not trying to fool anyone.
But your latest comments do prove that the issue for you isn't really about activist judges, or whether this decision represents the will of the people or not, you are against SSM under any conditions whatsoever.
I can't speak for Archon, but I'd say that sums up most people's position. Which is why everytime it's been voted on it's been voted down. And that's why the agenda has to be driven by courts acting with no regard for the law.
No. But gays in California are nowhere near as politically powerless as African-Americans under Jim Crow. In fact, given that the California legislature twice voted for gay marriage, which was vetoed by the Governor, I would say that gays are a very powerful political force and nothing at all like a discrete and insular minority that is isolated and excluded from making gains in the political process due to invidious discrimination. Also, perhaps you are unaware, but gays can vote in California.
Well, I didn't mean to overreact to the joke. But behind the jokes lay a series of largely unfounded accusation too often leveled at gay people.
Not true. Arizona rejected a ban on SSM. And in Massachusetts, when the vote came to put an amendment into their constitution, it was rejected.
Also, in Canada and the european countries, SSM was enacted by their legislatures and representatives, not by judicial decisions, and there was virtually no opposition. (In Spain, the only opposition was the catholic church, and it's supporters, but about 70% of the people supported SSM at the time of enactment. Similar story in Canada.
Do you think that possibly, just possibly, your fears are unfounded? I mean, so far, there is no evidence that divorce has increased in any jurisdictions, nor has birth rates actaully changed much (in the Scan countries, birth rates actually increase slightly recently).
In short, there is no actual evidence of detriment in any place. Now perhaps there will be in the future. Or we might see benefits to SSM that you haven't thought of. But there is a possibility that marriage will survive intact, right?
And frankly, if you say there is no possibility that marriage will survive SSM, then you cross over to wingnut land, and there is no further point is discussing this with you.
Letizia Mencarini, a professor of statistics at the University of Florence, questioned more than 3 000 mothers from five different cities across Italy in an effort to find out what would persuade them to have more children.
She found that the more the father was involved in the chores of looking after the child and household, the more likely his wife was to want and have a second baby. The survey indicated that Italian men do little around the house - fewer than six per cent of mothers responded that their husbands "always" or "often" did household chores . Consequently many women cannot face the dual burden of going out to work and looking after an extra child. They have to give up one of those two options: they usually decide to sacrifice the extra child.
There is evidence from other countries that men's participation in household chores affects the chances that a wife will have a second baby. Sweden’s birth rate is nearly 50 per cent higher than Italy's. Swedish men are rather more willing to share the burden of domestic chores and surveys of Swedish women reveal that 90 per cent say that they could not imagine having children if the father was not prepared to share the responsibilities of the household."
Spain is in a similar situation -- birth rates are dropping. Because they allow SSM? No. Because, another researcher found out, it's becasue of similar issues, along with high housing costs and high unemployment.
So, yes, Waldo, you should be concerned about birth rates, but it has nothing to do with gays getting married, and everything to do with real issues people face, like how are they going to pay for the kid, or have time to care for it.
But the, you don't have an easy scapegoat, so I don't see you backing down anytime soon.
You hit the nail right on the head. I don't care how homosexual marriage comes about, it is just plain bad.
It will take awhile for the full effect of it to become evident. Things like this take decades until we can see the fruits of our faults. Quote me on that and I will see you in 50 years; probably in some sort of virtual reality, holodeck chat forum.
Jon Rowe,
Who gets to decide when a right inheres in human nature? Four judges, the elected legislature, and/or the mob? Remember that in California, the people have the power to directly pass laws without the legislature's blessing.
<blockquote>I can't speak for Archon, but I'd say that sums up most people's position. <b>Which is why everytime it's been voted on it's been voted down. And that's why the agenda has to be driven by courts acting with no regard for the law.</b>
</blockquote>
Now wait a minute, that's not really true in California, is it? the legislature passed SSM into law twice, and then the governor vetoed (ironically because he wanted to wait for the Court decision we have now).
It is in and of itself a detriment. It has nothing to do with divorce rates or marriage rates.
If two people want to be homosexuals, they're free to do so. What is objectionable is the government sanctioning their behavior.
The government has no business sanctioning real marriage either except to provide a convenient means of identifying parentage (which is becoming less necessary because of technology, but still a convenience) and for the public policy of encouraging procreation.
I'm all for excluding the government from recognizing any marriage if it removes this stain of recognizing and legitimizing homosexual conduct.
It's about money, and all about money. Given that, I don't really care what groups can or cannot get married. But now that it's not the traditional man/woman couple anymore and it is all about money, there's really no reason to deny the monetary benefits of marriage to whomever it suits.
That would be two sisters, an uncle and niece, a father and daughter, two men and a woman or two women and a man.
Classic homophobia. Now, after all this time, we realize that for you, it's not about SSM, it's about the existence of gays. We are not here to correct your mistaken impression, but just to note that being gay is not a choice, any more than being hetero is a choice. You have nothing to fear that we wil convert you or your children, since we know best that conversion never works.
And it proves that for a lot of people, being against SSM is really just a front for being anti-gay.
All medical science and social science and just about every gay person who ever lived has agreed with this. You won't of course, because to you homoseuxliaty is a 'stain'. It isn't. It's just who we are. If you understand that, you wouldn't have any problem with gays being gay.
Fortunately, we don't need you or gov't to legitimize our conduct. We joyly have sex without your approval. Tis the same since the beginning of time. In any case, you are losing the battle. jWith each passing year, more people realize that gays are just like everyone else -- we just sleep with different people, but society lives on.
It's about money, and all about money. Given that, I don't really care what groups can or cannot get married. But now that it's not the traditional man/woman couple anymore and it is all about money, there's really no reason to deny the monetary benefits of marriage to whomever it suits.
That would be two sisters, an uncle and niece, a father and daughter, two men and a woman or two women and a man.
Well, not the triads. Our divorce laws make that very problematic. Marriage is fundamentally about two people, in the eyes of the law. You can mix and match the sexual/familial/work relationships among the two, but two it shall be, if it is to be workable.
Skyler: Well if it is just about homosexuality, why are you bothering with things like this:
The only purposes the government has in recognizing marriage are to more easily denote parentage of children, and to encourage procreation as public policy.
From your perspective, any legal recognition of homosexual relationships or legal protection of homosexuals would be problematic. In doing so, you reveal that the source of your opposition is not changed institutions or the role of the judiciary, but rather the existence and social toleration of homosexuality. The ship has sailed on that one, my friend.
Now, you may have strongly held religious beliefs that make you believe homosexuality is wrong. Fair enough. But that is an improper basis for public policy, at least in America. If you think mixing the state and religion works out for you there are a number of jurisdictions you can call home, the bulk of them in the Middle East.
Additionally, we have often stated that the real reason people are against SSM is because they are just against any sort of gay rights, or even any sort of societal acceptance of gays. We should just go right back into the closet! But then people like you say, no no, it's all about overreaching judges, and protecting society blah blah blah.
But it is clear now that no amount of humility on our part would ever satisfy you. Nothing will satisify you until there are no more depictions of gay people on tv or movies, and that all men should be portrayed as John Wayne.
Sorry to say this, but anyone who is concerned about men looking like wimps on tv has more issues with his own masculiinity than with gay people per se.
His reasoning in both cases was that the Legislature has no authority to pass such a law, because the voters passed a statutory initiative in 2000 defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. In California, once the voters have exercised the power to legislate by passing a statutory initiative, the Legislature may not modify that legislation (unless the legislation specifically allows them to). However, that legislation is subject to the same constitutional scrutiny by the courts that any other legislation would be.
Not yet, it hasn't. Only in some rarified communities and television.
And yes, Randy, I don't like homosexuality. I'm not homophobic. I don't "fear" homosexuals. I just don't think it's the right way to behave. You're free to be perverted because it's a free country. But I'm equally as free to consider your behavior wrong.
Has only one of us been paying attention to the polling, particularly of young people?
Or the fact that gay people are pretty open, compared even to the 1990s?
Or the fact that Arizona defeated a marriage amendment in 06, and South Dakota passed one with only 52% of the vote?
You may think that it is "rarified communities," but in fact gay marriage or something similar is recognized in HI, OR, CA, WA, MA, NJ, ME, VT, NH, NY, CT and DC, and much of Western Europe. Those "rarified" communities cover a lot of people, don't they? When you add municipalities that recognize domestic partnerships and those that extend anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation you hardly have "rarified" communities by any definition. The vast majority of states and countries had decriminalized homosexual intercourse before Lawrence was decided.
Marriage has long been seen as a social institution between a man and a woman for the support of society; if people wish to enact same-sex marriage were essentially changing marriage's role to an official sounding title to celebrate two people living together in love. If that is the electorate's will so be it, be surely the state has no compelling reason to provide fiscal/benefit incentives merely to promote people being in love. This isn't opinion, it's common sense; the role of marriage has changed, the situation for incentives no longer exits. Here, however, is what you say about this Alec:
So after spending much time trumpeting how values change, the way we view laws must change, and that traditions are not an impediment to changing ideas of acceptability, you defend good ol' government benefits with the specter of iron-clad custom and tradition. Custom, tradition, and law mold like putty as you argue for same-sex marriage, but these institutions magically become timeless absolutes to preserve a now non-logical freebie process. By using your very own logic in this thread Alec, a person can easily make the case that your proclamation of marriage being limited to a institution between two people is based on bias just as much as those who say it's only between a man and a woman. You both decry and support the exact same set of arguments.
As this thread goes on it looks less and less like anything to do with basic dignity (in the minds of some, as I'm sure not all pro same-sex opinion is aired here), and everything to do with entitlements and a hardened ideological segment defending 'ends justify the means'. As I said before, what noble time we live.
How so? Resorting to personal attacks is usually the first indication of a base argument.
you defend good ol' government benefits with the specter of iron-clad custom and tradition. Custom, tradition, and law mold like putty as you argue for same-sex marriage, but these institutions magically become timeless absolutes to preserve a now non-logical freebie process.
It wasn't me that molded custom, tradition and law to make way for same-sex marriage, it was the heterosexual community at large. It was urbanization, capitalism, free love, contraceptives, cohabitation. It was secularization, liberalization and free markets. It was change. Change in the law, change in the economy, demographic change, moral change, etc. I had very little to do with it. I was just born into it.
My point concerned the polygamy argument: unlike opening up the doors to interracial, interreligious or same-sex marriages, polygamy would require fundamental changes in our laws...at a variety of levels. If you think divorce is an expensive nightmare of a minefield now, triads (or more) make it virtually impossible to navigate. Other areas of the law (evidence, torts, etc.) would also be impacted.
By using your very own logic in this thread Alec, a person can easily make the case that your proclamation of marriage being limited to a institution between two people is based on bias just as much as those who say it's only between a man and a woman.
No. Proponents of, say, consensual adult incest might be able to use my logic, but not polygamists. I actually don't have a big problem with consensual polygamy, it just can't work in our legal system, not without some big shift in the law. I suppose that someone *could* devise a system (the Muslims certainly have, and biblical societies clearly did, as well as other societies), but the practical effect would be to sanction gender discrimination, since the vast majority of polyamorous relationships would be multiple women with one man.
You both decry and support the exact same set of arguments.
No. Any argument against gay marriage has lost teeth: infertile couples get married, couples who have no plan on having children get married, etc. In fact they have the *right* to get married. Gay couples with children, on the other hand, do not have the same rights. That's my point: opponents of gay marriage are not proponents of traditional marriage, they're mostly just anti-gay, and they hide behind more legitimate arguments (overreach by the judiciary, for example) to justify their positions. I agree with them to the extent that marriage was not designed with an anti-gay bias in mind, but I disagree that continuing to deny gay couples the right to marry is anything other than bigotry. There are plenty of concerns unrelated to bigotry, however, that would justify not recognizing polygamous arrangements. First, what is the polygamous unit? Are these a series of marriages to one person, or is each person married to the other, or does it exist only as a single union of, say, three people? How is everything divided at dissolution? Who has claims to what? What happens at death? Who can sue for wrongful death? Does the marital privilege apply during testimony? How does it apply?
Polygamy, like divorce, really does involve momentous legal, institutional and societal change. Same-sex marriage, not so much. Their functional equivalents (couples who either cannot or do not want to biologically reproduce) are already being married off. It would involve acceptance of state recognition of these relationships, perhaps negotiations over what is taught in schools, etc., but you can easily have gay marriage even in a jurisdiction where most people believe homosexuality is wrong, and that belief could even persist for decades (think interracial and interreligious marriages, and divorce), if not indefinitely. I predict, in fact, that that is what will happen over the next forty or so years.
I'll tell you who DOESN'T get to define what's an inalienable right and that's the mobocracy. We can argue whether it's the legislature, courts, executive, constitution, or some combination thereof. But the defining feature of an "inalienable" right is that it is an individual right that the majority cannot take away. Therefore, to have the mobocracy define the unalienable right at whim would make a mockery of such rights.
The complaint about same-sex marriage bans is really that the law does NOT discriminate. It requires every individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, regardless of either party's sexual preference (I detest the term "orientation" - it's a preference, plain and simple). But once you say that a couple has a right to marry, then the same "equal protection" argument demands recognition of every other "group right" every conceived. That is the end of basic constitutional law.
Says you. Liking vanilla ice cream is a "preference." Plato understood homosexuality and heterosexuality to involve "orientations," i.e., longing for the other half!
Sheesh. Between the bigots and the ignorant, I don't know even where to begin!
So really, Skyler, this isn't about protecting the definition of "marriage" based on a historical legal meaning (as you said earlier). You just believe that the state should "legitimize" only heterosexual conduct (or maybe only procreative heterosexual conduct? Not clear to me). This normative belief of yours has nothing to do any historical or legal arguments about marriage. You would do away entirely with this age-old institution in order to ensure that the state supports policies thqat further your desire that people should not engage in homosexual conduct.
And you're free to have that desire, as you note. But you haven't explained why it should inform public policy.
Schwimmer, you are very certain of this if I read you correctly.
Is this based on personal experience that you are projecting onto 7 billion other people? (If so, assuming you're heterosexual, are you saying you, and all of us, are innately oriented towards attraction to both sexes (or neither in particular), but simply prefer the opposite sex?)
Or do you have research that shows you're correct about this?
Or is there some other meaning of the word "preference" that you're using here?
The religious right would like nothing more than for gays to disappear. They don't want to have to deal with us at all. However, the more talk there is about gays and lesbians, the more news, the more photographs, the more gay kids realize that they are not alone, and there are plenty of us. This encourages gay kids to come out and live their lives as normal people, rather than hiding in the closet, or worse, getting married to satisfy parents and family.
And so because of the 'culture wars' of the last two decades or so, even when the religious right demonizes us, or people like Skyler, they end up defeating themselves. It's an implicit recognition that there are some people who are attracted to people of their own gender. so every time Jerry Falwell railed against gays, or Pat Robertson, or skyler, there were gay people saying, you mean there are others like me? I'm not alone? I'm not a freak of nature? And there are whole groups dedicated to advancing acceptance of gays that Robertson is fighting? And gays are now fighting for the right to marry?
So please, skyler and Schwimmer -- continue with your bigoted comments that gays are perverted, or that we 'choose' to be gay. We welcome them! It forces you to admit that gay people actually exist, and that's the biggest hurdle of all.
Once a gay person knows he exists, there simply is no going back. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. So it doesn't really matter if we win this debate -- we win in the long run.
No one has denied that homosexuals exist. I certainly haven't said that anyone should tell them what to do. But the role of government is not to encourage anyone to come out or convert or whatever.
Once you start allowing government to legitimize personal behavior, even reprehensible behavior, then you will in the long term lose out. Because if you require government to condone and sanction your personal behavior, there will come a time when all personal behavior must be officially condoned or be condemned by default.
Like I said, I don't like the government telling me that it has a right to tell me anything about my wife or my child. We see to our own needs. If the government doesn't want to recognize my marriage, I couldn't be more pleased, so long as they don't interfere with my parental responsibilities. And that's the only reason government has any business at all dealing with marriage.
But like with all government programs, a little good can never be good enough they can't go too far and ruin it all. They have created tax and property laws that treat married people differently. And that has now caused a homosexual agenda to step all over this innocently intended government recognition of marriage, which exists solely for the protection of children and parental rights.
I'm not a bigot, Randy R. I don't think being homosexual is important at all in most ways. But it's a biological fact that homosexuality is an aberration. You're free to be homosexual. You're not free to force others to pretend that it isn't an aberration.
Sorry, but I never said that.
"I'm not a bigot, Randy R. I don't think being homosexual is important at all in most ways. But it's a biological fact that homosexuality is an aberration. You're free to be homosexual. You're not free to force others to pretend that it isn't an aberration."
Sorry, but your bigotry shows here. It is also an aberration to be a redhead, or an identical twin, yet I don't see you complaining about their behavior. Of course, you are free to think whatever you like about gays. But homosexuality is a sexual orientation -- that means that I am only attracted to people of my own gender. Just as you are attracted only to people of your opposite gender.
"I just don't think it's the right way to behave. You're free to be perverted because it's a free country. But I'm equally as free to consider your behavior wrong."
The most common cause of death among gay teenagers is suicide. Depression is also common with gay teenagers and many gays. Why? Because of people like you who claim we are perverted and our behavior is wrong.
If you are not gay, then don't worry about it. No one is asking you to suck dick. But if you are gay, then you have a right to know that you are not alone, and that you can lead a perfectly good and happy life while being gay. That's the message any gov't or school should be teaching.
What else would you want to teach? That being gay is bad? To what end? You aren't going to 'convert' gays to being hetero any more than you can convert a hetero to being gay. You would only lead the gay person to depression and possible suicide. if you can't understand this, then I feel very sorry for you. There are several women who now work for PFLAG who say that they had your exact same attitude, then they found out their child was gay, and they treated them badly, which lead to their suicide. Now, finally, when it's too late, they realized the proper response would have been acceptance and love, not bigoted hatred learned from religion or society. Had they done so, they would probably still have their children.
So yes, you are bigoted, because you assume that all gays are perverted. How else can you spin it? Homophobia is the fear of gays (although it has been morphed into the a general anti-gay feeling), but any psychologist can tell you that hate is a product of fear. We dont' hate things that we have no fear of. And obviously, you fear that if the gov't somehow sanctions gays, then some vague bad things will happen. I can assure you only good things happen.
Whatever. Millions of people have changed their attitutudes towards gays in the past two or three decades, and have realized that there is nothing perverted about gay people, any more than there is any thing perverted about straight people. If they can live comfortably with gays, why can't you?
Or maybe it's because the realize that their behavior has been bad.
Red hair is not a fault. It's a variation. It has no influence on an ability to procreate.
Being homosexual is a fault. You can call that bigotry, I call it recognizing truth.
The government has no business teaching anyone anything. The government's sole purpose is to protect individual rights and to protect us from invasion. I'm not seeing teaching anywhere in that equation.
The truth is that homosexual behavior is in and of itself wrong. If you need the government to force us to accept that it isn't wrong, I think that's the clearest indicator that it is wrong.
No, I don't assume it. I understand it. It's a definition. You're trying to change the definition.
Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. Every study on the issue has concluded that sexual orientation is something that is ingrained at least by the early ages, and can't be changed.
Heck, there is even a movement called Exodus that claims to be able to change some gays, but even they admit that 'success' is rare, and comes only after many years of 'reparative therapy.'
But hey what do I know? You obviously know me better than myself, or you must think I am lying. And you know better than any person who has studied the subject, and you know better than even people who are anti-gay like the folks at Exodus. Glad you have everything figured out.
Obviously this going nowhere. b'bye!
I never said that. I don't ascribe a cause to it. I'm sure sometimes it's a choice and sometimes it may not be. I don't claim to have such wisdom, and nor has anyone else, to be able to know all reasons for this behavior. Nature vs. Nurture is an old and largely irrelevent argument. The cause is unimportant.
What makes some people prone to alcoholism? Sometimes we suspect it's partially genetic. Should we treat alcoholics with special privileges? Nope. We understand that alcoholism is bad behavior, no matter the reason for it.
Right, because it causes people to drink too much, which has demonstrably detrimental physical and mental health effects. Whereas homosexuality causes … what problems exactly?
Skyler, one question that no one has ever been able to satisfactorily answer--here on this thread or anywhere else--is, why is homosexuality bad? Legally, the government needs a reason why heterosexuals can get married whereas homosexuals can't; you can't discriminate without justification, and "it's bad behavior" doesn't cut it. What's the justification?
It "inhibits" procreation. Well, so does celibacy and the simple desire not to have children. The government provides equal benefits to those married couples who do have children as it does to those who don't, as has been pointed out to the point of exhaustion. And unmarried parents can claim deductions and tax credits for their children just like married parents can, which certainly seems to show that the government views these as unconnected issues (for all practical purposes, anyway).
And there are no dangers from unsafe homosexual sex that don't also apply to unsafe heterosexual sex, to head off another argument that gets trotted out sometimes. Not to mention that the government uses marriage as an incentive for straight people to form stable, long-lasting commitments as opposed to having multiple partners, which would seem to argue for gay marriage rather than against it.
So it seems like you're left with either the tautology of "it's wrong because it's wrong" or with an appeal to religious values which, by definition, cannot be used to determine American law. Maybe you have another point to share, but if you can't answer this simple question, please don't expect to gain agreement or even respect for your positions.
Because it is not biologically correct. It has nothing to do with religion. It is a trait or behavior that are by definition wrong.
If someone chooses to be childless, that is their expression of free will and we have no business interfering by the government. Also, if someone is childless because they aren't acceptable to another person of the opposite sex, that's also something of no business of the government, it's a way of biology working.
Likewise, homosexuality is aberrant behavior that our government of freedom has no business punishing, yet that's a huge leap away from condoning it.
So, yeah. It's wrong because it's wrong. But that's not a tautology here. It's wrong because of biology and that's that. You can't pretend what isn't true is true just because you want to. We are a sexually reproducing species. Homosexuality is counter to our nature as a species.
The government allows couples to marry that do not choose to have children. This is fine because again we have free will, and people can change their minds, the government has no business inquiring into the intents of peoples' sexual reproduction, etc. The purpose of marriage is to allow for recognizing parentage and to encourage reproduction as public policy. That some choose to marry and not reproduce is fine because many of these couples change their minds, new medicines make ailments better, etc. For all the government knows or has any business knowing, these people may reproduce at some time. They are allowed to marry because society hopes that they will reproduce.
This is not the case with homosexuals. They can't reproduce. By allowing them to "marry" the government would be therefore condoning their homosexual behavior and it has no business doing so.
Skyler, allow me to update that slightly to the new reality of research into "female sperm" and "male eggs" to enable same-sex couples to reproduce:
They are allowed to marry because society [approves of them reproducing]. This is not the case with homosexuals. They can't reproduce [ethically, it would be unsafe and unwise to allow same-sex conception and society should not allow it].
That's awfully weird. But I would suggest that even were such a procedure possible (and ignoring the ethical debate about how to divide the chromosomes), there would be no question as to who the people were that provided the genetic material. The "parents" would be identified by contract. Marriage is not necessary in such a case.
I would also point out that if you accept the public policy argument that government has an interest in promoting procreation, then I would argue that the same public interest is not served by such an expensive method. It need not be encouraged.
First of all, that's obviously not a valid argument, because there's no such thing as being "wrong because of biology"; biology doesn't make moral judgments, even regarding conditions that are actually harmful. Can you think of any other biological phenomena that are "wrong" despite having no negative effects at all? And is infertility "wrong," by the logic you've presented?
Second, even if I granted that homosexuality was harmful (which I don't), it's still not clear why the government should not "condone" it; in fact, it is constitutionally mandated to condone it. Above, you wrote, "Should we treat alcoholics with special privileges?" Well, we do give them access to all kinds of state-subsidized social services, but even aside from that, we don't deprive them of any rights. Alcoholics are still allowed to drive, to go into a bar or a liquor store and get whatever they want, and to get married. In short, we give them what homosexuals don't get: equal rights. What justifies this discrepancy?
Cancer is biologically wrong. Near sightedness is biologically wrong. We don't encourage either of these things. Nor should our government be encouraging homosexuality which is every bit as much wrong.
Well, we certainly shouldn't be doing that either. Socialism is contrary to freedom and does no good for this country. But that's another topic.
If you want to go that route (and I'm not sure I do), and you compare alcoholism to homosexuality, then in your example the response would not be to allow homosexuals to marry another of the same sex, the solution would be government subsidized treatments. I can hear Randy R. howling from here at that idea, so I would say that it's a non-starter.
Second, unsurprisingly, you chose not to address the three questions that are most damning to your position: why, by your logic, infertile people should be able to get married; how homosexuality can be "biologically wrong" when, unlike cancer or even nearsightedness, there are no negative effects; and why we give all of the people you've mentioned—cancer patients, myopic people, alcoholics—equal rights, including equal marriage rights. There isn't much to talk about until you respond to those points.
As for the three points that you think I didn't address, here they are again:
1. Infertile people are not identified by the government, nor should they be. Infertile people can also be cured in many cases. The government's interest is that they hope that these people can reproduce. This is not possible with homosexuals.
2. Homosexuality is biologically wrong because that is not how we reproduce. It's not much simpler than that. The negative effect of homosexuallity is a failure to reproduce. If we were all homosexual, we would die out in one generation.
3. Homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else. They are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no right for anyone, including heterosexuals and myopics, to marry the same sex.
I think your fundamental error is thinking that marriage has something to do with liking someone. Homosexuals are perfectly free to like or love anyone they please and no one really cares, or should care. If fondness for someone intersects with marriage, that's all well and good for all involved. Most people go into business with people they like, too. Most people hang out with people that they like.
The issue isn't whether homosexuals can like or love other people, there's no doubt that they can. The issue is whether the government should be involved in the process of who decides who loves whom. It has no such business. Marriage is about establishing parental rights and encouraging procreation. You have yet to counter that reasoning at all.
Then here I go.
First, our system of marriage is by no means set up in a way that clearly emphasizes procreation: as I've noted, marriage benefits are not contingent on having children, nor are childcare benefits contingent on being married. Nor is it clear that procreation should be the emphasis—we don't have anything approaching a population problem in this country. Anyway, if you're enough of a libertarian to disapprove of state-subsidized treatment for alcoholics, then surely a system of laws and tax benefits to "encourage procreation" (a process that gets along fine on its own, I'd say) should seem like something of a boondoggle to you.
Second, as it suits you to forget, society has plenty of incentives to encourage marriage besides procreation. Some of the most important of these are:
--Encouraging people to form stable family units, rather than having multiple partners.
--Providing a legal framework to protect the rights and property of couples who have formed long-term romantic partnerships, as both straight and gay human beings are wont to do. This is especially important in matters of divorce, wills and trusts, and hospital visitation rights—the latter of which is probably the starkest human rights issue here.
--Providing parental rights, as you note—but this applies to non-biological parents, including of adopted children.
Finally and most importantly, rights are rights and apply to everyone, regardless of the intentions of the law, opinion polls, or anything else. Twice in this thread you've trotted out the saw that homosexuals "are perfectly free to marry someone of the opposite sex," an argument that depends on defining the right such that it only benefits one group of people. A parallel argument would be that, since Christianity is the one true faith, going to Christian churches are the only valid venues of religious observance, and so synagogues are illegal; this is not religious discrimination, since Jews are just as free to worship at church as Christians are.
That we don't have a population problem would indicate that the policy is working to some degree. The institution of marriage is much older than our current situation and was created in time immemorial because of a need to encourage procreation.
Your last point is a non sequitur. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Your argument comparing it to christianity being the only valid choice doesn't fit. Religion is not defined as being Christian, and the founders certainly were aware of nonchristian religions when they created that part of the Constitution.
Your second point is more on the point, but still insufficient. There's no indication that having multiple partners creates instability. Multiple-wive marriages are quite common today and throughout history.
Your claim that romance has something to do with marriage is created out of thin air. The government does not require anyone to love their spouse.
Hospital visitation rights is a small issue that can easily be changed by allowing patients to designate anyone they wish to visit them. There's no need to have a "marriage" to do so, and I'm pretty sure every state in the union has the means of doing so.
Homosexual couples do not have parental rights by natural course and thus could not benefit from this part of marriage. If states choose to allow homosexuals to adopt, then parentage is defined from adoption.
In summation, there is nothing that is gained by perverting the definition of marriage. If two homosexuals have a desire to commit to each other, there is no need for government action to allow it. This all comes down to a political agenda. Homosexuals have found that they can exert political power, or more correctly others have found that they can exert political power by taking on the homosexual agenda. That's there is to this whole issue.
Homosexual "marriage" is not necessary, it requires a redefinition of the concept, and it subverts the purpose of marriage.
Wait…are you saying that demographic groups are advocating for their interests through political means? Get out of here with that conspiracy theory nonsense!
Plus, aren't you the one who pointed out how unpopular the "homosexual agenda" is? Whoever's co-opting it for their own gain must have one doozy of a long-term plan.
Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Your argument comparing it to christianity being the only valid choice doesn't fit. Religion is not defined as being Christian…
Sure, not in this time and place. Earlier, you couldn't believe that homosexuality was being compared with racial equality, and now you don't see the link with religious equality. In every fight over discrimination throughout history, the pro-discrimination side always says that, honest, this time it's different from all the other kinds of discrimination; those were bad, but this time it's good. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. I wonder, when this battle's been won, will you be the "bitter voice crying alone in the wilderness" type, or more of a "tell your kids and yourself that you marched with the good guys for gay rights" kind of guy?
No, there is no link to religious freedom (there is no religious equality) or to racial equality. Homosexuals have a right to be free to be homosexual, but no right to expect government to grant them special privileges.
Demanding that homosexuals be allowed same sex "marriage" is like demanding that alcoholics be given government subsidized beer or gamblers be given money to gamble. Sure, they have a right to drink or gamble, but the government has no business paying for their vice.
Excepting that in our case, the government is already giving beer to the vast majority of alcoholics and gambling money to the vast majority of gamblers.