Well, advocates of gay marriage will be giddy today, with the state Supreme Court ruling:
we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
I disagree with this ruling because I believe the decisions the Court made better belong with the legislature and/or the people. And am troubled by the court’s dismissing their role in deciding this issue, particularly given that the court is redefining an institution which has long had a particular meaning, that of being a union of one man and one woman.
UPDATE: I’m reading the decision for a piece I was asked to write for Pajamas. I’m finding the court makes some solid political arguments. I hope to offer further comments on this. Right now, I’m really troubled that the court reduces marriage to “two adults who share a loving relationship” (p. 7 of the opinion).
Wish the media world weren’t as it is sometimes so I didn’t have to rush to get my opinion out there. Would rather digest this. I’m taking copious notes on my printout of the ruling (well of the first few pages as it’s over 100 pages).
UP-UPDATE: Seem Glenn Reynolds’ opinion is pretty similar to my own, though I’m more ambivalent about gay marriage than he: “Personally, I favor gay marriage, but I think it would be much better if it were adopted through political, rather than judicial, channels — though I realize that some would call that a distinction without a difference where California is concerned. . . .”
They specifically addressed this issue and mentioned that history alone is not sufficient to maintain discrimination. Would it be safe to say you agree with that reasoning?
I would agree with much of the reasoning if it were placed in an article defending gay marriage, but it’s more the language of a political science essay than a legal ruling.
I think they’re wrong here, especially because, as I said in the post, they’re redefining an institution. An institution which had a particular meaning long before California was a state.
I agree with you Dan in that I would prefer matters like this be handled in the legislature. I’m also pessimistic enough to think that this too is a political loser and will most likely be overturned in November through constitutional amendment. However, it’s nice for now I suppose and certainly far more than what we have in Virginia…
GPW, with my head, I agree with your basic stance:
– A State license for anything is a privilege not a right;
– these things should be resolved legislatively;
– gay marriage advocates (which I have been personally since the mid-1990s) should have the guts to be willing to resolve them legislatively;
– because we won this the wrong way, morally it is kind of a loss for gay rights;
– depending how powerful the backlash is, it may end up being a powerful practical loss for gay rights as well (i.e., we’re risking everything, when we already had a perfectly good civil union law that no one in CA could seriously challenge).
Having said all that, my feelings / heart say something else. Gay marriage has arrived. The CA Supreme Court says it has to be taken seriously. That part of it is indeed a happy occasion. It’s way, way, way farther than I dared to hope we would get, back in the 1990s when I started to perceive the need for our society to have gay marriage.
Don’t make me get out my red pencil, GPW. That last paragraph is a real grammatical mess.
I agree with the court’s ruling that there is no compelling state interest for retaining the traditional definition of marriage. However, I also agree with you that this should be left for the people to decide, either through ballot initiative or through their elected representatives.
Get ready to start hearing the words “judicial activism” over and over again.
ILC, I have mixed feelings on this which I will explore in a post Pajamas has commissioned me to write and which I am working on right now.
I genuinely believe this type of situation (courts deciding this issue) that turns people off to gay marriage.
I too would rather have marriage come from the legislature than the courts, but in the case of CA, the legislature passed marriage equality and your governor vetoed it so that it could be decided by the courts. I still don’t quite grasp the logic in all that, but it seems that the court and the legislature agree and the governor agrees in principle so I can hardly see the argument against the decision.
The sad reality of our current politics is that sometimes only the judicial branch has the cojones to do not only what needs to be done but what most of the citizens want to be done. Government is for the most part held hostage by lobbyists and interest groups who represent only small minorities. In addition, the reason we have a bill of rights and a judicial branch is to keep the majority from punishing the minority for being different.
There is no down side to this decision. The simple fact is that there is no legal reasoning by which same sex couples should not be allowed to marry. There are sectarian religious arguments but demoninations and religions who disagree are not required to marry anyone they wish not to (mostly for religious reasons, not the same-sex ones).
No downside, Houndentenor? With a provision slated for this fall’s ballot, this increases its likelihood of passing.
Several comments suggest this issue should be settled either through ballot initiative or through their elected representatives. Correct me if my memory fails me, but did not the California Legislature (elected representatives) twice, pass a bill legalizing gay marriage? The California Legislature and now the California Supreme Court has said gay marriage should be legal in California.
Then why was it not legal,before this court ruling? Because a Republican Governor vetoed the bill, twice. Then that means the only recourse to make it legal is through ballot initiative. In other words, the majority of the people have to approve it. Isn’t this “the tyrany of the majority”?
I too would rather have marriage come from the legislature than the courts, but in the case of CA, the legislature passed marriage equality and your governor vetoed it so that it could be decided by the courts. I still don’t quite grasp the logic in all that,
The logic is that the prohibition on gay marriage was a voter proposition — which, under the California Constitution, cannot be altered by the Legislature without specific provision being made within the proposition.
And that particular twist of our Constitution in allowing direct plebiscite on both the state’s laws and its constitution, which was specifically written to ensure that the Legislature and the judiciary would respect the will of the voters, is what’s going to finally put to bed the stupidity of the gay leftist ruling-by-judicial-fiat strategy to bed this fall.
In other words, the majority of the people have to approve it. Isn’t this “the tyrany of the majority�
Perhaps you prefer the old system of oligarchy or monarchy, where a tiny group of people imposed their will on everyone else, driven by the belief that they knew what was “best”.
I much prefer our system.
The problem is, Cecil, that you have the typical Democrat mindset; namely, that when people reject your opinions at the ballot box, they are obviously wrong, since there’s no possible way that you could be.
Wow, they just defined my relationships with my mother, father, brother, sister and a couple of friends as marriage.
Does this mean I can be prosecuted for bigamy?
#12 NDT, good one. Judicial activism, where (in effect) judges mandate new legislation from the bench, *is* oligarchy.
I haven’t read the ruling, but I’m actually surprised that similar rulings have not happened before. Marriage may not be a right, but the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about equal protection under the law, and we have seen that protection properly extended to a broad segment of the population.
If you’re unsure of whether marriage has a legal definition where same-sex couples do not get the benefit of the law, you need only look at your 1040 and see whether you may file married-filing jointly with your spouse (I could, and it was great, lots of extra money for us), or not.
Not every couple prefers to file jointly, and that’s their prerogative as long as they’re male-female couples 🙂
Every branch of the government in California supports this ruling, the judiciary (obviously), the legislature (which has twice passed bills to legalize gay marriage) and the executive (with Schwarzeneger saying today that he will uphold the ruling and opposes the ballot initiative.)
Is it not enough to have the entire state government on our side?
We could defeat the ballot initiative with 51% of the vote this fall and you’d probably say “we should have 2/3rd’s support.”
I think you just like to be contrarian.
Geesh.
If you’re unsure of whether marriage has a legal definition where same-sex couples do not get the benefit of the law, you need only look at your 1040 and see whether you may file married-filing jointly with your spouse (I could, and it was great, lots of extra money for us), or not.
And I could look at my 1040 and see where people get a benefit for having children — which I am biologically unable to do.
Does that mean I can sue and demand that I get the same benefit as people who have children do regardless of whether I have children or not, under “equal protection”?
Every branch of the government in California supports this ruling, the judiciary (obviously), the legislature (which has twice passed bills to legalize gay marriage) and the executive (with Schwarzeneger saying today that he will uphold the ruling and opposes the ballot initiative.)
Every branch of the state government also supports the state being in an $18 billion dollar budget hole, but I doubt you’ll find the voters thinking the same thing.
In California, our state constitution is explicit; the ultimate authority is the voters.
And that, Erik, is why you and your fellow gay liberals have avoided them as much as possible, even trying to sabotage their petition drive.
Why is that? Don’t you believe that people support you overwhelmingly? Why are you so afraid of letting the public vote on an issue?
The latest Field Poll showed 51% oppose and 49% support. That’s a ballot fight we can win. I’m thrilled we’re going to have the support of the state’s Republican Governor too. It sounds like you want the petitioners to win.
Are you going to help defeat it or not?
Of course I will.
But, in order to secure that, there will be conditions.
First, you need to shelve the leftist hatemongering and make it clear that you respect peoples’ rights to vote as they please. That means you will repudiate the harassment campaign against people who chose to sign the petition.
Second, you will speak out against gay and lesbian people who practice antireligious bigotry and make it clear that people may vote as they choose, as is their right under the state constitution, without harassment for their religious beliefs.
Do you think you can manage that?
Uhh, sure? But why attach all those strings when the only issue is a yes or no on the ballot question? We need to make sure the majority votes “no.” After which we can retreat back into our respective corners and argue until kingdom come.
“The sad reality of our current politics is that sometimes only the judicial branch has the cojones to do not only what needs to be done but what most of the citizens want to be done”
It is not the judicial branches job to “do what needs to be done”. Most citizen want to be done? Look at the vote totals for states that have passed marraige amendments defining it a man-woman only. I think we as a gay community and those who claim to speak for our rights have framed this debate in such a way that we are destined to loose. They talk about love and devotion first, when they should be talking about money, property rights and taxes above all else. Oh wait, that does not work because then you are left with civil unions not “marriage”. I have never seen why the word marriage is so important to some gay couples. If you are in a “marriage” with your partner, is that not something between those two people? Who cares what the state calls it.
#2. You pretend that that meaning has never changed, was timeless. But it has changed many times over.
[Fine, then, defend your statement. Provide me one example of a culture before the 1990s which called same-sex unions marriage when both partners could live in the guise of their biological sex. –Dan]
Arnold supports this. In fact, he demanded it.
Problem is the public even if given a chance would undo all the gains of equality. LGBT issues is the only position I am strongly liberal on. I will be happy to give money to the side supporting marriage equality to fight the November ballot fight.
Only thing I am worried about is the traditional values advocates will want to recall the justices who voted for the decision. But the funny thing is we will get justices with the same position to replace them.
But a man can have children through adoption, so the option is not closed to you. It is just not a biological possibility. Part of the grandeur and gift of being human is that we limited by the facts of our biology.
I meant to say that we are not limited by biology. Humans have intellect and the ability to choose and not be clockwork oranges.
But why attach all those strings when the only issue is a yes or no on the ballot question? We need to make sure the majority votes “no.â€
I think you misunderstand the primary reasons why so many people vote “Yes”.
If gay marriage is associated with antireligious bigotry, it will fail.
If gay marriage is associated with rule by judicial fiat, it will fail.
If gay marriage is associated with harassment of voters, it will fail.
In short, if you want to continue to act like an idiot towards voters, I am neither wasting my time or money on such a thing; indeed, I am very much of the mind that a defeat in this amendment fight would be the very thing needed to slap the gay left into some semblance of reality and intelligent citizenship, versus simply using sexual orientation as their excuse for antisocial and hateful behavior.
“COURT DECREES NUCLEAR FAMILY NOT A STATE INTEREST: 4/3 Decision Tells People They Cannot Subsidize Fundamental Building Block of Society, They Must Subsidize “Love” Between Consenting Adults”
That’s something close to the headline I woud write. Government of the elites, by the elites, for the eltes.
I’m sorry, my love of self-governance outweighs my desire for gay marriage. This decision is much worse for democracy than it is good for gays.
If the people overturn it and write gay marriage out of the CA state constitution, people will have no one but fascist gay activists to blame. And as a matter of principle, the people should overturn it. This decision is an outrageous usurpment of real rights — the right of the people to govern themselves — in the name of phony “rights” — the non-existant right to be treated “equally” for doing something entirely different.
Just a random thought: If the public were to vote on whether or not Bill Gate’s fortune should be confiscated and divided equally among the citizens of the Country, with each citizen receiving a check for $15K, it would overwhelmingly pass. The majority, just like the minority, votes for their self interest. I would not want any of extension of “equal protection” to have to pass the “majority-OKs-it” test. Nobody asked me to vote on whether or not my meth-addict neighbor can get married. I’m not convinced he deserves a vote on my relationship status.
There is NO right to equal protection for doing something entirely different. Coupling with a person of the opposite sex and producing and raising your own children is something that is only possible within the confines of heterosexual relationships, and that gives society the right to offer incentives to heterosexual relationships that it does not offer to other relationships.
Just a random thought: If the public were to vote on whether or not Bill Gate’s fortune should be confiscated and divided equally among the citizens of the Country, with each citizen receiving a check for $15K, it would overwhelmingly pass.
But, oddly enough, that has never been raised as an issue.
Meanwhile, gay marriage has been.
Your view, Mike, is that the Constitution is an immutable document, and that the people should have no right whatsoever to amend or change it.
We should throw out this decision, then, since it is based on wording that was NOT in the original document, but was put there through the amendment process.
The fundamental principle on which the Constitution is based is the right of majority inherent in a democracy. You may not like it, but it is supremely unconstitutional to argue that a minority should be allowed to overrule and command a majority at will.
Just because opposite sex couples are the only ones who can pro-create without assistance (and sometimes even they need assistance), does not mean that the state is compelled to privilege their relationships over others. Should heterosexual couples who need fertility treatments be regarded as less than those couples who don’t?
The state has the right to privilege such relationships, but I see no logical or rational reason to do so other than the biology defense (and I do not believe that biology is destiny). Unless lesbians and gays are by definition unequal in the eyes of the law (which is an argument that a person could make), then they need to be treated as equals under the law. To privilege the relationships of those who can bear children would mean that the law viewed as inferior not only gays and lesbians, but the infertile and post-menopausal women as well.
James Madison on majority rule (from Federalist #51):
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
The Founders were deeply aware of the dangers of majority rule and built many safeguards into the Constitution to prevent such tyranny.
Correct, it doesn’t mean the state is compelled to. But it absolutely gives the state a legitimate, rational reason to promote heterosexual marriage without being compelled to also promote other relationships.
This ruling decrees that the state has no right to promote the nuclear family. Which is ridiculous and outrageous.
You seem to want to argue every issue EXCEPT marriage equality. What are your talking points on why Californians should vote NO on the ballot initiative this fall?
Fabulous. But what is unjust about saying it is best for society if children are raised by their biological parents? Nothing. Which is why this has nothing to do with “tyranny of the majority”
Gays had the right to marry before this decision came down. Show me the evidence that they could not.
Its very reassuring to see that there are at least a handful of other gays who understand this is not an issue of rights being denied gays, and that it is an issue of the very real right to self-governance being usurped.
Its extremely depressing, on the other hand, that the vast majority of gays do not get it.
AE:
But how is the state’s reason rational if there is no evidence that being raised by a non-procreative and/or non-opposite sex couple is a harmful and deleterious option for children? To promote one model of family over another in a rational way requires the marshalling and presentation of objective evidence. So far, the evidence has been lacking (and not for want of trying mind you).
An individual can still object on a personal basis, but that is a matter of opinion and not objective analysis.
As for the question of justness, I would say that any decision not grounded in rationality is an unjust one. I was not raised by my biological parents and do not believe that either society or myself was harmed by this occurence. In fact, though my parents were not my biological ones, I think they were the best ones for the job.
Why is marriage between gays different from permitting polygamy based on the same reasoning?
Oops! Forgive my #40. I see that
So, how about a loving relationship between two sisters being qualified for the state sanction of marriage? I realize this wouldn’t apply to triplets.
What’s up with number “two”? It can’t be a Noah’s Ark kind of thing because that was strictly limited to breeding couples.
So that is the test? In order to promote one thing, the state must prove that everthing else is harmful?
Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous proposition. Other relationships don’t have to be harmful in order for the nuclear family to be best. And the idea that the people dont have the right to promote the best case scenario is outrageous.
The question was whether a person was allowed to marry the person of his choice. For the majority of citizens, the restriction to choose among only members of the opposite sex was no impediment — most heterosexuals choose to marry opposite sex heterosexuals or bisexuals.
But homosexuals did not have such latitude in their choice. They were prescribed either to marry a member of the opposite sex or forgo marriage altogether. For me, a vital human liberty is the ability to marry the person of one’s choice.
This ruling decrees that the state has no right to promote the nuclear family. Which is ridiculous and outrageous.
AE, I respectfully disagree. As I continue to read through the language of the decision, it seems clear to me that the Court does believe that state has every right to promote and regulate the nuclear family. I’m actually quite surprised at how narrow scope the decision is so far (it’s 172 pages – quite a lot to get through). Of course, the court’s definitions of a nuclear family (drawing on both case and CA statutes) is contrary to the procreation ideal I have noticed you focused on in some comments. (Note that I don’t disagree with your point, simply with your characterization of the decision.)
The other thing I notice as I read the decision is that it’s quite heavy on the language of “fundamental right to marry” (quotation marks mine) that we see in many other marriage cases (including Loving v. Virginia. I’m not saying the two are the same, just that I’m seeing some of the same phrasing). This is where I think the right and left disagree on the issue. Either way, the decision is a pretty interesting read.
AE:
For the nuclear family to be considered the best, alternative models must be inferior to that standard and, therefore, harmful. Otherwise, why would it be the best?
I do believe that people have the right to promote what they believe to be the best case scenario. But for such promotion to rise above mere sloganeering, it needs to include objective analysis supporting its claims.
AE:
Hang on a second. It’s one thing for you to say that if a majority of the people support this proposed amendment that democracy has triumphed, it’s quite another to advocate passage without their will even being known. The fact remains that since 2000 the will of the people in California was expressed TWICE through their elected representatives – which is exactly how our system is set up. If these representatives are out-of-touch on this than the voters can make that known in November. I could understand your comments if you opposed same-sex unions in all cases, but you do realize that if a majority votes against the amendment there is no question what the “will of the people” is? The process used to get it may have been flawed but I see no reason to work against passage at all. If the Justices piss you off, move to have them impeached or limit the power of the courts. Why the hell would you advocate passage of this amendment???
On a related note, I think it’s insane to allow amendments to any constitution on majority vote – regardless of the issue. That’s why these things keep coming up again and again. Thank God we have a much tougher requirement on screwing with the Constitution at the national level…
Excuse me, I obviously meant that I see no reason to work FOR passage.
I don’t want issues of freedom, or liberty or equality being put to a vote of the people, especially in a society where almost as many people watch “American Idol” as take the time to thoroughly read daily newspapers, in a society where so many people get their “news” of the day from Jon Stewart or Jay and Dave’s nightly monologues.
Stand on a street corner sometime with a petition to repeal the Bill of Rights. Show them excerpts, like the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself, and they’ll sign real fast, especially the gals with curlers in their hair and cigarettes dangling from the corners of their mouths. Let them look at that thing about the right to a trial by jury and at least a couple of old geezers will mumble about the damage the Commies have done to the country. You will be shocked at how few people refuse to sign the petition.
And I certainly don’t want issues of liberty or freedom or equality decided by state legislatures, not when a majority of the Republicans, at least, would crawl on their knees (or hide under their desks) at the first sound of James Dobson’s voice.
And I am not impressed with the argument that marriage between persons of the opposite sex is an institution that we can’t alter. In many societies slavery was an institution, including ours for over 200 years.
I’ve mentioned before that my late sister was in a lesbian relationship for over 30 years. It was a relationship of love, commitment and fidelity. They could not enter into marriage or a civil union and after 2000, when their state’s constitution was amended, they had absolutely no standing in their state and could not even petition their legislature for any relief from discrimination. My sister battled cancer for four years, finally losing her fight when it spread to her brain.
Of every experience I shared with my sister during those four years there is one I remember more than others, something I may never forget. It was the indignity of my sister sitting in a wheelchair or lying on a gurney while her partner dug in her purse to get out the power of attorney hospitals required better letting her partner admit my sister.
In 40 years of marriage there have been many occasions when I have had to take my wife to a hospital. Not only have I never needed to show a power of attorney, not once did I ever have to prove I was her husband.
You see, despite the 14th Amendment, under the laws of most states, I am a first class citizen and my late sister was a second class citizen — well, maybe not. After 2000 the state in which my sister lived did not even consider her a citizen of any class.
And if that didn’t bother me I surely would be upset by the fact that after my sister’s partner had a baby by artificial insemination my sister was not allowed to adopt the child. Even though my sister devoted ten years of her life (and love) to helping raise that boy, had her partner died first my sister would have had no right to keep the child.
It was 1955, 179 years after our Founders adopted a declaration that all men are created equal, before racially segregated schools were banned. And it took the Supreme Court to do it. And another decade passed before the peoples’ elected representatives in Congress finally passed a major civil rights act and a voting rights act.
If left to the people and state legislatures, I’m convinced racially segregated schools would still exist in a number of states (not all in the South, by the way). And there might even still be “Whites Only” and “Colored Only” drinking fountains and toilets in public places.
If it hadn’t been for the Supreme Court, condoms might still be illegal in Rhode Island. Some states and localities might still ban inter-racial marriage. Archaic sodomy laws would still be on the books in some states. Etc. Etc.
As long as marriage is sanctioned by licenses issued by states it should comply with the 14th Amendment. The “institution” so many of you refer to is a religious one. That doesn’t have to change; no one is suggesting that churches must conduct or recognize marriages between persons of the same sex.
But that religious-based institution should never stand in the way of state-sanctioned marriage of same sex couples. Those who disagree with me should think long and hard about something a Maryland state senator said to another senator who sided with social conservatives attempting to have a state law conform to their religious tenets: “Senator, I remind you that you put your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”
Yeah, sure. And your restrictions would be? Why? What is the compelling state interest in permitting one redefinition of marriage and not another?
Just askin’.
H:
I think restrictions on marriage can be grounded in part on an analysis of what harm would be caused by allowing them to go forward. Each new claim of the right to marry will need to address at minimum this question and most probably others.
Each redefinition should come before the public in its time and be dealt with. Marriage has been redefined many times before and will probably be so again. Each instance will have its own particular texture and nuances.
I live in California and the Legislature has addressed this issue. They legalized gay marriage twice and both times it was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzeneggar. The court is doing their job. It is their job to decide whether laws are consitutional or unconstitutional which is precisely what they did. Just as the courts did in Brown v. Board of Education in overturning segregated schooling. They were not “making” law, they were ruling on law which is one of the main reasons these courts exist.
I don’t want issues of freedom, or liberty or equality being put to a vote of the people
Good. Then you fully support unelected justices being able to take away your property because the government wants to give it to someone who will pay more taxes, i.e. the Kelo decision.
And you also think laws that explicitly prohibit them from doing that that are passed by an electorate should be ignored or struck down.
Stand on a street corner sometime with a petition to repeal the Bill of Rights. Show them excerpts, like the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself, and they’ll sign real fast, especially the gals with curlers in their hair and cigarettes dangling from the corners of their mouths.
So you support stripping people who won’t vote what you think is “the right way” of the right to vote and to petition.
In 40 years of marriage there have been many occasions when I have had to take my wife to a hospital. Not only have I never needed to show a power of attorney, not once did I ever have to prove I was her husband.
Technically, those hospitals are breaking the law for convenience’s sake.
And if that didn’t bother me I surely would be upset by the fact that after my sister’s partner had a baby by artificial insemination my sister was not allowed to adopt the child.
Why? After all, since you insist lesbian couples are equal to and can do everything that you and your wife can, why didn’t they just have sex and produce a baby, Trace?
The problem here is that you are attempting to use emotion to avoid what is obvious to everyone — gay and lesbian couples are NOT the same as straight couples. The implications are different, the sociology is different, and the biology is certainly different.
The problem is that you cannot conceptualize that different treatment is not necessarily bad. Indeed, EQUAL treatment of things that are vastly different can cause enormous problems.
Each redefinition should come before the public in its time and be dealt with.
Except in the case of gay marriage, where you argue that the public should have no say, of course.
blah more with your “unelected judges” crap the reason we don’t always elect them is to keep them separate from the need to pander to the electorate. That is so that they can base their decisions on reason and law not on what the mob or the politicians want. It’s a safeguard… a feature not a defect if you will.
Oh hells bells, it looks like I didnt close that first quote (or something). I wish we could edit our comments. Dan? could u fix that? 😀
Here is where I sympathize with your inclination not to trust the electorate, I am inclined not to trust an electorate in which people compare the inhumanity of slavery to refusing to say gay and straight are the same.
Skin color and sexuality are not morally equivalent. There is no fundamental difference between light pigmentation and dark pigmentation. There is a very fundamental difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
And I am always amused to hear mincing white leftists with six-figure jobs comparing the fact that they can’t get married to what segregation really was and looked like.
these are people who file Federal lawsuits if their lattes are cold.
“And I am always amused to hear mincing white leftists with six-figure jobs comparing the fact that they can’t get married to what segregation really was and looked like.”
who calling people names now NDT you hypocritical self loathing fucker! you want to call people names??
In my state they’ve already passed a state amendment barring me from marriage, they’ve already codified it in to the state constitution. I get to listen to my state representatives call me worse that terrorists, i get to listen as they talk about the danger to children and how i should be sent to re-education camps. I get to listen to the same representatives recieve standing ovations from their party members for their “courage.” I neither mince nor am I a leftists but you have always seen fit to label me as one. You who judge your brothers, a typical job for one who seeks forgiveness from a mythical being who floats in the sky.
I apologize for my profanity.
The words of extreme bigotry. Wow. I don’t even know what to say about that. Just: Wow…
What, pray tell, is this “fundamental moral difference” between gays and straights? That’s a pretty big claim. And, so help me God, if you once again bring up makin’ babies, as you normally do…
Oh, for heaven’s sake, [I think it clear that] he was talking about the fact that marriage has changed a lot over time. I mean, Biblically (if you want to go there), there was Abraham with his wife, but also his “female servant” who bore him Ishmael. There were Israeli kings with wives (plural) and concubines.
There are still Islamic countries where multiple wives are socially and religiously acceptable.
How about Levirate marriage, where a brother had to marry his brother’s widow if he died, and provide her with a child?
And of course it used to be that marriages were used by men to seal contracts between themselves, with one marrying off his daughter to the others son. Or they were used to settle royal disputes by creating a “blood relation”.
I mean even as recently as the 1800s incest was not taboo for royal families. In fact it was standard practice for some (russian Tzars and hemophilia anyone?).
And how about other forms of arranged marriage that have existed over time?
It’s clear that both the purpose, nature, and function of marriage in society and as a relationship have been in a constant state of flux. One more small change in concordance with the current “love-based” model of marriage shouldn’t kill anyone or wreak anything. In fact, argument could be made, Dan (and I admit that I am to some degree pulling this out of my ass), that it strengthens it by separating it further from that long and awkward history of being used as a power-tool and by reemphasizing the purely loving nature of the union. (If, of course, you think that’s the business of the government. Which, I don’t really. I’m a John Stuart Mill kind of guy most of the time. But you’ve expressed an interest in such arguments before.)
And that is precisely why you are sick, deluded, and pyschotic.
Of course “makin’ babies” is a fundamental difference, as is the fact that straight couples are the ONLY couples in society in which children can be raised by the two people who produced them — and your insistance that it is an inconsequential difference is freaking psycho, and puts you on the extreme whacko fringe.
Tim in #59, would you please name the state and give some clear references for your charges?
AE, appreciated the the reply above. I’m not disagreeing with you about the Loving decision differences. After all, our analysis of case law in our courts is all about the what makes one case different from the next.
I also have been reading your comments, and I do not disagreee with your point about the fundamental differences between homo- and heterosexuals. (I do disagree with what I think you’re saying in #63 and before that there is a moral difference. Bioligical yes, but not moral, IMO.)
I agree that the state has every right to regulate marriage (especially in favor of children). For me, though, the exclusion of gays and lesbian couples from marriage is not a necessary condition for this compelling state interest to be succesful. That’s really what should be part of the larger debate though.
PSU, all you examples don’t change the fact that non of them are about anything but male and female. You have yet to show an example of a society that accepts same sex marriage.
Sure marriage has changed, for the longest time love had nothing to do with marriage.
Now CA is stating that marriage is between a loving couple. Does that mean that if a couple doesn’t love each other they can’t get married?
Men marrying their children to each other in order to solidify a political or commercial bond, did not consider the married couple blood relatives, it was the children, the result of the union that unified the families through blood.
It all comes down to if you value children and if you think children being raised by their natural parents, all other things being equal, is preferable.
If you do value children and think that they are necessary for society, then the relationships that produce them must necessarily be superior to those that do not. If you think children being raised by their progenitors is preferable, then that ideal is necessarily superior. I think its pretty clear that society believes this, not only because of marriage, but because of child tax credits etc.
It does NOT, however, follow that straight individuals are superior to gay individuals. They are not. These laws are about promoting behavior that is beneficial to society. Different behaviors are of different value to society. The fact that you can go out and buy a Prius, and get a tax credit, where I get none for driving a volkswagon, doesnt make me a lesser individual. It means your behavior in that ONE regard is considered more beneficial than my behavior.
That is the crux of the debate. And I’m glad that we agree that it is a compelling state interest, because that makes my argument much simpler.
If the people have the right to encourage the nuclear family, as you seem to agree they do, there can be no logical or constitutional rationale for compelling them to admit an entirely different type of relationship that is, as a rule, incapable of making nuclear families.
Thats the same as arguing I should get your Prius tax cut for driving a volkswagon.
Could society admit gay relationships? Sure. Should they? That is up for debate. But there is no logical or constitutional reason why they must.
I have to say that this was particularly amusing.
Tim starts by namecalling:
NDT you hypocritical self loathing fucker!
and ends by denigrating personal beliefs:
a typical job for one who seeks forgiveness from a mythical being who floats in the sky
while between the two, claiming how horrible and awful it is for him to be namecalled and have his personal beliefs denigrated — and how bad the people are who do it.
Perhaps in his world, two wrongs do somehow make a right.
And you, NDT, incessantly put words in people’s mouths, lump them into stereotyped categories, name-call (along with the stereotyping), and automatically extrapolate a person’s full beliefs from one position (when they disagree with you). Do you really think you’re a paragon of how to argue?
Don’t political beliefs count as beliefs? You denigrate mine (and other people’s) all the time using your pejorative of “leftist”, or what was that one you used?? Ah, yes, “mincing white leftists with six-figure jobs”.
Actually, AE does that a lot, too. Because I disagree with him on a subjective issue, he says to me, “And that is precisely why you are sick, deluded, and pyschotic.” [Nice spelling, by the way, AE!!]
We fundamentally disagree. I believe (and have arguments, anecdotes, and evidence to support my position) that gay families as a whole are no better or worse for kids than straight ones (be they biological or adoptive or by a surrogate). I think that biological connection matters very little in such a familial relationship. It matters far, far more that there is love and that people care properly for their children. [Straight] bio-parents can be abusive, and adoptive [straight or LGBT] parents can be the most caring loving people ever. Or vice versa. If biological relation did have such an impact, kids raised by LGBT families or adoptive families, or infertile couples who used surrogates, etc. would be worse off generally. All evidence says they’re not.
That’s an honest disagreement. There is no need to personally attack me, or anyone else.
Because I disagree with him on a subjective issue, he says to me, “And that is precisely why you are sick, deluded, and pyschotic.â€
I don’t think the fact that heterosexuals can produce children and homosexuals cannot is in the least bit subjective.
And of course, since you can’t get around that, you try to claim that biological relationships “don’t matter”.
In that case, PSUdain, since you argue that biological relationships “don’t matter” and that you should be allowed to marry whomever you want, please demonstrate intellectual consistency by demanding an end to the ban on incestuous marriage.
AE has the perfect analogy; because you choose to drive a Volkswagen, you are claiming a violation of “equal protection” because you don’t get the same tax credits and carpool-lane privileges as do Prius drivers. I’ll add another; you are like a woman who chooses to get pregnant out of wedlock being upset because she would have to get married to get the same tax breaks as a similarly-situated married couple.
In both cases, the government has chosen what behavior it wants to encourage. You are upset because you don’t want to follow those rules for whatever reason, but you still want the benefits given to those who DO follow the rules.
And finally, PSUdain, the only thing stopping you from marrying a woman is that you’re not sexually attracted to them. Tough. People are not allowed to marry that to which they are sexually attracted all the time. Indeed, we have laws explicitly stating that you may not marry the person to whom you are sexually attracted unless they meet very stringent requirements.
To close, don’t give me that guff about how incest or polygamy is “wrong”. The California Supreme Court established (stupidly) yesterday that “love” is all that matters and that if you “love” something, you should automatically be allowed to marry it, regardless of tradition or what anyone else thinks. In short, you have no right to oppose polygamous or child marriage, and doing so, by the court’s logic, makes you a bigot.
Way to reduce it to just sexual urges again. It sounds so dirty when you put it that way. Forget about love and other higher matters!
You talk a good game about “family” and “the children” and about the “ideal of marriage”. And then you turn around and say it’s not about love. You talk down the very ideals that you just spent time talking up. How good are these loveless arrangements (what would you call them–not a real marriage according to the ideals, certainly) “for the children”? (I’ll put love in for sexual attraction, since there’s more to any couple’s relationship than that.)
What “very stringent requirements? That they’re not a legal minor and they’re not already family? Heavens to betsy! Almost draconian!
Also, the red herring of child marriage again? For God’s sake…do you never tire? One word, then one sentence:
Word: MINORS
Sentence: Minors cannot enter into legal contracts.
AND IF YOU EVEN READ THE QUTOE FROM COURT’S DECISION, THEY DID SPECIFICALLY USE THE WORD “ADULTS”. But don’t let that get in the way of your good old jeremiad about what the court supposedly said. Once more, I must say, “I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.”
Lastly, and most importantly:
[Emphasis mine]. And there is why it’s not valid. Again, it’s one word. I didn’t choose to be gay. Nice try, though. Actually–it wasn’t. Horrible, horrible try.
What have heteros done to deserve marriage rights? Why should they be treated as superior to gays because of a biological coincidence that in-vitro fertilization could easily take the place of?
And I am proud to be bigoted against people who polygamy, incest, pedophilia and bestiality. We can still make distinctions between those and mere homosexuality.
Forget about love and other higher matters!
Any idea what the “L” in “NAMBLA” stands for, PSUdain?
Just because you “love” something is not grounds to marry it.
Furthermore, your “legal contract” argument is bogus, because you have explicitly stated that it is not LAWS that should determine marriage, but whether or not someone “loves” something.
What have heteros done to deserve marriage rights? Why should they be treated as superior to gays because of a biological coincidence that in-vitro fertilization could easily take the place of?
Attmay, since when have you been able to unite two sperm or two eggs from a same-sex couple to produce a child that is the genetic and biological offspring of both parents?
You can’t even fix that one with “in-vitro fertilization” — because you need an egg or a sperm from a third, unrelated party to even produce a child, and that child is not genetically related to both of its parents.
The fact that heterosexual couples can reproduce naturally and gay couples cannot is something that you can neither deny or get around.
#78: No you can’t get two members of the same gender to procreate. You don’t even need to be married to procreate, as many reckless teenagers have proven. But just because you need a man and a woman to make a baby doesn’t mean they have to have sex to do it.
Also, that’s just great that you are comparing committed gay couples to NAMBLA, who uses the word “love” in their acronyms to cover up their real goal: the sexual exploitation of boys. They confuse love with lust.
Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. And assuming that marriage is solely for the purpose of creating children creates a utilitarian view of marriage.
Most heterosexuals also marry for love. Some of them choose not to have children. Some cannot have children and must hire surrogates.
As for the raising of children, what about children whose parents die or abandon them, or children who otherwise would have been aborted if not persuaded to give them up for adoption?
By the way, I oppose gay divorce, except in extreme cases. So if gays want marriage they had better be prepared to stick with it. Till death do us part. I wonder how many gays would get married if gay divorce was not allowed or made extremely difficult.
As long as the same divorce laws were to apply to straight people, Attmay. I’d be, fine with that. Just so long as there was strong language protecting the exceptions you mention, as laws should never trap people in an abusive or generally harmful situation.
But don’t put too much stock in the “gays are promiscuous” stereotype. (Not accusing you of anything! At least not trying to. I’m just talking about that sentence) While it does sometimes hold true still (and more so in the past), the general culture around homosexuality has changed such that many young gay people are now growing up fully expecting a life-long monogamous relationship. (That’s something I should write about sometime…hmm…)
As for the rest of your points, I’ve tried them all in this post and elsewhere. None of them seem to make any impact. (On that note, don’t even consider bringing up infertile couples who have children through the same methods generally employed by gay couples. They are apparently, “Just different”.)
One of the most typical approaches that NDT and AE have used is argument ad absurdum of minor details and even syntax of my statements (often of the very irritating form of post #78, the, “You said [x] so you also think [a] and [b],” form).
Another is taking each argument in a contextual vacuum, as it were, using lines like the NAMBLA one to “debunk” them individually and then moving on to different and sometimes contradictory arguments.
The last is to throw the person making the argument into the pejorative category of “gay leftist” (or “sick, deluded, and pyschotic [sic]”, if it’s AE doing the name calling) and thereby discount anything s/he might say. (I’ve often been called this, despite the fact that I’m a John Stewart Mill type or a Goldwater-ite, with a definite Sullivan flavor.)
And, NDT, why do you always try re-explain to me what I really said?