by Eric Martin
By popular request, an open thread. Possible topics of conversation: Election results in New Jersey, Virginia and upstate New York – as well as ballot measures in Maine. Or: whatever suits your fancy.
Rock on.
298 thoughts on “Wanted: Thread or Alive”
Comments are closed.
What will be claimed as the lesson of 2009: everyone hates Obama and Democrats need to move to the right.
The actual lesson of 2009: the young & minority voters who turned out for 2008 correctly assess that the Democrats they sent to Washington intend to continue with business as usual, and will take very little notice of their concerns.
The actual actual lesson of 2009: some local elections are, you know, local.
I hate it when Americans vote.
Yeah, pretty much every President since Bush Sr. saw the same thing in these “first elections”; with Carter and Reagan before, they were divided. So “lessons” are pretty much non-sequitor, except maybe that nowadays the NJ and VA tend to go opposite the general election with regard to their executives.
NY 23 holds lessons for Republicans if they want to learn them, but its indicativeness depends on whether or not they do.
Maine, OTOH, in so far as it had a lesson, was just depressing.
Italian judge convicts 23 in CIA kidnap case
But it’s a state secret over here, donychaknow?
No lessons in this one, at least none that are apparent.
Oh, and I almost forgot — Houston, in Texas of all places, may be about to make history.
I thought the outcome in ME sucked. I can’t, for the life of me, get my head around what people think is going to happen if gay people are allowed to marry each other. It just leaves me shaking my head.
The NY-23 thing will, of course, be irrefutable proof that what the world needs is more, and more emphatic, reactionary conservative know-nothing ideologues.
Feh.
“No lessons in this one, at least none that are apparent. ”
The lessons are that Independents have jumped ship, minorities didn’t care enough about the issues to vote, and the economy is the number one issue.
“The AP exit polls showed that nearly a third of voters in Virginia described themselves as independents, and nearly as many in New Jersey did. They preferred McDonnell by almost a 2-1 margin over Deeds in Virginia, and Christie over Corzine by a similar margin.”
“In both states, the surveys also suggested the Democrats had difficulty turning out their base, including the large numbers of first-time minority and youth voters whom Obama attracted. The Virginia electorate was whiter in 2009 than it was in 2008, when blacks and Hispanics voted in droves to elect the country’s first black president.”
And exit polls showed a majority of voters rated the “economy and jobs… as the issue that mattered” most.
Health care as an issue ranked fourth as a voter concern. The Dems better get the economy fixed, or their political health is going deteriorate faster then a hospital ward full of Swine Flu patients.
NY 23 holds lessons for Republicans if they want to learn them, but its indicativeness depends on whether or not they do.
The trouble is that there are lots of possible lessons. One might be that incumbents need to move right to avoid tough primary challenges. Whether that will cost them seats in Republican districts is not clear. Hoffman had a lot of negatives other than his political views.
Hey, our old buddy Moe Lane sure is popular over at Wonkette!
russell: “I thought the outcome in ME sucked”
52% of Main voters thought otherwise.
There was a gay rights referendum in Washington State that appears to have received voter approval,giving gay domestic partners all the rights of heterosexual marriage, but without calling it a ‘marriage’
Here’s the referendum wording:
“This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”
Sounds like a good alternative to me. Gays get the rights they say are being denied them (and senior domestic partners get them too) and the marriage ceremony keeps it’s ancient universal meaning: a male-female union.
Of course, the state guaranteeing rights does not transfer to the Federal benefits that accrue to a “marriage.” So I would hardly call it a good alternative
lol at “ancient universal.” Spoken like a member of the truly underinformed.
and the marriage ceremony keeps it’s ancient universal meaning
A father trades his daughter to another family for one of their sons to marry: if she isn’t a virgin or can’t produce sons, the family who now own her can kill her or return her.
Yeah, let’s go back to that “ancient universal meaning”, I’m sure the Maine bigots wanted.
the marriage ceremony keeps it’s ancient universal meaning: a male-female union.
You omitted the “s” at the end of “females.”
“It is proof, yet again, that civil rights should never be decided by mob rule.” – Pam Spaulding
Well, there IS a reason some of us in New England refer to Maine as “the south of the north”.
Apparently, the fresh boiled lobsters (delicious, btw) aren’t the only red creatures in Maine.
52% of Maine voters thought otherwise.
Proving once again that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people kind of sucks when most of “the people” are mean and stupid.
The 52% of Maine voters who voted against marriage equality may resent my calling them mean and stupid, but if they cared what I think of them they’d have voted the other way. Being neither gay nor a Maine resident, I am in no position to express my displeasure to them personally.
People who are either gay or Maine residents — or both — must of course judge for themselves how personally to take their neighbor’s vote against equality. Or their dentist’s vote. Or their mechanic’s, plumber’s, pastor’s, or barber’s vote.
It’s not the American way to mix “politics” with everyday life. We consider it unseemly to let “politics” intrude into personal or business relationships. “Politics” is supposed to be something like sports, where “ordinary” people root for opposing teams and it’s all just harmless fun. Maybe this attitude is a good thing. Maybe.
–TP
Jesurgislac: “A father trades his daughter to another family for one of their sons to marry:”
Right, he wasn’t trading his daughter to another family to marry their daughter, or his son to marry another family’s son…
“if she isn’t a virgin or can’t produce sons, the family who now own her can kill her or return her.”
Well let’s hope they chose the latter more often than the former. But what does that have to do with homosexual marriage in modern times?
John Miller: “Of course, the state guaranteeing rights does not transfer to the Federal benefits that accrue to a “marriage.” So I would hardly call it a good alternative”
Then the answer is to change the federal laws to provide all cohabitating couples the benefits heterosexual couples receive, irregardless of their sexual orientation…
52% of Main voters thought otherwise.
Yeah, and to reiterate, I think that sucks.
I don’t live in ancient universal times. I live in these times.
Gay people have been around for as long as anyone’s been paying attention. Gay people have been bonding in committed pairs for as long as anyone’s been paying attention.
Today, in this country, we give specific legal, social, and financial privileges to heterosexual couples who enter into a publicly declared committed relationship. With a small handful of exceptions those privileges are available to gay couples.
I think that sucks.
There are lots and lots of things that we do now that were not done in the days of ancient universality. Giving legal recognition to gay couples should be one of them.
Seriously, why not? What is the problem?
Your replies seem to be “52% of Mainers say no” and “we didn’t used to do that”. I don’t find either of those to be very compelling.
I’m still waiting for someone to give me a reason why gays should be denied legal recognition of their *existing, actual marriages* that doesn’t boil down to either “it bugs me” or “we never did that before”.
russell: Today, in this country, we give specific legal, social, and financial privileges to heterosexual couples who enter into a publicly declared committed relationship. With a small handful of exceptions those privileges are not available to gay couples.
Fixed that for you. 😉
I’m still waiting for someone to give me a reason why gays should be denied legal recognition of their *existing, actual marriages* that doesn’t boil down to either “it bugs me” or “we never did that before”.
They’ll die first. Probably.
That’s a lot of laws to change when it’s much simpler and more efficient to just let gays be married. No good reason to do the former when the latter is option.
CA’s Prop 8 campaign scared many into thinking schools were going to teach their students homosexuality unless they voted YES, when *surprise surprise* Prop 8 had nothing to do with curriculum or school policy. Did something similar perchance happen in ME? Was this also a vote to save the poor children?
Jay Jerome: “Then the answer is to change the federal laws to provide all cohabitating couples the benefits heterosexual couples receive, irregardless of their sexual orientation… “
Not that I think this is a bad idea, but you DO realize that this is far more radical, complicated, and potentially disruptive than letting gay people get married, right? Not to mention completely against the whole goal of most of the social conservatives who oppose gay marriage.
Plus it’d make us more like the dreaded Europe.
Fixed that for you. 😉
Thanks Jes. With your correction, it reads as intended.
There is no novelty to gay marriage. Gay people enter into committed, publicly declared relationships all the time. As far as I can tell, they have always done so, often in the face of significant hostility.
There is no difference between those relationships and heterosexual marriage except for the fact that they are generally not recognized by the state.
I don’t see any good reason why that should be so.
These ballot measures are a last-ditch effort by a group that is demographically doomed. I wish they weren’t being passed, but their effect is only to temporarily reinstate the ~2000 status quo. 5-10 years from now they will be historical footnotes that will become increasingly embarrassing for their proponents (just like DOMA is for Bill Clinton).
As such I can’t read much into them except “Gradual change requires a series of intermediate states”. That’s where we are, I wish we weren’t, but we are.
I think “regardless” conveys all the meaning of “irregardless” and has the virtue of being an actual word 😉
Jacob D has it right. A couple of other thoughts: the close vote in ME would not have happened 10, maybe even 5 years ago.
The bitterness, while understandable, produces a lot of name-calling, primarily variations on bigot. This is probably not productive. People are being persuaded, not as fast as many would like, but faster than I would have ever thought possible 20 years ago, that letting two gay people have a legally recognized relationship is the right thing to do.
Name calling directed at all opponents of gay marriage does nothing to persuade those who voted ‘no’ this time but did so with reservations. Or, others who, like me, more or less have a sudden realization that what I had thought was right, wasn’t.
The measure passed in WA, but it passed as a civil union measure. This was good marketing. Many people, like it or not, view marriage as a union between a man and a woman (I know, chattel, barren, death, divorce, polygamy–good luck convincing otherwise fair-minded people that they are wrong about what marriage is and is not). Stay with civil union, emphasize that the issue is legal rights, not religious recognition, and time is definitely on the right side. Raise hell with people who view marriage traditionally but who otherwise are fine with equal legal treatment, and lose votes as well as rights.
McKinneyTexas,
That Justice of the Peace in Louisiana who refused to marry an interracial couple for specifically racist reasons was adamantly denying that he is a racist. (I use the past tense because he has apparently resigned.) What did that show? It showed that nowadays even out-and-out racists are embarassed to think of themselves as racists. I say that’s a good thing.
And I say that what makes any kind of bigorty so unfashionable as to embarass its own adherents is, in part, “name calling”. I say a little “name calling” will hasten the day when perfectly nice people who have “reservations” about siding with bigots will feel embarassed enough to stop siding with the bigots.
Waiting for the perfectly nice people with “reservations” to die off is, I grant you, a viable strategy. The trouble is, bigots don’t die off any faster than the people who are the objects of their bigotry.
–TP
McKinneyTexas: Name calling directed at all opponents of gay marriage does nothing to persuade those who voted ‘no’ this time but did so with reservations.
Whatever “reservations” they might have been toying with, they still voted for the bigoted answer.
Many people, like it or not, view marriage as a union between a man and a woman (I know, chattel, barren, death, divorce, polygamy–good luck convincing otherwise fair-minded people that they are wrong about what marriage is and is not).
Well, that’s why, as Pam Spaulding says, civil rights shouldn’t be left to mob rule. People who think two men or two women shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they’ve never heard of such a thing, but who aren’t actually bigots, will be convinced when, just as a matter of course, they live for a few years with same-sex couples marrying. And the objective of the active bigots who pump large amounts of cash into the anti-gay propaganda is to stop that from happening.
Stay with civil union
Stay with legal inequality? That comes well from a het who isn’t being actively discriminated against. McKinney, how would you like it if the mob could vote to decide if you were allowed to get married?
Raise hell with people who view marriage traditionally but who otherwise are fine with equal legal treatment, and lose votes as well as rights.
Plainly, if these people think their personal view of marriage means they’re allowed to deny the freedom to marry to their fellow citizens, they are opposed to equal legal treatment. They’re willing to listen to bigots who tell them that GLBT citizens do not deserve the same right as others. People who listen to bigots, who vote with bigots, who will not vote for equality, will find themselves being called bigots – and if they don’t like it, their best solution to stop acting bigoted.
The bitterness, while understandable, produces a lot of name-calling, primarily variations on bigot. This is probably not productive.
Yes, yes, heaven forfend we risk offending the tender sensibilities of those who would vote to deny others their civil rights. Why, I hear Bull Connor cried himself to sleep every night over those mean people who called him a racist.
You know, Alabama had a law forbidding interracial marriages on their books until 2000, despite the fact that Loving rendered it unenforceable. When a measure was placed on the state ballot to remove this outdated and pointless law, 40% of voters — that’s 40, F-O-R-T-Y — voted to keep it.
There’s a word for those people: Bigots. The same word that applies to the Maine voters who voted for Issue 1.
People who listen to bigots, who vote with bigots, who will not vote for equality, will find themselves being called bigots – and if they don’t like it, their best solution to stop acting bigoted.
QFT
And just so we’re clear, this is yet ANOTHER instance where the GLBT community did exactly what all the conservative hockey pucks who complain about “activist judges” said they should: Accomplished their goals via the legislature. Upon which they were promptly shat upon via a referendum to overturn the law that they got passed.
So we have a situation in which Maine citizens voted to make illegal what was briefly legal, just because it involved gay people. If “bigotry” is not the proper word to describe that, I literally cannot conceive of another appropriate word.
The really significant part of the Washington ballot measure, IHMO, is that it didn’t just talk about “rights.” Unlike most domestic partnership legislation, it spoke specifically of “responsibilities.”
It seems to me that the biggest argument for gay marriage has always been that, unlike most domestic partnerships and other wheezes, marriage comes with responsibilities. And my parents made a point of emphasizing those.
Silly me. I thought that the traditional definition of marriage was one man and as many women as he could afford, plus some concubines thrown into the mix to keep it interesting. (Was the national anthem in King Solomon’s Israel, whose monarch had 700 wives and 300 concubines, “Help Me Make it Through the Night”?)
How do the fundamentalists explain the Biblical story of David, whose shared a love with his brother-in-law that surpassed the love of women?
I have never understood the argument that expanding the institution of marriage to same sex couples would harm the institution itself. An individual marriage is typically as strong as its participants choose for it to be.
Since my wife died in 2006 I have given a good deal of thought to what personal characteristics a good wife (or husband) should embody. If the committment of a prospective spouse to the institution of marriage is so weak that it can be shaken by the marital status of the two women across the street, or that of the man and woman next door, that person is a poor candidate for marriage, IMHO.
I should think that permitting, for example, men who have sex with men to marry one another would actually strengthen the institution of marriage. A man who can openly proclaim his fidelity to the one he loves is less likely to marry (or remain married to) a woman, while furtively seeking man-sex on the downlow.
Given the way the California campaign was run, I’d really like to have a bit more of an idea about what exactly went down in Maine and how the campaign unfolded. In particular, I wonder if an earlier passage, giving more time, have been better or not, and if out of state money entered into the campaign. I’m wondering if they would give an local view or some links that were trustworthy.
lj: Money, the most recent item I’ve seen about it. Judge for yourself whether you think it’s a lot of out of state money. NOM (National Organization for Marriage) is suing to try to get out of saying who their contributors are. The state is having none of it.
I think the campaign was run about as well as it could have been, but who am I to say; I hate politics. The campaign was tailored to Maine, the campaign manager was a Mainer (his story here). 8000 people are said to have volunteered, many for hours and days and weeks. Even people online who second-guessed California mercilessly haven’t been second-guessing this campaign, as far as I can tell. I think we’re just not quite there yet.
Google “No on 1 ads” to see a good sampling of how the campaign was run and judge for yourself. The emphasis was on families (see the ads) and on Maine values (ha) of equality and leaving people the hell alone (my terminology, not the campaign’s) to live their lives. The lies and distortions of the Yes side were called out (panic-mongering about how gay sex is going to be taught to kindergarteners; Yes had the same campaign manager as in California) but other than that the No campaign didn’t talk much about the Yes side — just about families and quality.
Outside the official campaign, there were letters to the editor almost every single day for weeks. Again, mostly people told family stories and talked about equality.
I don’t think more time would have made a difference. The law was passed on May 5 or 6, signatures to force a people’s veto were gathered in record time, and the actual public campaign (outside the Catholic and other churches, let’s say, where signature gathering went on in the summer) didn’t heat up til after Labor Day.
Even if they hadn’t gotten enough signatures in time for the November ballot, I don’t think much would have gone on til the last couple of months before the vote (which would then have been in June 2010 if enough signatures had been gathered by 90 days after the law was passed, or the end of the session, or whatever).
Nice opinion piece here. Probably not what you mean by “trustworthy” because Nemitz clearly takes a side. But it gives an idea of the in-state vs out-of-state involvement and balance.
Personal testimony: I just came from a special service at the UU church in Augusta. People — including me — are devastated, grieving, angry, hurt, exhausted, determined, and optimistic. Though we lost the vote, this campaign has changed things forever. People are out and are not going back into hiding, and thousands of people have just had a tremendous experience of working together. Not just lgbt people but their friends, relatives, co-workers, and allies of whatever persuasion. Not to mention people who don’t particularly care one way or another about lgbt people but care about what kind of a world they’re making for their children.
It took 4 statewide votes before civil rights for gay people “stuck.” Next time, or the time after that … the marriage vote will go the right way.
Because it’s our world too.
Thanks so much for that. I guess ‘trustworthy’ isn’t really the right word, something like ‘insightful and honest’, but I find my English is disappearing bit by bit.
Because it’s our world too.
Right on Janie.
I think McKinney has a point. It just might not apply here.
Were I to meet someone who voted against gay marriage, I don’t think I would be inclined to call him/her a bigot. I would probably give reasons for my position in favor of gay marriage. (Actually, I’ve spoken to people who do oppose gay marriage and did just that. The only difference is that they’ve never gotten to vote on it.)
The furthest I might go, assuming I wasn’t talking to a complete a-hole who just needed a 2 x 4 up the side of the head, would be to say something like, “Someone could make the argument that yours is a bigotted position” or “But don’t you think that’s kind of bigotted?”
I think most people who are at all reachable will respond better to a more gentle form of argumentation than personal attack. As silly as it may seem at times, humans don’t respond well to total honesty. They’ll push back, defend and become more strident, or so it seems to me.
With all that said, I don’t see how that applies to the comments on a blog that people choose to visit to discuss these things, particularly when almost no one here claims to be completely opposed to the idea of gay marriage (or at least civil unions). We’re mostly talking about people outside this conversation as far as I can tell (anyone here vote against gay marriage on Tuesday?), so our total frankness will have no effect on them at all.
In a perfect world, I would favor federal and state government getting out of the business of marriage altogether and only confer civil unions on couples gay or straight, letting churches do what they will, right or wrong. But that ain’t going to happen, so gay marriage it is. (Well, in a perfect world we wouldn’t even need to have this discussion, but I hope you know what I mean.)
hairshirtdonist: In a perfect world, I would favor federal and state government getting out of the business of marriage altogether and only confer civil unions on couples gay or straight, letting churches do what they will, right or wrong. But that ain’t going to happen
…er, it already did. Federal and state government confer civil unions, known as marriage, on any couple not legally banned from civil marriage. That’s your perfect world – except, of course, for the religiously-inspired homophobic bigotry that bans same-sex couples from civil marriage.
And churches (synagogues, temples, mosques, chapels, sacred groves) can already do as they will: they can wed same-sex couples according to their religion, while denying marriage to mixed-sex couples who contravene a rule, or deny marriage to interracial couples, or whatever.
Your perfect world will be in the US, the day DOMA is overthrown.
That’s your perfect world – except, of course, for the religiously-inspired homophobic bigotry that bans same-sex couples from civil marriage.
Well, okay, but isn’t the exception the whole point? Unless you want to split hairs over civil unions vs. civil marriage. So long as everyone gets the same thing and it’s called the same thing, I’m happy. The only reason I wouldn’t bother calling it marriage (for anyone, mind you) is that it would eliminate the controversy specifically with regard to the “traditional” definition of marriage. I don’t harbor any illusions that this would placate gay marriage opponents, but it would shut down one of their main arguments. But, again, that’s not going to happen, so I’d rather just give people their rights and call it what we call it, regardless of who doesn’t like it. So, “gay marriage” it is. (Or, ultimately, just “marriage.” As far as I know, we don’t issue gay parking tickets or pay gay income taxes or drive on gay interstates.)
hairshirthedonist: The only reason I wouldn’t bother calling it marriage (for anyone, mind you) is that it would eliminate the controversy specifically with regard to the “traditional” definition of marriage
No, it wouldn’t. Seriously. Never mind that (as you say) people who object to equal marriage for GLBT people would object to it even if it were called “civil union”: if you eliminate civil marriage from the United States, you don’t eliminate controversy, you explode it.
“…er, it already did”
…er, no it didn’t. As long as everything from tax and inheritance laws to medical proxy are tied to marriage by default, then government is not out of the marriage game. None of those things should be tied to marriage, same or different sex. Then we would have no discussion. Marriage would be social institution to be celbrated by all whom matter.
McKinney — since you are repeating yourself, I will too:
Yet, by and large the “No on 1” campaign was conducted in a way that I hope and believe you would have approved of in this regard. It fought back against dishonest and distorted accusations, but it fought back on the basis of facts and issues, not on the basis of personalities and name-calling. Other than that, the focus stayed on the many couples and families whose lives would have been improved if the marriage law had stayed in place.
Not directly related to the campaign or the marriage issue, I confess to being rude to a Jehovah’s Witness who came to my door yesterday while I was trying to take a nap — if you can call saying “No, thank you” and closing the window rude. Myself, I think she has a lot of damned gall coming onto my property and interrupting my home life (and my nap) trying to shove her religious beliefs in my face. Ditto for the two Mormon young ladies who interruped my outing (with friends) in Boothbay Harbor a few weeks ago by asking if they could talk to us about Jesus Christ. I said, “No, absolutely not.”
If that’s rudeness, I’ll cop to it. Not that I’m proud of it. I am not quick of tongue, and in both cases I was taken off guard, but if I were better on my feet (so to speak) I would have answered differently and done a little proselytizing of my own.
But I’m only human, like everyone else. Just as you look back (as you have said) on every case you try and see things you might or could have done differently, I look back on all my interactions with the knowledge that if I had only been a little more even-tempered, a little more quick of tongue, a little kinder and more patient, I might have done more good in the world. But your cases go along with you doing the best you can in each moment, and so do all my interactions, including those with people who have projected their dark side onto me and then been pleased and comforted to find it there.
In any case, I don’t believe the continuing change that’s going to happen on this issue is going to come just because of how a political campaign is conducted. It is going to come in a form of what you’re talking about: people who thought gay people were the bogeyman finding out that gay people are just (in any way that matters to getting a job done in the world, or being first-class citizens) like everyone else. That this process is well under way is shown by the fact that a vote took place at all.
Personal testimony: I just came from a special service at the UU church in Augusta. People — including me — are devastated, grieving, angry, hurt, exhausted, determined, and optimistic. Though we lost the vote, this campaign has changed things forever. People are out and are not going back into hiding, and thousands of people have just had a tremendous experience of working together. Not just lgbt people but their friends, relatives, co-workers, and allies of whatever persuasion. Not to mention people who don’t particularly care one way or another about lgbt people but care about what kind of a world they’re making for their children.
I’m emerging from my new lurker-only status just to thank JanieM for this testimony…I’m fighting back tears.
Uncle K — thanks. There were a lot of tears in church last night, and you made mine start up again just now.
I wish you wouldn’t just lurk…though I keep intending the same thing myself, so I can understand the urge.
…if you eliminate civil marriage from the United States, you don’t eliminate controversy, you explode it.
That’s why it’s not going to happen. But I wasn’t talking about controversy over marriage in general, but one specific controversy. Either way, I think we want the same thing, regardless of whatever marginal differences exist inside our heads. The rest is academic.
My view, long term, is that the ME campaign and others like it, if conducted in a dignified and positive way, will produce, in the near term, civil unions in a large plurality of states. Over time, more states will find their way and the Supremes, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, will rule that the minority of states will have to give full faith and credit to the acts of states that are now in the majority. DOMA will trip over the Full Faith and Credit clause at the same time. Paralleling these events will be, first, a convention of referring to civil unions as marriages. As this becomes commonplace, the more liberal states will amend their civil union statutes to blend them with their civil marriage statutes. In time, civil marriage between any two adults will be the law of the land. The process is going to take time, just as the civil rights movement took time. Dignity, suasion, example and patience will win out.
FWIW, I routinely get positive feedback from religious conservatives when I tell them that hitching their wagon to a position that more people everyday see mainly as mean-spirited only ensures that their views on economic conservatism, abortion and limited government will be held hostage to their fixation on telling other adults what they can and can’t do. I know most here at ObWi don’t sign on to these other programs, but they are in the mainstream of conservative and independent values.
Marty: As long as everything from tax and inheritance laws to medical proxy are tied to marriage by default, then government is not out of the marriage game.
Quite. Nor would anyone except a few mad libertarians who do not care about anyone else’s civil rights wnt to lose the rights and responsibilities of marriage which are safeguarded by government.
People want to get married, and they want their rights and responsibilities in marriage safeguarded by their government. That’s why all fantasies about denying everyone civil marriage and replacing this with “civil unions” are a pointless waste of space.
Religious bodies already have an absolute right to deny a religious ceremony to any couple they don’t like, according to the forms of their religion.
In too many US states, homophobes who think God needs help from the government to show that He hates queers, have enforced their religious bigotry on couples who simply want to get married – and claims that “government should get out of the marriage business”, which always surface during the arguments about equality in marriage, are either a backdoor way to argue for denying marriage to same-sex couples, or pointless floofery about something that no one actually wants.
McKinney: I know most here at ObWi don’t sign on to these other programs, but they are in the mainstream of conservative and independent values.
Hatred and dismissal of gays, women, and poor people: yeah.
However, it is worth noting that however rooted in conservativism may be the belief that women are breeding machines who ought not to be allowed to control our own bodies, and the belief that poor people deserve to be worked to death, it is true that the more wealthy black men and wealthy gay men who subscribe to conservative “principles” about poor people and about women, the less respectable racism and homophobia become. One day, the homophobia that the Republican party uses to get elected will have to be as coded and disguised as the racism that still appears.
…One day.
An Andrew Sullivan reader on Lincoln on majority rule.
I know most here at ObWi don’t sign on to these other programs, but they are in the mainstream of conservative and independent values.
Just a quibble, for the record.
I am now, and have always been, politically independent. I do not hold the views on economic conservatism, abortion, and limited government that I believe you refer to here.
I doubt that I am in any way unusual.
The process is going to take time, just as the civil rights movement took time. Dignity, suasion, example and patience will win out.
This is an interesting view of the history of the civil rights movement. What actually happened was the federal government passed laws to ensure civil rights, which were accompanied by considerable violence by those opposed to them.
Josh: This is an interesting view of the history of the civil rights movement.
Conservatives who now look back on Martin Luther King as a sort of secular saint, tend not to consider that he was killed for being a troublemaker: for being the kind of difficult, rabble-rousing, dangerous man whose reaction to legal inequality and discrimination is not – as McKinney recommends now – “dignity, suasion, example, and patience” which white folks preferred then and straight bigots prefer now, but with action.
Slacktivist on sinister voting. Any southpaws here feel they should be denied the right to marry if the right-handed majority decide it would be… sinister?
Jes and Josh–wrong on all counts. Yes, the civil rights movement had plenty of moments of violence, but not by the MLK and others. They stood apart from that and persuaded many and embarrassed/shamed many others into rethinking their positions. It didn’t happen overnight, but it happened. The movement began in the immediate aftermath of WWII, picked up steam with Brown vs. Board and got started in earnest in the early 60’s. Yes, the legislation was federal, and that’s because the 14th amendment authorized it. Marriage has been a function of state law since before the constitution. Even still, the constitutional underpinning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the interstate commerce clause.
Mostly in response to McKinney.
1. Jes didn’t say Martin Luther King used violence, she said he took action. She is not wrong about that. His actions made a lot of people angry. Violence ensued. He didn’t perpetrate it himself, but the change that he worked for did not happen by virtue of nothing but sweetness and light. The idea that change happened because of, and only because of, MLK’s non-violence, dignity, etc., and all the other stuff like federal intervention and race riots in the cities had nothing to do with it, seems … just a tad oversimplified. To put it mildly.
2. Nice that you can talk to conservatives so calmly and reasonably. It isn’t your life that’s being subjected to their prejudices via the ballot box. The civil rights of straight people and white people etc. do not depend on whether they call their neighbors mean things or not. Why should mine?
3. You seem to be saying that since marriage has historically been a function of state law, it’s different from civil rights based federally in the 14th amendment. But that’s not the situation any more. When marriage used to be a function of state law, the federal government recognized marriages in whatever way the states defined them. Not any more; DOMA took care of that.
Nice that you can talk to conservatives so calmly and reasonably. It isn’t your life that’s being subjected to their prejudices via the ballot box. The civil rights of straight people and white people etc. do not depend on whether they call their neighbors mean things or not.
I’m not sure why I’m stepping in this, but I am. I think McKinney is talking about what would be more effective, not judging people for being upset or angry. With that:
Why should mine?
They shouldn’t. But the question is whether or not they do.
Reasonable people can disagree about what approach is best, I think. I don’t think McKinney is faulting anyone for wanting to be aggressive so much as advising that it might not work so well. Maybe he’s wrong about that, but that’s not the same thing as telling people they should be nice for the sake of being nice. Rather, he’s saying you should be nice because it will achieve your goals faster or more effectively.
Now, maybe you guys are just arguing about why you think one approach will be more effective than the other, in which case, just ignore me. But it seems to me that the argument is getting to be something other than that, which bothers me.
I think McKinney is talking about what would be more effective, not judging people for being upset or angry … Rather, he’s saying you should be nice because it will achieve your goals faster or more effectively.
This is as elementary as 2+2=4, and I have said over and over again in ObWi threads that I recognize the truth of it, and at the same time that the reality is that it isn’t always possible to be so saintly and perfect.
If everyone was capable of handling other people’s sensibilities so perfectly at all times, McKinney himself wouldn’t be giving a lecture on perfectly modulated behavior on a day when it has been said very explicitly that there’s extra specially large ration of hurt and anger floating around.
Reasonable people can disagree about what approach is best, I think.
I have never remotely disagreed about which approach is best. I have disagreed about which approach is humanly possible, given a movement that involves millions of people, most of whom are not robotically controlled by political activists or human behavior theorists.
What Hairshirt said. I never said I wouldn’t be angry if I were denied the right to marry. I am angry/offended that the right is being denied, and I am especially put off by the bigotry of the public opposition. I am saying that this issue is 2-4 points away from going the right way. That’s the swing vote. I want it to swing in favor of civil rights. I want it to actually swing. Doing that means bringing over people who, largely through ignorance and lack of analysis, are going with what they grew up with. I made my shift by trying to see the world through a gay person’s eyes–didn’t like the way it looked and went from there. If you want to move someone, step in their shoes.
Oh, and Janie’s point about the feds stepping in with DOMA is correct. It is now a federal issue. Or, at least, it’s a fair argument to make. Kind of hard to say it’s fine for the Feds to say what a marriage is and then complain when the feds change the definition–but good luck with getting congress to move its butt. It’s counter-intuitive, but winning state by state has a better chance than getting majorities in both houses and a presidential signature. Even Obama has said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Personally, I don’t think he had any choice, but he did say it.
…on a day when it has been said very explicitly that there’s extra specially large ration of hurt and anger floating around.
I’m sorry about that, JanieM. It sucks. (I’ve been moping because the Phillies lost the World Series, so I guess I need to get some perspective.)
“People who think two men or two women shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they’ve never heard of such a thing, but who aren’t actually bigots, will be convinced when, just as a matter of course, they live for a few years with same-sex couples marrying.”
To the point Jes made here, I will note that gay marriage, when the subject comes up, bothers my wife, who I know is not a bigot.
Yet she looks at me like I am from Mars when I tell her I don’t have a problem with it and, in fact, support gay marriage.
From what I can make out, being outwardly gay in her native Russia is unheard of.
Now that she has been here 5 years — we just celebrated our fifth anniversary on Tuesday — I can see Olga’s stance softening. Which is instructive how being exposed to someone unlike yourself is the best tonic for prejudice.
hairshirthedonist and McKinney — I value both of you and the give and take we’re involved in. I am having a hard day/week/?, but I will try to find some other…stance to come from, than just anger.
McKinney — You wrote, “Kind of hard to say it’s fine for the Feds to say what a marriage is and then complain when the feds change the definition.” Did I say that? Did anyone?
But in fact, if the feds are going to say what marriage is, then I don’t see anything wrong with trying to affect the shape of the decision. (By complaining or other more effective methods.)
As long as we’re here, I suppose I might as well point out that the feds got involved in marriage with Loving, long before DOMA. And since IANAL, there may well be lots of other federal involvement over the years that I’m unaware of.
hairshirthedonist — Well, if it sheds any light on perspective, I can tell you that while as a lifelong Yankee fan I was happy about last night, it didn’t make a dent in the other thing. 😉
Janie–my bad. I often speak/write in shorthand thoughts, causing unintended and unfortunate understanding. The complete thought would be something like this, “conservatives forced a vote on DOMA, thereby federalizing the institution of marriage. Having done so, they cannot now revert back into federalism should the feds determine to leap further into marriage by defining it more broadly.”
Either I’ve badly misunderstood you, or this is our dailyWTF.
I mean, who doesn’t think that MLK was assassinated for being a troublemaker? Are there more than a few PPM of the population that think this?
I think McKinney is talking about what would be more effective, not judging people for being upset or angry.
And McKinney is just plain wrong. That it is nicer for those whose civil rights are not at risk if the people whose civil rights are being denied by mob rule do not take action, but stick to passively being dignified and polite, is perfectly true: and Martin Luther King pointed out in the 1960s that white people counselling patience and passivity to black people were not allies to the civil rights movement, but opponents. Any straight person who says or thinks that they’re not going to support equal rights for GLBT people if the GLBT people aren’t going to be sweetness and light, is no ally and no friend.
Mob rule is not the path to civil rights and equality. The conservatives arguing that the majority ought to have the right to vote away legal rights from a minority are dangerous opponents, whichever way they would vote.
From the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling on November 18, 2003:
While the court stops short of deciding that the right to marry someone of the same sex is “fundamental” such that strict scrutiny must be applied to any statute that impairs it, it nevertheless agrees with the plaintiffs that the right to choose to marry is of fundamental importance (“among the most basic” of every person’s “liberty and due process rights”) and would be “hollow” if an individual was foreclosed from “freely choosing the person with whom to share . . . the . . . institution of civil marriage.”
As both Perez and Loving make clear, the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one’s choice…
Having gotten all embroiled at the voting booth and in arguments about influencing voters, I want to go back to first principles (mine) and say that I don’t believe my right to marry should be subject to majority rule in the first place.
I have mentioned this book before, but then a lot of what we say here we’ve said before, so what the heck. And unlike some people (I’m looking in the direction of the Daily Dish), I have no problem in principle with taking this issue through the courts.
With the current composition of the court…I don’t know.
Janie–the problem with going through the courts is that it invites an electoral backlash that is equal parts ugly and worse than the status quo ante. If the Big Supremes were to rule that the 14th amendment commands states to allow same sex marriage, the next thing you would see is an amendment vacating that decision. Would it pass? I don’t know, but if it did, it would be the law of the land. Fundamentally, civil rights do depend on mob rule (a phrase i will remember and use frequently when we discuss tax policy) since this is a democracy and the constitution has an amendatory process that is democratic in nature.
McKinneyTexas, I think we (the general we, not you and I) have debated here before about whether the aftermath would be more like Loving (no huge backlash) than Roe v. Wade (huge backlash ongoing to this day). It’s kind of staggering to think the response would be worse than Roe; staggering, but not surprising.
I do agree/recognize that civil rights depend on what I tend to call “firepower.” (I won’t bite any hooks labeled “mob rule.”) In fact I have often made this point over the years in response to people who say that they/we (the general they/we) have a “right” to this that or the other thing. No one has a “right” they can’t defend, or maybe it’s better to say that there are “rights” in the abstract and then there’s the real world, where the fact that (for instance) the Supreme Court says strip searches are unconstitutional doesn’t stop police departments from doing them, it only (maybe) provides for redress after the fact.
Something tells me that that catching-more-flies-with-honey-than-with-vinegar deal that McKinney things the GLBT community should stick with works a lot better when the flies are fairly certain that the honey-planters aren’t going to fight back violently. I bet he doesn’t, for example, advocate the sweetness-and-light approach in Afghanistan or Iraq.
this is a democracy and the constitution has an amendatory process that is democratic in nature.
Eh, not really.
Janie–the problem with going through the courts is that it invites an electoral backlash that is equal parts ugly and worse than the status quo ante.
So if the backlash against GLBT people for having the right to get married were as bad as the backlash against women, clinics, and doctors for having the right to decide to terminate/continue a pregnancy, then 36 years after the Supreme Court overturns DOMA, we would see violence ranging from regular arson attacks on courthouses where same-sex couples wed to eight or nine murders of the officiants at same-sex weddings: couples who wanted to marry could well have to travel across half a state to the only well-armed, well-guarded, security-shielded courthouse where same-sex couples can stand up before a civil officiant and say their vows.
After all, that’s exactly what happened to interracial couples and those who wed them after Loving. As someone already noted upthread, when the last state finally repealed the law against interracial marriage, 40% voted to retain it.
The reason homophobic bigots oppose the freedom to marry so strongly is that marriage is a great equalizer. A violent bigot may never in life be reconciled to two men standing up to pledge to love, honor, and cherish each other, or two women vowing constancy and fidelity in the names of Ruth and Naomi, but most people, fairly predictably, will just… get used to the idea. Even like it, when someone they know and love gets married: find themselves going aw when two old men who lived together fifty years finally get to marry; find themselves getting teary-eyed as two women who fell in love and raised three children together walk down two aisles because neither dad will give up his right to give his daughter away.
Homophobic bigots hate marriage reform not because they think there will be a longterm backlash but because they can look at the experience of other countries, and know there will not be.
Marriage and military service – I say this as a lifelong pacifist – are the two great equalizers: the two changes that represent pro-active outreach to GLBT people – to anyone discriminated against.
Racism did not end when the US military allowed black people to serve equally or when the Supreme Court overthrew the democratic will of the people to allow interracial marriages. Homophobia won’t end when DADT and DOMA are overthrown. But things will get better, nonetheless, and that’s why the bigots oppose both so violently.
I don’t get the whole Palin NY-23 thing. She intervenes in a race, gets the more moderate Republican candidate booted, and the Democrat promptly wins in a region that hasn’t elected a Democratic representative in more than 100 years.
And that is a win?
Huh?
JanieM: De-lurking for just a moment to say:
I watched these election returns not with NJ or VA or NY in mind. (And I grew up in NY-23 and visit regularly so I could go on and on about that!) I had you in mind. I’ve read about your efforts here. I was rooting for you. At one point things looked OK and I said “GO Janie!” and had to explain *that* to my wife…
So, as a war-mongering bigoted racist hopeless Conservative – I feel for you here and I was extremely disappointed at the outcome. I really thought you had it here…
Don’t give up hope please. It is close and it is going to happen soon. And I will be very happy for you.
OCSteve — you’re making me cry all over again.
I’ve been thinking of you in the midst of this discussion, remembering when we went at the same topics last year. Thanks for your good thoughts — they do help me remember both that things can change, and that we can keep trying to talk to each other across various chasms.
Also, tell your wife I said hi, and de-lurk more often if your blood pressure can stand it. 😉
Hey, JanieM,
I wrote a long, long post that was lost before I had to do something and forgot to enter my crazy letter password thing before closing my computer. Anyway, everyone loves you, including me, but have you ever stopped to consider why your 30+-married-women-friends would be in favor of civil unions instead of marriages? I wish I knew how to talk to you individually, without these other people, who accuse me of bigotry, because I would be happy to tell you why.
Sapient, “I love you…but” is an old story. So I’ll say I’m glad to be loved, but….
Have you ever stopped to consider that patronizing people does not make them more likely to listen to you? Because it’s hard not to read “have you ever stopped to consider” as a rhetorical question that implies that you are quite sure I can’t possibly have. The idea that you — a stranger in cyberspace — would be happy to inform me what my friends are thinking only reinforces the effect.
You are inventing imaginary people. My friends are not in favor of civil unions “instead of marriages.” They are not looking to exchange their marriages for something else, they are just hypothesizing that re-labeling the same old thing and making it available to same-sex couples would solve the equality problem and shut everybody up about it.
It’s nice that you’re excited about your ideas. But you don’t do yourself any good in the conversation/debate arena by assuming that no one else has thought of them or come to different conclusions about them. And you do seem a bit hard-headed about how welcome the whole “marriage should be abolished” topic is in relation to the issue of same-sex marriage. Especially today.
“assuming that no one else has thought of them or come to different conclusions about them”
— is probably unclear (at best). It should be more like “assuming that no one else has thought about them, or no one else has thought about them and come to different conclusions about them.”
McKinneyTexas:Having done so, they cannot now revert back into federalism should the feds determine to leap further into marriage by defining it more broadly.
I’d call that naive. GOPsters regularly manage to do that on any possible topics even within the same talking point. They follow the classic model of the ants in “The Once and Future King”
Point 9. is of course the most beloved of them all. Group X by (merely) demanding/requesting equal rights (or defending existing ones) is actually viciously attacking those that want to deny them (cf. the Xtian Right and the ‘intolerant’ hate crime laws).
I, for one, want to hear more about Sapient’s incredible mind-reading abilities, such that he can tell us not only what complete strangers think, but why they think it.
Baby steps, Phil. This is the first time I’ve seen Sapient join a discussion about the denial of marriage to same-sex couples without angrily/aggressively attacking marriage and people who want to get married.
…of course that may just be because the browser crashed and lost the “long, long post” with more of the same. Still.
Phil, I was referring to someone JanieM described in another thread in some detail. JanieM said “And by the way, one of the friends who is attached to the civil unions for everyone idea has been married close to 30 years herself. She doesn’t mind that her partnership would be re-labeled; it’s the reality of it that matters to her, not the label.”
Here she describes more extensively the views of some of her friends.
People here seem to base their beliefs about marriage on their own experiences and desires. I was merely suggesting that the woman who JanieM described, after 30 years of marriage, might have some valuable insight. But, on second thought, since I’ve never met the woman or JanieM, I have no reason to care what either one of them thinks.
the problem with going through the courts is that it invites an electoral backlash that is equal parts ugly and worse than the status quo ante.
If civil rights for, frex, blacks hadn’t gone through the courts there would still be places in this country with black and white water fountains, and where black folks would be legally required to sit in the back of the bus.
And don’t you doubt it for one new york minute.
And yeah, the backlash was ugly. People were shot, blown up, beaten, jailed, had dogs set on them, and had fire hoses turned on them. Large portions of major American cities went up in flames.
Hate and stupidity are very, very tenacious.
mob rule (a phrase i will remember and use frequently when we discuss tax policy)
If I’m not mistaken, you’re alluding to discussions of raising the top marginal income tax rate.
I don’t mean to threadjack, but with all due respect my kneejerk response is some combination of “WTF?” and “bring it”.
My more considered response is that I’m not sure I see the two situations as remotely comparable.
My two cents, FWIW.
OC, nice to hear from you. Be well, dude.
Well…that was kind of my point, the part about assuming that I would never have bothered to be interested in the insights of my friends, and would have to go to a stranger on the internet to
1) be informed that my friends might have insights I’d be interested in (!!!!!), and
2) what those insights are.
If it had occurred to you that I might actually have two brain cells to rub together along with an interest in my own friends, you might have started out by asking me why they said what they said instead of offering to tell me.
People here seem to base their beliefs about marriage on their own experiences and desires.
First, this seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way for people to shape their beliefs. Or should the base them on your experiences and desires instead of their own?
But secondly, it sells the people here short by a very long shot. Once again you seem to be saying that because people aren’t coming around to agree with you, they can’t possibly have looked beyond their own noses about a subject that is central to most people’s lives (i.e. relationships).
How old are you? When you framed the question about my friends and their insights, how old were you picturing me as being? What about my friends?
Too early in the morning. My 9:44 was of course addressed to Sapient, and I should have said so.
Russell, thanks for cutting to the chase, as usual.
Hartmut, I’m smiling at the memory of the Once and Future King. I haven’t re-read it for years; maybe it’s time.
Russell, my point is simply that, if the Supremes were to impose civil marriage for any two adults regardless of sex by judicial fiat, the likelihood of a constitutional amendment being passed by both House and Senate, signed by the president and ratified by 3/4’s of the states is not insubstantial. Thus, the judicial remedy route would produce a significant risk of retrograde movement–permanent retrograde movement–that would be virtually irreversible. My larger point is that the ballot box is the better way to resolve this issue and the trend line definitely favors patience, as difficult as that is for those most immediately affected.
And, when we get around to tax rates on a different thread, I will, indeed, “bring it.”
Hartmut–I think we are more or less on the same page. I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of conservatives bringing the feds in to define marriage their way then objecting should another congress/senate/administration change the definition. I never meant to imply that conservatives, or anyone else for that matter, feel particularly constrained to act in an intellectually consistent manner.
my point is simply that, if the Supremes were to impose civil marriage for any two adults regardless of sex by judicial fiat, the likelihood of a constitutional amendment being passed by both House and Senate, signed by the president and ratified by 3/4’s of the states is not insubstantial.
You think there are enough homophobic bigots in the US House, Senate, and country to ensure that GLBT citizens of the US are made second-class citizens by majority vote?
Well, sadly, you’re probably right.
How long would this process take, though? I mean, how many years of couples marrying and having their marriages recognised across all the states of the Union before the Bigot’s Amendment was eventually ratified?
I’m presuming that you’re right – that the forces of bigotry in the US are sufficiently strong and immutable that the spectacle of happy couples would do nothing to affect the drivers of the bulldozer to smash their marriages and their families.
It would be ugly. It would make the US stink to high heaven as a nation that enshrines bigotry and discrimination in its Constitution.
But I think that giving up equal rights for fear of what the bigots may do in response would be wrong – ethically and strategically. Equality is worth having – is worth standing up for. Yes, maybe you’re right, maybe the bigots will win in the end, maybe the forces of good will lose.
But to counsel that the forces of good should surrender abjectly because the forces of evil are powerful and threaten they will do this disgusting thing to the US Constitution – then they have already won.
If you truly believe in equality, in justice, in the right of everyone to have the freedom to marry, McKinney – why counsel surrender in advance? Are you that scared of standing up for what you know is right?
Recommended reading: Marriage, Sexuality, and Gender, by Robin West
Jes, I don’t see McKinney counseling surrender but merely talking about which methods of advance are likely to be most effective. If he is correct, then working at the state and local level and through the legislative process (and fighting ballot questions when they come up) would result in more equality sooner than going to the Supreme Court would.
Of course, with the current court composition I find it hard to believe that McKinney’s feared scenario will take place anyway. Regardless, I’m going to keep supporting the marriage equality bill in DC (and keeping my fingers crossed that Congress has enough on its plate that it keeps its nose out of our local affairs). The best I expect at the federal level is that they won’t get in the way of progress (well, maybe repeal or striking down of DOMA).
Since McKinney brought up the Constitution….
Over last winter and spring I read Akhil Reed Amar’s “America’s Constitution: A Biography.” The image I carry with me as a shorthand for what mattered the most to me in the story is of an arrow, or vector.
The Constitution was marred by its enshrinement of slavery, among other things that weren’t “perfect” at the beginning. But despite stops and starts, backslidings, war and death and continuing conflict, the direction of the vector over time has been toward more inclusive enfranchisement, from former slaves, to women, to people under 21.
It is as if the Constitution was as much a promise or a pointer as it was manual for any given moment in our history. The path of the arrow, the direction of the vector, is toward more inclusiveness. I think we’ll never totally get there, but it’s the aspirations that matter, and the work to try to achieve them.
I know this sounds kind of sappy. And I don’t think I’m under any illusions about how close we’ve come to really empowering “the people,” much less achieving a state where “the people” are up to the responsibility that comes with empowerment. (I’m not throwing stones at people who disagree with me, I’m speaking generally.)
But nothing of what we’ve achieved has come because of cold calculation only. Yes, sometimes it’s the better part of wisdom to back away from a given battle, the better to return another day. But I’m with Jes in thinking that fear of backlash shouldn’t rule our thinking, any more than hatred and anger should be our ruling passions.
If he is correct, then working at the state and local level and through the legislative process (and fighting ballot questions when they come up) would result in more equality sooner than going to the Supreme Court would.
No, it’s surrender – abjectly conceding in advance that the homophobic bigots are too strong to permit GLBT people the same rights as straight people.
A Supreme Court decision overthrowing DOMA gives same-sex couples the same rights as interracial couples had across the US in 1967. Popular vote might have overturned that legislation within thirty years. Or might not, since the normalization of interracial marriage by the Supreme Court making it legal, is a large part of the reason the racist bigots could no longer muster a majority vote against it.
The circumstances required for a Supreme Court decision are not only for the Supremes to accept the case, but also for the case to exist – for a wealthy widower whose husband died at their home in Virginia, to refuse to accept that the State has any right to deny the validity of his marriage and overthrow the will that left him his partner’s half of the property. Or some such. (It would be ironic if it were Dick Cheney’s daughter who were that bitterly affronted that she decided to fight the case, wouldn’t it?)
The Constitutional requirement for all states to accept as valid marriages legal in the state in which they were made, is a legal necessity. More and more couples are legally married – whether or not their home state accepts them as such. All it takes is one major clusterfkcu of property, wills, contracts, that is that messy just because of DOMA…
Jes, yesterday at 1:10pm McKinney seemed to support the idea of the Supreme Court overturning DOMA. That’s quite different from the scenario he’s talking about at 11:11, which is “if the Supremes were to impose civil marriage for any two adults regardless of sex by judicial fiat”.
The difference between having the Supreme Court leave marriage up to the states and having the Supreme Court force all states to legalize same-sex marriage is extreme, and it’s not unreasonable to fear that the reaction to the latter could set back marriage equality in ways that will be very difficult to undo. Personally I’m not worried, mainly because I think the chance this court will do such a thing is vanishingly small.
Jes, I stand up for gay civil rights everyday in venues that, at opposite ends of the political spectrum, make you look like the most appeasing, accommodating voice-of-reason person who ever existed. Just as an FYI, I’ve been approached recently to run for judge. My views on gay civil rights are a near-certain death sentence to a successful run as a Republican–which is what I’ve been asked to run as, even though I made it clear I am no longer a Republican.
On the merits of our discussion, judicial fiat goes against the grain of people who believe matters should be decided by a vote and not by decree. I understand the “but your civil rights aren’t subject to a vote, so why should mine be?” line of reasoning. What a court cannot do is prevent a constitutional amendment. Judicial fiat at the national level will drive a lot people into the amendment camp who, if given time, would be willing to come around.
You can demand and confront until hell won’t have it but when the dust settles, the will of the majority (that is, the majority that votes) will carry the issue.
Putting matters to a vote isn’t surrender. Quitting is surrender. Short-cutting to judicial decree is inviting a legislative nullification of the decree which is worse than conditions at present.
I’ve got a big trial next week, so I have to sign off. See you guys in a couple of weeks.
Try hard, McKinney.
Jusurgislac: “and Martin Luther King pointed out in the 1960s that white people counselling patience and passivity to black people were not allies to the civil rights movement, but opponents.”
Stop using Martin Luther King’s name to support your gay tirades. MLK wasn’t interested in homosexual ‘civil’ rights, or homosexual marriage. He never said one word in favor of it: not in his autobiography, not in his speeches, not in any interview. He was a religious Christian and if he was alive now he’d be preaching it was OK to love the sinner, but not the sin. Like his daughter Bernice King said when asked about what her father thought about same-sex marriage, she answered she was sure in her soul he didn’t take a bullet for it.
I think the homophobic forces can at best be marginalized to a degree that they are unable to do too much damage but only with a constant effort. If we look at abortion and contraception, we* can see that considering the fight as won can be fatal. Once the eye is taken from it, the rollback sets in. If there was a gay Roe vs. Wade (highly unlikely imo) the phobes would try to undo it the same way. Even if failing to get a new court to overturn precedent, they would find ways to make the actual use of the equal right as difficult as possible. I fear homophobia sits even deeper than racism (I myself have more homophobic impulses** than racist ones).
So I think all possible approaches should be taken, legislation, the courts and ballot initiatives, fedral and local. Also dirt collection should be an integral part. The more homophobe leaders are demasked as gays (or alternatively sexual perverts***) the better.
*I can’t see an anti-choicer or condom condemner on the threat at the moment
**more directed towards sexual practices than the persons involved
***this is not intended to equal being gay with being a pervert!
PhillyCheese, I think the concept you may wish to embrace is “analogy”.
Yes, the civil rights movement had plenty of moments of violence, but not by the MLK and others.
Desegregation was enforced by the threat of violence by federal troops. It was imposed on unwilling bigots by outside authorities. Segregationists weren’t persuaded of anything; they were forced to accept it. That is why your analogy holds no water.
With much empathy to janie, I must protest. This is not the civil rights movement, it is not the abortion fight, it is not even the feminist fight.
There are laws and even societal norms that provide lgbt folks with a broad set of equal protections under the law. There is hate crime legislation, I wish it applied to everyone that got beaten to death but it doesn’t.
What we are trying to sort out is what role the government should play in defining the nature of relationships between human beings. The laws regarding marriage that matter to the lgbt constituency involve tax law, inheritance and several others that are in place because the majority of Americans wanted heterosexual nuclear families to have those benefits. The majority still does. They don’t want single people to have them, they don’t want cohabitating mixed couples to have them, they don’t want just anyone to have them.
They are the result of social enginering meant to promote everything from small business owners getting a break if their business was in their home to supporting heterosexual nuclear families as a preferred social structure.
It is not homophobic or evil to have these views. I believe we should take the word marriage out of the tax laws and inheritance laws, we should have a standard way to define who gets to visit people in the hospital (my sons cohabitating girlfriend of years would have no luck here either). Medical proxy , even for married people, has become a necessity due to mixed families arguing over who has the right.
There was a time when everyone knew what the word marriage meant, so it was safe to use it to define benefits and access, it just doesn’t work anymore.
I have no problem with the continued work to resolve this through elections etc., but it’s not the civil rights movement.
Most of the issues can be solved contractually, and the rest,(coadoption, inheritance tax breaks) just aren’t the same as segregation at it’s worst.
There is hate crime legislation, I wish it applied to everyone that got beaten to death but it doesn’t.
Really? Can’t anyone claim to belong to a race? Doesn’t everyone have a gender and sexual orientation? Doesn’t everyone have a religious persuasion, even if it’s non-religious? Can’t anyone be discriminated against to the point of being beaten to death on the basis of such things?
Most of the issues can be solved contractually…
Or at least some, but why should one group of people have those things conferred upon them very conveniently in one fell swoop when another has to go figure them all out one by one, likely at some expense?
Isn’t it obvious what the solution is to the problem we’re discussing here? Isn’t it obvious what the right thing to do is? The problem is the same problem as it was during the civil-rights movement – that some people, lots of them, were opposed to doing the right thing. That’s the critical point the civil-rights movement and the gay-marriage debate have in common. They don’t have to be the same thing or the same in every way for there to be an apt comparison between them.
**PhillyCheese, I think the concept you may wish to embrace is “analogy”**
The concept I want others to embrace, m’man, is don’t use MLK or Black Civil Rights to make a gay-rights case, cause it just dont hold true. Its a low down dirty shame to compare what we went thru to rationalize gay marriage laws, and those comparisons are unacceptable to most Black folk — as the 70% of my bros and sistahs in California who voted down Proposition 8 made clear.
And in the future I’d appreciate it if you don’t patronize me with that “analogy” BS.
Marty, I appreciate the empathy. Beyond that….
The laws regarding marriage that matter to the lgbt constituency involve tax law, inheritance and several others that are in place because the majority of Americans wanted heterosexual nuclear families to have those benefits. The majority still does.
Besides the fact that you aren’t correct about what matters to the lgbt constituency and it’s not for you to say in any case, I would point out that the “majority” you are talking about is smaller than it used to be, and trending toward smaller yet. The students at the University of Orono voted 81% to 19% the other day to preserve same-sex marriage in Maine. That’s where we’re trending. So what are you going to say when the majority has changed its collective mind about the relationship between government and relationships?
We have been all over this recently, at which time I offered a link that listed quite a few more than “several” benefits (the tally is roughly 1400 between federal and state) that unmarried couples don’t have, and pointed out the impossibility of cobbling all this together from scratch, contractually.
Further, who cares if it’s not the same as segregation at its worst? It is what it is. What it is sucks. We’re trying to change it. Good luck to us.
Further yet, as I said before about the word “bigot,” I also don’t care whether opposition to same-sex marriage is “homophobia” or not. The effect on me is the same either way.
Nevertheless, though I don’t have any interest in quibbling about whether “it is homophobic or evil to have these views” in all cases, that doesn’t change the fact that in a lot of people who do hold them, homophobia is the root. Along with a lot of other things, like fear of change, fear of being wrong, disgust about sex (see Hartmut in this very thread; or see Martha Nussbaum), etc.
BTW, I keep using “gay marriage.” Is that cool with the LGBT folks here?
hairshirthedonist — it’s cool with me, I’m not very picky about anyone’s terminology except my own. I prefer to use “gay” as a big umbrella term myself, though that’s not the most preferred usage.
Thanks for asking.
So my point is completely accurate, the discrimination is equally applied to all non married people. So instead of solving that problem, we will declare another set of people as “married”, they will get theirs and screww the rest.
I am not wrong, and while it is not for me to say, it is for me to understand or not if comes to getting my vote. As for the University, it is interesting that that 3 years out of University all of my kids have distinctly different views on many subjects than they had in those years.
Yes, good luck. But I was responding to the long thread of inappropriate comparisons to other movements in the past, the violence associated with them, the SC acitivism, while it is a personal and important issue to you, it just isn’t the same.
At the risk of FTT, because this is such a great passage from a wonderful book (“An Ethic for Enemies,” by Donald W. Shriver, Jr.):
Orlando Patterson is African-American (born in Jamaica). I don’t know anything about Nerys.
So my point is completely accurate, the discrimination is equally applied to all non married people.
Wrong. Opposite-sex couples can get married. Same-sex couples can’t. How hard is it to see that these two things are not the same?
But I was responding to the long thread of inappropriate comparisons to other movements in the past, the violence associated with them, the SC acitivism, while it is a personal and important issue to you, it just isn’t the same.
Inappropriate is in the eye of the beholder. To repeat myself, who cares if it isn’t exactly the same? Just because there are bigger or different evils in the world doesn’t mean the lesser or other ones shouldn’t be address. Or, see Orlando Patterson.
And in the future I’d appreciate it if you don’t patronize me with that “analogy” BS.
I wasn’t patronizing you, I was being sarcastic.
So, once more without the sarcasm:
First, nobody is claiming the King would have endorsed gay marriage. They are simply drawing an analogy from certain aspects of King’s efforts to those of gays today.
One thing is like the other. If the aspect which is similar holds for the one case, it likely holds for the other.
That’s all.
It is, as far as I can tell, absolutely legitimate for gays to draw analogies from other civil rights efforts when discussing their attempts to gain legal recognition of their marriages.
Can you explain why it should not be?
You may find it personally unacceptable for gays to draw on black folks’ efforts as a source for such an analogy, but that history isn’t your property to grant access to, or not.
Should black people stop singing “Go Down Moses” just because they aren’t Jewish?
If you don’t like the idea of gays marrying, just say that. Believe me, you won’t be alone.
Marty, by the way, I didn’t mean you when I said “FTT.” Philly has been here before and is not up to anything good, I strongly suspect. Slarti…??
I lived with the same guy (among other people) for 17 years, starting in the middle of college. Then we had 2 kids. Then we got married. Later we got divorced. (And of course it’s a much longer and more complicated story than that.)
So no one can tell me a d*mned thing about the decision-making around the choice of getting married or not. But it is in fact a choice for opposite-sex couples.
Marty, if you get to define “civil rights”, then of course you are correct. But you don’t. I get as much of a say on the definition as you do. And I protest your protest.
“Civil rights” is not a brand name. You don’t have to be black to have your “civil rights” violated. You can be white, and male, and heterosexual, and wealthy, and famous, and you still have “civil rights”.
The only question is, what civil rights do you have? As Janie wisely observed yesterday, none of us actually has any more rights, civil or otherwise, than he can somehow defend. Defend from whom? From those who would deny them to us, of course.
Nobody needs to defend his civil right to wear clothes, because hardly anybody is trying to forbid the wearing of clothes. But if some whackjob did try to pass laws requiring you to go around naked, would you claim that such laws would NOT be a violation of your “civil rights”? Is your definition of “civil rights” as narrow as that?
–TP
I don’t understand the comparison. If your son and his cohabitating girlfriend want the government and the hospital to recognize their relationship, they can take the action necessary to achieve that, something called civil marriage, which is what is being denied those involved in same-sex relationships.
Your son is no more being discriminated against than I am being discriminated against if the police take exception to my driving without a license.
So instead of solving that problem, we will declare another set of people as “married”, they will get theirs and screww the rest.
I know several people have responded to this, including me, but on rereading the thread I am struck again by how utterly and phenomenally garbled it is, not to mention inapropos.
There is no “screwing the rest” about expanding the pool of people who can get married. No one loses anything they had before (except, if that’s their schtick, the right to feel that only superior virtuous people like themselves should be allowed in the pool).
What your son and his girlfriend want, though, that makes you say they’re being discriminated against, is a mystery to me. (Not that it’s any of my business, but you’re the one who brought it up.) They are not in the position of having to wait til “we” (“the people”) “declare” that they can get married, they have the right to declare themselves married (presuming they’re of age and not already married) by going down to town hall and taking care of the necessary formalities.
If anyone is “screwing” them, it’s themselves; they have a simple way to remedy their situation if they don’t like it — they can get married.
If they want to get the right to something-or-other that they don’t have now (1/2 marriage? marriage in all but name?), they can start a movement, just like lgbt people have done.
If they want all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but they don’t want to call it that, I’m sure Sapient’s bandwagon has room for them.
If they want to choose, as off a menu, only some of the rights and responsibilities of married people, they can cobble together some rights and benefits via contract. Sound familiar?
Anyhow, whatever it is that’s stopping them from getting married, it’s not what’s stopping same-sex couples from getting married. If their situation is in any way relevant to that topic, you haven’t shown how.
KCinDC: “I don’t understand the comparison. If your son and his cohabitating girlfriend want the government and the hospital to recognize their relationship, they can take the action necessary to achieve that, something called civil marriage, which is what is being denied those involved in same-sex relationships.”
What about an unmarried mother and an adult son, living together, who don’t have the rights of married persons? Can they have a civil marriage?
What about a father and daughter, both of legal age, living together for years, and wanting to continue to do so? Is civil marriage in their future?
What about grown up brothers and sisters living together in the old family homestead, is a group civil ceremony on the horizon?
What about two heterosexual male friends who have roomed together for years and want to continue to do so? Do they have to pretend to be gay and get married to receive the benefits? Or two non-gay women in the same situation?
In the U.S. the number of cohabiting gays (who may or may not want to get married) is insignificant compared to the number of opposite sex Americans living together for various reasons: about 5.2 million households. Per the 1995 ACS followup census there were only about a half a million same-sex cohabiting couples living together in the U.S. — about equal to the number of cohabiting American non-gay couples over age 65.
Should those over age 65 have to marry to receive ‘marriage’ benefits?
What about gay men or gay woman living together who don’t want to get married but want to maintain a long term relationship? (more than half the sample size of interviewed gays indicated they had no plans to marry, even if they could)
All these people, gays or straight, are deprived the same benefits married couples receive. This isn’t a civil rights issue — it’s an ‘unmarried’ issue. The ‘married’ benefits have to be redistributed in a more equitable way — and that’s not an inequity to be solved by legalizing gay marriage, but with legislative fairness to reflect the changing patterns of long term relationships.
It is really unfair that the mother-son and father-daughter marriage movements aren’t getting their due around here.
Seriously, though, does anyone else remember something about a senior union of some sort in Washington state? I should probably just Google and come back to it.
Jay Jerome: This isn’t a civil rights issue — it’s an ‘unmarried’ issue.
The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man…”
***
I was going to suggest that if you want to work on the ‘unmarried issue,’ go start a movement of your own. But not surprisingly, there’s someone already on the case.
So go for it. Give Sapient a call while you’re at it. He probably already knows about “The Alternatives to Marriage Project” (see the link) — and maybe even some alternatives to that.
The people working to see that same-sex couples gain the right to marry will go along pretty much as before, I suspect.
JanieM: “I was going to suggest that if you want to work on the ‘unmarried issue,’ go start a movement of your own.”
I don’t want to start a movement of my own; I just want to point out the cornerstone reason you offer to justify gay marriage — the benefits heterosexual married people receive — is a small part of a larger issue. Passing gay marriage laws for a tiny slice of the population won’t solve the overall problem.
Of course it wouldn’t be in your interest to legislatively solve the problem by redrafting the marriage benefit laws because if benefits were equitably distributed to all domestic couples, it would nullify the gay civil rights argument for same-sex marriage: the only right gays would be denied is the one to usurp a traditional heterosexual symbolic ceremony: a deprivation I doubt would qualify for Supreme Court review..
JanieM:
My gay friend I talked about before who’s not in favor of gay marriage looked over my shoulder as I was writing the last post and said to ask you what you have against expanding domestic partnerships to include all the rights married people have? He says to tell you that introducing your gay lovers as your ‘partner’ is much cooler then introducing them as your husband or wife – I don’t have time to go into the charming off-color descriptives he used to make his point, but he’s insistent most of the gay men he knows don’t care about the marriage issue, don’t want to get married even if it is legal, and neither do their current SOs.
So my question is this: what percentage of gays other than progressives actually give a damn about the gay marriage issue? Has anyone ever taken a poll on that?
but he’s insistent most of the gay men he knows don’t care about the marriage issue, don’t want to get married even if it is legal, and neither do their current SOs.
So my question is this: what percentage of gays other than progressives actually give a damn about the gay marriage issue? Has anyone ever taken a poll on that?
If they don’t give a damn, they have no reason to oppose gay marriage. And I would guess those who do give a damn aren’t going to stop giving a damn, regardless of anyone else’s not giving a damn. Or maybe I’m wrong and JanieM and Jes will suddenly stop caring if some poll comes out showing that X% of gays don’t care about getting married.
And I guess all those racially mixed couples that wanted to get married before Loving should have just forgotten about it, since their being able to get married did nothing for co-habitating mothers and sons (or something like that?).
A significant number of people are trying to live their lives like everyone else, and you come up with these goofy abstractions as to why they shouldn’t, Jay. I guess that’s fun for you.
Jay Jerome is one of the best spokesmen that “gay marriage” proponents could hope for. Keep up the good work JJ.
–TP
Jay Jeroome, if your gay buddy is right there peering over your shoulder, why don’t you scoot to one side and let him comment in own words?
What about an unmarried mother and an adult son, living together, who don’t have the rights of married persons? Can they have a civil marriage?
What about…
What about…
Once you start making slippery slope arguments, Jay Jerome, where does it end? For the love of all that’s holy where does it end?
Jay Jerome: What about an unmarried mother and an adult son, living together, who don’t have the rights of married persons? Can they have a civil marriage?
What about a father and daughter, both of legal age, living together for years, and wanting to continue to do so? Is civil marriage in their future?
A parent and child already have a special set of legal rights and privileges with respect to one another. My question to you is: do you find these rights as objectionable as you do the rights associated with marriage? Should every intergenerational dyad be given these same rights and privileges?
What about grown up brothers and sisters living together in the old family homestead, is a group civil ceremony on the horizon?
You are trying to get someone to engage you on the subject of laws that are designed to discourage incest. All I can say is, good luck with that fight. You’re going to need it. I’m sure you can find some allies with a quick google search, but I doubt you’ll find many in the ranks of the marriage equality crowd.
What about two heterosexual male friends who have roomed together for years and want to continue to do so? Do they have to pretend to be gay and get married to receive the benefits? Or two non-gay women in the same situation?
Good Lord! Since when do opposite-sex couples have to be sexually involved to get married? Straight couples don’t even have to pretend to like each other. The only legal barrier to these two male friends getting married would be a same-sex marriage ban. Lift the ban, and Chuck and Larry are free to tie the knot.
Also, who is stopping all these folks from rooming together? Is that what you think is at stake in the marriage equality fight?
Passing gay marriage laws for a tiny slice of the population won’t solve the overall problem.
You have yet to identify the problem as you see it. All I’ve read so far is that your son and his girlfriend can’t seem to get the rights and privileges of marriage without going out and, you know, getting married, which they presumably could do.
Of course it wouldn’t be in your interest to legislatively solve the problem by redrafting the marriage benefit laws because if benefits were equitably distributed to all domestic couples, it would nullify the gay civil rights argument for same-sex marriage: the only right gays would be denied is the one to usurp a traditional heterosexual symbolic ceremony: a deprivation I doubt would qualify for Supreme Court review..
How many codes in federal, state, and local jurisdictions use the words “marriage” or “spouse”? To do what you are describing would require changing every one of them. That means battling legislative bodies in each and every one of these jurisdictions. This is somehow an easier solution?
Also, you seem to be implying that there exist laws against same-sex couples engaging in the “symbolic ceremony”. I’m no lawyer or expert on public policy, but I’m pretty sure this is wrong throughout the U.S. In fact, I’m pretty sure such a law would be unconstitutional under one or more clauses of the first amendment. Gay couples participate in this ceremony all the time, they just can’t get most state and local governments or the federal government to recognize their unions as marriages.
My gay friend I talked about before who’s not in favor of gay marriage looked over my shoulder as I was writing the last post and said to ask you what you have against expanding domestic partnerships to include all the rights married people have?
To ask interracial couples or couples of different faiths to accept the “domestic partnership” label where couples of the same race or religion can be married would be unthinkable. Yet somehow same sex couples get this treatment. As for your gay friend, being personally involved in the issue doesn’t mean you’re necessarily right. Just ask Strom Thurmond about his views on miscegenation.
Anyway, he has his own reasons for not wanting to get married, which is fine for him. Marriage isn’t necessarily for everyone, just as lunch counters and public pools might not be for everyone. But it should be up to each individual to decide for him or herself, not the state, and certainly not your friend.
A journal entry from a married woman: If you’re standing on my neck, I’ll worry about why you’d do something like that later. My first priority will be getting you to stop standing on my neck.
For the love of all that’s holy where does it end?
Two words: box turtle.
There’s a significant body of legal philosophy dealing with reexamining marriage and family law in light of the changing family. Some of the strongest proponents of domestic partnerships and civil unions are feminist legal scholars. Obviously, gay rights is more fashionable than feminism at the moment since we’ve now apparently evolved into “post-feminism,” and most women are embarrassed to label themselves as feminist. I’m sure that people here think it’s just a coincidence that married men do less of their share of housework than cohabiting men. (This is just one example of the possibility that the institution of marriage doesn’t naturally foster equality in relationships.)
In other words, russell, there are actually other issues besides the box turtle nuptials at stake. And although you very eloquently expressed your view (elsewhere) that people are “inclined to bond in pairs”, you forgot to mention that 1) you’re speaking about traditional European cultural norms, and that 2) even where bonded pairing is attempted, it often ends in divorce, where people have to manage households either as single parents or in new domestic arrangements (grandparents caring for children, and some of the other novel possibilities that were mentioned).
I don’t share Jay Jerome’s views on very many things, but at least he’s willing to ask why, in a culture that no longer accommodates lifelong coupling very well, the government has any business preferring “marriage” to other lifestyle choices. Yet my fellow “progressives” (even some of the divorced ones) are shocked, just shocked, that not everyone ends up snuggling happily with their lifelong marital partner reaping tax rewards and immigration preferences. Not to say that it isn’t great that some people do.
Sapient, your problem here is that you seem to think that domestic partnerships, civil unions, or the kind of domestic contract made available in the Netherlands to any household, are in opposition to marriage: that if you support a couple’s right to decide to marry, you are thereby against legal protections for people living in any other kind of relationship.
All legislation with regard to marriage as a legally equal relationship presumes a relationship of two people who are of age to marry, who are not currently married to anyone else, and who do not have a blood relationship close enough to carry any legal meaning. Recognizing incestuous marriage and multiple-marriage and polygamous marriage would all entail some major rethinks about how marriage legislation is structured – it would be an enormous project which, frankly, nobody much seems to be calling for. Whereas lifting the ban on same-sex couples getting married requires no major rethinks at all: where there is no difference in law made between husband and wife, there is no unbigoted way to argue that marriage can’t be open to wife/wife and husband/husband.
(Where legal marriage between more than two people is possible, ie where one man may marry more than one woman*, marriage is presumed a legally unequal relationship. [*I don’t know enough about the tiny handful of places where a woman can marry more than one man, though what I have read suggests that such marriages are structured in the form of several brothers sharing a single wife.])
I already have a legal relationship with my brother, my sister, my nephews, my parents – and I can’t marry any one of them. (I don’t want to, either, but there you go.) But were I living with any of them, by reason of our blood relationship, they would have specific rights in law to inherit a tenancy, to visit me in hospital, to be presumed to know my wishes in the event of my death or incapacity.
Two or more people, living together, who want to have their relationship legally recognised as more than just good friends but not equivalent to marriage, should be able to register their relationship and have that recognized in law.
Your “fellow progressives”, were you to attempt to persuade them that there’s a need for a legal alternative to marriage, a legally recognized registered relationship which includes some rights and obligations equivalent to marriage, and which is open to any two people living together in a domestic relationship, might well respond positively to that idea. Indeed, many of them would probably then be able to lecture you on the various such partnerships recognized in different countries.
But instead, you waste your time viciously attacking marriage and people who want to get married. You will never, not in all your life, be able to persuade more than a tiny minority of people that no one should be allowed to get married and that all married couples should be forcibly divorced by the government.
But you could, if you actually wanted to accomplish something, persuade people to join a campaign for making a legal alternative to marriage available.
Still. It’s up to you. Waste your time on futile ravings about how awful and evil and bad and wrong it is that people get married and marriage has obligations, rights, and privileges: persuade no one and accomplish nothing.
Or spend your time productively on promoting the idea that people living together for whom marriage is not an option (not even when the ban on civil marriage for same-sex couples is lifted) still deserve some measure of legal recognition of their relationship.
Minus infinity. That’s where all slippery-slope arguments wind up.
Two or more people, living together, who want to have their relationship legally recognised as more than just good friends but not equivalent to marriage, should be able to register their relationship and have that recognized in law.
That would be, as a practical matter, a decent start. But, from a feminist viewpoint, even if it might not be “helpful,” there are actual reasons to question the institution of marriage itself, and how it affects women’s rights. To be told to quiet down about these issues and to have these issues ridiculed is hardly surprising, but not “helpful” to people interested in equality.
Anyone who would like to educate me on the law of other countries, go right ahead – I’m very interested (although I’m somewhat familiar with the issue by now). But I’m very familiar with family law of the United States, having practiced family law here, studied its history, kept up with the news here, and had many friends, and had relationships of my own.
There’s no question that many people enjoy their marriages (because they love their partners and their families), and that they attribute their happiness to “marriage”. Also, the feminist movement has lost momentum – many people have achieved a certain measure of equality, and are so content that they think the fight for women’s rights has been won. The political problems that many heterosexuals (especially women) have in their own households will be put on the back burner until other people’s rights are addressed (that’s the usual recipe – witness the healthcare bill passed without protection of abortion rights). But I’m not myself willing to pretend that the problems with equality are solved, or pretend that I don’t believe that the institution of marriage itself isn’t a contributing factor.
I have said over and over that I support gay rights and gay marriage equality. But by making the institution of marriage seem even more like a “must do,” (the rhetoric being that there is nothing as “good” as marriage) I’m betraying other principals.
In addition to the issues of women’s rights (which has always been my major concern), I still fail to see why sexual companionships between two people should be preferred under the law to other lifestyles. I’ve never suggested lifting laws against incest – there are sound reasons for many of them, or that the law should acknowledge polygamy. Rather, I believe that instead of the law acknowledging a certain “marriage” model, people should be able to more easily register their household, and designate “next-of-kin” relationships, regardless of biology. (Of course, there are other reasons to keep track of biological relationships through birth certificates, etc.) There’s no reason for the law to go much further than that. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to have weddings, celebrate their unions, call each other wife or husband or spouse, vow commitment and fidelity to each other, share property, raise children together, visit each other’s hospital bed, etc. I never said it was a bad thing for people to be freely able to do any of that.
”
I don’t get the whole Palin NY-23 thing. She intervenes in a race, gets the more moderate Republican candidate booted, and the Democrat promptly wins in a region that hasn’t elected a Democratic representative in more than 100 years.
And that is a win?
Huh?”
It’s actually not that complicated: People’s approaches to politics comes in two basic versions: “Shirts and skins”, and ideological. The former sort picked Scozzofava, because the only thing they care about is that there’s an “R” after the winner’s name. The latter sort defeated Scozzafava, because they figure a ‘victory’ where the winner disagrees with them is no victory at all.
I don’t think the Palins see this as a victory, as such, just the less obnoxious sort of defeat. They’ve at least proven to the shirts and skins of the party that, if they want their “R”s, they’re going to have to pick conservative candidates.
Oh and, by the way, meet my new governor, Bob McDonnell.
Sapient, the topic of discussion is lifting the ban on same-sex couples getting married. Your tedious responses that honestly realio trulio you are a supporter of this – come across as unconvincing, given your inability to join in any discussion on lifting this ban without criticizing marriage and arguing that the ban should still exist but be applied to everybody.
Are you able to take advice from women – from myself and JanieM? Or do you just feel that we can’t possibly know what we’re talking about, being only girls, so you will continue to hector your way down a discussion about marriage, ignoring sage advice from mere women in favor of your own surety that you know how best to tell people what to do?
Jes, I don’t see any indication that your sex plays any role in Sapient’s unwillingness to take your advice. He(?) has been equally resistant to suggestions from male commenters.
Brett Bellmore: I don’t think the Palins see this as a victory, as such, just the less obnoxious sort of defeat.
Actually, Gov. Palin doesn’t appear to even see it as a defeat:
“The race for New York’s 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010.”
That’s okay, I’m sure, like Gov. Palin, Doug Hoffman can do more for this country from Facebook and Twitter than he ever could have from elected office.
Sapient, can you outline just which rights, privileges, and responsibilities you think married couples should no longer have, and which ones should be retained under a more inclusive domestic partnership?
I don’t have any problem whatsoever with a broadly-inclusive form of domestic partnership that doesn’t carry the cultural freight associated with marriage (assuming there can be reasonable, non-intrusive safeguards against abuse of the status), but there is absolutely no need to eliminate civil marriage in order to institute such a thing. It is the latter part of your agenda that offends me (along with the tendency of these proposals to force marriage equality proponents to fight for marriage on two fronts instead of just one).
Yes, marriage has historically been, and still is for many people, an unequal arrangement between the sexes. But marriage equality is just one more step in the process of establishing marriage as a relationship between equals, which is a big part of what many social conservatives find so threatening about it.
Are you able to take advice from women – from myself and JanieM?
During the heated discussion a couple days ago, I realized that I was assuming Sapient was male but that I didn’t really know. I did, however, like Gromit, feel that Sapient’s stance toward the rest of us was an equal-opportunity one, directed equally at “men, women, and the rest of us.”
But more than that, this set of questions pushes my feminism buttons along with a bunch of others that have already been mentioned.
The main reason I have never called myself a feminist is that almost everyone I’ve ever known who did take that label — including a number of very close friends — was prone to lecturing me in much the same way Sapient has been doing. The approach was: if you don’t see it the way I do, you can’t possibly have thought about it enough; and when you do think about it, you’ll agree with me. Or stuff like this:
“In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she’s a feminist or a masochist.”
—Gloria Steinem
I’m sure I said this in my early months of reading ObWi, but it’s worth repeating: I didn’t spend a lot of years claiming — in the face of contrary pressure from parents, teachers, relatives, friends, boyfriends, girlfriends, the Roman Catholic Church, and our entire culture — the right [there’s that word again ;)] to define myself and see the world out of my own eyes, only to give it over to the Gloria Steinem.
The point hidden in that ramble is that women are perfectly capable of marginalizing other women; it’s not just men who do that. This doesn’t preclude Jes’s framing, which is more about the target than the source. But where Jes is focusing on the target (whether Sapient is willing to listen to women), I’m focusing on the source, and saying that Sapient could easily enough (based on my experience) be a women who is unwilling to listen either to other women or to anyone else.
Gromit — I’m really glad you showed up in this thread. 🙂
In other words, russell, there are actually other issues besides the box turtle nuptials at stake.
Yeah, I get that. I was just having a laugh at John Cornyn’s expense.
Whether and why government should choose to treat certain kinds of committed partner relationships favorably, and not others, is a very good question to ask. IMVHO Jay’s examples were kind of frivolous, which is why I chose his post as an opportunity to make a funny, but there are other examples — unmarried domestic partnerships among them — that are more relevant.
I don’t have a good answer for why some should be privileged and some not. The only point I want to make is that as long as marriage exists as a public, civil institution, it should be available to gays as well as straights.
Thanks –
On embracing causes —
Reading magazines and blogs, listening to the radio, watching TV (very rarely), talking to friends and acquaintances, looking at my mail and my email, generally paying attention to the world — I could spend a week just listing the causes that people want me (want all of us) to pay attention to.
My biggest contributions (time and/or money) these days go to a local land trust and to a group of Quaker women in Maine who support an orphanage in Kenya. That’s not counting the “No on 1” campaign, which got both money and significant time from me this fall, a first in my life because I generally don’t “do” active politics.
As I said a couple of days ago, I spent the first 20+ years of my adulthood living — fairly openly — an unconventional relationship life. And this was besides, somewhere along the way, starting to live as an openly gay person. Not only did I live that way, but the questions raised by that choice were the central focus of my thinking, not to mention feeling, for all those years. Legalities, psychology, sexuality, monogamy or non-, household issues, economic issues, gender issues, all of it. Understanding that our culture offers too few — tragically few — models for being in relationship was an important focus of my thinking throughout those years.
Or in other words, I’m not unsympathetic to the general direction in which Sapient is pointing.
But I’ve been there and done that. Nowadays, I just don’t care. If there are legal scholars who would like to move our society in the direction of having a greater variety of viable models for being in relationship, more power to them. If they succeed, I’ll be happy. But out of the thousands of things in need of working on in this world, that’s just not one that I care enough about, or see as urgent enough, to warrant my time or attention. It doesn’t make the list of the top 1,000, probably not the top 10,000, depending on how finely you tune the list.
As to why, in that case, I have been so deeply involved with “No on 1,” the simplest answer is:
“Bloom where you’re planted.”
“No on 1” was about the relationship between me and my neighbors, and me and my government. Quite intimate relationships both of them, really, and therefore requiring attention, nurturing, and my best effort to shape them in a way that’s healthy for all concerned.
*****
This is in addition to all the other reasons why Sapient’s insistence on turning the discussion of same-sex marriage in another direction is so irritating. Gromit said it: It is the latter part of your agenda that offends me (along with the tendency of these proposals to force marriage equality proponents to fight for marriage on two fronts instead of just one).
Yes, blog comment threads ramble here there and everywhere. I don’t have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is being condescended to and patronized. I will discuss things with McKinney or Marty or OCSteve till someone (sometimes it’s me) burns out on any particular debate, or until I don’t have anything coherent to say. But I have a short fuse for the other thing. And to the best of my ability, I will ignore comments that I suspect are offered only to “stir up the sh*t” (to quote Russell from a few weeks ago).
JanieM: Gromit — I’m really glad you showed up in this thread. 🙂
Not to go all mushy or anything, but I’ve got nothing on you. You’ve been my hero in these threads.
And I realize I really should have qualified my statement, “But marriage equality is just one more step in the process of establishing marriage as a relationship between equals, which is a big part of what many social conservatives find so threatening about it,” by making clear that this is my take on social conservatives’ problem with marriage equality. They certainly won’t come out and say this.
It’s dangerous to read this stuff and then go for a walk. A few more thoughts, kind of a random assortment:
The distinction I was making in which I cited McKinney, Marty, and OCSteve maybe wasn’t clear. It was between people I often don’t agree with (e.g. those 3) and people who I feel are up to something other than straightforward debate. My feelings about this only guide my own decisions about expending time and energy; they have nothing to do with the posting rules.
*****
One of the ironies of the notion that working for gay marriage is somehow wrong-headed — because it focuses only on gay people and “screw the rest,” or it takes energy away from a broader campaign (what campaign?), or it perpetuates an institution that needs to be abolished — is that in the long run of history, I’m pretty sure that the campaign for same-sex marriage will be seen as another crucial phase in the evolution of saner and healthier relationship models and institutions. Change happens neither in a straight line nor according to the scripts written by activists. David Garrow’s “Liberty and Sexuality,” mostly about the 70 or 80 years when people were actively working to make birth control legal, tells that kind of story well.
*****
Sapient, I have put your recommended reading in my “to be read” list. My to be read list is a mile long, and it gets second priority after my to be read shelf, not to mention anything I randomly see in Barnes and Noble when I go in to look at books and smell the coffee, or anything recommended by certain friends whose suggestions are usually on the mark. So it’s not very likely I’ll ever read it, but I just wanted you to know that I noted it down.
In return, I will suggest George Bernard Shaw’s “Getting Married.” Both the play and the preface. If nothing else, it’s more fun than a legal tome.
russell: Yeah, I get that. Thank you. I like your writing a lot. And I spent the day outside watching egrets and blue herons on the river.
Janie: Sapient, I have put your recommended reading in my “to be read” list. Thank you. I hope that the fight for gay marriage does produce saner relationships.
Gromit: “rights and responsibilities” … “object”…
Gromit, if you’re married, what rights and responsibilities did you sign onto? Janie said that there are 1400. Can you name them? I object to the fact that people sign onto rights and responsibilities that they don’t even know about. I object to the notion that people have sexual “duties” to each other. This is pretty typical. Do you find it a little creepy that this goes on every day? I do.
Sapient: Gromit, if you’re married, what rights and responsibilities did you sign onto? Janie said that there are 1400. Can you name them?
I’m going to take this to mean that you’re not going to answer my question.
I object to the fact that people sign onto rights and responsibilities that they don’t even know about.
How will your preferred domestic contract be any different? Is this all about whether sexual infidelity is considered grounds for termination of the contract?
Gromit, JanieM – re Sapient’s gender: you’re right. I assumed that Sapient was straight/male because, in the previous discussion, the opinions expressed sounded exactly like a common heterosexual male response to discovering that, his wife is divorcing him and she will get, as of right, a large part of property and money that he has always regarded as his, not as shared. But I had no other grounds for it and my comment based on that assumption was thereby flawed.
Jes, eh. Sapient’s not sharing, nor answering questions, so who knows. The emphasis I’ve noticed has been on sexual partnership in relation to government involvement with relationships, but I don’t think we’re going to find out anything about it (or S’s age, or what system or set of rights/responsibilities s/he wants instead of marriage, or etc.).
As to the ~1400 rights and responsibilities you sign onto when you get married — marriage is hardly unique in involving people in rights and responsibilities most of us would not be able to list. Car ownership, getting a driver’s license, having children, owning property (that’s a big one, I bet the list is longer than the one for marriage), inheritance (i.e. owning anything), being a landlord or tenant, having a credit card or a bank account, being a student, being a teacher, etc. — I doubt most people, including me, could name more than a handful of the legal implications of any of those things. It’s all too complicated, but that’s modern life, it’s not just marriage.
Civil marriage is in part a shorthand, so we don’t have to walk around with a chip in our wallets that says which rights and responsibilities we’ve selected off the menu for our uniquely designed partnership. It lets some things be simply understood (with the emphasis on simply) in interactions with hospitals, school systems, undertakers, the courts, the Y that offers a family membership, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
The gay marriage campaign is about expanding the kinds of partnerships that come under that privileged umbrella. Maybe more kinds of partnerships should be included; maybe we should have a wider range of recognized variations for legally defined partnerships; maybe it should be totally ad hoc, with everyone defining whatever kind of partnership they want completely by contract. (Hey chips are big enough for encyclopedias now, so they could handle this. 😉
Whatever.
I’m just working on the part of it that I’m most interested in, that seems most immediately relevant to my life, that fits with what millions of other people have also decided is important at this juncture of our history, and that seems like it might actually be within reach.
I object to the notion that people have sexual “duties” to each other. This is pretty typical. Do you find it a little creepy that this goes on every day? I do.
The list of things I object to and/or find creepy is very long. Very long.
But there’s only so much time in the day. As my ramble about embracing causes implied, you gotta pick a few, or go insane.
You pick yours, I pick mine.
You haven’t said anything that tempts me to change where I put my resources. In fairness, there’s very little you could say that would accomplish that. But if that’s what you were aiming for, you might want to rethink your approach, because if all you do is p*ss people off, you aren’t doing your causes any good. (As McKinney kindly reminded me last week. 😉
JanieM: “in the long run of history, I’m pretty sure that the campaign for same-sex marriage will be seen as another crucial phase in the evolution of saner and healthier relationship models and institutions.”
Ever the Pollyana….
Unfortunately there’s no evidence same-sex marriage would be saner or healthier than heterosexual relationships — in fact the trends indicate they’d be just as screwed up.
The evidence for this is in demographic studies based on Census data over the past two decades, plus numerous university studies examining a variety of issues concerning homosexual cohabitation compared to heterosexual cohabitation. The findings: homosexual couples demonstrated the same low degree of stability and commitment, experienced the same conflicts and interpersonal violence as heterosexual couples.
Those same-sex studies also revealed gay men were way less interested in long term relationships than lesbians and heterosexuals. Data from studies like the 2004-05 California Quality of Life Survey indicated that among lesbian-identified women, 47% were cohabiting, compared to only 33% of gay-identified men. Those percentages were reflected in the initial number of same sex marriage licenses gays applied for in San Francisco and Maine: 75% by lesbians; only 25% by gay men.
So can you explain what saner healthier relationship models we should expect to see in the Brave New Same-Sex World of Tomorrow? That half the lesbians of age in the US will be married, sitting at home, holding hands, watching TiVo episodes of Ellen; but three out of four gay men will be out there, shaking their booty at one another, while the number of new HIV infections among gay and bisexual men continues to rise, as it has for the past four years, until it reaches epidemic proportions again?
So, Jay, you’re foursquare against allowing same-sex couples the same access to having screwed-up marriages as the rest of us have?
Yeah, I really don’t get it. Will allowing same-sex couples to marry somehow increase dangerous behaviors among gay men? What’s your point, Jay?
What’s your point, Jay?
Jay’s point is a nebulous moving target, best characterized by saying it’s whatever everyone else’s isn’t.
You would think there were people here advocating forcing same-sex couples into unhealthy marriages. It’s bizzare.
I am getting ready for trial, but needed a break. JJ conflates crucial phase with fixing everything. Further, JanieM’s comment used the comparative form describing a goal of saner and healthier relationships, not optimally sane and optimally healthy.
Let’s assume that gay men are less inclined toward long term monogamy, for whatever reason (I don’t know and don’t care). In what other context is an established willingness to exercise a right a precondition to having that right? More to the point, do the 75% (JJ’s number, not mine) of confirmed gay bachelors have the authority to waive the civil marriage rights of the 25% of gay men who’d like to settle down?
How does a study of cohabitation patterns when marriage is illegal map to marital patterns when marriage is legal?
Is it inconceivable that being told constantly that your relationship is intrinsically illegitimate might have an effect on patterns of behavior?
Unfortunately there’s no evidence same-sex marriage would be saner or healthier than heterosexual relationships — in fact the trends indicate they’d be just as screwed up.
This is a classic of mispresentation and misdirection. I mentioned the evolution of relationship models and institutions, not the comparative state of individual relationships. I didn’t say anything remotely like the idiotic idea that same-sex relationships are or would be healthier than opposite-sex relationships.
But the institution is healthier because married women now own property instead of being property. It’s healthier because the legalization of birth control facilitates family planning. It’s healthier because of Loving. It’s healthier when people aren’t locked in abusive or desperately unhappy relationships. I think same-sex marriage is another step in the same direction.
There’s no way to measure whether relationships or the people in them are healthier than they were in 1500, or 1600, or 1900, or 1950, and no way to exclude confounding factors even if we could make the measurements. For relationships and the flexibility of gender roles, I’ll take this era any day. I doubt I’m alone.
I also believe that all of this could be unraveled in a flash if we get a big societal swing further rightwards, and given the state of our politics that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I’ve got my route through the woods to Canada all mapped out. So much for Pollyanna.
Misrepresenting other people, name-calling, irrelevancies like gay men’s relationship habits, stinky rotten red herrings like HIV — these are all in the service of that other smelly activity of Jay’s:
And if I ‘stir up the sh*t’ as you put it, it’s because ‘vanila’ postings are ignored. Posted by: Jay Jerome | October 11, 2009 at 01:38 AM
In other words, if people don’t pay enough attention to Jay, he starts piling it higher and deeper.
Jay also promised to leave us alone on that occasion. Maybe someday we’ll get lucky and he’ll mean it.
Sapient, how exactly does this inherent inequalizing power of marriage work for same-sex relationships? When two men marry, or two women, which one suddenly starts having to do more housework, and how does “the institution of marriage” decide?
KCinDC, thanks for reminding me of this:
I’m sure that people here think it’s just a coincidence that married men do less of their share of housework than cohabiting men.
I don’t see anything in the linked article that says they looked at whether age made a difference. If younger people are on average more likely to cohabit, and older people are on average more likely to think traditionally about gender roles, that would explain the results without any reference to marriage as a causative factor.
Hell, if people who think traditionally about gender roles are more likely to marry, that would explain the results without showing that marriage causes inequality.
KCinDC and JanieM, let me address first the issue of whether marriage strengthens traditional gender roles. I cited that study because it supports what I have observed. The study may be flawed. My observations may be flawed. Given the history of marriage, and the religious concepts that many people attach to it, I think it’s reasonable to believe that marriage reinforces traditional gender roles to the detriment of women. KCinDC, the theory about reinforcement of traditional gender roles doesn’t apply to gay marriages – I have no idea if marriage would affect gay relationships at all, and it’s beside the point. I believe that heterosexual women are harmed by reinforcing traditional gender roles. Gay marriage might improve this situation. (I support gay marriage, in case anyone missed that point.)
Gromit, my argument is less about rights and duties than about the institution of marriage being fraught with history and religious ideas that can’t be shaken simply by changing the law. And, since the laws surrounding marriage vary considerably from one jurisdiction to the next, my discussion of a problem in my state might be more or less of an issue elsewhere. I will give you one example of “duties” I find offensive in my jurisdiction, a “fault” state: conjugal duty and fidelity. People are routinely humiliated by having their perceived sexual shortcomings made an issue in court as a matter of public record. Aside from being a distasteful, undignified and destructive waste of the court’s time, it reduces sexuality to an exclusive contract for service – something that wouldn’t be honored outside a marriage. My understanding is that this is less of an issue in true “no-fault” jurisdictions such as California. (I have nothing against people having sex and being faithful to each other – that’s lovely and it’s none of my business.)
I wasn’t being evasive when I stated that part of my problem with marriage is exactly what so many people think they like about it: that there are many legal effects of marriage that people don’t even know exist. It’s wonderful if your spouse is the person you’d like to have inherit the things you own. What if you don’t want him/her to inherit, but you don’t realize that s/he gets 1/3 of your estate – money that you had wanted to put in trust for your children? What if you don’t want your spouse to be the one who decides whether you get fed through a tube? Default positions in the law are just that – they work both ways. Isn’t it better for people to knowingly plan? I would prefer a regime where people register their household members and list who is the “default” inheritor, guardian, power of attorney, health care proxy, etc. That process wouldn’t be any more time consuming than applying for a marriage license, and would be a solution for those who aren’t prepared to execute more formal documents.
Most of the problems I see with marriage are more subtle, and not written into the law officially. The fact that domestic crimes are not reported, investigated or prosecuted adequately is one phenomenon. If a marriage is bad, it can isolate people and be difficult to escape – one party who controls the money can keep the other feeling imprisoned and incapable of seeking a divorce. Again, I live in a “fault” state, and things might be better elsewhere, but these are serious issues where I live.
The two-parent nuclear family model is so loudly preferred that single parents often feel stigmatized. I’ve known divorced people desperate for a new spouse (any spouse) for no other reason than to avoid the dreaded “single-parent” label and accompanying low expectations for their children. This isn’t necessarily constructive if the single parent gets into another conflict-ridden marriage.
I realize these anecdotes don’t prove anything to people who are devoted to glorifying marriage. I don’t know if substituting another model will be a panacea. Fine. I’m not asking anyone to “jump on my bandwagon”, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. I will continue, however, to question the value of a legal institution which, 100 years ago, served different purposes than people ascribe to it today, and whose very definition few people agree on. I would think that something this fundamental should be a bit more coherent both in its purpose and in its effects. I’ve stated some of the things I think are wrong with it, and given a suggestion I think is preferable (registration of households or registered domestic agreements). I don’t hate marriage, hate people who are married, hate love, hate sex, or hate fidelity. But I can’t expect the government to leave my sexual decisions alone if I insist that it give me a special status based on a sexual relationship.
Sapient: I will give you one example of “duties” I find offensive in my jurisdiction, a “fault” state: conjugal duty and fidelity. People are routinely humiliated by having their perceived sexual shortcomings made an issue in court as a matter of public record.
And that, I will agree with you, is a piece of crap. People should be allowed to get divorced without having to explain why to the judge, simply by agreeing to live apart: and a person who wants to get a fast divorce because of the “unreasonable behavior” of their spouse (which could include spousal infidelity) ought to have the right to explain that unreasonable behavior in a private session of the court, not open to journalists or members of the public not involved.
But if one person, married to another person, wants to divorce their spouse because they’re having sex with someone else, and wants to do so fast because they can’t stand having them around any more, I fail to see the problem – no one should be required to stay married if they feel the marriage is now over thanks to the way their spouse has behaved.
I don’t want to get into an argument about wills and legislation requiring wills where the will-maker has a spouse or children to leave a basic minimum to either, but this following item is exactly why I can’t take Sapient seriously.
Sapient said: What if you don’t want him/her to inherit, but you don’t realize that s/he gets 1/3 of your estate – money that you had wanted to put in trust for your children?
When you make a will – and everyone who cares about the people who will have to pick up the pieces after you die should make a will, no matter how little or how much they have to leave – you should take legal advice about the basic structure of your will.
Something as basic as “you must leave at minimum 1/3 of your movable estate to your spouse” will certainly surface then.
At this point, if you do not wish to leave this to your spouse, you have three choices:
1. Make the will the way you wanted it, and get a divorce. Even if you die before the divorce is through, a court will normally judge the will based on your decision to divorce, and leave the spouse only what they would have got in the divorce proceedings. (Of course, this may actually be more than they would have got in the will. Hm. Sometimes you just have to trust that your spouse will behave justly to your children. If not, why did you marry him/her?)
2. Explain your decision to your spouse, and ask that s/he not contest the will, though it leaves her/him less than the legal minimum. If you don’t trust your spouse enough for that, maybe (1) is the right decision. If your decision to leave your spouse nothing looks unjust/unkind to your spouse, maybe s/he will divorce you, resolving the problem.
3. Suck it up and deal: if you don’t want a divorce and can’t justify the justness of your decision to your spouse, then, well: the law does not allow people to treat everyone exactly how they want.
( What if you don’t want your spouse to be the one who decides whether you get fed through a tube?
Then when you have a solicitor write up a power of attorney, you give the power to make medical decisions to the person you do trust that much. Or if the problem is you don’t want anyone to let you get fed through a tube, you make a living will which sets out stringent conditions that do not allow a spouse to force the medical carers to keep feeding you through a tube against your will.
This is less of a good example because many sensible people don’t think of making living wills or of writing a power of attorney.
But the law is actually that the patient’s wishes are paramount. The law assumes that a spouse is likely to know what those wishes are. If you wake up one morning and think “I don’t want my spouse to keep me alive on a feeding tube against my will”, and fear that even explaining this wish in detail to your spouse is not going to help if the time comes – well, again, maybe divorce is the right solution when you so mistrust your spouse.)
In short: Sapient’s objections to marriage still come across, to me, as typical of a straight guy who discovered, to his indignation, that the law gave his wife rights over property that he had always assumed was his alone, when she got a divorce because he was unfaithful to her and she found out.
(Family solicitors say that most male indignation on divorce is that he wanted to stay married to her – but she still gets a large chunk of what he thought of as his property.)
Sapient, I don’t imagine many people here disagree with you about no-fault divorce laws. Don’t the vast majority of states have them now? How does the fact that they don’t exist in a few places contaminate marriage in the places that do have them?
From Findlaw:
From another website‘s entry for McDonnell’s state:
Nuisance to have to live separately for a year, first, but Virginia does seem to have no-fault divorce.
Just for my own sanity, can we all agree that the following are two separate questions?
1. If we are going have a legally recognized institution called “marriage,” in whatever flawed form it may exist, should it be open to same-sex couples?
2. What flaws exist in the legally recognized instituion called “marriage” (aside from who has access to it)?
I’m a simple man with simple needs. Please help.
As to “no-fault” divorce. It’s “available” in all states for sane people married to sane people. Other issues later.
hsh, I’m sure you know you have my hearty agreement. 😉
If a marriage is bad, it can isolate people and be difficult to escape – one party who controls the money can keep the other feeling imprisoned and incapable of seeking a divorce.
In some other system, how would you make this different? If people went into a partnership with vastly differing financial resources, would you make the richer one put money in trust for the poorer one upon registration of the partnership, to prevent this situation?
(Side note: if a marriage is bad it can isolate people and be difficult to escape regardless of money. So can a relationship where the people didn’t bother to get married.)
Years ago I did “Warriors of the Heart” workshops — I jokingly called them “conflict resolution and weekend group therapy.” The workshop leader, Danaan Parry, eventually, along with his wife, designed a second series of workshops called “Essential Peacemaking: Women and Men.” These had many echoes of “Warriors,” but were was focused on relationships.
I loved Danaan and I learned a lot in his workshops. But I was one of the few non-straight people in the EP workshops I went to, and I was always having to say something like this (or sometimes just keep my mouth shut and think it, because it wasn’t all about me): “This stuff that you’re attributing to gender differences? It looks that way to you because your experience is all with opposite-gender relationships. I’ve been in both kinds, and they’re far more alike than you’re allowing for. A lot of the stuff you’re attributing to gender differences and polarizations is really due to human differences and polarizations. Not that gender isn’t real and a strong presence, but it’s not as simple as you’re making it.”
The analogy to this thread is that I keep getting the feeling that a lot of what Sapient is objecting to and attributing to marriage is actually attributable to relationships per se. They seem to be problems with marriage because marriage is what we’ve got, but most of these problems are not going to magically disappear if we abolish the legal/cultural institution of marriage (good luck abolishing the religious institution of marriage).
Also, as KCinDC’s points suggest, it’s not clear, and almost impossible to prove, in which direction the causal arrow points. Sapient seems to think all these problems are caused by marriage, I suggest that to some extent marriage is “caused” by these problems. That is, it is our attempt to cope with them in an orderly way. I’m sure we could do better, but as a Zen teacher once said, “The path is under your feet.” We can only start from where we are. Creating some system to replace marriage is for all practical purposes not going to happen in my lifetime. To whatever extent it happens at all, the process will be gradual and piecemeal. To get back to the point I mostly care about and for the sake of hairshirt’s sanity: In the meantime gay people should be allowed to get married.
Marty: As for the University, it is interesting that that 3 years out of University all of my kids have distinctly different views on many subjects than they had in those years.
Indeed. I understand that most people (including me) change their minds about lots of things as the years go by. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think/hope that even if the current UMaine students change their minds about this as they grow older, the percentage might change from, let’s say, 81-19 to 70-30, not to 19-81. 70-30 would be a great electoral margin.
This issue isn’t like tax policy or who gets the town snowplowing contract this year. There’s a huge generational difference between today’s young people and people over, let’s say, 65, in terms of how they’ve experienced the existence of homosexuality and of actual gay people as they’ve grown up. There was no Ellen when I was a kid. There was no Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. There were no votes on gay rights or gay marriage. There were no Heathers with 2 Mommies. There was no such thing as homosexuality in my world when I was growing up.
Absent a severe and violent societal turn back toward repression, the process of normalization is well under way, and I hope what that means is that when current college students are 40 and 50 and 60, they’ll still be saying, “What was the big whup?”
A snapshot of this moment in time.
They seem to be problems with marriage because marriage is what we’ve got, but most of these problems are not going to magically disappear if we abolish the legal/cultural institution of marriage
Sapient seems to think all these problems are caused by marriage, I suggest that to some extent marriage is “caused” by these problems.
JanieM nails it in two sentences.
JanieM nails it in two sentences.
Aye. And to think I was going to post something much more long-winded and a bit tangential.
If only marriages didn’t involve people…
harshirthedonist: “If we are going have a legally recognized institution called “marriage,” in whatever flawed form it may exist, should it be open to same-sex couples?”
No.
I’m in favor of a legally recognized institution called ‘domestic partnership’ which would provide the same benefits ‘married’ people receive. That would include same-sex homosexual partnerships, same-sex friendship partnerships, same-sex sibling partnerships, and all other mixed sex partnerships, including father-daughter, mother-son, and any other kinship combinations thereof.
But lets not blur the intrinsic meaning of ‘marriage’ as a male-female social institution, the primary intimate masculine-feminine union throughout the history of the human race, and turn it into a unisex conjugal ceremony, contrary to the polarities of gender it has always signified.
The current Oregon Domestic partnership laws partially reflect my views on avoiding the term ‘marriage’ while extending the rights afforded married couples to others deprived of them now.
“Homosexual” marriage was quite common among a large number of groups in North America pre-European contact. I wouldn’t be so quick to talk about “the history of the human race” if you don’t know what you’re talking about.
hairshirthedonist:
1. Yes.
2. We’ve been discussing this issue at length, and obviously many people think there’s nothing wrong with the legal institution of marriage. I think there are some things wrong with it:
a. Because of its history and the variety of religious associations attached to it, it has no commonly recognized legal definition or purpose, and it seems hopelessly inextricable from its history and associated religious concepts. People have various ideas of what it’s for, including, as a few examples:
i. Some people see it as a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities that two people should be able to sign up for no matter who they are and what their intentions.
ii. Some people see it as a public sign of a private commitment between two people to be together for life, but approve of divorce if things don’t work out.
iii. Some people see marriage as a foundation of society, and think divorce should be hard to obtain, because with easy divorce comes instability.
iv. Some people see marriage as a place where their sexual relationships become legitimized.
iv. Some people see it as the only appropriate way to reproduce, and nurture children; some as a the optimal way to do the same thing. (Some subset of these people think that, without it, children are “illegitimate”.)
v. Some people see marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman that’s recognized by the law.
vi. Some people think a legal institution of marriage in a multicultural society needs to accommodate forms, such as polygamy, allowed by religions that are not Judeo-Christian. Others are offended by this possibility.
b. Because the United States is a multijurisdictional society, even if marriage is reduced to a bundle of rights and responsibilities, these rights and responsibilities vary among jurisdictions, so people get a different bundle whenever they move. They might like the bundle in California, but like it less when their employer transfers them to Virginia, but they’re still married in Virginia, and the bundle doesn’t transfer.
c. It’s difficult or impossible for the law to accommodate everyone’s expectations about marriage. If it’s reduced to the least common denominator bundle of rights and responsibilities, it loses its meaning to many people.
d. To me, the answer for people who want a bundle of rights is to come up with a multi-state bundle of rights. This is best not called marriage, since people can be more objective about a bundle of rights when they’re not thinking about sacraments, or white dresses, or homophobia, or whatever else gets in their way. I would argue that if there’s a bundle of rights for everyone, called something like “registered household,” everyone is being treated fairly AND people can actually know what the bundle of rights is, and make tweaks and adjustments. Then people can have their own “marriages” that encompass other meanings like lifelong commitment, sacrament, etc. – all the things other than the “bundle of rights”.
“Indeed. I understand that most people (including me) change their minds about lots of things as the years go by.”
But you never know in which direction the public mind shift will go.
20 years ago the statistics were shifting favorably for more abortion rights; now they’ve shifted in the other direction.
More Americans Now “Pro-Life”
Today’s thumbs up can quickly turn into tomorrow’s fickle middle finger of fate.
More ‘mind shift’
Though fickle Fortune has deceived me,
She pormis’d fair and perform’d but ill;
–Robert Burns
harshirthedonist: “If we are going have a legally recognized institution called “marriage,” in whatever flawed form it may exist, should it be open to same-sex couples?”
No.
Okay, Jay. But I wasn’t asking that question. I was asking this question:
Just for my own sanity, can we all agree that the following are two separate questions?
Jay, the question of WHEN the question should be re-introduced is very different from the question of IF it should be introduced. The article’s headline suggests the poll asked the latter question, while the article itself says it asked the former. This likely explains the discrepancy.
“. . . but it’s not the civil rights movement.”
Unless you are gay.
And then you’d probably think differently.
And regardless, as Tony P. noted, civil rights covers a broad spectrum.
Let’s say I refused to wait on a black customer Saturday for no other reason than he is black. I violated his civil rights.
Now let’s say I refused to wait on a gay customer Monday for no other reason than he was gay, basing that on the fact that, somehow, I knew the customer was gay — or, hell, I just thought he was gay and turned out to be right. I violated his civil rights, too.
—
Gromit: You may have already known this and just worded it wrong, but Strom Thurmond is dead. Then again, he seemed dead for a long time while he was living.
bedtimeforbonzo: Gromit: You may have already known this and just worded it wrong, but Strom Thurmond is dead. Then again, he seemed dead for a long time while he was living.
Yes, I am aware of Strom Thurmond’s present condition. It was a figure of speech.
JanieM nails it in two sentences.
Thirded. Now let’s hope we hear no more from Sapient on this topic unless someone posts a “How to reform marriage” thread.
Oh wait.
Sapient: We’ve been discussing this issue at length, and obviously many people think there’s nothing wrong with the legal institution of marriage.
“Obviously”? Huh. Your problem here is you have consistently been walking into a discussion of a civil rights issue – the ban on marriage for same-sex couples – and trying, for the most part very, very aggressively, to turn the discussion into talk of “What’s wrong with marriage”, beginning with your belief that the ban on marriage should be extendd to everyone.
Now, I’m a lifelong pacifist. I occasionally say as a joke that I’d have no problem with banning GLBT people from the armed forces if only all straight cisgendered people were also banned. But I recognize this is a joke, not a strategy. You are presenting the equivalent – your detestation for marriage – as if it were a serious contribution to discussion on civil rights.
It’s not.
I don’t expect people to want to discuss my lifelong pacifism in a discussion on DADT: why do you expect people to want to discuss your detestation of marriage in a discussion on DOMA/other bans on marriage for same-sex couples?
“(Family solicitors say that most male indignation on divorce is that he wanted to stay married to her – but she still gets a large chunk of what he thought of as his property.)”
Well, yeah, I can kinda understand that: Was financially sound, owned my own home, married a woman with a lot of debt, a year later she divorced me, and left totally debt free in return for abandoning any claim to the home I’d built with my own hands on my family land.
It DOES really piss you off to discover you’ve been used as a “Get out of debt quick!” service, with the law’s approval.
Brett: It DOES really piss you off to discover you’ve been used as a “Get out of debt quick!” service, with the law’s approval.
Accepting for the sake of blogging that the woman in question really did just marry you in order to divorce you in a year and get her debts settled thereby, that does indeed sound like you got rooked by a confidence trickster, and that is a crappy thing to happen to anyone: you have my sincere sympathies.
OTOH, where any two people split up, especially when it happens so fast, the odds are the relationship looked strikingly different to both people, and in all honesty, I suspect we’d hear a different story from the woman involved were she commenting here – but she’s not, and regardless, having a relationship which both parties intended to be a lifetime committment end so messily after only a year together is a crappy thing to happen to anyone: you have my sincere sympathies.
And on the gripping hand: regardless of whether it was a messy breakup or someone entering into a relationship as a calculated deception, I think that it’s a fair presumption that divorce law should generally work to protect the less-well-off spouse from being financially damaged by marriage. On that, I suspect, we’ll never agree. But I’m sorry for your crappy breakup.
But lets not blur the intrinsic meaning of ‘marriage’ as a male-female social institution,
LOL “intrinsic meaning.” Where do you imagine that words come from?
BTFB: if you refused service on the grounds that X was gay, and X turned out NOT to be gay, it would still be a discriminatory act. The wrong is in the intended discrimination, not in the ‘accuracy’ of discerning who to discriminate against.
Likewise if X was black: if I was wrong about X’s race, it was still my intention to discriminate on that basis.
Gromit: “Jay, the question of WHEN the question should be re-introduced is very different from the question of IF it should be introduced. The article’s headline suggests the poll asked the latter question, while the article itself says it asked the former. This likely explains the discrepancy.”
You’d think so, but respondent answers on polls don’t always reflect what they believe, especially if the question isn’t socially ‘neutral’ —
The first answer may reflect an expected politically-correct norm; the second may reflect a below-the-surface contradictory attitude. You can be in favor of something as a general proposition, but not like the actual consequences of that proposition.
For instance, if you asked respondents in a poll if they thought the captured Fort Hood shooter should have a fair trial when he recovers, you’d probably get a high percentage of ‘yes’ votes. But if you asked them if knowing what they know about him now, they found him drowning in the ocean, would they toss him a life preserver, you’d probably get a resounding percentage of no’s.
The higher percentage in favor of not revisiting a gay marriage may indicate a deeper held unease about legalizing it, which could affect future legislation concerning it.
Jesurgislac (to Sapient): “Your problem here is you have consistently been walking into a discussion of a civil rights issue – the ban on marriage for same-sex couples”
The ban for homosexual marriage is not a same-sex civil rights issue — it’s a
discrepancy of benefits issue, which affects far more heterosexuals then gays. If ten times more unmarried non-gays are deprived of the same rights, does that devolve into a narrowly focused gay-rights issue?
Phil: Where do you imagine that words come from?
Well, the word “troll”, according to the New Hacker’s Dictionary, is said to be derived from the ugly creature that lurks in dark places, yet given its close connection with “flame bait”, I think is more likely to be derived from “trolling a line”. The distinction matters only a little: if troll is a bridge-lurker, clearly we should refrain from feeding it – but if the troll is a line thrown out with flame bait attached, clearly we should refrain from swallowing it.
If ten times more unmarried non-gays are deprived of the same rights…
The significant distinction here is that unmarried straight people can get married.
It’s the denial of legal, civic, public recognition of gay marriage that is the issue.
You, along with Sapient, may *also* like to argue that the legal benefits accruing to marriage should also be granted to non-marrieds.
But interesting a topic though that may be, it’s not the question on the table.
Capisce?
Jay Jerome: You’d think so, but respondent answers on polls don’t always reflect what they believe, especially if the question isn’t socially ‘neutral’ —
The first answer may reflect an expected politically-correct norm; the second may reflect a below-the-surface contradictory attitude. You can be in favor of something as a general proposition, but not like the actual consequences of that proposition.
Jay, there is an ongoing debate within the pro-marriage-equality community over whether bringing to issue to a vote again in 2010 is too early. I’m not just speculating that this disagreement exists, it exists in fact. There are a not insignificant number of folks who are strongly in favor of SSM who think raising the issue again in 2010 would be bad timing. There are probably also folks who would gladly vote for SSM, but who are tired of the campaigning for or against for the moment. There might also be folks who think putting the issue up for a plebiscite is demeaning (having to go begging to your neighbors for equal treatment and whatnot). There are probably lots of reasons for the gap. But the idea that the 9-point discrepancy is mainly attributable to homophobia only surfacing on the procedural question is pretty far fetched, if you ask me. The Bradley Effect (which probably never existed) was attributed to the difference in methodology between opinion polls and the secret ballot. There’s no such difference here, and I have a hard time thinking the question “should gays be treated equally” is more likely to trigger social pressures than “should gays seek equal treatment”.
The movement began in the immediate aftermath of WWII, picked up steam with Brown vs. Board and got started in earnest in the early 60’s.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | November 05, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Just for the record, I think the Civil Rights movement for people of color, started during Reconstruction and expanded to encompass gender. And the GLBT community is an expansion of this movement.
the Civil Rights movement for people of color, started during Reconstruction and expanded to encompass gender.
Actually, the abolitionist movement was earlier than that, and I’m sure there was other stuff going on earlier than that. And the gender equality movement was an issue from at least when the Christian fathers decided that women have a soul. The fact is people have been fighting for their rights for a long, long time. And equal protection of the laws, as a matter of mechanics anyway, can be done pretty easily. Funny how long it takes.
Hey, you know what really erodes marriage in Rhode Island? When your gay neighbor, who lost his partner, is seen at the funeral home with a funeral director, planning out his partner’s funeral just as if they were married to each other. ‘Cause planning your lost love’s funeral is something only heterosexual widow/ers can be allowed to do.
Jesurgislac, I think we can all agree, that sucks (and it’s insane). I dread Bob McDonnell, my new governor.
While I’m absolutely opposed to what Carcieri said about the erosion of marriage and absolutely in favor of marriage equality, it does sounds like the bill in question was a bit of a mess. Rhode Island needs to institute domestic partnerships (if they can’t manage marriage equality) immediately, but without something like that in place it seems bizarre to construct a bill for funeral planning only, listing various characteristics of the relationship that make it sort of recognized by the state (but only for that purpose) even though the parties took no steps to have it recognized. But maybe I’m missing something.
Suppose you’re in a same-sex couple in Rhode Island who would take advantage of domestic partnership or marriage if it were available. Can’t you even now leave instructions allowing your partner to plan your funeral, or is there some law that would allow your parents or some other relative to override your wishes?
If this is only for people who die without leaving instructions, then it’s still important, but trying to do something without setting up a framework for the state to recognize the relationship seems like putting the cart before the horse. Maybe the patch is workable for now (or maybe it’s not well designed), but regardless it’s something that’ll have to be undone once the problem is addressed correctly.
In fact, all of the states have some form of Durable Power Of Attorney laws, which allow anyone to designate the person or persons authorized to make burial decisions. Rhode Island has a designated agent law that covers it. Anyone with a computer or access to a library can download the forms for free, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or asexual.
The Rhode Island form is accessible here.
Gromit: “But the idea that the 9-point discrepancy is mainly attributable to homophobia only surfacing on the procedural question is pretty far fetched”
I agree with what you said @nov 11, 01:46pm, that some of those who don’t want to see the issue on the ballot now do so because they think it’s a timing issue, etc; but I object to the broad-brush characterization that all those against same-sex marriage are homophobic.
“I have a hard time thinking the question “should gays be treated equally” is more likely to trigger social pressures than “should gays seek equal treatment”.”
The real question is should all unmarried couples be treated equally. The special benefits given to married couples aren’t only denied to same-sex couples, they’re denied to exponentially more heterosexual cohabiting couples, and same-sex non-gay household partnerships, all treated just as un-equally.
KCinDC: If this is only for people who die without leaving instructions, then it’s still important, but trying to do something without setting up a framework for the state to recognize the relationship seems like putting the cart before the horse.
I suspect it was a legislator’s reaction to a particular injustice.
It happens all too often that when one half of a gay couple dies, their blood family take over. If the dead person hasn’t left a will* the blood family are legally entitled to take over – to be appointed executor, to make the funeral arrangements, to dispose of their dead relative’s goods.
(*or if the blood family are able to get a court to overset the will on the grounds that it was made under “undue influence” from that evil person who’s been a bad influence on their virtuous relative for so many years)
There are practical reasons why same-sex couples need marriage, as much as mixed-sex couples do, for all the exigiences of life and separation and childcare, and tax protection and pension protection and healthcare, so on and so forth.
But taking away a lover’s right to make arrangements for his beloved’s funeral, is one of the simplest and yet most absolutely hurtful things that the blood family can do to a gay partner. If there’s no will at all, they don’t even have to be mean-minded to do it: they’re just carrying out their legal obligation, which does not fall to someone who is no legal relation to the person who just died.
Sure, the state should did ought to be recognizing their relationship to each other before one of them dies, yes, absolutely. But still. It’s a tiny amount of charity they were trying to offer there: to say that you can, at least, get to have the closure of a funeral.
russell: “The significant distinction here is that unmarried straight people can get married.”
No, it’s not the significant distinction if you’re taking about the civil rights of same-sex couples being abrogated. If those abrogated rights are made available to all domestic partnerships, no matter what the sexual combinations of those partnerships, gays in domestic partnerships would receive them along with everyone else.
And if gays are receiving all the specific rights they say they’re being denied, what civil rights are they being deprived of? Aside from the ceremonial recognition, what other legal rights are in question?
Jay, would you have used that argument in opposition to legalizing interracial marriage? If not, why not? Would not the same logic apply?
The RI case looks to me like a law built on an event. There are countless of these in the US (like the ones about throwing moose out of aeroplanes, banning Robin Hood stories for propagating communism, fining people for showering naked, allowing to shoot at Indians from behind canvas…)
No, it’s not the significant distinction if you’re taking about the civil rights of same-sex couples being abrogated.
Actually, it’s precisely the significant distinction.
If those abrogated rights are made available to all domestic partnerships, no matter what the sexual combinations of those partnerships, gays in domestic partnerships would receive them along with everyone else.
All heterosexual domestic partners can gain access to all of the benefits that accrue to marriage by *getting married*.
Nobody’s saying they have to get married, but they can if they wish to.
That is not available to gays in almost all jurisdictions.
And I can guarantee you that, were the law to be changed so that any “registered domestic partnership”, however that is construed, was granted the benefits currently given only to married couples, we would immediately see an effort to deny “registered domestic partnership” status to gays.
Why? Because a significant number of people think homosexuality is plain old wrong, and they will resist to the last fiber of their being any public sanction of what they consider to be bad, sinful behavior. Period.
Trust me on this.
Lots of folks just don’t like homosexuality, for any of a variety of reasons. Fine, whatever. That’s their problem, it’s not my hash to settle. We can all talk until we’re blue in the face, but some minds are just not open to persuasion. Unfortunately.
However, that’s *not a good enough reason to deny gays access to civic and legal institutions that are readily available to anyone who isn’t gay*.
We shouldn’t tolerate it for employment, we shouldn’t tolerate it for housing, we shouldn’t tolerate it for legal marriage. We shouldn’t tolerate it for any aspect of public, civil life.
Marriage, for good or ill, confers civic and legal privileges. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does.
Straights can have them, gays can’t. That’s what makes it a civil rights issue.
Oh. Wow. No sense in showering with your clothes on, is there?
Obviously that last wasn’t in response to russell; it was in response to Hartmut.
Hopefully, obviously.
What ever happened to rendering unto Caesar?
Or: When did they decide to try to be Caesar instead of just rendering? Yeah, I know, probably a week or two after what’s his name, the guy who gave that instruction, left the scene.
russell, you are more correct than you may suspect. The very same people that fought the gay marriage law in Maine pretending to be just against ‘marriage’ for gays (but being no way anti-gay*) fought against civil unions in Washington without that pretense**.
The same tactic is used by those that want to make both abortion and contraception illegal. They keep silent about the latter until they have achieved the former.
*even asking their most rabid allies to stay away or shut up in order not to destroy the illusion
**and internally stating that that too is only one step on the way. Next goal: get back the sodomy laws.
“Why? Because a significant number of people think homosexuality is plain old wrong, and they will resist to the last fiber of their being any public sanction of what they consider to be bad, sinful behavior. Period.”
There is also that inconvenient fact that the laws as written referenced “married” and “spouse” in establishing the benefits because there was a common understnding that it meant heterosexual partners. So the shortest way to get those benefits to be incurred by same sex partners is to redefine the common meaning.
That is, of course, also taking an end around redefining which of those benefits would or would not be granted if the meaning was changed and the laws reviewed.
This is not a constitutional issue, it is a bunch of laws that provide primarily financial benefits on a very specific group in society, to which same sex couples do not belong, but they want those financial benefits.
Other groups would like some of those benefits, but it is a harder task to review all of the benefits and assign them to people they should apply to.
So the answer is “get married and let everyone who wants to get married” no matter what the original intent of the law was.
but they want those financial benefits
Among other things.
See my comment earlier about the shorthand of having one readily and universally recognized set of roles, relationships, rights, etc. It goes far, far beyond the financial.
Slartibartfast:
No sense in showering with your clothes on, is there?
Ever see Charade?
“See my comment earlier about the shorthand of having one readily and universally recognized set of roles, relationships, rights, etc. It goes far, far beyond the financial.”
The challenge is that if the benefits are reviewed in isolation some would be easy (most medical related ones), some more difficult(inheritance), some almost impossible(coadoption).
So the attempt is to tie them together so they aren’t evaluated individually to avoid the case by case review of the intent of the lawmakers and public.
So instead of fighting for the specifics it turns into a “civil rights” fight, which it isn’t.
Marty: So the shortest way to get those benefits to be incurred by same sex partners is to redefine the common meaning.
It’s an odd little thing, that homophobic conviction that if married couple is applied to same-sex couples, it changes the “common meaning” of marriage.
Because for the people who maintain that the common meaning of marriage can’t include same-sex couples without redefining, they just put on public, open display the fact that for them, marriage does not mean two people pledging to love, honor, and cherish each other lifelong: for them, marriage is not to do with love, loyalty, caring for children, mutual support through thick and thin, sickness and health.
The amount of meanings these people must exclude from what they earnestly assure us is “the common meaning” of marriage in their view, mean that for all normal and loving understanding of marriage, they themselves are redefining marriage, in order to be able to exclude a category of people they don’t like from it.
They don’t want gay people to be able to get married, because in their bigoted view, sharing marriage with gay people will spoil marriage. For them, marriage isn’t about love and commitment to your chosen partner, it’s a privilege from which people must be excluded in order to know that it’s valuable.
I feel slightly sorry for their wives/husbands, if they have them, being so very publicly slighted.
Sounds great Jes, I agree, until you start getting the government to define the benefits assigned to that loving, supportive relationship.
This is just a bunch of nice rhetoric that flies in the face of the actual discussion here. None of the things in your comment are government endowed or approved and any couple can have them any time they like.
And I am sure you don’t mean that the accepted usage of the term historically was homophobic, just that it’s a great accusation to throw out at anyone who doesn’t agree with you. Which is tiresome.
Sounds great Jes, I agree, until you start getting the government to define the benefits assigned to that loving, supportive relationship.
They’re already defined, Marty, hadn’t you noticed? Over a thousand benefits are defined and attached to civil marriage by the US federal government, and about 500 by the state governments. No one seems to have a difficulty with that, aside from homophobic bigots who don’t think gay people should have the same rights as straight people do.
None of the things in your comment are government endowed or approved and any couple can have them any time they like.
Precisely: the common meaning of marriage does in fact include same-sex couples. Glad you agree.
And I am sure you don’t mean that the accepted usage of the term historically was homophobic
I mean exactly what I say: people who claim that the “accepted usage” of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with two people pledging to love, honor, and cherish each other, are foolish. People who claim that in order to argue that same-sex couples can’t get married, are homophobic.
just that it’s a great accusation to throw out at anyone who doesn’t agree with you
Oh, come off it. I do not point out that Von is being homophobic when he argues that Republicans have a great healthcare plan, though I disagree with him, because his support for the Republican healthcare plan does not make him homophobic, it makes him conservative. Your claim that I call anyone who doesn’t agree with me “homophobic” is truly foolish.
But as we have already established on this thread and on other discussions, there are no reasons other than homophobia to argue that same-sex couples can’t be allowed to get married.
There is also that inconvenient fact that the laws as written referenced “married” and “spouse” in establishing the benefits because there was a common understnding that it meant heterosexual partners.
Yes, and for quite a long time in this country the common understanding of the word “person” for many if not most legal and civic purposes was “free white man”.
And, that common understanding changed. Common understandings often do, but equally often not without a kick in the pants.
Yes, the common meaning, but not the commonly accepted legal meaning when laws were being passed.
“We” haven’t established that, and you asserting it over and over doesn’t make it true.
Yes, the common meaning, but not the commonly accepted legal meaning when laws were being passed.
Exactly. Just as, once, the commonly accepted legal meaning of “voter” was “white man over 21”. Lift the legal ban on voting for black people, or women, or people aged 18-21, and the commonly accepted legal meaning of the word “voter” changes. There is no reason to continue to ban black people (or women) from voting just because “voters” had historically been held to mean “white men”. So with the legal meaning of marriage.
“We” haven’t established that
You may not have accepted that, but it has been established by argument on this and other threads, nonetheless.
you asserting it over and over doesn’t make it true.
I assert it over and over because it is true – no one has yet, has ever, come up with a reason why same-sex couples should be banned from marriage that isn’t homophobic.
Marty, what was the “commonly accepted legal meaning” of “arms” when the 2nd Amendment was passed? Or for that matter, of “the press” when the 1st Amendment was?
Did the “commonly accepted legal meaning” encompass only those forms of “arms” or “the press” which were known (or even imagined) at the time?
–TP
Interesting, but not on point. We are not talking about constitutional rights or protections, we are talking about benefits defined inadequately, mostly in state law, by using the words “married” and “spouse”. Adequate and clear descriptions when initially used, inadequate obviously today.
Gromit: “Jay, would you have used that argument in opposition to legalizing interracial marriage? If not, why not? Would not the same logic apply?”
The same logic doesn’t apply because race is different then gender, it’s like comparing apples and orange-crates. Those interracial prohibitions were against MEN and WOMEN of different races marrying. It wasn’t about males marrying males of different races or females marrying females of different races. Gender is THE primary identifying characteristic of our species; and if it isn’t a more important distinction for determining who should be allowed to marry then interracial marriage was, why is such a significant percentage of the Black community against it? If same-sex marriage is so plainly equivalent to the prohibitions against interracial marriage, why are so many African Americans against it?
It’s also interesting to note that Denmark, the first Western nation in the world to legalize same-sex relationships, the nation with the highest support for same-sex marriage (around 70%) hasn’t legalized gay marriage. Nor has England, with a high percentage in favor.
But some cold-climate nations have legalized it, like Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and the appropriately named Isle of Man, which has a fairly temperate climate, but lots of rain: so if you’re gay and want to get married immediately and don’t mind freezing your ass off or having it soaked to the bone, you may want to keep those destinations in mind.
The debate in Europe over same-sex marriage is as diverse and contentious as it is here. Among the 27 member European Union countries opinion is split: 8 countries overall favoring it; the rest against it). The Central European nations are uniformly against it. Same for all the Southern European nations, except Spain, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.
Overall, five or six European nations have have legalized same-sex marriage. Another 7 or 8 nations recognize same-sex domestic partnerships and cohabitation. France, historically a liberal same-sex country (as early as 1985 they prohibited discrimination based on gay lifestyle in employment) allows ‘a civil pact of solidarity’ between same sex or opposite sex couples, a form of civil union that provides many of the rights and benefits of marriage (filing joint tax returns, etc) but not direct property rights (a separate will is required), or absolute adoption rights (both partners in a same-sex relationship can have parental rights over one partner’s biological child; but if a child’s biological parent want’s the child, that parent has preference).
That’s like the system I proposed earlier in the thread: a way to provide most of the benefits of marriage to any couple, no matter their sex, without calling it ‘marriage’ and thereby blurring its meaning.
So if it’s good enough for the French, why not enact a similar law here?
Vive le France!!: Mariage pour hétérosexuels; Cérémonies civiles pour les gays!!
Russell: “All heterosexual domestic partners can gain access to all of the benefits that accrue to marriage by *getting married*.”
Wrong. A 60 year old father, living with his divorced 30 year old daughter, and her two minor children. They can’t get married. A middle-aged brother and his sister, neither involved in outside relationships or wanting to be, sharing an apartment for the past decade because they value each others company, they can’t get married. A widow and a widower in their 60s (there’s about a million plus of them cohabiting per the 2000 Census) who would lose their former partners pensions/insurance/social-security benefits if they remarry, really can’t marry without severe economic hardship. Cohabiting heterosexual Catholics, separated from their original spouses, who can’t get divorced because of their religious beliefs, therefore can’t marry each other in a civil marriage.
“And I can guarantee you that, were the law to be changed so that any “registered domestic partnership”, however that is construed, was granted the benefits currently given only to married couples, we would immediately see an effort to deny “registered domestic partnership” status to gays.”
So what. It would be a much weaker effort then the one against same-sex marriage. You’d have an easy time getting those domestic partner changes passed with 5.5 million cohabiting couples in the US, who would mostly be in favor of voting for it because they’d benefit from it.
Cohabiting heterosexual Catholics, separated from their original spouses, who can’t get divorced because of their religious beliefs, therefore can’t marry each other in a civil marriage.
There is no law against it. They can in fact get married. They choose not to. That’s an enormous, huge difference though.
A 60 year old father, living with his divorced 30 year old daughter, and her two minor children. They can’t get married. A middle-aged brother and his sister, neither involved in outside relationships or wanting to be, sharing an apartment for the past decade because they value each others company, they can’t get married.
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
A widow and a widower in their 60s (there’s about a million plus of them cohabiting per the 2000 Census) who would lose their former partners pensions/insurance/social-security benefits if they remarry, really can’t marry without severe economic hardship.
There is no law against it. They can in fact get married. They choose may not to. That’s an enormous, huge difference though.
For example, there is (or was) also a marriage penatly in some tax scenarios. However, this did not equal a legal prohibition on marriage.
hartmut: “The very same people that fought the gay marriage law in Maine pretending to be just against ‘marriage’ for gays (but being no way anti-gay*) fought against civil unions in Washington without that pretense**.
Senators, I have here in my hands a list of all the Communists presently employed in the U.S. State Department, take my word for it, the names are here, the VERY same people who are undermining our nation, although I’m not going to tell you if they’re very much or almost very much or partially very much of the same people because bottom line they’re all very very much the same.
Yours truly, the WideBrush Commentator
Interesting, but not on point.
Way to move goalposts, Marty. Tou are the one claiming that the historical usage of a word at the time legislation was written overrides current usage.
We are not talking about constitutional rights or protections
Yes, we are. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Jesurgislac: “For them, marriage isn’t about love and commitment to your chosen partner, it’s a privilege from which people must be excluded in order to know that it’s valuable. ”
Sob sob, sigh sigh (get me a tissue, this is a real tearjerker!!).
What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Love Is Just a 2nd Hand Same-Sex Distraction
You certainly don’t need a marriage license to show your love and commitment to a partner. Or are you suggesting that same-sex love is so perishable that a Partnership Certificate instead of a Marriage License will make their love melt away faster than a Slurpy on a hot day?
Has that happened in the UK? Are gays who enter into legal civil partnerships in your country breaking up faster than married heterosexuals? Or faster than heterosexuals in civil partnerships?
Are those civil partnerships working or not? If they are, why aren’t you in favor of us initiating a similar option here in the US?
Nuh-uh: TRADITION!
Wanted: Thread or Undead
Still going strong, I see.
Jay, why, seemingly, can’t you understand that same-sex couples don’t want to wait around for some magical, all-encompassing domestic-partnership movement to spring up and sweep them in along with the father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister regime you have in mind? And how is it that one cannot advocate for same-sex marriage without somehow squashing your proposed domestic partnerships?
I guess I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with these other marriage-like arrangements, which might include same-sex couples, but they don’t seem to be on the horizon or to have significant advocacy. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, does. I don’t see how your issue should be compelling to those seeking same-sex marriage.
I could start discussing a movement for abolishing all legal recognition of gender, rendering the distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages moot, thus solving the marriage problem for same-sex couples. Why wouldn’t homosexuals be happy with that? And, really, they should stop trying to get same-sex marriage, since it’s going to hurt, or at least not help, my cause.
Marty: So instead of fighting for the specifics it turns into a “civil rights” fight, which it isn’t.
The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man…”
Ah, but JanieM, he said “man” 😉
There is no law against their getting divorced, for that matter. There is no law against skipping Mass on Sunday or eating meat on Friday; Catholics choose to do these things. Just like Marty’s son and his girlfriend choose not to exercise a right that is unquestionably theirs (presuming they’re not married to other people etc. etc.).
Dan Savage, cutting to the chase.
Eric, ha. 😉
The same logic doesn’t apply because race is different then gender, it’s like comparing apples and orange-crates… Gender is THE primary identifying characteristic of our species
Shorter Jay: gay marriage raises different issues than interracial marriage does, because homosexuality is unnatural.
russell: “Shorter Jay: gay marriage raises different issues than interracial marriage does, because homosexuality is unnatural.”
you disappoint me, russell, making that ‘unnatural’ assertion. I never stated or implied anywhere that homosexuality is unnatural. shame on you for that disparaging characterization.
“Jay, why, seemingly, can’t you understand that same-sex couples don’t want to wait around for some magical, all-encompassing domestic-partnership movement to spring up and sweep them in along with the father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister regime you have in mind?”
How long do you think it’s going to take to pass same-sex marriage laws in all the states? A century?
eric martin: “What on earth does this have to do with anything? ”
You’re kidding, right? I was responding to the assertion that any cohabiting heterosexuals could get married if they wanted to: I gave examples of heterosexuals living together who can’t get married: what part of that escapes you?
Then you come up with this peculiar observation about the million plus elderly cohabiting in the US unable to marry because of the severe economic hardship it would entail:
“There is no law against it. They can in fact get married. They choose may not to. That’s an enormous, huge difference though.”
That’s like saying there was no law against voting in states with high poll taxes — if the disincentives are significant it becomes a defacto prohibition. If you’re an elderly person barely surviving on your deceased spouse’s pension, and have to give it up if you remarry, telling them they can “in fact get married” is an uninformed distortion of fact. I can’t believe you’re actually making that argument; the problem of the elderly living together because they can’t afford to live on their own is widespread. In 2006 1.8 million American aged 50 and older lived in heterosexual unmarried-partner households. That demographic is almost a million more than same-sex cohibitation. There are numerous financial disincentives for seniors to remarry, from loss of military and pension benefits and health insurance and social security survivor benefits, to a slew of personal reasons for not wanting to be FORCED to marry to maintain their present relationships.
As stated above, numerous European nations have initiated civil or domestic partnership laws to provide gays and others many of the significant benefits of marriage. That’s what we should do here.
JanieM: “There is no law against skipping Mass on Sunday or eating meat on Friday; Catholics choose to do these things.”
And there’s no law against executing a Durable Power of Attorney, or a Will, or a Contract to mutually own Property — (all cheaper and faster than procuring a marriage license) which Gays can chose to do if they want those benefits.
Jay Jerome: The same logic doesn’t apply because race is different then gender, it’s like comparing apples and orange-crates. Those interracial prohibitions were against MEN and WOMEN of different races marrying. It wasn’t about males marrying males of different races or females marrying females of different races. Gender is THE primary identifying characteristic of our species; and if it isn’t a more important distinction for determining who should be allowed to marry then interracial marriage was, why is such a significant percentage of the Black community against it?
Jay, you wrote earlier:
Your reasoning, as I understand it, is that extending domestic partnership rights to all couples is a sufficient remedy for same sex couples because it is the rights that matter, not the label. You have not explained why it would not then have been a sufficient remedy for interracial couples. Pointing out that legalizing interracial marriage benefitted heterosexuals and not homosexuals doesn’t really support your case the way you might think. Is equal treatment under the law a civil right or is it not? The answer doesn’t change depending on whether you are talking about race or gender.
If same-sex marriage is so plainly equivalent to the prohibitions against interracial marriage, why are so many African Americans against it?
Because African-Americans are just as capable of having prejudices as every one else. Surely this isn’t news to you.
I never stated or implied anywhere that homosexuality is unnatural.
Here was your statement:
Those interracial prohibitions were against MEN and WOMEN of different races marrying. It wasn’t about males marrying males of different races or females marrying females of different races. Gender is THE primary identifying characteristic of our species; and if it isn’t a more important distinction for determining who should be allowed to marry then interracial marriage was, why is such a significant percentage of the Black community against it?
Unless I’m mistaken, your argument here is that there is a stronger case to be made for denying access to marriage based on whether you are straight or gay than there is for denying access to marriage based on race.
Further, you seem to be arguing that the reason the case against homosexual marriage is stronger is because “gender” is a more fundamental aspect of human nature than race is.
For “gender” I’m reading “gender preference”, because it’s the only reading that is remotely coherent in the context of the overall discussion. Nobody is talking about denying access to marriage to either men or women as a whole.
I don’t care if you find my reading disappointing or not. I’m just unpacking your language, dude. If you’d like to take another swing at it and explain what your real intent was, feel free.
According to russell, my comments on this open thread are “off the table”, but I’d like to suggest that people refresh their memory about the struggles of alternative families. The United States Supreme Court, in its better days, in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, was willing to think about problems with the nuclear family considered as a preferred model. The rhetoric that suggests marriage somehow transforms a “second class” relationship into a “first-class” one is not “helpful” to a lot of people.
Jay, why, seemingly, can’t you understand that same-sex couples don’t want to wait around for some magical, all-encompassing domestic-partnership movement to spring up and sweep them in along with the father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister regime you have in mind?
I was thinking about this, and something occurred to me. Getting people who are currently fighting to make marriage gender-indiscriminate to turn around and argue for civil unions on the grounds Jay is presenting here… ouch. He’s arguing that homosexual couples should rhetorically equate themselves with brother/sister or parent/child “couples”. From a detached standpoint that’s not an unreasonable tact to take, but anyone going out and earnestly arguing it would have a lot of people wobbly on the issue coming down against it hard because the advocates would be equating same-sex marriage with relationships our society still views as very taboo. Yes, I know he stipulated these are not meant as “couple” couples. Rhetorically it wouldn’t matter.
Why do I get the feeling Jay’s chuckling to himself over this idea?
@Jay:
Assertion 1:
Assertion 2:
The first assertion has nothing to do with the second. NOTHING.
Jay, you’re getting lazy. Seriously. Give this point up.
I mean, really, do you honestly think the above can be construed as an argument in favor of giving same-sex couples civil unions? You know, those “just-like-a-marriage-except-the-name” things you were claiming they’d be?
Seriously?
Jay, even for you this is weak.
If elderly pensioners can’t remarry without losing benefits, they couldn’t legally-marry-in-all-but-name either. If civil unions are supposed to be the separate-but-equal equivalent of marriage, then they’d lose their pension benefits when they entered a civil union.
This isn’t that hard to understand. If you’re arguing that civil unions would afford a viable legal alternative to marriage, you should not be presenting it as being so weak as to not have the same legal standing as marriage in terms of e.g. eligibility for survivor benefits.
Make up your mind. First you’re arguing for civil unions in the sense they exist abroad. Then you turn around and start offering examples like this which makes it seem like you want… what? Non-binding declarations of love entered into the public record? Decide on what you’re arguing for, please. That, or admit you’re not arguing for anything, but rather simply against same-sex marriage.
And there’s no law against executing a Durable Power of Attorney, or a Will, or a Contract to mutually own Property — (all cheaper and faster than procuring a marriage license) which Gays can chose to do if they want those benefits.
Not in Virginia, they can’t.
Also, in Ohio you can a marriage license in a week, and it will currently cost you $44.
If not Jay, who will speak for the married-but-separated Catholics who happily disregard Church doctrine on cohabitation but scrupulously adhere to Church doctrine on divorce?
I think you are on to something, Nombrilisme Vide.
Phil, do you have a citation to whatever you’re basing your statement on regarding Virginia law? I’m not suggesting that Virginia’s laws don’t attempt to bar gay people from exercising those ordinary rights, but I don’t think they succeed.
Jay Jerome:Yours truly, the WideBrush Commentator
If you want specifics, take a few hours to read through this
There you can find (anomg other things) the details about the persons that tailor their anti-gay arguments to the intended audience and try to keep people from noticing their forked tongues (my apology to all decent snakes and lizards).
To save Phil the bother:
Here’s one link, here’s another, and another.
Has it been repealed or declared unconstitutional? Has it been shown not to do what it was supposed to do?
And another.
JanieM, I was aware of the MMA, which is truly the most horrifyingly discriminatory law in the country. However, I don’t think that it’s ever been interpreted (yet) to bar: people from executing a durable power of attorney, a will, or a contract to mutually own property. If these documents are drafted in a neutral manner, the law can’t possibly prohibit their enforcement. At least, I know of no cases in which that has happened.
That said, I totally agree that the law is disgusting in its intent and effect. I don’t know whether it’s been challenged or not.
I don’t think that it’s ever been interpreted (yet)…
I doubt that’s a great comfort to couples who, having invested time, trouble, and $ into cobbling together a few basic protections that straight couples take for granted, would now face the prospect of having to invest more time, trouble, and $ in what would likely be an expensive and protracted lawsuit to determine whether their contracts are void.
At least I’m glad you find it disgusting.
How long do you think it’s going to take to pass same-sex marriage laws in all the states? A century?
I don’t know. But I do think it will happen far sooner than what you’re talking about, Jay. And I think it can happen in a decent number of states fairly soon, a lot sooner in far more states than your broader domestic-partnership proposal.
I should add that same-sex marriage will happen a lot sooner if people concentrate on getting it than if, instead, they were to entertain your proposals.
At least I’m glad you find it disgusting. Thanks!
Yes, it is disgusting, and you’re absolutely right that people shouldn’t have to have their rights tested. But since there are a whole lot of people (including old straight white men) in Virginia giving powers of attorneys, etc., to people of the same gender, and entering into business partnership agreements with people of the same gender, it’s extremely unlikely that this atrocity could be enforced. In other words, the law is not only disgusting, but it’s absurd, which is why you haven’t been reading about it much.
I’ve seen it referenced in three cases. In one case, Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, a Virginia court gave full faith and credit to the custody jurisdiction of a Vermont court to decide the issues involved in a custody case between two same-sex partners whose civil union was dissolved. (The biological mother of their child was attempting to use the law against her former partner’s parental rights, and failed.)
In another, Stroud v. Stroud, a woman cohabiting with her same-sex partner was trying to use the law to say that her living arrangement wasn’t “cohabitation” barring her from spousal support from her former husband.
Then there is one case (Damon v. York) where the statute was cited to deny the existence of a legal relationship between a same sex couple who had been married in Canada (but then split up). In that case, one of the women claimed the right to visit the child of her former partner, against the wishes of the biological parents and the child. The child had been born during the marriage of the biological parents who divorced when the child was 4. The relationship of the plaintiff with the child was very brief. So, although the law was cited to deny the plaintiff rights (which is bad), her rights were pretty slim in the first place.
I’m not defending the law at all, but if the understanding among same-sex couples in Virginia is that they can’t execute routine documents like the ones described, I think they’re misguided, and should still use those legal instruments to make their wishes known. (This isn’t really “cobbling”. Everyone should draft their own wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives if they want to be comfortable about what will actually happen.)
(For example, Terri Schiavo’s husband might be surprised to know that marriage guarantees that a spouse has no trouble at all …)
According to russell, my comments on this open thread are “off the table”
???!?
russell, I think Sapient is referring to this comment:
I don’t have time to respond to everyone who made specific comments directed to me: so let me summarize what I see as a fair and equatable solution to the same-sex marriage conundrum:
Keep marriage exclusively between one man and one woman, but offer same-sex couples, or any couple that includes a person sixty-two or older, the right to register as a domestic partnership that provides all the rights, responsibilities and obligations granted by state law to married couples and their families.
All those in favor, say aye.
Is it that you don’t have time, or that you don’t have answers, Jay?
And what about all those fathers and daughters out there who want chaste marriages? Have you forsaken them?
it’s fight nite, gromit…
pacquiao vrs cotto–
what could be more fun then two welterweight hispanics beating the crap out of each other on hbo?
of course, you can see tattooed hispanics beating the crap out of each other for free any nite of the week if you cruse the Ramparts district here in CA, but it’s more fun to watch a ritualized pugilistic contest with half-naked girls strutting across the ring between rounds, with a lot less exhuberent bullets fired into the air between punches…
soon as the fight’s over i’ll try to respond with more detail — till then, are you in favor of the bill i proposed or not?
Pacquiao is Filipino. Not sure if that’s considered hispanic.
It’s not, but hey, they all look alike, am I right?
Jay, I don’t get the sense that even you understand what effects your proposal would have. If domestic partnerships are legally indistinguishable from marriages, your unmarried pensioners would almost certainly still lose their benefits.
Civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever you call them, more rights would certainly be better than the status quo, just as segregated institutions were no doubt better than no institutions. But we’ve already seen that “separate but equal” is a farce, your appeals to international precedent notwithstanding.
russell, I think Sapient is referring to this comment:
OK, I get it.
Sapient, my apologies. “not on the table” wasn’t mean to mean “Sapient should not raise this issue”, it meant only “that doesn’t really address the original question”.
Which is maybe not true either. Extending the civil benefits that come with marriage to all domestic arrangements might include gay marriages.
But if I may speak for gay people, I think what they’re after is being treated the same as straight people. Not by virtue of having the definition of institutions like marriage broadened to extraordinary lengths, but by being included in their current, normal meaning.
Not saying the other issues aren’t worthy of discussion.
I’m still waiting for an objection to gay marriage that doesn’t boil down to “it bugs me” or “it never included gays before”. Both of those things are no doubt true, but it’s hard for me to see them as being sufficient reason to deny access to marriage to gay people.
Gay people get married now. In all senses other than public, legal recognition, they have always gotten married. If I’m not mistaken, what they’re asking for is to be accorded the basic human respect of having that recognized.
“If I’m not mistaken, what they’re asking for is to be accorded the basic human respect of having that recognized.”
Well russell, this is certainly not what they are asking for. What they are asking for are financial benefits (among other things} designated by lawmakers and the public for heterosexual nuclear families.
These things go beyond (and in some cases are tangential to) “basic human respect”. Basic human respect isn’t the issue here.
Well russell, this is certainly not what they are asking for. What they are asking for are financial benefits (among other things} designated by lawmakers and the public for heterosexual nuclear families.
And since there is no other reason but homophobic discrimination to argue that homosexual nuclear families should be denied the same financial benefits, what is your problem here, Marty?
Surely you can see that fundamentally, it is an issue of basic human respect when people are arguing that a nuclear family deserves less financial support when it’s headed by a same-sex couple than when it’s headed by a mixed-sex couple.
“If I’m not mistaken, what they’re asking for is to be accorded the basic human respect of having that recognized.”
Well russell, this is certainly not what they are asking for…. Basic human respect isn’t the issue here.
Basic human respect most certainly is the issue here, and is what we’re asking for.
Being second-class citizens is absolutely an issue of human respect. Just because the question is directly framed as one of equality under the law (which includes financial rights and protections among other kinds) doesn’t mean it isn’t a question of human respect. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Marty, how many times are you going to come here and inform us all what gay people are really asking for, in flat contradiction to what the gay people here are actually telling you we’re asking for?
Or, what Jes said.
Thanks for the acknowledgment, russell. Just to be clear (if I haven’t been), I’m in favor of gay partners receiving exactly the same treatment (including whatever the name of the arrangement, be it marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, registered household, whatever) that heterosexual partners have. I’m not in favor of an apartheid system.
Even though this began as an open thread, excuse me for going OT for a moment: I can’t recall a better example of hubris causing one’s downfall — or, in this case, to simply lose a football game — than what I just saw in the Patriots-Colts game. Bill Belichick showed you certainly can be too smart for your own good when he decided to go for it on fourth down and 2 from his own 28 at the 2-minute warning LEADING BY 6 POINTS! And that opened the door for what would be Peyton Manning-directed Colts’ win.
Dumb.
(Speaking of hubris, I recently saw “Nixon-Frost” on cable and marveled at the performance by Frank Langella, who looks nothing like Nixon but nevertheless inhabited his body and was haunting.)
Basic human respect isn’t the issue here.
Actually Marty, I think it is.
I don’t hear gay people saying “We want the money”. I do hear gay people saying “We want our relationships recognized for what they are”.
“Recognized for what they are” happens to include some financial (and other) advantages. It also includes financial (and other) responsibilities. Which the gay folks I know are more than happy to assume, and in fact which they assume today even in the absence of whatever societal upside is denied them.
There are social and financial benefits that accrue to marriage because, as a society, we think it’s a good idea to encourage marriage. But those benefits are not what marriage is.
Gay people, every day, live out the reality of marriage, and have done so wherever and whenever they’ve been able to.
They would like that to be recognized. They are tired of being treated as if there is something wrong with them, as if there is something fundamentally bad or unacceptable about their being gay.
With that, I’m done speaking for gay people in this thread because I have nothing to add to what they themselves have already said, repeatedly. I think they deserve to be considered credible witnesses as regards their own wishes and desires.
“Marty, how many times are you going to come here and inform us all what gay people are really asking for, in flat contradiction to what the gay people here are actually telling you we’re asking for?”
As my last note on this thread, I will stop coming here and providing a view of what others think gays are after, it seems to be mostly about the money to many who aren’t gay.
So perhaps it is, indeed, a problem with how it is communicated. Might be something to take note of if one is going to continue to attempt to sway majorities.
it seems to be mostly about the money to many who aren’t gay
What a mad and random claim, Marty. For which I am prepared to bet you could find no supporting evidence whatsodamnever.
So perhaps it is, indeed, a problem with how it is communicated.
I think it’s probably more a problem that it’s way difficult to communicate the need for equality and human rights for all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, to homophobic and transphobic bigots who are determined that they will not perceive any discrimination or injustice.
“I think it’s probably more a problem that it’s way difficult to communicate the need for equality and human rights for all regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, to homophobic and transphobic bigots who are determined that they will not perceive any discrimination or injustice.”
Sorry, once more.
Or maybe it is a problem communicating with anyone who has an alternate view by calling them pretty vile names. My side of this discussion has gotten less flexible every time Jes has managed to state or insuate that I am a homophobic bigot.
And only one side of this discussion isn’t listening, and I can assure you it isn’t me.
“There are social and financial benefits that accrue to marriage because, as a society, we think it’s a good idea to encourage marriage. But those benefits are not what marriage is.”
And just because Jes irritated me.
russell, society didn’t decide it was a good idea to enourage marriage, society decided it was a good idea to encourage heterosexual marriage and heterosexual nuclear families.
Society didn’t decide on gay marriage because it wasn’t a question.
Now society is trying to decide what it thinks of gay marriage, what encouragement or benefits are warranted, if any, etc. Yet, gay marriage proponents don’t want a full discussion of that by society, they want to get all those benefits grandfathered by changing the definition without the discussion.
All I propose is that society has a right to have the full discussion.
Marty, I think the problem is that you haven’t stated your justification for treating same-sex couples differently (really, worse) under the law than opposite-sex couples. I’m not sure I’ve seen the phrase “equal treatment” very often on this thread, but that’s largely what this is about.
If homosexuals are looking for financial and other benefits that you (I guess?) don’t think they deserve (as much), why is it that heterosexuals deserve those benefits (more)? Or is it, for you, not so much that homosexuals don’t deserve them as it is that those benefits aren’t matters of human rights, respect or dignity?
In a sense, the benefits themselves aren’t matters of human rights, respect or dignity. It’s that one group gets them and another doesn’t. If heterosexuals weren’t afforded the benefits of marriage, homosexuals would be asking for some new, unafforded benefit not related to basic human rights or respect. The slight here, the disrespect and lack of recognition, is in the differential in treatment, not the absolute treatment.
I don’t think you’re a bigot, but you could be doing more to make me more certain of that. (Without googling, the word “bigot” appears to me, because of the “bi,” to be about having two standards. And that’s what we’re talking about here. Different standards are okay in so far as they can be justified, so what’s the justification?)
russell, society didn’t decide it was a good idea to enourage marriage, society decided it was a good idea to encourage heterosexual marriage and heterosexual nuclear families.
Society didn’t decide on gay marriage because it wasn’t a question.
This just sounds like more of the “it wasn’t that way before” argument.
Now society is trying to decide what it thinks of gay marriage, what encouragement or benefits are warranted, if any, etc. Yet, gay marriage proponents don’t want a full discussion of that by society, they want to get all those benefits grandfathered by changing the definition without the discussion.
All I propose is that society has a right to have the full discussion.
Really? I think gay-marriage proponents absolutely want a discussion, have had lengthy discussions and have won on the merits if evaluated in good faith. Further, it appears that the efforts of forcing same-sex marriage down the throats of an unwilling society by bypassing the law and government have thus far fallen short. (What, exactly, are you talking about, my good man?)
HSH, I think in my 11:12 am I set the foundation you are looking for. There are may benefits in our laws that are pretty obviously there to encourage and support societal preferences. There are some basic benefits I feel strongly should be provided to all, there are a bunch more that I feel society has the right to decide who should get them.
Most important, I believe that society has the right to discuss the details.
Marty, every time you argue that gay people don’t deserve equal treatment and that when same-sex couples get married it’s somehow “changing the definition”, you define yourself as a homophobic bigot.
If you don’t like being identified as a bigot, I suggest you quit being one.
“Further, it appears that the efforts of forcing same-sex marriage down the throats of an unwilling society by bypassing the law and government have thus far fallen short. (What, exactly, are you talking about, my good man?)”
Funny, what I started out this thread looking for was a discussion on how to have the discussion better, to help equal marriage proponents understand why they haven’t been able to force this down peoples throats and offer some opinions on how to expand the discussion to accomplish much of what they want to accomplish.
Long way from there.
Now society is trying to decide what it thinks of gay marriage, what encouragement or benefits are warranted, if any, etc. Yet, gay marriage proponents don’t want a full discussion of that by society, they want to get all those benefits grandfathered by changing the definition without the discussion. [Emphasis added]
This is an interesting choice of euphemism.
No, really. What do you mean by this? What does it mean for society to “have the full discussion” in this context, and how (and by who) can it be judged to be done? What happens when one side argues that the other is avoiding have the “full discussion”, and the second argues that the “full discussion” has been had, and the first side is now claiming it hasn’t in order to stall indefinitely?
Shall we know the “full discussion” has been had when a preordained conclusion is reached? When a self-appointed moderator decides the matter has been finally discussed in every possible way by “enough” of society? When everyone in the nation shakes hands with everyone else and says “jolly good full discussion we had”?
Seriously, Marty. You do yourself few favors by laying out a vague and fungible accusation like this. It looks very much like you are claiming the right to arbitrate when it will be acceptable for your opponents to seek equality with you before the law, and it also looks rather a lot like you’re not really willing to even define a clear standard of what they must do to earn your by-your-leave. Neither does much to inspire confidence in you as a good-faith arbiter.
Now society is trying to decide what it thinks of gay marriage, what encouragement or benefits are warranted, if any, etc. ….. All I propose is that society has a right to have the full discussion.
Society – that part of it affected by the ban on same-sex marriage – has had the full discussion, and the response has been overwhelmingly that Society wants to end the ban and let same-sex couples have the same freedom to marry as mixed-sex couples do.
What you’re arguing for is that people for whom the ban on same-sex marriage has no effect ought to have the right to “discuss” whether they want their fellow citizens to have the same rights, responsibilities, and respect as they themselves do. There is no justification for that but bigotry – the belief that the majority has the right to rule on equality for a minority.
And while no doubt the Founders shared the common prejudices of the time when they drafted the Constitution, they were absolutely clear about what they thought of a majority “democratically” voting rights away from a minority. They were against it.
“If you don’t like being identified as a bigot, I suggest you quit being one.”
Done now.
Marty: Done now.
That was quick. I wish I could think you meant it and would no longer be bigoted against gay people.
Additionally, how do you propose we differentiate (and treat) demands that marriage equality be delayed so that society can “discuss it fully” (because the demander doesn’t feel it has been adequately explored) from demands that marriage equality be delayed so that society can “discuss it fully” (because the demander wants to make sure it never comes to pass)?
All I propose is that society has a right to have the full discussion.
I think that’s reasonable.
More to the point, it’s both necessary and inevitable. A full and lengthy discussion, civil rancorous or otherwise, is certainly going to happen, and in fact is happening.
As always, I’m looking for the thoughtful, good faith objection to gay marriage that doesn’t boil down to “I don’t like it” or “we never did that before”.
Neither of those objections are surprising or even that hard to understand. Folks think and believe a certain way about things, and find it hard to change their point of view.
Neither of these objections, however, amounts IMV and sincerely HO to a sufficient reason to deny gay people the simple, basic, human respect of recognizing their marriages.
For a very long time — hundreds of years — it was common to believe that women were inferior to men. It was common to believe that blacks, Asians, American Indians, and pretty much anyone other than northern Europeans were inferior to northern European whites.
These beliefs were buttressed by science, appeals to natural law, proof texts from the Bible, and anything else you can think of. It was beyond the pale to think otherwise.
Most folks don’t believe those things anymore. In general, they don’t believe them because, either willingly or kicking and screaming, they had to confront the reality that those “inferior” people were human beings just like themselves.
It’s time for that to happen for gay people.
If you think otherwise, those of us who disagree need to know why.
It is odd that in a discussion about why we should or should not allow same-sex marriage, the argument against it is that proponents aren’t willing to discuss it. Proponents put forth their reasoning and ask for counter arguments not based directly or indirectly on bigotry. There are no good counter arguments put forth that are not based directly or indirectly on bigotry, so the answer is that we need to discuss it more before making a decision.
Okay, so let’s discuss it:
Why shouldn’t we have same-sex marriage?
Well…because we haven’t discussed it.
Okay, so let’s discuss it:
Why shouldn’t we have same-sex marriage?
Well…because we haven’t discussed it.
dot dot dot
russell, society didn’t decide it was a good idea to enourage marriage, society decided it was a good idea to encourage heterosexual marriage and heterosexual nuclear families.
For “society” here, you can substitute “straight white men,” because that’s pretty much who has, historically, made those decisions, certainly at the legal and policy levels.
Meanwhile, you keep making reference to what conversations “society” should have, and what “society” should and should not accept and encourage, as if GLBT people are not part of “society.”
Do you see how those two things — letting all the decisions be made by straight white men, and excluding GLBT people from the category “society” — might lead to certain parties getting a little put out by your advice?
I mean, if I were repeatedly being told, “You wait quietly there while ‘society’ discusses this, and meantime I’ll give you advice on how to convince ‘society,'” my response might be pretty much what Jes’s has been.
this seems apropos
243 — it’s an interesting addition to the conversation. And….
Last spring, after 12 hours of testimony from both sides, the minister on the “no marriage” side of the auditorium, who waited to be the last speaker, and who was one of a couple of top spokespeople for the campaign this fall, got up and said to the committee, “You’ve heard religious leaders on both sides, so there’s no clear answer from religion. In the end you have to do what’s best for children and what’s best for society.” (There’s that word again.)
I wrote a letter of testimony to the committee observing that we weren’t any more likely to come to a clear answer by looking to warring sociologists than by looking to warring theologians.
It’s nice to know that studies show that children do fine with same-sex couples as parents. But the welfare of children isn’t considered in the slightest in deciding whether straight couples can get married, so again in the light of equality under the law, it shouldn’t be particularly relevant to the question of whether gay couples can get married.
Or in other words, straight people don’t have to prove that they’re going to do what’s best for society and best for children before they can get married; why should we?
I wrote to the local paper about this just before the election. The letter they published was a much-chopped up version of what I had intended as an op-ed piece. I’ll put it in a separate comment.
To the editor:
Getting a driver’s license is hard, getting a marriage license is easy.
Why? Because we treat marriage as a human right so fundamental that restricting the freedom to marry is rightly seen as an evil greater than any consequences.
In Maine, therefore, you can get married…
* On a whim.
* No matter how many times you’ve been married before.
* Even if you’re under 16, if you have your guardians’ and a judge’s permission.
* To your first cousin, if you’ve had genetic counseling.
* Without going near a church.
* Though your marriage has about a 50 percent chance of ending in divorce.
* Without proving you’re going to do what’s “best for children and best for society” (in the words of a certain ongoing political campaign).
* Even if you’ve abused your children, a previous spouse, or the person you’re now marrying, or are addicted to alcohol or drugs.
* Even if you’re a convicted felon, no matter how heinous your crimes.
* Whether you intend to have children or not.
* Without asking several hundred thousand other citizens for approval.
There is almost nothing you can do or be (except already married) that would stand in the way of your right to marry — unless you attempt to marry someone of the same sex as yourself.
There is an ongoing campaign to convince Mainers that something awful will happen if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Exactly what is never made clear — it’s bad because it’s bad, apparently.
What is clear is that we allow heterosexuals to marry no matter what the consequences might be. Since equality before the law is one of the bedrock principles of our nation, it’s time to end that double standard.
Please vote “no” on Question 1.
243: this seems apropos
For those of us following research on same-sex parents, this isn’t new news – researchers had been noticing for some time that if you simply take the children of same-sex parents as a group, and compare to the children of mixed-sex parents, the children of same-sex parents tend to be healthier, happier, do better in school, etc.
But, this appears to be because same-sex couples do not have children by accident. Same-sex couples tend to decide to have children in the context of a secure and settled relationship, where both parents want a child very much, and both parents feel they are now economically and emotionally ready for the responsibilities of parenthood.
If you compare like with like – same-sex couples and mixed-sex couples in the same economic situation and stable long-term relationship – the apparent statistical advantage that the children of same-sex couples have mostly disappears, except for one: the British adoption agency BAAF noted that the children of same-sex couples tend to be more tolerant than the children of mixed-sex couples.
To Phil’s point:
The nauseating use of “children” as a talisman of the anti-marriage crowd’s fear-mongering does the same thing to two groups of children: children of gay couples who can’t get married; and children who, whether or not they have discovered this fact yet, are gay themselves.
Those children don’t matter, apparently.
The Portland and Augusta papers did a nice editorial before the election. It spoke to this issue in an explicit way that I wish had been more widespread:
The most prominent has been the charge that children would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage in school. All it takes is a quick reading of the law to see, however, that there is no mention of education in it. Curriculum in Maine is approved by local school boards, and those elected officials would be under no obligation to add lessons on marriage law to their areas of study.
But that’s not to say that children would be kept in the dark.
They are smart, and they should be expected to notice that some of their classmates have two moms or two dads instead of one of each. This is not a function of the law, however, it is a reflection of reality. A “yes” vote won’t make those couples go away. It would only make their lives more difficult.
At some point, all children recognize that everyone’s home is not like their own, that different people have different values and that all families are not the same. Parents should not be afraid that what children see in school will eclipse the values that are taught at home.
(Added emphasis mine.)
Referring to this wonderful paragraph again:
The marriage campaign just one strand of a much broader campaign that arose because in most places and most eras — certainly in the US until very recently — “GLBT people” were expected and forced to pretend we didn’t exist.
To end this situation, to bring the rest of “society” around to taking for granted the fact of our existence as part of society, is the whole point.
Or as I said a couple of weeks ago:
It’s our world too.
Notice the too. We (most of us; I really don’t speak for anyone but myself but this is the attitude of every gay person I know) are willing to share. But we won’t go back into hiding. So if people are uncomfortable knowing we exist and having to share the world, the recognition of our government, equality under the law, and the park down the road, they will just have to get over it.
As many voices in this thread keep pointing out, a huge motivation — not the only one, maybe, but a common and still often quite explicit one — in the opposition to same-sex marriage is precisely that many people do not want to be forced to accept that it is our world too.
This point of view was well-represented in the Maine House debate last spring, the transcript of which is here. Representative Burns of Whiting is pretty typical of the anti-marriage side. He was by no means alone, but he did make extra specially clear his wish to entirely exclude families where the parents are gay from any consideration as simply part of the world like everyone else.
Representative Sirois of Turner was my favorite. He said, in effect, “I’ve got enough sins of my own to worry about.” I’ve been waiting a long time for someone to say that. 😉
All of the same-sex couples I know who have children are excellent parents.
That said, I think it can be pretty ugly to do studies on how well children do with parents in various demographics in order to argue for one thing or another. There are simply too many variables. Factors that can produce negative results include poverty, effects of discord between parents (whether living together or not), cultural isolation, etc. Factors that can produce positive results include wealth, health, cultural enrichment (such as a bilingual household), etc.
It’s legitimate, I suppose, for gay couples to produce this evidence to ward off accusations by ignorant people who proclaim that children are traumatized by living in households run by same-sex couples. But, again, the whole prejudice against single parents comes into play here. I don’t really want to go on to defend single parenting other than to say that, obviously, a child is better off if well cared for by loving people, and given an enriched environment. This can happen in any demographic.
Sapient: That said, I think it can be pretty ugly to do studies on how well children do with parents in various demographics in order to argue for one thing or another.
Well, that depends. Certainly I think research done on one area should not then be used to argue for another area. But taken as a blanket assertion, your statement would suggest it’s pretty ugly to use research that shows that children from the demographic of families who are barely able to buy food do worse at school than children from families who are well-fed, to argue for providing every child with a good breakfast and lunch at school, so that no child is handicapped in their studies by hunger or malnourishment.
But the interesting thing (for me) is that all of the researchers who initially were doing this work – studying how groups of children with lesbian or gay parents (or same-sex couples as parents – it depends when the research was done and what the other criteria were) were beginning their research, as they will (as honest researchers) admit, with the presumption that they were going to discover that children being reared by same-sex couples, by lesbians or by gay men, were disadvantaged in some way. This had been the prevailing “common sense” assummption, and still is, from the people who attend the University of It Stands To Reason. Their interest, as researchers, was to discover how such children were disadvantaged, with the children of mixed-sex couples used as a control group. It was very surprising for these researchers to discover there was no evidence of disadvantage either in youth or in later life, and in fact children of same-sex couples tended to do better.
It’s legitimate, I suppose, for gay couples to produce this evidence to ward off accusations by ignorant people who proclaim that children are traumatized by living in households run by same-sex couples.
You say that as if it were a rare occurrance. It’s really not. When legislators make law based on this ignorant prejudice, it’s legitimate for any concerned citizen to point out that it’s just plain not true – regardless of their sexual orientation.
I don’t really want to go on to defend single parenting other than to say that, obviously, a child is better off if well cared for by loving people, and given an enriched environment. This can happen in any demographic.
Obviously. It’s just statistically more likely to happen to children with same-sex parents than with mixed-sex parents. The evidence is also an argument for solidly promoting birth control so that heterosexuals tend to have fewer unexpected, unplanned children (however welcome they are when they arrive: as I’ve said to pro-lifers on occasion, the blessing of having a mother who is pro-choice is that you know you were a wanted baby).
certainly in the US until very recently — “GLBT people” were expected and forced to pretend we didn’t exist.
Nowadays, Janie, the tide seems to be turning: it’s homophobes, rather than homosexuals, who are too embarassed to acknowledge what they are. Gay men used to have to pass themselves off as “confirmed bachelors”. Now, anti-gay bigots have to pass themselves off as “traditionalists”. I call that progress;)
–TP
Tony — I call it progress too.
Maybe also a smidgen of poetic justice. 😉