130 thoughts on “This is How You Do It”

  1. This is the first legislature to have done so without a court judgment.
    The first in the US. There are a good many examples outside the US. 😉
    Same-sex marriage and civil partnership does seem to have a snowball effect – from 1989 onwards, I think if you plotted a graph, you’d see a very steep curve from 2000 onwards, as nation after nation after nation discovers that extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples does not, in fact, have any negative impact. While the situation in the US is distorted by the power of the right-wing Christian lobby, and by DOMA (surely the most discriminatory pieces of legislation Clinton ever agreed to, and IMO the lowest point of his presidency), in the long run I imagine the situation in the US will echo the situation worldwide: same-sex civil partnership, then same-sex marriage.
    This is a positive step: though unfortunately, that still leaves the unfortunate people who live in states where their relationships are permitted no recognition under law, not even private arrangements made between the two people involved. For that, I think you’re still going to need the Supreme Court to overturn such discriminatory legislation. (Up to and including the infamous DOMA, I hope.)

  3. Agreed that legislation is always the best route, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this bill would have passed without the prior judicial results. Goodridge didn’t just energize opponents; it caused many people of good will to examine their assumptions and come to the conclusion, well, that the case against extending the benefits of ‘marriage’ to same sex couples was mostly, if not entirely, bigotry.
    Trouble with your approach, Sebastian, is as I’ve said before in connection with Loving: the perfect is the enemy of the good. We’d still be waiting for some southern states to legalize interracial marriage if we didn’t have courts to vindicate the equal protection and due process clauses.

  4. Slarti: I’d have thought that went without saying.
    *shrug* A lot of Americans tend not to be terribly aware of what’s going on outside the borders of the US. Von’s argument against same-sex marriage is, as I recall, that “it’s never been tried before so don’t rush into it” (apologies, Von, if I’ve misconstrued/misremembered you) which ignores completely the countries in which either civil unions or full marriage have been available for years.
    CharleyCarp: Agreed that legislation is always the best route, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this bill would have passed without the prior judicial results.
    Agreed. Civil rights may be best obtained by the legislature, but in order for the legislature to be convinced, there needs to be action first.

  5. This is the first legislature to have done so without a court judgment.
    Doesn’t New Jersey count? That state’s “domestic partnership” law apparently falls a little short of marriage in regards to succession and parenting rights, but it’s pretty close.

  7. Don’t think that the debate is over here in CT, or that the courts won’t get involved. There’s a gay marriage lawsuit in process as well which people are assuming will go to the state supreme court, and no one is sure what effect the new law might have on how the judges will decide. See here for more.

  8. Don’t think that the debate is over here in CT, or that the courts won’t get involved. There’s a gay marriage lawsuit in process as well which people are assuming will go to the state supreme court, and no one is sure what effect the new law might have on how the judges will decide.
    And don’t think for a moment that opponents of the civil union bill won’t themselves seek the aid of the tyrannical activist judiciary in attacking this legislation.

  9. And don’t think for a moment that opponents of the civil union bill won’t themselves seek the aid of the tyrannical activist judiciary in attacking this legislation.
    That will be where this all gets very, very interesting.

  10. That will be where this all gets very, very interesting.
    It’s also where we’ll find out which Republican politicians actually believe their rhetoric about this being a matter for the people and their legislatures, and which ones are simply hiding behind conservatism as a facade for their bigotry.

  11. It’s also where we’ll find out which Republican politicians actually believe their rhetoric about this being a matter for the people and their legislatures, and which ones are simply hiding behind conservatism as a facade for their bigotry.
    nah. i think we all know that charges of hypocrisy and appeals to logic aren’t the kinds of things that change anyone’s stance on anything like this. about the most you can expect is that your opponent abandons one ridiculous line of reasoning and takes up another – while maintaining the same position.

  12. your opponent abandons one ridiculous line of reasoning and takes up another – while maintaining the same position.
    well, sometimes they will just adjust, and absorb the new fact into their old routine – and I’ll wager we have seen the outlines of at least one such response in CharleyCarp’s 5:10 AM, above, where he says:

    we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this bill would have passed without the prior judicial results


    Now, I know CC wasn’t making this argument, but his point leads straight into a wingnut narrative that we will no doubt see in coming weeks – that this legislative response is somehow less legitimate, as it followed in the wake of “activist judges,” “legislating from the bench.” These activist judges, y’see, have lied from the bench, saying that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, and have disseminated this lie cloaked in the force of law. By doing so, they empowered brief episodes of gay marriage that the homosympathetic liberal media played everywhere as insipiring instances of human triumph over discrimination, rather than the disgusting, marriage-trashing, extraconstitutional perversion they are. In that environment, the populations and legislatures of certain of our stupider (i.e. blue) states have been deceived into supporting this radical agenda. That’s why we have to renew our fight against liberal media and activist judges!
    See how simple?

  15. I can’t believe SSM own supporters are ignorant of their own strategy!
    It is only because of the threat of same-sex – “marriage” that civil unions become an attractive option.
    People don’t want civil unions until they are threatened by the possibility of gay “marriage”- then suddenly civil union look like a good way to thwart attempts at changing marriage.
    Polls bear this out. When you introduce civil unions into the question after proposing gay marriage – people grab at them as a way to forestall there apprehension without looking mean.
    Why do you think they waited until after the Massachusetts decision to begin their push for gay marriage.
    Seriously guys, you look like political novices when you cheerlead as if the Connecticut legislation does not occur within the larger national debate.
    This is exactly the tactic of the left in this debate – and right on schedule too!
    First you use the court to force something through that the people don’t want (SSM- Mass)
    or civil unions in Vermont.
    Then you threaten the entire country with the specter of gay “marriage” and offer up a alternative of Civil Unions as some kind of a compromise. (California, Connecticut)
    Then you pretend that this new legislation you managed to scare people into passing, is “separate but equal” and unconstitutional.
    You reveal in the conflict of laws it entails, and advocate for a single national standard.
    Cross your fingers and hope the Supreme Court gives you what you want.
    I don’t know if I would be as confident as you are.

  16. “anyone else got this dumb song stuck in their head now?”
    Nope, not any more now that I have successfully passed it on to you. 🙂
    I always write about music on Fridays one way or another dontcha know?

  20. “Then you pretend that this new legislation you managed to scare people into passing, is “separate but equal” and unconstitutional.
    You reveal in the conflict of laws it entails, and advocate for a single national standard.
    Cross your fingers and hope the Supreme Court gives you what you want.”
    This may very well be a strategy for some, but I can’t think of an easier way to make gay marriage far less popular. My strategy is to use civil unions as a chance for straight people who only started really thinking about stable gay relationships in the past few years to get a chance to get used to the idea before we start passing marriage laws.

  22. But those straight people are concerned with societal standards. their trying to save marriage. From 70% illegitimacy rates, from 50% divorce rates, from unprecedented rates of non-marriage and bareness among the young. They have been advocating this for years.
    States that have constitutional amendments against gay “marriage” & civil unions will be hard pressed to pass either.
    Meanwhile the news on new marriage rates from those countries the have adopted SSM will start rolling in. (that’s already started)
    Also, the federal courts still need to weigh in. They will be hard pressed to ignore the will of the people. Or let the reasoning of the Goodrich ruling stand.

  24. Meanwhile the news on new marriage rates from those countries the have adopted SSM will start rolling in. (that’s already started)
    What’s that burning smell? Why, it’s Fitz’s pants.

  25. “But those straight people are concerned with societal standards. their trying to save marriage.”
    Maybe they are, maybe they are just uncomfortable with the idea in the first couple of years since it has been presented to them. We can revisit the question in a couple of years and find out for sure.

  26. Sebastian, I have a problem with using the legislative route exclusively (besides the fact that it relies on individuals to voluntarily relinquish their access to the courts): If we rely on the legislatures alone to have good faith in protecting our constitutional rights and never test the laws in the courts, won’t minorities have to fight the same legislative battles over, and over, and over again to secure rights that are already guaranteed in the constitution? It’s not like today’s legislatures and state populations are above passing flatly unconstitutional laws, or keeping them on the books (see Alabama’s 30-year lag in dropping their miscegenation ban, and their recent decision to keep provisions for school segregation in the constitution).
    Is it not disturbing to you to think that your marriage, your family rights and responsibilities, your right to express yourself, your right to worship, or some other rights, could be wiped away if the wrong party gets hold of the legislature? It sure as hell is disturbing to me.

  27. “”Is it not disturbing to you to think that your marriage, your family rights and responsibilities, your right to express yourself, your right to worship, or some other rights, could be wiped away if the wrong party gets hold of the legislature? It sure as hell is disturbing to me.””
    Its interesting semantics, but you are asserting a right that you do not have.
    We cant take away your “right” to marry -when you do not have one in the first place.
    And I would be carefull about banking on the courts this much guys.
    The spider to the fly.

  28. “”Maybe they are, maybe they are just uncomfortable with the idea in the first couple of years since it has been presented to them. We can revisit the question in a couple of years and find out for sure. “”
    That not the way the trend is shaping up Sebastian.
    We are starting with wide majorities.
    Those numbers tend to firm up quickly.
    Once the politicians see such numbers, public sponsorship drops – (like last election)
    You end up with steadly advancing numbers like this..
    http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm

  29. We cant take away your “right” to marry -when you do not have one in the first place.
    where is the heterosexual right to marry described ?

  30. There is no heterosexual “right” to marry per se,
    It is a privilege awarded on a number of contingencies-(age, martial status, relation, sex) and licensed by the state.
    Now, thanks to you guys however, its a right by law in 46 states and a constitutional amendment in 18 (and growing) more.

  33. “If we rely on the legislatures alone to have good faith in protecting our constitutional rights and never test the laws in the courts, won’t minorities have to fight the same legislative battles over, and over, and over again to secure rights that are already guaranteed in the constitution?”
    There is not a right to homosexual marriage by my reading of the Constitution. The proper way to secure non-Constitutional rights is through the legislature–see the ADA.

  34. The ADA is just another antidiscrimination regime based on equal protection, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    The innovation of the ADA is its requirement of “affirmative action,” i.e. reasonable accomodation, rather than simple formal equal treatment.

  35. Fitz, you need to understand that when I talk about my marital rights, I’m not talking about a positive right to marriage. I’m talking about the right to equal protection under the marriage laws. Nobody has the right to, say, a seat in congress. But that doesn’t mean we can exclude otherwise eligible women, or homosexuals, or muslims from running for those seats without violating their rights in the process.

  37. Sebastian
    If you believe in your reading of the constitution, Sebastian. Then its not a great leap to see that the Massachusetts supreme courts Goodrich decision is more a PR stunt then proper law. And from there you can see that the Connecticut legislature is reacting to events rather than positively embracing a new societal norm.
    If any of the above is clear to you, then you must understand the frustration of conservatives with judicial activism and how its being used to game this issue?

  38. Grommit
    Any right to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment is tempered by a rational basis test for legislative action.
    Protecting the all important institution of marriage is more then merely rational its very reasonable.
    And its more then merely reasonable it’s good public policy.
    And its more than merely good public policy it’s the most important, most foundational public policy there is.

  39. Fitz: Protecting marriage is reasonable. But what, exactly, does that have to do with denying people the right to marry?

  40. Fitz, one need not disagree with you that ‘protecting’ marriage is good public policy to conclude that there is nothing about prohibiting civil unions, or same sex marriage, that actually accomplishes that goal. Or could even reasonably be said to do so.
    Indeed, it seems to me that advancing the good that marriage does to gay couples advances, rather than harms, the ‘most foundational public policy there is.’

  41. Hilzoy
    It depends on who you are denying that right to.
    If you are denying it arbitrarily to people, then that seems crass and unreasonable- and would probably hurt marriage.
    If you are denying it to two people of the same sex, or people who want to engage in group marriage – then you are preserving a societal standard.
    It is precisely this standard that is marriage.

  42. CharleyCrap
    You’ll want to look at the works of Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson.
    Although many simply want to dismiss the condition of marriage and the family in nations that have already adopted SSM, people of good conscience will see a 60% out of wedlock birth rate must refuse to avert there gaze from the tragic consequences for the culture.

  43. Fitz: I had been operating on the assumption that marriage was a union of two people who decide to make their lives together, and the institution of marriage was that set of social arrangements that allow couples to marry, and provides certain benefits and obligations to them when they do. I think this is worth protecting, but I do not see why this is threatened by civil unions or by allowing gay couples to marry.
    You, however, seem to define it as a societal standard that requires excluding gay couples from marrying. Obviously, allowing gay couples to marry would undermine a societal standard that says: no gay couples can marry. On the other hand, it’s not obvious to me that if I define marriage your way, it’s worth protecting.
    It’s sort of like this: if I say that the right to work in a job of one’s own choosing is worth protecting, and eliminating discriminatory laws does not threaten that right, but then oyu come along and say: ha ha, I am a white South African, and what I mean by ‘the right to work in a job of my own choosing’ is ‘a social standard that allows whites, and whites only, to work in jobs of their own choosing’, then I would of course allow that given this definition, dismantling apartheid threatens the right in question. But I would see no reason either to adopt that definition or to regard the “right” thus definedd as worth protecting.

  44. If you are denying it to two people of the same sex, or people who want to engage in group marriage – then you are preserving a societal standard.
    Indeed you are. The mistake is in believing that all societal standards are worth preserving. (Back around forty years ago, it was considered a societal standard worth preserving not to permit interracial couples to get married. Not any more.)
    It’s been 16 years since the first legal civil unions were established in Denmark: and despite a lot of anti-gay bigots looking, it has not been established by anyone that same-sex couples marrying has any negative impact on society at all.
    The concept of what marriage is has changed. Simple as that. It’s always been changing: it’s never been a stable, universal concept, though I know non-historically minded people who have claimed otherwise.

  46. And from there you can see that the Connecticut legislature is reacting to events rather than positively embracing a new societal norm.

    Um…from the Hartford Courant: “Support for civil unions [in Connecticut] has ranged in the Quinnipiac poll from 51 percent in October 2003 to 59 percent in June 2004 to 56 percent in the latest survey.” (emphasis added)
    The Goodrich decision was issued in November 2003. Not sure how you can justify your contention that the CT decision was a defensive reaction to Goodrich.

  47. I can only denote from your comments that you dismiss all evidence that is contrary to your demands.
    No matter what the state of marriage is in places that have adopted YOUR standard, you will simply dismiss the data, deny the correlation, or assert that the whole thing is merely “evolving”.
    You may have a tin ear for the effect of standards on societies cultural expectations – but I do not.

  48. Fitz, first I disagree that rational basis should be the test. The laws are sex-based, so intermediate scrutiny should apply. But, for the sake of argument, if we go with the lower standard what is the rational basis for preserving bans on same-sex marriage?
    And post hoc fallacies don’t qualify as rational.

  49. Gromitt
    “”SSM causes out of wedlock births? “”
    The answer is yes.
    But only if you accept that a statistical correlation denotes a causal connection.
    Proving that connection is the whole point of sociology.

  51. you accept that a statistical correlation denotes a causal connection.
    Do you think this is always the case? Because it’s demonstrably untrue — grab pretty much any intro book on statistics to find examples.

  53. What’s the state of marriage like in Connecticut, Fitz? What about Massachusetts, where the marriage ban was overturned? How about in my current home state of Georgia, where the constitution was amended in 2004 to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions? Is this really the best line of reasoning you can offer, because from all I can tell it doesn’t support your thesis at all.
    What is the rational basis for the bans, Fitz?

  54. Okay Fitz, then why do you think that correlation denotes causation in this case? Please note that I haven’t seen the data which shows the correlation, so I’m simply accepting it arguendo. Do you have any reasons for assuming this to be so, aside from your own quite evident biases?

  55. Gromitt -To help answer you question concerning “rational basis” I can start you down the path.
    If you desire to know more about why marriage law has maintained its traditional meaning within the law- and its practical effects, well do your own research
    I can point you to Rutgers University (the marriage project)
    Scholars like Barbara Defoe Whitehead , Maggie Gallagher, Thomas Sowell and Midge Decker. Excellent work has been done by Stanley Kurtz on the devastating effects civil unions have had on Scandinavia in particular and the Netherlands in general.Along with regional support by local Danish sociologists, Wehner, Kambskard, Abrahamson
    Philosophers like Roger Scruton and Michael Levin have defended traditional sexual morality in terms of a quasi-Kantian ethics and evolutionary psychology, respectively, rather than by appeal to any religious tradition or authority. (if that’s not your bag)
    The effects of Divorce, Cohabitation, illegitimacy – are as close as next door, or even better, any American inner city.
    Just remember -“is it rational”
    “not resonable, or I agree – just rational”

  56. Fitz, on the correlation = causation thing, you’re dead wrong. A correlated with B doesn’t mean B caused A with any more confidence than it means A caused B. Or it could be that C caused both of them. Correlation coefficient is simply a gauge of how two variables are related, not any sort of measure of causality.

  61. Ah, I see. So you were claiming that a causal relationship has been established by sociology? I rather doubt there’s anything resembling a consensus supporting that claim. How would one go about falsifying that theory?

  62. “bareness among the young”
    Honestly, our three year old runs around naked all the time, and I don’t believe it’s threatened our marriage in any way.

  64. Oh, and assuming you’re relatively new to the web, good Netiquette means citing your sources when you’re doing a cut-and-paste. I’ve done this before, myself, and been called on it. If you don’t, it at least appears as if you’re presenting those thoughts as your own.

  66. If you believe in your reading of the constitution, Sebastian. Then its not a great leap to see that the Massachusetts supreme courts Goodrich decision is more a PR stunt then proper law. And from there you can see that the Connecticut legislature is reacting to events rather than positively embracing a new societal norm.
    If any of the above is clear to you, then you must understand the frustration of conservatives with judicial activism and how its being used to game this issue?

    I agree that Goodrich was poorly decided. I do not agree that Connecticut’s law is merely a reaction to Goodrich. Rather both are a reaction to a societal dialog currently underway. Goodrich was an inappropriate reaction. Connecticut’s law is an appropriate reaction.
    “then you must understand the frustration of conservatives with judicial activism”
    Heh, I realize that you haven’t been reading here long but if you search through the archives I suspect you would find that I understand the frustration of conservatives with judicial activism quite possibly as well as you.
    Much as it pains me to say so, you realize that I’m agreeing with you, right?

  68. Fitz,
    Sorry, but I don’t see where the paper I read by those folks proves to me that SSM is destroying marriage. They list many reasons for the decline in marriage and increase in out-of-wedlock births that began well before SSM was approved.
    IMHwithnoevidencetobackitupsodon’taskO, today’s men are at a crossroads. We need to begin to see and act as more than just a “provider” in that women can provide for themselves. We need to see ourselves as an important part of child’s life, not because of our gender, but because of our experiences and how those experiences mesh with the child’s genes. Two parents are important because they can help a child understand his/her whole self.
    That certain European states have rates of OOWB’s higher than ours is not, IMHO, because they already allow SSM, its because their welfare states are sufficiently advanced enough to have taken their families farther down a path that gender-equity started, mainly men figuring out their role in the family.
    I believe that as time goes forward, men will figure out what we bring to the party and society will value them for other than the ability to bring home a check; and marriage might rebound. Or, it might not, but men will have a better idea about how to stay a part of their children’s lives. Because this fact from the paper But Americans lead the world in single parenthood and divorce ain’t gonna reverse because of the FMA.
    Plus, The lone teen pregnancies common in the British and American underclass are rare in Sweden and Even when Swedish couples bear a child out of wedlock, they tend to reside together when the child is born. work for me. How about you?

  69. Honestly, our three year old runs around naked all the time, and I don’t believe it’s threatened our marriage in any way.
    You may not be so sanguine about it when (s)he’s 13, though…

  70. Your own words, Fitz? Wow, you must have been an inspiration to others, rather than vice versa:

    To be sure, liberal criticism of the influence of religion on politics is largely directed at a straw man in any case. In most of the areas where liberals think they see such an influence, religion plays, or need play, no essential role at all. For example, the main arguments presented by opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage do not rest on religious premises. Some pro-life arguments do indeed make controversial claims about the moral and metaphysical status of the fetus — just as pro-choice arguments do — but acceptance of those claims does not necessarily entail belief in God. The influential arguments of Princeton University’s Robert P. George, for instance, rest only on some very plausible and modest claims about fetal biology and a few secular moral premises. The arguments of Don Marquis, the author of what is probably the most widely anthologized and cited pro-life article in contemporary philosophy, assume an even less robust and controversial view of the nature of the fetus. Things are no different with same-sex marriage. Philosophers like Roger Scruton and Michael Levin have defended traditional sexual morality in terms of a quasi-Kantian ethics and evolutionary psychology, respectively, rather than by appeal to any religious tradition or authority.

  71. Fitz, do my own research? How about you make your own arguments?
    I’ve looked at the state-by-state marriage and divorce numbers for several recent years. CT and MA are among the states with the lowest per-capita divorce rates. In at least one year (1994, I think), those two states literally had the lowest rates (MA took the prize, CT came in second). Georgia and much of the marriage-hostile deep south rank well above average. If we consider marriage rates against divorce rates, the picture becomes more complicated (particularly since Nevada has the highest ratio of marriages to divorces by a wide margin), but it certainly doesn’t bear out your conclusions. My guess is economics are a much bigger factor in divorce rates. Unemployment and money problems cause a lot of marital rifts.
    So what is the rational basis? And “Thomas Sowell said so” would not be a rational basis, even if he weren’t a complete hack.

  73. And crionna, I agree with you about fathers today. I don’t think we can go back to the old agrarian gender roles any more than our agrarian ancestors could have simply decided to go back to hunting and gathering, but what we are in right now is a period of upheaval, and once the turbulence smooths out (which I hope happens soon) families will be healthy again. Those who are trying to put the birth control, women’s equality, and gay rights genies back in the bottle are only retarding this settling process, if you ask me.

  74. Excellent work has been done by Stanley Kurtz on the devastating effects civil unions have had on Scandinavia in particular and the Netherlands in general.
    Talk about deja vu…Fitz, my friend, you really need to let this one go. It’s simply not true.
    Try reading this (pdf file) Fitz and then get back to me. It’s a report by Professor M.V. Lee Badgett from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and it royally fisks Kurtz’s finding. The “devestating effects” you cling to to justify your opposition to gay rights is unfounded and you owe it to yourself to learn why.

  75. Sebastian, I still can’t get over the pre-election column in which Thomas Sowell essentially advised black voters not to vote if they weren’t fully educated on all the issues. I just don’t understand where he gets the unmitigated gall to spread FUD like that.

  76. Stabelfest
    That’s an important paper – of which I borrowed a turn a phrase.
    Try reading it and you might understand the social conservative arguments better.
    Crionna – The trends you point to are exasperated by the introduction of SSM. You may have some silly plan to get men to rearrange their lives & expectations toward a feminist utopia, but its manifestly not working out that way in Europe. There birth rates have fallen so low that by 2040, with immigration half of all Europeans will be Muslim. What laws and culture will they promote?
    Grommitt. Divorce is not the only factor, and a society wide phenomena like family breakdown cannot be viewed through a singular lens.
    To answer your rational basis question (since you wont read the scholars provided)
    Family Scholar Mary Eberstadt puts it most eloquently
    To answer your rational basis question (since you wont read the scholars provided)
    “”campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.
    If you don’t care about marriage and the family and the effects that breakdown has had then you will never care. If you do care – your against SSM
    The country is agreeing.

  78. since you wont read the scholars provided
    Once again, WITH FEELING, provide links or resign yourself to your rightful place in the dustbin of blogging history. Sneering that people don’t read the scholars you merely list is worthy of outright mockery. You know this. Folks have repeatedly, and kindly, offered to help you make links. You’ll forgive us for not valuing your opinion as highly as you seem to yourself, but that’s the way this works.

  79. of which I borrowed a turn a phrase.

    More like a sentence, but I’m not all that concerned about it. Just wanted to let you know that quoting others without actually quoting them is impolite.
    What it contains is a hash of unsubstantiated assertions, which I as a professional engineer and amateur (citizen?) scientist find completely uncompelling.

  80. If you do care – your against SSM

    Wrong. I do care, and I’m not against SSM. I am married and have two children. You and logic seem to have a rather sloppy relationship. Are you sure you’re a lawyer?

  81. Fitz: “If you do care – your against SSM”
    First of all, I do care about marriage and the family, and I am not against same-sex marriage. When you provide something remotely resembling a convincing argument, then you can tell me what I must and must not believe. Until then, it’s just obnoxious.
    Second, have you actually read Roger Scruton, or are you just citing him for effect? Because if you would like to have an argument about the Kantian, or even quasi-Kantian, basis for laws against same-sex marriage, I’m game.
    Third, as Slarti said, it’s considered good manners to cite your sources, even if you only borrow a sentence or two.

  82. Why he’s prolific.
    (must be a prolific hack)

    As I recall, L. Ron Hubbard was rather prolific, too. Most of his work was utter crap. Prolific doesn’t mean good, in general.

  84. Fitz: There birth rates have fallen so low that by 2040, with immigration half of all Europeans will be Muslim. What laws and culture will they promote?
    🙂 Probably not same-sex marriage. ;-D
    But seriously… As I recall, the claim that “half of all Europeans will be Muslim” by 2040, has been thoroughly debunked – and frankly, to this European, never looked that probable anyway. Muslims amount to less than 4% of the population of Europe: and in 2003, the population of Europe was about 380 million. Even though this is expected to decline by 96M by 2050 (cite), how exactly do you imagine 14M Muslims are somehow going to make 140M Muslims by 2040?

  85. Fitz — I mean, surely if you’re quoting Roger Scruton, you’re aware of some of his other views. My personal favorite has always been his claim that outlawing fox-hunting would be as illiberal as depriving Jews of their political rights, or outlawing homosexuality. What’s yours?

  86. Fitz: The trends you point to are exasperated by the introduction of SSM.
    If the trends are exasperated by the introduction of same-sex marriage, are they exasperated because same-sex marriage is bad for them?

  88. The breakdown of the traditional family is well documented.
    Its combined effects are also (by now) well understood.
    When the left argued for the no-fault divorce laws, one typical argument was
    “What do two people getting divorced have to do with your marriage?”
    Abortion was supposed to end illegitimacy.
    Women’s equality was supposed to make relationships easier.
    Divorce was supposed to be good for children.
    And SSM is going to strengthen the family.
    You can surround yourself in snide, rationalistic, academic arguments.
    But back in the real world.
    We just don’t want it.
    (way to big a risk to important an institution)

  89. Strict regimens of Catholic sex?
    Maybe all the Catholics who feel the need to leave the church after the next Pope approves ordaining female priests, blesses same-sex marriage, and allows use of condoms to prevent disease, will convert to Islam…
    I’m sorry, that’s in very bad taste. ;-(

  90. Fitz: you were the one who introduced academics into the argument, not me. I am just asking what your general views of Scruton are, and which features of his argument you find particularly persuasive. Since of course the idea that you just decided to throw him into your post without having any idea who he is, or even what Kantian ethics is, would be uncharitable.

  91. Yeah, let’s have a Kantian analysis of same-sex marriage!
    I suspect he’d be rather for it, given that he lived with a devoted personal servant for most of his life and never married.
    And Fitz? This sort of thing–
    You may have some silly plan to get men to rearrange their lives & expectations toward a feminist utopia
    –isn’t going to win you many friends.

  92. Wow, Fitz. Plagiarism? Credibility hard-won is easily squandered.
    “If you do care”
    I do
    “your against SSM”
    I’m not
    I guess I win.
    “Prolific doesn’t mean good, in general.”
    Piers Anthony.

  94. Fitz: We just don’t want it.
    Absolutely, if you don’t want same-sex marriage, you shouldn’t have one. The same rule for this as for cream-cakes.
    But since you are unable to show that two people of the same sex getting married damages anyone else’s marriage, even though you’d obviously like to, you really don’t have a case about stopping same-sex marriage in general.

  99. Darn, and I was so looking forward to your explanation of the high points of Scruton’s views. Or at least to an explanation of what this means:
    ” The trends you point to are exasperated by the introduction of SSM”

  100. Or at least to an explanation of what this means:
    ” The trends you point to are exasperated by the introduction of SSM”

    In case that was a sincere question, I think he meant “exacerbated”…

  101. “Yeah, let’s have a Kantian analysis of same-sex marriage!”
    Easy.
    second forumulation of the Categorical Imperative (Formula of Humanity): “Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”
    Gay people don’t exist to make marriage stronger or weaker.

  102. KenB: I suspected as much, but in some dark part of my heart I was hoping for a strange view according to which the interests of, say, Edward and his partner should be subordinated whenever a trend got sufficiently annoyed.

  103. Okay, let’s argue Fitz’s side for him. Is there any way that Kantian ethics can be mobilized against same-sex marriage?
    (hilzoy’s right, and I was sloppily suggestive about Kant’s household arrangements.)

  104. sidereal: and as for the legal question, Kant’s basic view is that the laws should protect for each person the greatest amount of liberty consistent with a like liberty for all. I would think this would provide a fairly easy argument for same-sex marriage.
    Of course, it would be complicated by Kant’s own rather odd (and uninformed; see above) views on sex. On the one hand, he took a rather dim view of the whole business (masturbation degrades a person below the level of beasts, for instance, as does homosexuality.) On the other, the only licit form of sexual intercourse, for Kant, is within marriage, since only then am I not just using the other person to satisfy my carnal appetites, but have given the person I marry rights over my whole person. I don’t think he so much as considered the possibility of gay marriage, but there’s at least a way to argue that it would be needed to allow licit sexual relations for gays and lesbians.

  105. The trends you point to are exasperated by the introduction of SSM.
    The only thing exasperated here is me. It’s my opinion that the trends were rolling forward whether or not SSM was legalized.
    You may have some silly plan to get men to rearrange their lives & expectations toward a feminist utopia,
    Hmmm, my plan is to hope that society figures things out in the future while not discriminating in the process. And, if a world where men aren’t judged by the size of their paycheck is a feminist utopia, then a feminist I am.
    There birth rates have fallen so low that by 2040, with immigration half of all Europeans will be Muslim. What laws and culture will they promote?
    I really don’t see how you can blame SSM for both a rise in OOWBs and low birthrates in general. The first is absolutely unproven and the second makes no sense. How exactly will denying SSM change the economic/social conditions in Europe that drive a low birthrate?
    IMHO, there’s got to be a balance between the social conditions that A. make deciding to have children in some parts of Europe difficult and B. make it difficult to stay in the lives of our spouses and children here in the US. Perhaps its the amount of welfare given to the people. Perhaps its attitudes about who should be responsible for what. I don’t know. What I do know is that it ain’t SSM.
    What laws and culture will they promote?
    I dunno. That’s a concern for me because there’s a cancer in all societies (no matter the religion) when people can’t find work. Those people turn to something and it ain’t always pretty. But IMHO its not something that’s Islamic only (although some of them seem to be the ones blowing people up lately) and fer DARN SURE it ain’t from allowing committed people to marry.

  106. Okay, Fitz, how about out-of-wedlock births in Massachusetts and Connecticut vs., say, Georgia, Florida, or Alabama? How about average duration of marriage? Domestic violence incidences? Marital infidelity? Cohabitation? Whatever measures you want to use, throw us some numbers, and not just vague generalizations.
    Oh, and the Mary Eberstadt passage you cited amounts to:
    1) Gays are allowed to marry.
    2) Then some stuff happens.
    3) Heterosexual marriages fall apart.
    Does she back up this hypothesis with any actual research into step 2, as opposed to just cataloguing evidence of step 3 (which is already occurring in places where step 1 hasn’t even happened)?

  107. Anarch: “Credibility hard-won is easily squandered.”
    OMG. I have a three-year old child who runs around naked. Why did nobody tell me this??

  108. Jackmormon: “Is there any way that Kantian ethics can be mobilized against same-sex marriage?” — Yes, if you pull at a tension in Kant and resolve it in (what I think is) the wrong way; wrong not because I don’t like it but because it makes his view untenable and makes hash of his arguments, I think.
    Let’s take one formulation of the Categorical Imperative: act always so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end, and never as a means only. For a lot of reasons, the way most people tend to read ‘humanity’ here is: your capacity for rational agency and practical reasoning (=reasoning about what to do.) So one way to treat humanity in someone else’s person as a means only would be to lie to her in order to get her to do something I want her to do, but she would not do if I didn’t lie. In this case, Kant would argue, I treat her, and her rational agency, as a thing: I make the noises that will get her to do what I want her to do, but I do not allow her to decide for herself what she will do, on the grounds she takes to be appropriate.
    Now: this, according to Kant, involves me in an inconsistency. I have to regard myself as entitled to do what I think I should do, and to make up my mind on those grounds that seem best to me. And I cannot consent to have someone else try to get me to do something without my, um, consent, on pain of self-contradiction. But I am unwilling to extend this same right, which I must claim for myself, to the person I lie to. I am basically saying: I will make up my mind what I will do, and I’ll make up my mind what you will do, too, even though you haven’t agreed to this. And I can’t accept the idea that someone could rightly treat me this way.
    (Clarifying note: I can quite consistently e.g. join the marines, and in so doing put myself in a position in which someone else gets to tell me what to do. What I can’t do is accept the right of someone else to do this without my consent. When I join the marines, I do consent, and for very good reasons.)
    Now: on this reading, there is no good reason for Kant to object to homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. However, there’s another strand of Kant, which he does not particularly distinguish from this, and that is: taking ‘humanity’ to mean something like ‘humanity, the species’, and taking the claim that we must make it our end to mean that we must accept the species’ ends as our own. This strand emerges when he’s talking about suicide: there he says that we could not possibly imagine that it’s OK to commit suicide: “Now we see at once that a system of nature of which it should be a law to destroy life by means of the very feeling whose special nature it is to impel to the improvement of life would contradict itself and, therefore, could not exist as a system of nature.” Likewise, in his Lectures on Ethics he argues that homosexuality is wrong: “This also runs counter to the ends of humanity, for the end of humanity in regards to this impulse is to preserve the species without forfeiture of the person; but by this practice i by no means preserve the species…”
    Kant runs these two lines of thought (humanity=rational agency, humanity=the species) together, but since they are very different, and lead to very different conclusions, one needs to choose between them. I choose the first, since it seems to me that on that reading there’s a very good argument for the Categorical Imperative generally, while on the second the question ‘why, exactly, should I be guided by those ends that Kant identifies as ‘the ends of humanity’?’ is, I think, ultimately unanswerable. (Or at least: not answerable in a way that isn’t completely inconsistent with Kant’s views.)
    Bottom line: yes, there is a way to make the argument, but it ultimately fails.
    And to anyone who has read this far: sorry for being snippy earlier. There’s something about being lectured about not having read the scholars Fitz cited when it seemed fairly clear that he hadn’t done so himself, along with having not just my discipline but my favorite philosopher used as a sort of dress-up costume to make an assertion look like an argument, that annoyed me.

  109. “OMG. I have a three-year old child who runs around naked. Why did nobody tell me this??”
    Narrator: You’re making a big mistake, fellas!
    Police Officer: You said you would say that.
    Narrator: I’m not Tyler Durden!
    Police Officer: You told us you’d say that, too.
    Narrator: All right then, I’m Tyler Durden. Listen to me, I’m giving you a direct order. We’re aborting this mission right now.
    Police Officer: You said you would definitely say that.

  110. There’s something about being lectured about not having read the scholars Fitz cited when it seemed fairly clear that he hadn’t done so himself, along with having not just my discipline but my favorite philosopher used as a sort of dress-up costume to make an assertion look like an argument, that annoyed me.
    There are times when I want to propose to you.

  111. Hilzoy, what a gracious apology (and an elegant analysis)!
    I had a feeling that Kant’s anthropological stuff could be turned against some of his idealist stuff. Very interesting.

  112. Thanks, all. For the record, it’s Kant, not Scuton, who is my favorite philosopher. (Qua philosopher. I’m not sure that, of the philosophers, he’d be my favorite human being. I suspect that might be Hume.)
    And Jackmormon: I love, love, love the anthropology, as well as the lectures on ethics. Don’t always agree with them, but I love them. There was a long time, which luckily seems to be ending, when most philosophers had not read any of his minor works, and as a result said all sorts of silly things that a nice evening spent curled up with the anthropology would have prevented.
    Also: I thought your change of subject was quite gracious, too.

  113. You said you would definitely say that.

    Hypothetically speaking, if someone (definitely not ME, mind you) confessed that this was their favorite movie of all time, would that make them a shallow person?
    And, if it’s not too much to ask, could you make mine a cheeseburger?

  114. Are you kidding, Slart? It’s a fantastic movie.
    But I do have to quibble: it’s actually “please, if it’s not too late, make it a… cheeseburger.”

  117. I crouch corrected. Crouch, because the laptop is sitting on a sort of low counter. I did the Lyle Lovett bit from memory, and it’s been way too long since I listened to that song.

  119. Thanks for the link, Fitz, but as you may have noticed, the article is not in English. I guessed Dutch, but BabelFish in Dutch managed to translate only the headline, which reads in BF-English “Scientists beat alarm concerning marriage” which could mean either “Scientists have beaten alarm” or “Scientists are sounding the alarm”. If you can find the same article in English, that would be useful.

  121. About halfway down are unauthorized translations
    Fine, so give the heading – that way I can go directly to it and find out what on Earth you’re trying show is evidence for your argument.
    It’s very good that you’re now posting links rather that direct and unattributed quotes. However, a certain amount of information with the links is also pretty much essential: what exactly are you trying to prove with this link, and (if it’s a big webpage) where are you trying to direct people to?

  123. DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM: News story
    DUTCH SCHOLARS ON SSM: Interview with two singers
    Signers, not “singers”. Not that this is very relevant, it’s just a rather confusing typo.
    Good grief, Fitz, really – don’t you have any good blogging habits?
    To use these articles as an argument for your POV, which is that same-sex marriage is damaging to society, you could say something like “Five scholars have signed a statement to the Dutch government that they see same-sex marriage as damaging to society” (and you could link to websites with these scholars resumes, to show that they have some background in the subject that they are pontificating about). And, two of these scholars have been interviewed and given their views in less formal format. Something like that.
    In the mean time, I note that the scholars themselves acknowledge: “In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends.”
    ”

  124. “”definitive scientific evidence””
    We can hardly rely on this sociological standard.
    If you cant definitively prove its harmful, then by all means lets rush right in!
    When the left argued for the no-fault divorce laws, one typical argument was
    “What do two people getting divorced have to do with your marriage?”
    Abortion was supposed to end illegitimacy.
    Women’s equality was supposed to make relationships easier.
    Divorce was supposed to be good for children.
    “”And SSM is going to strengthen the family””.
    (theirs no “”definitive scientific evidence”” to support this either)
    The track record of the liberationists

  125. Yes, by all means, let’s examine Fitz’s link.
    The five academics, including prof. mr. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law at Nijmegen University and Dr. J. van Loon, a sociologist working at Nottingham Trent University, express their deep concern over these developments.
    Contract law! I’m definitely interested in what he has to say about the effects of gay marriage in society.
    One remarkable aspect of the letter is the fact that the authors establish a link with the introduction of gay marriage in The Netherlands. “There are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. The introduction of gay marriage paved the way to a greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.” The authors call for “a national debate about how to strengthen the position of marriage.” They hope that the devaluation of marriage in The Netherlands will be an important reason for countries like the US not to introduce gay marriage.
    You heard the authors: there are “good reasons to believe” gay marriage contributes to OOW births, divorce, and people not believing in Santa Claus. If they listed any of those reasons, though, it went unnoted by the author of this article–which is funny, because given the clear biases of the author, you’d think they’d /want/ to list evidence to support such an allegation. More on that later.
    But gosh, you say, gay marriage “paved the way to a greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation”. And why is there this mystical cause and effect? Because the author says so, that’s why!
    Well, shit, I’m convinced. Thanks, Fitz. Because yanno, if it hadn’t been for the fine reporting of the IMPP, I might’ve thought it was a no-brainer that two people might want to find out if they can live together before tying the knot. I’m glad you cleared that up, because now I see that gay people getting married clearly leads to straight people wanting to not be married. What was I thinking?
    I dunno, maybe I was thinking that the IMPP isn’t exactly the most unbiased source for this.
    Washington Post staff writer and media critic Howard Kurtz reported on January 26 that Gallagher, now president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (IMPP), received $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2002 to conduct a briefing and write brochures and a Crisis magazine article that promoted the Bush administration’s $300 million marriage initiative. She received an additional $20,000 in 2002 and 2003 to write a report (“Can Government Strengthen Marriage?”) for the National Fatherhood Initiative.
    The IMPP, which Gallagher founded in 2003, endeavors to provide “research and public education on ways that law and public policy can strengthen marriage as a social institution.” Before founding the institute, Gallagher was a founding editor of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research’s City Journal and an affiliate scholar with the Institute for American Values. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research receives funding from the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation, among others.
    Boy, that sure makes me want to trust their translation, to say nothing of their willingness to report news that contradicts their agenda.
    Nice try, though.

  126. “”definitive scientific evidence””
    We can hardly rely on this sociological standard.
    Sure we can. Alternatively, we can use the standard you seem to be applying, but if that’s where you’re going with this, I’d recommend sticking to tea leaves.
    If you cant definitively prove its harmful, then by all means lets rush right in!
    If you can’t prove it’s harmful, and there’s significant logical and civil rights arguments to argue that it’s beneficial or at the very least neutral, then proceed reasonably. Which is, incidentally, what these countries have done. Denmark has been letting gay people marry for 16 years, and yet the best evidence you can produce is a palmful of Dutch scholars who warn that they think it’s a bad thing but can’t muster anything to support their argument? Not exactly a shining moment for the forces of regression and bigotry.
    When the left argued for the no-fault divorce laws, one typical argument was “What do two people getting divorced have to do with your marriage?”
    Which is a very sensible question. What /does/ it have to do with your marriage?
    Abortion was supposed to end illegitimacy.
    Say what?
    Women’s equality was supposed to make relationships easier.
    Huh?
    Divorce was supposed to be good for children.
    Well, yes–as opposed to children growing up living in a household where their parents grow increasingly distant and resentful, even abusive, towards each other. But if you really think that sets a better example than the parent having the maturity to recognize when they’re in an untenable situation, the courage to leave it, and the strength to build a new life–well, then there’s simply no help for you.
    “And SSM is going to strengthen the family””.
    (theirs no “”definitive scientific evidence”” to support this either)
    You know, just a suggestion: you will have a much easier time engaging in conversation if you will engage the arguments people are actually making. If you want to just sit around and make up your own opponents to respond to, though, knock yourself out–but I’d recommend D&D instead of blogging.
    The track record of the liberationists
    …has been a damn fine one in my book. Our progress has been slow and gradual, but I’m mostly okay with that. One would think a real conservative would be, too.
    Unless, of course, your real agenda is not the slow and cautious march of conservatism, but rather the eternal preservation of obsolete and fundamentalist strictures in the face of a changing world.
    The dinosaurs had trouble adapting to change, too. But now the only thing preserved of their time is amber and fossils.

  127. You know, I’m having a hard time seeing how it would be that insisting that committed gay couples merely cohabit, rather than enter into the mutual and binding obligations that marriage entails, would encourage hetero couples to decide not to merely cohabit, but instead to enter into marriage.
    I’m tired, though, of reading simple-minded appeals to tradition, as if that answers all questions. I challenge opponents of civil unions / ssm to make an argument that could not have been made, in 1960, concerning interracial marriage.
    I don’t see how Goodridge is any less constitutionally sound than Loving. Of course ssm is not the tradition, but traditions — even those enshrined in the common law — give way in the face of constitutional requirements.

  128. “The track record of the liberationists”
    I’ll take it, if you’ll take the track record of the other side.

  129. Ah, we’re talking about my favorite country again 😉
    Fitz; the articles you refer to are all from the same (good but very fundamentalistic protestant) newspaper and concern the same group of 5. The statisticus even says that he noticed the Dutch trend wilst comparing figures between the UK and the Netherlands. The Dutch figure was more favorable towards marriage than the UK one, but it was less so than the Dutch figure 15 years back – so it must have been the gay marriage that influenced it. LOL, if that is proof of his statistical capabilities I hope he doesn’t need them for his job.
    But if you are really concerned: I found the European Factbook the easiest place to compare fertility rates, out-of-wedlock babies en marital status between the various countries. I am sure that looking at a few of those figures will make you feel more at ease about the probability of gay marriage having an eroding effect. You will have to find another cause I’m afraid 😉

  130. Fitz,
    Are you really opposed to equal rights for women? Do you really believe that people that no longer want to stay married should be forced to do so? You keep bringing them up but I don’t think they are helping your crediblity any.

Comments are closed.