Under the belief that if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, I’m hereby launching a campaign to strengthen and secure the sanctity of marriage in the United States. I’m calling for an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that will protect this cornerstone of civilization and ensure its definition as found in Judeo-Christian tradition. Under this amendment, marriage in the United States will be defined as between one man and one woman AND it will be binding. As Jesus noted, quoting the Jewish tradition:
What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate….And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)
Therefore, once passed, this amendment will enforce that all Americans live up to their vow before man and/or God to remain married until death do them part. This, and only this, can protect this tradition we hold so important. This, and only this, can end the mockery that passes for marriage in our society today. Nothing threatens our very way of life in this country more than divorce and it must end. Therefore, I’m asking all Americans to join me in this effort. Write your congressmen, write your senators, call your local radio stations, write your local newspapers. Join me in stomping out this modern-age scourge that tears families apart and in the end benefits only the litigious divorce lawyers.
Moreover, this amendment will not only prevent any future divorces, but will also enforce immediate removal of any children from the homes of previously divorced parents. Only by showing our next generations how seriously we value this crucial tradition can we hope to instill that same value into them and prevent future attempts at rescinding this law. Therefore, children of divorced parents will be placed into foster homes or orphanages where they will not be subjected to any excuses their parents make as to why they broke their oath to God.
/sardonic bitterness
There are times in life when you really have to call the hypocrites on their shit. Hypocrites like Phil Burress:
And in Ohio, voters heavily backed an amendment known as Issue 1, a measure some Republicans had criticized as potentially curtailing the rights and benefits of unmarried heterosexual couples. Late Tuesday, 62 percent of voters were supporting the amendment, with 67 percent of precincts reporting.
“Congratulations to the people of the state of Ohio,” said Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, one of the measure’s chief advocates. “They have defined marriage as between one man and one woman and also protected its benefits.”
Now here’s the really sad part. I wrote that bit above about Phil Burress being a hypocrite purely on a hunch that he had some rehabilitated-sinner motivation behind his campaign of hatred, and sure enough (after some very quick googling):
Yesterday’s presentation by Burress and his wife, Vickie, covered both what they believe needs to be done politically and judicially and the effects that pornography and stripping have on dancers and families.
Citizens for Community Values was founded in 1983 as a grass-roots anti-pornography group.
“Personally, I believe that pornography is the leading cause of divorce today,” Phil Burress said, noting that his own addiction to pornography resulted in the end of a previous marriage. “When you disrespect your partner, that’s the beginning of the end.”
Burress is fine with disrespecting MY partner, but he expects a free pass on his own sordid past. Typical.
I’m not going to be blogging much for a week or so. Some friends and I are taking my fiance out of town as a birthday present. When we get back, I expect the Presidential dispute to have been settled and life to go on. For the record, though, I also fully expect some day soon to legally, publicly, and joyfully marry my fiance. If legal gay marriage does not come to New York soon enough, we’ll move to some place where decent people have demonstrated they value the notion that all people are created equal and get married there. I don’t expect that place to be Ohio anytime soon. Hailing from Ohio, as I do, that’s a point of profound shame and disappointment for me. For the record also, the divorce rate in Ohio has tripled over the past 40 years. Way to Go Ohio!
Edward,
I agree with you in sentiment if not tone. Divorce in this cournty is ridiculous and we need to treat marriage with more respect.
I would add:
Matthew 5:31-32
“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Divorce in this cournty is ridiculous and we need to treat marriage with more respect.
You’ll forgive me for pointing out how hollow that sounds.
You’ve probably already seen this, Edward, but I liked it:
Have a good holiday, you and your partner both.
Edward, it shouldn’t surprise you that I agree with where this came from. Just not with where it’s going.
{deleted for violating the posting rules}
Well, that was special.
Edward,
Last night upon hearing how the marriage ammendments were passing I made a few decisions. I truly prefer not to add any ammendments, but I do understand why people voted for them. As I have said before, I think it was a poor strategy to go after marriage in the way the gay community has.
But, if it means anything… I completely and totally support recognizing civil unions that would grant gay people the same rights as afforded by marriage… tax, health care, S.S. and such.
On the phone with my brother last night we discussed that very issue. I reach hundreds of people a year and when possible I will support that issue.
That may not be exactly what you prefer, but it is what I will do.
On the phone with my brother last night we discussed that very issue. I reach hundreds of people a year and when possible I will support that issue.
Thanks for that Blue. Truly.
Thanks too, Jes…that’s pretty accurate.
Slarti, it’s not really going anywhere…just letting off a little steam. It’s brutal to read these pompous jerks boasting about how they’ve saved civilization only to find that they’re addicated to porn and divorcing left and right. They get to claim some moral highground only because they’re straight, and it’s enough to make you want to puke.
“…” (or whoever you are, being too cowardly to leave any other handle), you should have read the posting rules before trying that…goodbye!
Great post, Edward. (BTW, “fiancee?” You usually refer to him just as your partner — congratulations are in order?) (BTW2, “fiancee” with two “e”s is the female version; men just get the one “e.” 😉 )
It’s worth pointing out that in states like Ohio, where the amendments also outlaw anything that even vaguely resembles marriage, that gay (and straight) couples that currently receive benefits through their employers, if their employers do business with the state, may be required to rescind those benefits. When that happens, watch the lawsuits fly.
I’m amazed that Bush picked up an extra 7 million voters this year. I’m even more amazed that they apparently all turned out to be gay-haters. I guess if you can convince people that homosexuals are worse than rising housing, gas and food prices and shrinking incomes, you can achieve anything.
Give them time, Edward, they’ll get around to implementing that.
I really need to learn how to spell…thanks Phil, I’ll change that.
Re congratulations, first thanks!. Second, we’ve been engaged for nearly a year now, but bowing to the sense of things among among many gays that it was more important to get Bush out of office than to be too vocal about the gay marriage issue, I didn’t announce it (lot of good that did me).
I have no intention of allowing anyone else to define my relationship from this point forward though. If they can ignore the fact that it’s as important to me as theirs is to them, I can ignore the fact that they have an opinion that matters.
That’s funny about the Ohio divorce rate. Even more ironic is i was told yesterday that Massachusettes has the lowest divorce rate!
Edward: (belated) congrats on your engagement. I wish you and your fiance a wonderfull live together.
in the Netherlands you can marry, even when not Dutch, as long as one of the two has a legal permit to stay…
Marjolein (who cannot comment on the election results yet and stay within the posting rules. But the percentages that voted for changing your contsitution to ban same sex marriage really shocked me)
I just want to be on the record with this –
I may be a radical of a different stripe than most of the people on OW – but I am in COMPLETE SUPPORT of legalizing Gay marriage at the federal level.
I am also in support of starting a grass roots REPUBLICAN organization to help fight for this from the right the same way its being fought for on the left.
There are tons of us out there that are strong social libertarians people – we just dont mobilize publicly.
If you are part of such an organization, please contact me and I will join and do whatever I can to help push this agenda from the right.
now for the tongue in cheek part:
As Ive said in other posts – you cannot have a world of acceptance unless you allow others into your world and into your dark places. Denying Gay men and Women the right to experience the terrors of marriage (Lisa – im REALLY sorry – this IS a joke) would be unfair in a world where we are trying to build acceptance and comfort with diversity.
Thanks dutchmarbel…if we had a Dutch or EU passport between us, we’d be over in a heartbeat.
Enjoy your time away Edward. I’ll look forward to your return.
I may be a radical of a different stripe than most of the people on OW – but I am in COMPLETE SUPPORT of legalizing Gay marriage at the federal level.
I am also in support of starting a grass roots REPUBLICAN organization to help fight for this from the right the same way its being fought for on the left.
There are tons of us out there that are strong social libertarians people – we just dont mobilize publicly.
It would seem that the internally consistent social libertarian stance would be to extricate the privledges associated with marriage from that historicly religious sacrament. If we weren’t in the position of conflating a religious construct with a social construct, we wouldn’t be having this problem.
The problems gays face because of the lack of certain privledges and rights are the same problems facing other people in more platonic but just as mutually dependent relationships.
Gedanken: It would seem that the internally consistent social libertarian stance would be to extricate the privledges associated with marriage from that historicly religious sacrament.
It’s already happened, Gedanken. Civil marriage exists. Denying gay couples the right of access to civil marriage is done for reasons of homophobia alone – generally sourced somewhere in religion. Or, in Bush’s case, since he’s not a religious man, in catering to the homophobes who want to believe that he is.
Edward: a combination of election activity, work, and abject misery has kept me from posting since the day before yesterday; I’m only just reading this now. But: congratulations on the engagement, and have a wonderful trip.
And to those who support the various amendments, think about what he said: “bowing to the sense of things among among many gays that it was more important to get Bush out of office than to be too vocal about the gay marriage issue, I didn’t announce it (lot of good that did me).” Getting engaged is one of the happiest days of your life, I’d imagine. The idea of not being able to share the good news because you’re worried about the politics of it — that’s so strange. But it’s the fact that he was probably right that’s the horrible part. If I were on the other side of this issue I would want to ask myself what conceivable interest I have in putting someone else in this position: where he feels he has to keep secret what ought to be some of the happiest news on his life.
Thanks for the wishes, hilzoy.
You raise the issue of what all gay people know in their hearts. Our ability to share the happy news of our lives is totally contingent on who might hear it. Even the most open of us in many ways live in shadows (which is why the meme that “I don’t like them shoving their lifestyle in my face” is so farcical).
As you say, this is some of the happiest news of my life and although my friends have all cheered us and wished us well, today we see this:
Conservatives Cheer Gay Marriage Bans
There is something so perverse about the fact that here I am, waiting patiently, for the right to marry the love of my life, to celebrate my decision to share the rest of my life with my soul mate, and these conservatives are “Elated” at their success at stopping us from being able to. Our misery “elates” them.
These are “Christians”? What’s Christlike about taking delight in other people’s misery?
I’ve never written anything more sincerely on this blog in all my time here: they bear the weight of the profoundest shame I can imagine. I pity them.
Wallowing in my own misery and didn’t realize the import of your announcement. In trying not to be bitter (and say something I regret), it led me to miss celebrating the joyful events like yours, even if only vicariously. Congratulations and best wishes. Perhaps you should designate some progressive place where people can donate money to as kind of a shower present, that would give a start for 2008.
Thanks L.J.
Katherine, can you recommend a deserving fund for refugees that might serve the purpose L.J. suggests?
Edward: congrats and best wishes. who know, maybe sunny California will find a way to reconcile hetero marriage with gay civil rights and you can get married here. I certainly hope so.
Francis
Thanks Francis…my other half is intrigued with the Golden State (that is Calif’s alias, no?).
The art market’s a bit too calm for my taste, but who knows, maybe I’ll mellow a bit with age.
And Edward: the more I think about it, the more I want to thank you and your partner for giving me something to be genuinely happy about today. Really. Congratulations again.
Best to you and yours.
囍
I try to respect everyone’s religious beliefs (though, I’m certainly not above taking the odd shot at Mormons, Moonies, or Scientologists)–but I finding it difficult to ignore the myopic focus of so-called ‘Christians’ on gays. Especially, when they are willing to ignore other teachings and probitions associated with faith.
Mazel tov!
I think there’s hope for New York. Eliot Spitzer is likely to be elected governor, and as far as I know he is the most prominent Democrat to come out for gay marriage. It may be impossible to get it through the state Senate, though, and the Court of Appeals is dominated by Pataki appointees.
Spitzer has indicated that he believes New York State law requires him to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Unfortunately our &^$@&@&$^ governor in Massachusetts has decided to selectively enforce an early 20th century law to prohibit out of state couples from getting married. (The law was originally passed in part to cut down on miscegenation, so in some ways they’re being true to the original intent.) Our liberal activist judges (booga booga) may not stand for that, but until they rule on the case Canada may be the best bet.
Needless to say that it not-very-educated speculation and not real legal advice of any kind.
As far as donations, the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force or the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission might be appropriate. I know the IGLHRC better; I got one of their country conditions packets for an asylum case I worked on. Great research, which they give away for free.
Here’s something else to be happy about, which as usual I posted in the wrong thread before I saw this one. Feel free to delete the original, Edward.
And hey everyone, good news for gay rights!
Yes, you heard that right. I’m digging through my email and I just found this.
God bless Blue America.
Okay, bless Red America too, but help them to see that it is not only no threat, but an intrinsically a good thing for two people to devote themselves to each other for the rest of their lives.
…International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission might be especially appropriate. Both seem good, though further research is always useful.
I’m more familiar with the latter group; they helped me do research for an asylum case–they do background research on different countries’ treatment of gays and lesbians & HIV + people. They have country packets for 144 countries and 3 regions, and give them away for free if needed or a small donation if possible.
I posted this on the “43×2” thread but it really belongs here:
And hey everyone, good news for gay rights!
Yes, you heard that right. I’m digging through my email and I just found this.
God bless Blue America.
Okay, bless Red America too, but help them to see that it is not only no threat, but an intrinsically a good thing for any two people to devote themselves to each other for as long as they both shall live.
(feel free to delete that from the other thread, obviously.)
I just looked at the exit polls.
“Moral values”, huh?
It is probably too little self-justifying to say that gay bashing won Bush the election. But it sure as f**k helped.
We can go back and forth on the southern strategy all day. I believe it is real and decisive, but if we’re being punished for the civil rights movement the GOP was punished for decades for Abraham Lincoln. If they’re benefitting unfairly, it’s the flip side of the Democrats’ embracing the worst segregationists in the countries for decades–that’s how we had the house for 70 years before gerrymandering was a science, that helped us pass the New Deal.
This is going on right now, not in 1968, and there is no equivalence between the parties on gay rights. The Democrats are shamefully silent, but a bystander too afraid to stop an assualt, or a bystander who makes halfhearted attempts to help, is not the same as the person who commits assault.
I know very few of our commenters here support this strategy. But how do you feel about it? And what do you intend to do about it?
1) “too little self-justifying” should be “a little too self-justifying”
2) ” bystander who makes halfhearted attempts to help” That phrasing makes it unclear whether the Democrants are helping to commit or defend from assault.
I meant halfhearted attempts to defend.
It is probably too little self-justifying to say that gay bashing won Bush the election. But it sure as f**k helped.
No, it isn’t.
If you parse the data, it was the biggest factor. Issues such as Iraq and the economy were secondary. Things like education barely registered on the radar screen.
One habit liberals have to break the media of is allowing gay bashing and homophobia to be packaged under terms such as “religious or moral values.” We’ve got to convince the media to call it what it is.
And, frankly, we shouldn’t allow GOPers to pretend gay bashing and homophobia is part of some fringe extreme within their party. These folks have seats at the head table.
J: Civil marriage exists.
Not really. Or rather, sure, but it is indistinguishable from the sacramental institution. Again, if it weren’t for this conflating of institutions, we wouldn’t have these issues.
Regardless, neither the civil nor the religious face of the institution helps those platonic roommates I mentioned.
Or, in Bush’s case, since he’s not a religious man…
Again with the counter-factual and unsupported claims!
Not really. Or rather, sure, but it is indistinguishable from the sacramental institution.
You mean only in the US, right?
2 quick Google results here and here
There is also the notion of domestic partnerships, which seem to operate on a level people civil unions.
I find it strange that platonic relationships would be adjudged as similarly serious as relationships where a sexual relationship is putatively involved. Can you explain why you think that should be the case?
The Democrats are shamefully silent, but a bystander too afraid to stop an assualt, or a bystander who makes halfhearted attempts to help, is not the same as the person who commits assault.
According to the exit polls, 28% of Democrats in Oregon and 45% of Democrats in Michigan supported their respective amendments against same-sex marriage. Neither party is exactly on board.
Michigan exit polls on ballot measure
Oh yeah, congratulations, Edward!
There is also the notion of domestic partnerships, which seem to operate on a level people civil unions.
I’m not sure how to parse this. Are you are pointing out the concept of civil unions? Of course I am referring to the US since that was the context of the thread. As your link shows, other countries are more enlightened in providing better mechanisms for solving these civil issues.
Why would you find it strange that a platonic couple might have similar levels of mutual dependence and respect?
To quote your other link:
– make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf when she is sick, or even visit the partner or the partner’s child in hospital;
– take bereavement or sick leave to care or mourn for a partner, or a partner’s child;
– share equal rights and equal responsibilities for children in their care;
– have their partner covered under their health or employment benefits;
– apply for immigration and residency if their partner is from another country;
– file joint tax returns and enjoy tax benefits for couples, obtain joint insurance policies, or even rent or own property together;
– obtain a protection order against domestic violence;
– get a fair settlement of property when the relationship ends;
– inherit from a deceased partner if he lacked a valid will;
– choose a partner’s final resting place;
– obtain pension benefits if the partner dies.
How are any of these issues voided by lack of a sexual intercourse?
You are suggesting that somehow, civil unions and the sacrament of marriage are “indistinguishable”. I am merely pointing out that at least a few other countries seem to be able to distinguish them. What is it about the make up of the US that we cannot?
I am also not suggesting that any issue is ‘voided’ by lack of sexual intercourse, what I am suggesting is that a relationship based for the most part on the what I think we can agree is one of the strongest of intimacies deserves some sort of formal enshrinement. I merely passed on the links to provide a quick overview of international data points, as I clearly noted in my post. Interestingly, all of the issues noted are taken as given for a marriage, but I’m not sure how those issues are necessarily flow from the sacramental institution.
I would also suggest that as platonic relationships usually do not form the basis of family units, therefore carving out a niche that would acknowledge a relationship _putatively_ based on sexual intimacy is in the greater interests of society. I think we can also agree that the notion of a standard marriage necessarily implies sexual intimacy, so extrapolating that to sexual intimacy of same sex couples leaves a relatively clear dividing line between those types of relationships and platonic relationships.
I also think you try to explain too much with your exit polls, at least for Oregon. You seem to imagine it as a liberal fortress, but there is a strong divide between the urban coastal centers and the rural areas both on the East side and located between the larger cities. Oregonians are united not by liberalism, but by a rather stubborn desire for independence from outside forces and a rather pervasive hatred of Californians.
I am utterly convinced that the reason people are so opposed to gay marriage is that a significant number of people mistakenly believe that a judge in Massachusetts can order their church to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
I have no statistics to back this up–no one has ever polled on the question as far as I know–but I would put money on it. I don’t see another theory that explains both 1) the depth of feeling on gay marriage, and 2) the huge gaps in the polls between opposition to civil unions and opposition to gay marriage. People are rather wildly misinformed about so many issues–this would be a very understandable mistake compared to still believing that Saddam had WMDs and was responsible for 9/11, or believing that the Democrats were trying to ban the bible, or believing that black people are economically better off than white people. The Democrats’ support of civil unions–a wise tactical move by Dean at the time–may have helped confuse the issue further, and contributed to people forgetting there is such a thing as civil marriage.
I may believe this to
Because here’s what I don’t understand about the gay marriage issue: almost every religion that preaches that homosexuality is a sin also preaches that abortion is murder. If you believe the Democrats are keeping infanticide legal, but that’s not a deal breaker or worth turning out for, but preventing Edward and his partner from marrying each other is–I just don’t understand it. I really don’t. I don’t know how to begin to argue with a person like that.
In any case, I think it’s worth doing a poll. The Democrats absolutely need to know this to formulate our message.
How do I commission a poll? Anyone? Anyone?
And by the way–reading these exit polls in the gayest city in the gayest state in the country, bitterness abounds. You know how people are saying that the rest of the world will now conclude about the U.S. “okay, we thought maybe Bush stole it last time or fooled them, but I guess they’re just jerks”? Well, that’s pretty much the conclusion most of my family and my family and friends are forming about the red states. It’s not useful going forward, it’s the last thing we need, but if you want national unity instead of the liberals to bite their tongue, it may be worth noting.
And it’s actually pretty dishonest of me to describe it dispassionately & put on my “indoor voice” for blogging. I didn’t see those exit polls or those ballot question results until after I got home today. My initial reaction to my husband, was “So they voted for a candidate who will put Boston and New York at greater risk of terrorist attack, because they didn’t bother paying attention to the war because they were too busy worrying about those icky gay people getting married in Boston and New York. Thanks, guys. Next time some of us get blown up, and you claim that you are all New Yorkers, we know exactly how seriously to take you.”
I have heard the same thing from three or four friends indepdently, and the Daily Show made essentially the same joke just now, in slightly less strident terms.
I know it’s useless to talk that way at best, very destructive at worst. And maybe it’s unfair, when my own party has been so gutless on the issue. But if you want the nation to bind up its partisan wounds as opposed to liberals just shutting up, if want to know what they’re really saying in Manhattan and Somerville and Brooklyn today so you know what your up against, that’s what we’re saying.
You are suggesting that somehow, civil unions and the sacrament of marriage are “indistinguishable”.
No. Currently only Vermont (I believe) provides for ‘civil unions’ which confer the civil rights and responsibilities normally associated with marriage. For most of the country, there is only the conflated entity of marriage which confers those benefits.
My point with the exit polls wasn’t anything about Oregon in particular. I was simply responding to Katherine’s assertion that it was the Republicans who were the gay-bashing homophobes while the Democrats were essentially neutral or for same-sex marriage. Based on the margins on the initiatives and the exit polls, an unfortunately significant portion of Democrats were for banning it as well.
The polls I have seen previously indicate that there is majority support for civil unions or a similar construct in the US. The irony is that the backlash from the recent push specifically for same-sex marriage has rendered civil unions illegal instead of just unrecognized in many states and prevented the legislatures from resolving the issue in any rational way. Thank you MA Supreme Court.
My point on the relevancy of sex is that the government has no business making any presumptions about the existence of a sexual relationship or the lack thereof and should, therefore, not require the use of an institution which is explicitly associated with such a relationship in order to confer those benefits.
I meant the leaders, not the rank and file. And if our rank and file is 50-50 there’s is about 95-5 based on these poll numbers.
And who got those measures on the ballot? And who sponsored the federal marriage amendment, and who almost universally voted against it? And what party has every elected official who was an active supporter of gay marriage that I know of except Bill Weld and (I assume, I’m not even sure of this) Jim Kolbe and a State Representative from Western Mass. named Shaun Kelly come from? And who refuses to criminalize sexual orientation hate crimes while being okay with other kinds of hate crimes laws? And how did President Bush’s favorite judges come down on the the sodomy issue compared to Clinton’s appointees? And what parties have all the mayors supporting gay marriage rights and the governors opposing gay marriage rights come from?
The Democratic party is not good on this issue–which is why, by the way, it is very stupid to argue that the solution to this problem is to become more culturally conservative on gay marriasge. But there is a huge gap between the two parties.
I am utterly convinced that the reason people are so opposed to gay marriage is that a significant number of people mistakenly believe that a judge in Massachusetts can order their church to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
I’d like to see a poll as well but I think your assessment is wrong. I’d bet that most of the people who voted for the same-sex marriage bans could care less about who officiates. A huge majority of people make no differentiation about whether a marriage is conducted by a judge, a priest, a rabbi, or a pastor. But it is very different when the religious institution is being forced to recognize an arrangement which is believed to be explicitly immoral.
Words mean something, especially to the overtly religious. And the word ‘marriage’ and the sacrament that it embodies has more meaning (and thus baggage) than many.
How is the religious institution being forced to recognize it?
If it exists in the world they will at some level have to acknowledge it exists, yeah. But that is true of, well, everything. They don’t have to approve of it, or stop opposing it, or convey acceptance in any way.
The Christian right has convinced itself that it is a violation of their freedom of religion not to get their own way about everything they want the government to do.
I’ll let Jes explain if when he said ‘Civil marriage exists’ if he meant that it had to be nationwide or if he simply noted it as proof of concept. You say that because things are conflated in most of the country, which I agree with, but I think the question is why are they conflated?
I missed the first question, sorry for that. I mentioned domestic partnerships simply as a ‘bridge’ category. For example, in Australia IIRC, cohabitation for a legally defined amount of time results in the de facto recognition of some sort of domestic partnership (very unclear on details, so anyone else is welcome to chime in) I added that because I think that this category would expand the group of countries that would have relatively enlightened views toward this. Unfortunately, the argument that the rest of the world does it (in some shape or form) is also an invitation to be attacked, as we can see by the discussion on SCOTUS decisions citing non-US legal precedents.
Again, I would be hesitant in using Oregon as any sort exemplar for Democratic behavior, though the ins and outs of that are a whole nother topic.
As for polls on this subject, I think that we need to look into the details of the specific polls and how the questions were framed to make sense of the data. I would like to believe what you say, but after this election, I am very hesitant to say with any certainty what American people think. You seem to suggest that the confrontation in MA led to the situation we have now, but I would suggest that that any confrontation would have been spun to represent an attack on “values”, so you are in effect arguing that there should never be a confrontation.
I don’t know if I agree that the government should make no presumptions. The government has to support for the family unit if only to create little consumers who pay taxes and such. It also has to assign responsibility for the children of those relationships. While I certainly wouldn’t want the government monitoring my sex life, the government does have to ascertain who the benefits that are reserved for families should go to. I would assume that a stable relationship would accrue more economic and social stability in society and would therefore be a social good, even for most libertarians.
For example, in Australia IIRC, cohabitation for a legally defined amount of time results in the de facto recognition of some sort of domestic partnership
Co-habiting for seven years automatically grants you the status of a ‘common-law marriage’, which has similar legal recognition and recourse as a civil union, which in turn is not regarded by law as being any different to a ‘religious’ marriage, in the eyes of the state. However, given the current Australian governments’ stance on gay adoption and IVF treatment, etc, I wouldn’t look to us for good examples of civil liberty enforcement.
How is the religious institution being forced to recognize it?
I think I’ve explained this a couple time already but I’ll try again. I generally don’t find myself defending the religious community but here we go.
The word ‘marriage’ has a specific meaning to religious people. It refers specificly to a religious sacrament which joins a man and woman in the eyes of their god.
To call a relationship which is believed to be explicitly immoral a marriage would be to convey an approval, even a blessing, that they simply refuse to bestow. Even mostly tolerant church goers generally won’t go that far. I find it amazing that people who have no problem understanding the power and symbolism of racial epithets, for instance, cannot understand that words have meaning and power in other contexts.
As I mentioned previously, polls on ‘civil unions’ are generally positive and polls on ‘same sex marriage’ are generally negative even when the civil attributes are identical. This indicates to me that a majorty of people have no problem providing the same legal constructs. They simply refuse to distort the meaning of their sacrament to do it.
Working against such sentiments seems a gross strategic error. I also believe it was explicitly and pointlessly exclusionary of more platonic relationships. Constituting a more inclusive institution would have met less resistance and helped more people at the same time.
I don’t know if I agree that the government should make no presumptions. The government has to support for the family unit if only to create little consumers who pay taxes and such. It also has to assign responsibility for the children of those relationships.
Others in this or different threads have already argued against the idea that the government’s responsibility is to encourage only relationships that are explicitly fertile. Two single mothers with children should be able to pool their households and have the legal and financial benefits without having to have sex or imply that they do.
First of all, I am not sure what the word “sacrament” means outside the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal churches.
Second of all, it is not only a gay marriage that is non-sacramental and immoral in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Marriages of Catholics to Jews or atheists and maybe even some protestants are not sacramental. Second marriages are thought to be immoral. When the church annuls a marriage, they carefully explain to the children that this does not make them illegitimate in the eyes of the church–it only means that their parents marriage was not sacramental, but of course their parents were legally married under the laws of whichever state. They seem to understand the difference easily enough when it’s convenient to do so.
Third of all, you can’t have it both ways: you don’t get to have the state name its civil institutions after your sacraments, AND demand the right to determine the extent of the civil institutions to conform with your sacraments. If they want to call my legal marriage to my husband a “civil union” and preserve the term “marriage” for what the church or synagogue does–but otherwise keep it the same, amending all statutes accordingly to grant states and lesbians–that’s fine with me. I suspect they would hate the idea, but it’s fine with me.
That’s not the situation. Civil unions not only do not get called the same name as marriages; they do not confer the same benefits or obligations, because the federal statutes refer to “marriages”, not “civil union.” This means that Vermont couples could not challenge the constitutionality of DOMA as far as the federal definition of marriage.
If they want to use “marriage” as a civil, legal category, they are going to have to accept that there are different requirements for civil and religious marriage. And again, the Catholic church has no trouble at all with this when it comes to second marriages and marriages to non-Christians. No one is suggesting that those be outlawed.
Also note: some religions recognize gay marriage. Not just the Unitarian Universalists, either.
Katherine:
I know a couple of people who voted Bush on “the abortion issue,” i.e. didn’t like him or his policies, but would take four more years of Bush to get people on the SCOTUS bench for the next ten to twenty years who support their viewpoint.
It seems that there is a Venn Diagram of “religious” voters, with one group who votes abortion and one group who votes icky gays, with considerable but not exclusive overlap. By running both issues and making sure there were homophobic amendments in play in swing states, Rove and Crew ensured that the “faith based” base would move out in force to protect the moral heartland of America.
What I want to know is, where were all those young, angry voters that you guys promised the rest of the world?
First of all, I am not sure what the word “sacrament” means outside the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal churches.
Sacrament in Catholicism and its close relatives has very specific meaning in the enumerated Sacraments. The word also has a more general meaning as a sacred or religious rite. Does it really matter? The meaning seems pretty clear from context even if you want to quibble with my diction.
Your exposition on the specifics of what constitutes a Catholic marriage and how they work around their rules is irrelevant. They can play whatever gymnastics with the persistence of their own sacrament they desire.
…you can’t have it both ways: you don’t get to have the state name its civil institutions after your sacraments, AND demand the right to determine the extent of the civil institutions to conform with your sacraments. If they want to call my legal marriage to my husband a “civil union” and preserve the term “marriage” for what the church or synagogue does–but otherwise keep it the same, amending all statutes accordingly to grant states and lesbians–that’s fine with me. I suspect they would hate the idea, but it’s fine with me.
Great. Then at least we agree that a separation of the institutions could be agreeable. I’ve already argued that the conflating of the religious and the civil institution is a bad artifact of history so “I’m not sure what the word [you] means” in this context. I’d respond, however, that “you don’t get to” arbitrarily redefine the meaning of words to suit. As a matter of history, marriage means a relationship “between a man and a woman” as Senator Kerry would say.
Civil unions not only do not get called the same name as marriages; they do not confer the same benefits or obligations, because the federal statutes refer to “marriages”, not “civil union.”
Of course they aren’t the same. Civil unions, as I already mentioned, are not universally recognized. If they were, they would be a functional replacement–for everyone if they so chose.
Others in this or different threads have already argued against the idea that the government’s responsibility is to encourage only relationships that are explicitly fertile.
I think you misunderstand what my point is. My point is not that government encourages only relationships that are fertile, it has an interest in encouraging relationships that are stable because that stability is a social good. And while two single mothers may choose to ‘pool their households’ (which is precisely the opposite of the old ‘Welfare queen” argument that claims that increasing benefits to single mothers, one encourages such behavior), my point is that the government should create situations where people are encouraged to raise families. Note that this is precisely what many anti-gay activists are against, and the idea of a gay couple adopting is specifically held out to as a line that cannot be crossed (cf. Oklahoma’s change to the adoption code which prevents recognition of by same-sex couples from other states and countries.) Note that if two women who want to be single mothers yet obtain the benefits that married couples receive, this would be specifically prevented, so the argument that by simply arguing for platonic relationships to be treated in the same manner, we could side step the messy problem of actually changing people’s minds, I feel certain that this is akin to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy and is simply a way to provide another closet for homosexuals under the guise of being reasonable.
Sorry for the convoluted grammar in that, I have an allergy to the preview button…
Gedanken said: Or rather, sure, but it is indistinguishable from the sacramental institution
Since when? And what sacrament?
Religious marriage takes place officiated over by your rabbi, your minister, your priest, your Druid, your Meeting if you’re a Quaker. Some of these ceremonies do not entail sacraments, others do: some of these ceremonies are open to same-sex couples, others are not. That’s a religious matter, and not one in which the government should ever intervene. The Catholic church should be allowed to go on to the end of time, if it likes, refusing to allow gay Catholics to get married in church, just as the Reform synagogues should be allowed to refuse marriage to a Jew marrying a gentile or to permit marriage between two Jewish lesbians.
Civil marriage exists. It’s a fact. No one in the US has to proclaim belief in a God in order to be allowed to be married. And no one should have to: that too would be an unwarrantable interferance between a person and their beliefs. Marry legally, and a couple then have access to a 1000+ federal benefits and whatever state-level benefits accrue to being a married couple. It is profoundly wrong for the US government or any state government to decree that gay citizens shall have no right of access to these benefits: and it sourced in religion/homophobia to believe that they should not.
In the Netherlands all marriages are civil. Even the crownprince first has to marry for the law, before he can marry in church (usually done the same day, but not necessarily). The legal bid is what makes the union a marriage. If the religious bit made a marriage out of the union you would have different marriages with different rules in the same country, depending on the religion of the married couple.
Churches differ greatly in what the will and will not do. Some are very loose and will marry gays without any problem, some feel that marrying a protestant with a catholic is a stretch, some are very strict and demand things like a public declaration of guilt if you are not a virgin when you marry. And of course, since the religious wedding takes place after the only recognized civil marriage, you can have any ceremony from any religion.
Marriage means that you want to built your life toghether, that you commit to each other, that you take responsibilities together. Marriage is always with the intend of staying together for the rest of your life.
We also have civil unions. They are for people who share a life and a household and want the legalities fixed. It gives you a basic framework you can fill in or alter with contracts if you want to.
Intellectually, I am attracted to arguments about “privatizing marriage” – i.e. having the government recognize and confer benefits (e.g. taxes, immigration, visitation, custody, etc.) based on “civil unions”, “domestic parterships” or whatever and letting each church (and each family) decide for itself what it wants to call “marriage.”
That being said, one has to realize that the entire discussion is politically irrelevant. We all saw how effectively the Republicans drove turnout in the same of “defending marriage” against gays. Can you imagine how successful they would have been if they were *actually* defending the recognition of marriage by the various levels of government?
I suppose it would be amusing to see a Vermont-based challenge to DOMA on *First* Amendment grounds; if only to see how many heads we can make explode in the “strict constructionist” camp. After all, DOMA, “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and “marriage is a sacred institution” are not exactly logically consistent. But I think we all know that wouldn’t end in a win for the pro-equality camp…
I suppose it would be amusing to see a Vermont-based challenge to DOMA on *First* Amendment grounds; if only to see how many heads we can make explode in the “strict constructionist” camp. After all, DOMA, “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and “marriage is a sacred institution” are not exactly logically consistent.
I would love to see this happen–if only to record all the folks on both sides saying stuff they will later regret having on the record.