Gays can get hitched in California now. Snap!
I figure some of you have shit to say about this:
California’s supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
“… limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
Drew at Ace of Spades does that legal-analyst thing I have no clue about but is interesting.
I’ve never had much of an opinion about gay marriage but I know most everyone else does so feel free to rant. All I know is, it’s only a matter of time before there’s a new reality show called Queer Bridezillas of Orange County.
As an O.C. native, I’ll venture that you won’t find queer bridezillas here. Look farther north, like the Bay Area.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pmESTI really do not care if gays get hitched. Why should us straight people endure all the pain?
But the court’s reasoning, in a word, sucks.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pmESTI’m very happy to hear that gay men will now get to experience the same level of legal pain and hell that straight marrieds have endured for so long.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:36 pmESTI’ve always wondered why the government feels like it needs some kind of say in marriage. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t marriage a commitment before GOD (or whatever you believe in) and not the State? As far as I’m concerned, from the State’s point of view, marriage shouldn’t be considered as anything else than a contract between two individuals agreeing to share resources in some agreed upon fashion.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pmEST“Marriage” is a religious sacrament to be joined under God. It’s also a civil and legal definition that confers specific legal rights in our society. I think it’s truly unfortunate that they share the same word. Most reasonable people are OK with the idea of civil unions that confer partnership rights, at least I’d like to think so.
I personally believe that whenever two people care deeply enough about each other to want to make a lifelong personal commitment then we should honor that. There isn’t really enough of it in America that we should be picking & choosing who is worthy enough to be allowed commit to each other.
I understand that many people with religious convictions will object to their “marriage” being put into the same category as a union that they find deeply offensive to God. I sympathize. But gay marriage is “marriage” only in the civil/legal sense of the word, and any religious meaning to the word is conferred by the specific church you belong to.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pmESTI don’t think the founding fathers were thinking of freedom to bum each other legally. Strange new world. I say keep the govt. out of their lives, but then there is visitation while sick and all that stuff.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pmESTWhat bothers me about it is simply that the people voted against it, and the courts said “too bad!” That scares me.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pmEST‘All I know is, it’s only a matter of time before there’s a new reality show called Queer Bridezillas of Orange County.’
Genius.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pmESTFamily lawyers must be very happy about this news - more “clients”, or, as they are known, victims…
May 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pmESTAs Kit said, the thing that bothers me about it is, the people of California said NO, and the courts over ruled them.
I personally feel that government has no business in the marriage field, be it state federal or local. Its a covenant between two people and god (or the flying spaghetti monster, Allah, ect).
On the bright side, hope it wakes some people up. No matter how you vote, the liberal activist judges feel they have to right to over rule you.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pmESTAs a resident of California this bugs me to no end too. It’s really frightening that “The Court” thinks it knows better than the people.
I don’t know why government has to be involved in marriage at all.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pmESTThe primary purpose of marriage in all societies through time has been for the propagation and raising of children. Husband and wife provide the most stable arrangement for raising and socializing a psychologically healthy child. Any other benefits that accrue to the couple are incidental to the fundamental purpose of marriage. Children are best raised by one man and one woman bonded as a family. Every statistic we have about the future success of the child bears this out.
If gays want to enter into a civil union, I say fine. But it’s not marriage because such an arrangement satisfies the incidental benefits without addressing the fundamental purpose. Children need both a mother and father. Should gays be allowed to adopt? Maybe. I suppose such an arrangement is better than being raised in an orphanage. Maybe even better than being raised in an abusive heterosexual household. Then again, maybe not. My experience as a teacher informs me otherwise. When mom goes lesbo, you get very angry sons, and very confused daughters. Ditto for dad when he switches gears in the middle of the race. My evidence is anecdotal; I would like to see some statistics.
As far as courts deciding the issue, I’m sorry, it’s not the prerogative of any court to legislate from the bench. California voters decide one way; the bench smacks them down. Same thing on illegal immigration. It’s part of the All High Church of Liberalism and the high priests installed to enforce liberal orthodoxy. You think the current election isn’t important? Can you say, “Ruth Bader-Ginsburg?”
May 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pmESTShortly we will hear the Muslims have decided to push for legalized marriage to their goats. After all, Muslims are known as goathumpers. The California Supreme Court will certainly side with them to keep from offending goats.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pmESTSorry, you can’t pass laws that violate the state constitution. Them’s the breaks. Just ask San Fransico. They’ve tried banning handguns twice and the courts shot it down.
If it’s the Will of the People then get an amendment going.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pmESTJustin,
May 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pmESTSorry, you don’t get to make up rights “discovered” in a state constitution that aren’t there.
I’ve never read the California constitution but I’m fairly sure you won’t find the words…
“The right of the People to munch carpet and pack fudge shall not be infringed.”
fact of the matter is, the people are going to decide this. I heard that there is a same sex marriage proposal for the California State Constitution going to the polls this fall. If the amendment passes, all of this was just one gigantic waste of time, and yet another chance for the judiciary to thumb its nose at the will of the population.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:00 pmESTwhy not,none of my business
re:goats;marriage or any contract requires informed
May 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pmESTconsent
I HATE when people try to hide thier bigotry behind the ol’ chestnut “Marriage is about the children!”
Bullshit. Half of marriages end in divorce, and some 30 percent of white married couples don’t even have children anymore. Should “children” be the definition of marriage? I think not.
Marriage is about taking a partner, making a pact, and having the Government now screw you out of your pact when it comes to legal matters.
That said, I think the Government should get completely out of the marriage validation business. They have no more right to tell me and my wife we are a “real” couple than they do any gay couple out there. The government should only register couples, if Churches want to have another version of a wedding, more power to them, but letting churches, or bigots decide partnerships is just wrong.
Oh, and for you assholes who want to throw around the “sodomy” slanders, do you really want sodomy laws enforced? Really, no more blowjobs from your wife?
ReallY???
May 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pmESTOn an emotional level, I don’t believe gay men should be allowed to marry because all the gay male couples I’ve met acted like they were married, but in fact they weren’t monogamous; there was cheating or sometimes they brought in a third.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pmESTOn the other side, I’ve met plenty of lesbian couples who are definately committed to each other and never cheated. So emotionally I feel they should be able to get married.
But that’s how I feel on an emotional level. When I try to think about it rationally, I either end up with “why not let gays get married if they really are in a loving, committed relationship?” or “screw it, why bother having marriage for anyone -straight, gay, whatever- if all they’re going to do is eventually be unfaithful?” So rationally, I have not yet reached a position I’m satisfied with.
Does anybody think that this court decision may have effectively handed California over to McCain in November?
May 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pmESTYea I’m one of those silly people who think of marriage as “man+woman=marriage” and not “man+man who acts like a woman ect ect”
May 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pmESTWhew I lived in Cali my whole life and just recently(Jan.) moved out to Georgia for a little while,I’m sorta glad this happened after I left otherwise I woulda been wayyy more pissed than I am(which is still pretty pissed) its got a lot to do with the court overruling them(but at least my californians said no in the first place)
*sigh* the world truly is going to hell but the speed is always surprising.
I’m more concerned about the slow but inexorable erosion of the rule of law and our republic than whether gay people can marry. The erosion comes from all branches of the government, so you can’t simply blame judges, or whatnot.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:21 pmESTI HATE when people try to oversimplify their opponent’s arguments by accusing them of “bigotry”.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:38 pmESTPara, you accuse me sir (or mam) of bigotry. I beg your pardon. I hate no one. Support of marriage between man and woman is a philosopical stance based on empirical evidence (statistics). Children do best with a father and mother. Period. No study suggests otherwise. And yes, marriage is totally about children. Has been so for millenia. You may not like it. Fine. Your privelege to disagree. But I will give you the benefit of honoring your opinion without calling you a bigot. I think you’re wrong. My opionion.
Society is built on structure. The basic unit is the family. Has been. Will be. Always. And, yeah, quite frankly, a wobbly family is better than an “alternative” family. My opinion. Take India for example. NO DIVORCE. You stay together for the duration. It happens to work. Misery? Yeah. But for family solidarity, it guarantees social continuity. Easy divorce leads to an emphasis of the incidental over the fundamental.
Para, I offer you my respect and a civil handshake. Agree or disagree, but withdraw your bigot comment.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pmESTThis seems like plausible deniability, Rachel. If there is one thing I have learned, and enjoyed, from lurking and posting here is that you almost always have an opinion, and it’s almost always well-thought-out, interesting and informative.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pmESTSo, although I realize you are busy with Rupert (I have a lot to thank you both for on this subject, rest assuredl) throw us a bone and spill!
I’m not a huge Howard Stern fan, but what he said on this issue a few years ago really struck me as being insightful:
The more gay people feel comfortable living in the open in same-sex relationships, the less likely they are to stay in the closet and marry hetero members of the opposite sex leading to broken homes, the down low, and divorce.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pmESTThis male thinks he will go to Cali and marry four dudes.
I want to see the court explain to me that there is a right to marry one dude, but not four.
I’m sure their reasoning will be airtight.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pmESTMay 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pmEST
The only thing that worries me is what will happen if a gay couple has their hearts set on a wedding in a church (lots of people who don’t even believe in God do, just because of the ambience or whatever… and not saying gay people don’t believe in God, just that it’s not ONLY Christians who get married in churches… I think I’ve covered myself from all angles there…) and certain pastors or priests will tell them “no.” And, as pastor/priest of that church, that’s their prerogative. So will gay people be allowed to sue, thereby violating the separation of church and state, or will pastors/priests be allowed to maintain that level of sovreignty over their church?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pmESTI can’t really find the best way to word my thoughts here, I just worry that the pastor who says “no” could end up being made an example of in a “this is what happens to bigots who undermine the legality of gay marriage” kind of way. I guess it’s kind of a “where do my rights end and your rights begin” kind of thing…
Does ANYONE else get what I mean?? Or did I just waste a lot of words without actually making a point?? (I do that sometimes);-)
mockmook there really isn’t any reason why this kind of logic can’t be extended to polygamy, either. All consenting adults. Why not? But I think it gets back to what Paules said about the interest the State has in the raising of the child. That is the fundamental reason why it’s involved, after all. Sure, the institutions of marriage and child-rearing have taken a beating- some of that inflicted by the state (with the best of intentions, of course). And some of that (e.g. generous welfare payments to single moms which tend to reduce the need for an involved father) have been seriously cut back, with generally positive effects. Why the government would want to get involved in this issue is beyond me. It doesn’t benefit from it. For better or for worse, the government rewards behavior it finds desirable, usually with financial incentives. From a utilitarian point of view, what’s the benefit to society? Why the social engineering? In fact, an argument could be made that it just breaks down the institution even more.
Be that as it may, there will be an amendment and it will be passed. As broken and trivialized as marriage is, people do recognize it still has (or ought to have) some value greater than the paper its written on.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pmESTKit is right. The big story is not necessarily gay marriage. California law already grants legal status to domestic partners. What is HORRIFIC is the fact that 4 activist judges went way beyond the law and the constitution to demagogue over something that was on the ballot 8 years ago and the People said clearly (61%) that the name/institution of marriage will remain between a man and a woman.
This is very scary that 4 crap judges could do this. There is already talk of recalling them and it would be a very just call. This will be on the ballot again in November. And so will their recall.
Assholes.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pmESTPara, you forgot your medication.
Making a convincing argument don’t work when you are swearing and spewing hate.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:25 pmESTOooh, polygamy should be the least of our concerns.
What happens when some 40 year old pervert sues the government because they won’t recognize his “marriage” to a 15 year old girl?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:30 pmESTWhy should polygamy be the least of our concerns? Agreed, the fifteen-year-old bride is a worse offense, but how is polygamy the least?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTI’m no scholar of the Constitution, but at what point does defining an institution that has been one way for six thousand years of recorded history, and more than 225 of American history, become all of a sudden “unconstitutional?” Where in the Constitution is marriage guaranteed as a right? No one has the “right” to be married. It is a choice, just like whether I “choose” to be a Vikings fan or a Packers fan (that should be unconstitutional). Ron George’s “opinion” is the mind of one unelected old fool. The voters in California (I was one of them, but have since left that God-forsaken place), voted nearly 2-1 on Prop 22 to define marriage as between a man and a woman:
ref: marriagewatch.org
This unelected old fool and his “opinion” are unconstitutional, as he has singlehandedly defied the will of the people. This is a democracy. He is attempting to create some sort of jurisocracy where his opinion somehow counts more than the overwhelming majority of Californians.
Checks and balances are great–but not when they defy the will of the electorate. I say Ron George can sit and spin. What I don’t get is how Pete Wilson would appoint this guy. He’s obviously lost his marbles since 1991.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:49 pmESTChildren are best raised by one man and one woman bonded as a family. Every statistic we have about the future success of the child bears this out.
Sorry, but that’s just not so. What the stats show is that children are best raised in long-term two-parent households, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. That kids from single-parent households have a much tougher time of it as compared to two-parent households, regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple of the two parent. Children of committed gay couples show no significant differences in gender behaviors or psych dysfunction or sexual orientation from those of committed straight couples. There is no evidence that such children are any likelier to be gay or crazy or criminal than kids from traditional male/female households. There is some evidence that they’re a bit less likely to be bigots or homophobes, though.
There really aren’t any good stats on the children of “poly” families, and I won’t make any guesses. Given that so many of known poly families with kids are cultists, I think it would be tough to construct a nuetral study, one that could separate the ugly dysfunctionalities of cults from the effects of multiple parents past two.
The CA court’s decision is IMHO the product of lousy legal reasoning and judicial construction that sees things that aren’t there. There is a sound legal basis for states to regulate marriage, and state constitutions can certainly ban gay marriage in order to overcome the constitutional objections that such courts raise.
But as I said, if they want to suffer along with the rest of us, I have no personal objections. The biggest objection has always seemed to be the religious objection to using the label of marriage for such unions, and I can understand that, even if I think it’s a little misguided. But it’s not as if the inability to marry one’s preferred gender will result in celibacy–it sure doesn’t NOW–and we don’t want to encourage premarital and promiscuous singles sex, do we?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:50 pmESTI did a paper on this subject in law school. In essence, marriage was recognized as a fundamental human right by the US Supreme Court in (iirc) Loving v. Virginia. An interracial couple was jailed in VA under that state’s miscegenation laws. The Supremes said marriage is a fundamental right, therefore any law infringing it must pass strict scrutiny (the most arduous examination of the government’s ability to legislate in an area). Basically, marriage has the same status as speech. As I concluded in my paper, if this is so, if challenged, the government likely will not be able to justify prohibitions on gay marriage or polygamous marriages. Those of you concerned about marriage to children: the concept of informed consent probably permits the government to set minimum age requirements. And bestiality with respect to marriage would fall into a category like obscenity or incitement to riot does with speech.
Bottom line: it’s a human right, not a heterosexual right. Even if the state Constitution gets amended in November, it can be overturned in federal court for conflicting with the U.S. Constitution (as interpreted in Loving and its succeeding cases).
May 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pmESTWell I certainly can’t think of any unintended consequence that would be less bad than polygamy.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pmESTThree guys on their honeymoon kept us all entertained on a long flight to D.C. from Tokyo. They treated the whole cattle section to champaign and sang and cavorted about.
Hopefully, they can now get the courts to up the ante and let more than two impossible-to-breed-with-each-other people be in a marriage. In fact, they should be allowed to bring an uncle or brother or father or all of them into the unit as well.
I am stunned at how provincial the California Supreme Court has turned out to be.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pmESTExcept the United States government does not work on “human rights” Constitutional rights.
Anything can be arbitrarily designated a “human right”.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:58 pmESTI understand what you posted Erika.
I just read The Anchoress and her thoughts on this. She wonders, for some of the same reasons that you do, if we should adopt the French method of marriage. The legal ceremony at City Hall, and for those so inclined the sacrament at a church.
I wish we would use separate words for those two different events, as I think that would address some (though certainly not all) tensions over this issue.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pmESTIn Loving v. VA, the decision was repetitively couched in terms of racial discrimination. Did the California high court even cite it? Or can they since it was not decided in California? I won’t be reading the full CA document, but it would be interesting to see if they did. Because it would not be difficult to look at Loving and interpret it only in terms of miscegenation, given the fact that that was the issue at hand.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pmESTThe 10th amendment allows for states to determine/legislate what is not expressly stated in the Constitution.
States can legislate. The Judicial branch went beyond their reach.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pmESTThanks, Anne… if anyone is interested, this explains what I’m thinking a little more eloquently than I did in my comment above:
May 15th, 2008 at 10:09 pmESThttp://theanchoressonline.com/2008/05/15/gay-marriage-and-the-churches/
Exactly my point. The government does not have the right to legislate, except in those areas specifically set forth in the Constitution. And even then, those laws must pass some level of scrutiny, the lowest of which is (to paraphrase) “at least it makes sense” and the highest of which is “you’d better have an airtight absolute necessity, and nothing less restrictive is possible.” The highest level of scrutiny applies to “fundamental” or, in my words above, basic human rights.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:10 pmESTMare: you’re forgetting that the 14th Amendment makes the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it, apply to the individual states, as well. Yes, the states can make their own constitutions and laws, but only to the extent they do not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pmESTThe FEDERAL government does not have that right. The 10th Amendment clearly places marriage within the authority of the state governments.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
And since the US Constitution says nothing about gay marriage, by definition a prohibition of gay marriage cannot be unconstitutional.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pmESTcknight,
Read what one of the dissenters said. She was for gay marriage but it was unconstitutional to overturn the ban.
If the supreme court has already ruled that gay marriage is constitutional, why is there any argument in any state? Only MA has allowed it and that was Legislated, not determined by the States supreme court.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pmESTDani: the Court in Loving specifically stated “marriage is a fundamental right.” I noted in my paper that perhaps they didn’t realize what they were doing when they said it, but it’s there. I haven’t read the CA decision yet, so I don’t know specifically what they cited. The news reports I’ve heard seem to indicate their logic was somewhat fuzzy, but then that could just be the reporters not fully understanding it.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pmESTmightysamurai,
Thank you, that was my point. Since the US Constitution says nothing about gay marriage, by definition a prohibition of gay marriage cannot be unconstitutional. And should be left to the states to determine.
Exactly why state rights are so important. “To the People” is crucial here. They voted on it and it should have stood.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:24 pmESTmighty: We seem to be making the same argument but arriving at different conclusions. What I’m saying is that marriage is one of those fundamental rights reserved for the people, and the government can’t stop you from doing it (except as noted above).
Mare: no, the USSC has not explicitly ruled on gay marriage, but if it logically follows its own precedent, it will hold gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:26 pmESTMeh, call it what you want, it’s still not marriage. I can claim to be a woman, but it doesn’t make it true. A man without a wife is not married, irrespective of with whom he copulates.
Words have meaning. That’s the only reason we bother communicating at all. I don’t oppose gay marriage because there’s simply no such thing, even if some liberal activist judge unlawfully attempts to redefine it that way. If the state wants to recognize a civil contract between homosexuals, then it needs to do so without being illogical. Call it queerage and be done with it.
This country no longer upholds righteousness as something to be desired. It is only to be skirted (it’s not even paid lip-service anymore) in the pursuit of every form of vain self-indulgence. Immoral behavior has negative consequences, socially and individually. Do what you will with that.
As for me and my house…
May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 pmESTThe Loving case was predicated on the traditional understanding of marriage in common law, a union between a man and a woman. That remains the flaw in most legal arguments supporting gay marriage as a “right” that claim Loving as a precedent. Race is not distinctive in that definition, gender is. Gays already enjoy that traditional right of marriage as thoroughly and completely as anyone else, it’s just not of much use to them. For Loving to apply, gays would have to be denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex because they were gay. THAT would indeed be discrimination on sexual preference.
Straight people have never had a “right” to marry someone of the same sex. To reach the conclusion that same-sex marriage is an inherent constitutional “right” requires extending the centuries-old definition of marriage to interpretations never known in the history of Western law, essentially inventing a new “right” that did not previously exist.
Were it not that in law marriage conveys a plethora of automatic joint rights and legal obligations to the married, this would all be an issue without a point. Once could simply get a lawyer and contract a union. But some of the rights and obligations of marriage cannot be simply contracted, especially those that involve parties outside the marriage. Still, the courts could adjust fairly easily to two-person same-sex marriage. They could not adjust well at all to poly marriages–there are no centuries of precedent to go by.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:28 pmESTRead the 10th Amendment again.
“…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
State governments are given precedence over the people. If the state government chooses to legislate on an issue, and they are not explicitly prevented by the US Constitution from doing so, that is their right.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:31 pmESTI actually LOLed at “queerage” just a little bit.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:33 pmESTMy last comment tonight; gotta get something to eat. I’ll come back tomorrow, though, if it looks like anyone wants to continue the discussion.
I disagree that the 10th Amendment gives precedence to the states over the people, simply because the states appears before the people in the list. There’s a latin phrase that sums this up, but I forget how it goes. But by your logic, from the 1st Amendment, free exercise of religion takes precedence over freedom of speech, which precedes the press, then peaceable assembly. It seems to me that “respectively” in Amend. 10 is merely a referral back to the previous clause “nor prohibited by it to the States.” It’s a grammatical tool. (Either that, or I’M a grammatical tool; I do love me some grammar!)
May 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pmESTPaules,
There is divorce in India, as much as any where else. People stay together, not because there’s “NO DIVORCE,” but because it’s culturally frowned upon.
But the incidences of divorce are increasing as people seek independence from cultural stigmas. But you’re right, divorces are far fewer and people do live in misery for the duration.
Chester
May 15th, 2008 at 11:26 pmESTMay I just point out that our original amendments were all about the government subsidizing negative rights, i.e. the right to NOT get screwed over by our government and be hindered from speaking, praying, existing, etc.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:02 amESTAnd now, we just whine for positive rights, i.e. everyone wants the right to have the government subsidize our (insert the right you want here)
Gays have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us. Cut them some slack.
I don’t care.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:03 amESTTully,
May 16th, 2008 at 12:05 amEST“I have no personal objections. The biggest objection has always seemed to be the religious objection…”
Nope. At least from my point of view.
I have no problem with two people loving each other regardless of race, creed, color, gender,or shoe size.
But you discount Mark’s point. We are a species. In order for that species to continue to exist we must procreate and pass along to our progeny the skills to replicate the process.
What form of family best facilitates that process?
California already has a domestic partnership law which grants all the legal rights of marriage. I would argue that this is a moral question. What does marriage mean?
As Mark said, marriage is the cocoon of childhold. It’s where little boys learn how to treat a woman (by watching their father) and little girls learn how a woman should be treated (by watching their father)
It’s where little girls learn how to treat a man (by watching their mother) and little boys learn how a man should be treated (by watching their mother)
There is no better way.
There may be other ways, but there are none better.
Marriage has a meaning. The Supreme Court of California debased that meaning today.
What is bigotry? Bigotry is seeing one’s self or “group” as superior or deserving more rights than another “group”.
Bigotry is claiming that “marriage” should be restricted from gays, because the “reason” for marriage is to rear children, but IGNORING the fact that many, many, many, married couples do not have children.
The basis then for the “right to marry” can not be: “The Children” as that would disqualify in excess of 30% of married couples in America. Having children has never been a legal requirement for marriage in America. Despite my 15 years of marriage, I don’t have kids, in fact, I really don’t like kids that much. But I digress.
Why would someone be against gays having the same rights as straights? Why would anyone wish for inequality in our country, which is supposed to be the bastian of freedom and equality in the world?
The only real reason I have ever seen that people are against gay marriage is because they are bigoted against gays. Simple as that. But if you really feel that straights are superior to gays, why not just come out and say it, why hide behind “legal” loopholes and imaginary “for the children” arguments? If you are a bigot, why not just embrace it and admit it.
You can try to camophlage it in legalese, or try to disarm the topic with jokes( Queerage)but the truth of the matter is that you somehow think that straight people deserve someting that gay,law-abiding-tax-paying-hurting-nobody-Americans do not; the right to choose a person to have as a partner, with all the legal protections that come with such an arrangement.
You can speak of “morals” and “righteousness”, but the way I see it, morality doesn’t let people treat other as lesser people, and as for righteousness……….well, maybe I should stop there.
But I’ll leave you with a thought;
Since when did we start allowing the f-ing Government to have so much power over our lives? Really, is there any room whatsoever in matters of love and relationships for the stinking Government?
I think not. Get the government out of our lives.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:08 amESTPara Says:
I absolutely agree with you about getting the government out of our private lives. To me though, that includes what kind of crap my kids have to put up with at school. The turd burglar agenda has driven the “alternative” family PC BS all over the lesson plans of every school in the country. You wouldn’t have people upset about stuff like gay marriage if that “lifestyle” was shoved down our and our kids throats everywhere we look.
As for your earlier comment about enforcing sodomy laws and certain things from our wifes….I think mine would fight for that enforcement, that is why she is handcuffed to my bed
May 16th, 2008 at 1:04 amESTBut you discount Mark’s point. We are a species. In order for that species to continue to exist we must procreate and pass along to our progeny the skills to replicate the process.
Bushwa. Procreation is written into the genes. Our little animal selves need no cultural norms or special skills to reproduce, the trick is stopping us. Marriage has cultural purposes, yes, but the claim that male/female couples produce superiorly civilized kids compared to gay couples is demonstrably false. Stable family situations produce superiorly civilized kids, and the available research clearly shows that it’s irrelevant in the outcome whether that stable home is headed by a gay couple or a straight couple.
Anyway, by that argument no couples NOT having kids should be permitted to marry. Gay OR straight. Especially couples who have no intention to reproduce from the get-go. Heh. Yet the result of allowing non-reproducing couples to marry is also, by that argument, null. No kids, no social effect. Muddy thinking, that, and it conflates a whole lot of other unstated arguments by assumption as well.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:13 amESTWhile I understand that gays want the same rights as hetero couples and I have no problem with civil unions, I balk at calling it ‘marriage’. I can’t shake the feeling that this desire to redefine the word/idea ‘marriage’ is another misguided attempt at social engineering, and I worry what it forebodes for the future of the nuclear family.
Para:
The only reason that you can see; not the only reason people are against gay marriage.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:34 amESTI don’t really give a fig about gays getting married, I figure they should be as miserable as the rest of us poor bastards.
What does irritate me to no end, is this freakin acceptance that if it happens in Leftyland, that it has implications for the rest of the nation….Since when did California become our bellweather state? Why do we all have to follow suit?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:45 amESTPara,
I hate your guts and all your liberal faggotry that is destroying the fabric of the society of this great country, I hate your attempts to silence argument with your p.c. b.s. I despise your attempts to bring about our downfall. I am a warrior to defend the goodness of what the founding fathers envisioned. I would never physically harm you and your ilk, but I will fight on with my deeds.
It takes a real idiot to not see that most of the problems in our society are from the destruction of the traditional family unit. Drugs, prostitution, most crimes are from desperate people without the guidance of a good family. Black and white world.
[SOMEONE'S GONNA GET THE BAN HAMMER. It is very simple: you can disagree with other commenters but there is no reason or any good to come from saying you hate their guts. And the idea that Para has "liberal faggotry" actually kinda makes me laugh a little. Also, Shawn, what do drugs and prostitution have to do with THIS subject, gay marriage? In any case, you don't get to say you hate one of my favorite commenters on my own blog. So don't do that again. Love, Rachel]
May 16th, 2008 at 3:35 amESTIf gay marriage were an end in and of itself, I would have no problem with it. It’s a form of association, and we have a Constitutional right to free, voluntary association. The government should have no part in it.
Unfortunately, our government does have a hand in marriage. There are the tax laws, which are affected by marriage. There are also the various state and federal laws involving businesses and coverage of their employees spouses, and so on. Gay marriage is largely supported by politicians, and many individuals, as a way to expand the people who can get on the government gravy train.
I’d be all for repealing all laws, and preventing future ones, dealing with financial benefits and taxes for any married people (gay or straight), and then letting each state deal with the gay marriage issue as they will.
It would have the added benefit that neither gays nor straight would have to worry about whether each state recognizes their union.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:56 amESTAmen Dr.Feelgood,I really couldn’t agree more.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:38 amEST*If I were wearing a hat I would tip it..and if I were a guy that would make more sense*
GMSC, you hit one big nail on the head, through the auspices of the “TAX CODE” all manner of hateful things have come to pass. This one thing…the ability of the government to steal our Income (instead of relying on our spending on goods for their income) allows them such huge amounts of control over our lives that the average person doesn’t even realize they have very little freedom left.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:53 amESTWell, I’ll also be interested whether libtards who want CA gay marraiges recognized in other states under the Constitution’s recognition of state laws are willing to make the same argument for my TX Concealed Carry permit in San Francisco….
I’m not holding my breath.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:05 amESTRegardless of what you believe about gay marriage, the fact that a few activist judges overturned a democratic ruling by The People should have you all very, very concerned. The erosion of the democratic process undermines the foundation of our government. What’s the point in having the People vote when four citizens get to decide for everyone?
May 16th, 2008 at 7:16 amESTShawn says:
You obviously know so very little about me.
First, I loathe Liberals. Secondly I am a Libertarian, and Third, a decorated infantryman of the 82nd Airborne division who has literally fought for the freedoms and ideals of this country. I believe that all law-abiding people are equal. If your Bible tells you differently, that’s between you and the Almighty, but our land of laws say that we are not allowed to treat people with diferent sets of rules.
Like it or not we don’t live in a theocracy. We live by the laws of man, not the laws of the Christian Bible. That books lays out a set of rules for YOU to follow voluntarily, but cannot be forced upon me any more than the rules in the Koran or Torah can be forced upon you. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protect the right of one to practice thier religion, but ALSO PROTECTS GUYS LIKE ME FROM HAVING A RELIGION THRUST UPON THEM.
The basis for not letting gays marry is largely religion based, therefore, it cannot be the law of the land. Religious based bigotry is illegal, sorry.
Despite your hatred of me, I’m going to extend the ol’ olive branch and give you some free advice on how to survive this isssue:
If you are against gay marriage, do not marry a gay person.
Other than actually marrying a gay person, the issue will never affect you.
There, so now you have a sure-fire insulator against this awful “P.C.” infestation that makes you feel so “icky”.
You don’t have to like it, but appreciate the fact that we live in a country that allows you to practice your beliefs. That’s the trade-off. You get to be you, and someone else gets to be who they want to be, without the Government interfering. In a lot of places, your religious opinions would get your head chopped off, at least here you can be a bigot and hateful and nobody will bother you. It’s called freedom, Pal, and it’s awesome.
You’re welcome.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:20 amESTI agree with you on this 100% RHI. The way this came about is terrible.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:21 amESTHow much you wanna bet that para is a big time bigot. All liberals are… at least against white males. Bigotry does not have anything in its denotative definition about majority or minority. Civil unions with equal rights are fine and dandy. Marriage is a religious term pure and simple. The fact that the Government took the word and used it for its own purposes is the problem. Dr. Feelgood and gmsc are spot on. If Congress started taking a biscuit and sip of wine at the start of each session would anyone have a problem? Maybe, as another perk of our ‘royalty’, but would anything be done about it? If they now called it a ’sacrament’, but only as a secularly convenient term, would anyone have a problem with that? Heh.
It’s funny to me how separation of church and state these days only costs the church members. It is also sad and funny to me how most rabid liberals are such anti-religious bigots, but only against Christians and Jews. You can hear Obama call the people who won’t vote for him bigoted, gun toting angry white males clinging to religion, but the gun toting religious non-whites perfectly willing to cap his ass, should be met with and treated with the utmost respect. Muslims would spit on you or just shoot you for your beliefs on this issue and most others para, but no hate for them from the liberal… you are a worse bigot then the people you accuse para, revel in it.
[Oh for fuck's sake! PARA IS NOT A GODDAMN LIBERAL. I'm working my way through these 80-something comments for the first time and I swear to God if I see one more comment assuming anyone who isn't adamantly opposed to gay marriage is an anti-religious bigot or anything else like that, I am going to put the hurt on someone. Love, Rachel]
May 16th, 2008 at 8:05 amESTExcept the 1st Amendment does not contain the word “respectively”. Ergo, all the rights contained in it are separate and equal.
Then there is no point in discussing this any further with you, since you are clearly not interested in a discussion.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:07 amESTThis is a good point.
If gays were really interested in legal equality they would be advocating for civil unions and nothing else.
The fact that they are advocating for MARRIAGE suggests they are trying to force the American people to accept their lifestyle.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:11 amESTNow I just read the latest para news. You are exactly right, a gay person has the same rights as anyone else. They should be against ‘marriage’ as it is a religious term that stigmatizes them. They should no more want to be called ‘married’ than ‘hetero’. It does not apply. Marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. As long as they write their own books, they can even start their own religion. They are free to in this country. Interesting that you inserted a condition on all people are equal. Ever exceeded the speed limit? Do you know anyone who never has? Libertarians can give mixed signals in blogs (I am one too), but they usually don’t pull the race or bigot card so harshly as they are more tolerant and accepting of others beliefs in my experience. I would not have guessed. Now I have to give you respect for your last two comments, damn.
By your own capital letter argument, you should not be mad at anyone against the term ‘gay marriage’, you should be mad that the secular Gov’t. took the religious term and gave it additional secular meaning. The Government has thereby thrust religion on everyone. People who believe marriage is a sacred trust that is part of their religion, are not bigots (necessarily), they are reacting to an infringement by Gov’t on their religion. By using the term, Gov’t has(inadvertantly?) overstepped the separation of church and state boundary, because they are now (inadvertantly?) writing church doctrine. Outrage to this is not bigotry.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:30 amESTCongratulations, that’s the most ignorant comment on the subject yet. First, you failed to distinguish the “laws of man” from “the laws of the Christian Bible”. Your assertion that Religious Principle is to be excluded when making making Civil Law (against 200+ years of evidence to the contrary, well done!) is historically unfounded. Primarily, however, you have completely failed to understand that this was the law of man, made by the citizens of California.
So let’s talk about bigotry, (Bigot - n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ) because you’re such an expert. You’ve clearly overlooked the boomerang effect of that word. Anyone who uses it puts themselves within the boundary of its definition. You can call me a Christian bigot, and you’re probably correct. I’d be just as correct in flinging it back at you (Secular Libertarian bigot). The word itself doesn’t invalidate anything, and since we’re equally bigotted let’s just cancel terms and move on.
The bottom line here is that the state doesn’t prevent individuals from committing homosexual acts. That’s the individual liberty you desperately cherish. It is the state’s privilege, at the will of the people, to recognize whichever unions it so chooses. That’s the freedom of association you and I fought for. It is also well within the rights of voters to afford equal access to benefits of the state, and here’s where queerage proponents fail: practicing homosexuals are already free to marry, in exactly the same way as everyone else. Likewise, I as a practicing heterosexual man am prohibited from “queeraging” a male. The law applies equally and fairly to everyone. Saying the state doesn’t have the power to restrict marriage for one group is a red herring. Marriage means what it means, and everyone is free to do it. It is narrowly defined, and it’s only by that definition that marriage laws should be interpreted.
As an aside I will never vote against my religious principles, so my say in the “law of man” will always reflect the “law of the Christian Bible” as is my right. I will never acknowledge homosexual behavior as normal, since I do not accept “orientation” as an excuse to commit what I believe are vile acts.
It’s all worldview (philosophy). Secularists seem to think that the winner of the moral high ground will be the one whose philosophy can be most derived from naturalism. That will never happen, though Connie DuToit is probably the closest a human can get to justifying morality within a naturalist worldview (implicit morality of existence, combined with some social-benefit theory that I haven’t fully worked out, yet). I’ll leave it to you to discover what she thinks of Libertarianism.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:46 amESTMeh.
Whatever, CA! Personally, I think it is fair for two gays that have gay love and gay commitment to have a legally gay binding gay contract. I don’t particularly relish calling it “mah-waaaaage” (Princess Bride!) but again . . . whatever.
Powah to the people!
Oh. Wait a minute. That’s right. The PEOPLE voted against this.
Hum.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:47 amESTOh dammit, dammit, dammit!! I am going to HAVE to start checking this blog in the evenings! Otherwise I come in the next morning to the leftovers of last night’s party. Which are zesty goodness, of course, but still…
What RHI said: the people spoke, the gov’t overturned them, and this is Double Plus Ungood. Even worse, people who are normally all over this kind of thing like green on grass- are popping champagne like it’s a Good Thing. Not to bring religion into it, but this really is like trading your birthright for a mess o’pottage. True ethics and responsibility can– and DO– differentiate between “what is good” and “what gives me what I want”.
Also, I do have a hair to split here, and it’s a fairly significant one– the original purpose of marriage was to protect and increase PROPERTY, not children. Children were just the vehicle by which that property was preserved into the future years– hence the laws of primogeniture, the joke about “an heir and a spare”, and all the rest of it. Although I’m sure the cavemen loved their kids too, the sentimental “cult of childhood” bloomed with the Victorians, and the elevation of children as “the hope of our future and we must learn from them” is a strictly modern invention. I like children just fine, but in this case, they’re red herrings.
We don’t like to think of marriage as a business arrangement, but from a legal standpoint, that’s exactly what it is. All of our protections on marriage (and all of our penalties for screwing it up) protect our ASSETS, not our hearts or souls. Society’s acceptance of a love contract between two people (of any genders) is a whole ‘nother ball game–and not the government’s responsibility. Otherwise you fall into the realm of “Come the Revolution, you will eat strawberries and cream, and you will like it.”
May 16th, 2008 at 8:48 amESTKel said (4th from top):
Well put. I’ve never understood why any level of government should need to sanction marriage. In fact, state involvement in marriage is a rather recent phenomenon; most states in the 1800’s had no marriage laws at all. Now, like everything else, we’ve politicised it.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:59 amESTThe State can’t marry gays for the same reason it can’t marry straights: it’s not part of a valid apostolic succession and is not qualified to administer the sacraments. As for the domestic partnerships that it does offer, I have no particular problem with offering them to gays, though this wasn’t the way to do it. I have no particular reason to treat either gay or straight couples as married if I know that they are in fact not, aside from any social desire not to offend.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:16 amESTTuerqas,
You’re right, I am mad that the Government is involved at ALL in our relationships. What makes me JUST AS MAD is that some people are trying to use the government to enforce thier beliefs on OTHER PEOPLE. I can understand a person lobbying the government to get a right they don’t have, but I don’t understand a person lobbying to keep another person from having a right. That’s very confusing to me.
You see, if a person is gay and wants the equality that our country promises, then they would naturally want the same legal status in their relationships that hetero pepole have. That makes sense, but what doesn’t make sense is that some people want the government involved ( in the form of an ammendment to the constitution) to stop someone else from having the same rights they share.
Why does it affect any hetero person if a gay person is in a relationship that they consider marriage?
After all, we keep talking about the sanctity of “marriage” but the truth is us “straight” people have not exactly been the best stewards of the sanctity of marriage, we get divorced a LOT, we cheat a LOT, and we torture our children when we split up. Marriage isn’t all that “holy” anymore. Besides, I was not married in a church, is my marriage not valid either? ( by some people’s argument, I should not be married, as a childless agnostic.)
Who are we ( in the form of the Government) to decide ANYTHING about the relationships between two law-abiding-legal-age persons?
I don’t want to live in a country who gets to dictate that kind of shit, they tried it in Germany and the USA kicked thier ass over it.
I just had a thought on the California Supreme Court decision:
Is it not true that the job of a Supreme Court is to determine constitutionality of an issue, not divine public popuarity? Did the CA SC really do thier job even if the decision was unpopular among the fundamental Christians?
A world to Dr. Feelgood.
If I was a bigot, I wouldn’t defend your right to have idiotic comments about “vile acts” and such, but I do.
I do however thinks it’s very creepy how much homosexual sex acts come into the conversation whenever I speak to a fundamentalist about gay marriage. I think you fundies spend too much time imagining what it must look like or worse, what it must feel like to have gay sex. Why else would ya’ll obsess over it so much? Maybe I’m wrong, but compelled to ask.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:42 amESTI was married by a judge, who signed my “marriage certificate” in South Carolina.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:43 amESTMarriage is a fundamental right. The right to marry whomever you want is not. People have been harping on Loving for a while now, but the fact remains that the definition of marriage has been through the entirety of human history to be, as someone else said “man+woman.” Even in societies in which homosexuality has not been considered bad it was not “marriage.”
So…whether your for it or against it, in order to get it, homosexuals will need to work on convincing middle America that they are just like them through conversations, not threats and activists judges.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:44 amESTWe already have this show, it’s called the Tony Awards.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:04 amESTit doesn’t much matter what we have to say about it now, since this forces people to recognize “marriages” contrary to religious beliefs
that’s what this is all about: using the government as a club to force people to accept, recognize, and condone–not just tolerate–the homosexual way
May 16th, 2008 at 10:05 amESTI am willing to believe you, and it makes a kind of intuitive sense, but could you point me to some references for the statistics you refer to? (My personal experiences, while anecdotal, lead me to a different conclusion.)
I didn’t think that same-sex parents were numerous enough to do this kind of study. (You’d have to have a statistically-significant group and evaluate it over 18 years plus.)
Plus, it strains credulity to think that a male child raised by a lesbian couple (or a female child by gay males)
Finally, maybe I’m a little old-fashioned here, but it seems to me that when adults experiment, dependent children pay the price. It would behoove us to err on the side of caution here. (OTOH, perhaps the judges’ minor children could be placed in foster care with same-sex couples adn we’ll see how they turn out.)
May 16th, 2008 at 10:07 amESTSlightly off-topic: In the state of Georgia, concealed-carry permits are issued by the Probate Court in your county of residence. This is also the same place that issues marriage licenses. (I’ve done this in three counties; all three had simlar signage on or over the door: PROBATE COURT - MARRIAGE LICENSES - PISTOL PERMITS.)
One-stop shopping, baby!
May 16th, 2008 at 10:13 amESTYeah, but what does that mean? What does “recognize” mean?
Will you have to have sex with these gay couples, No. Will you even have to have dinner with these gays couples? No again. Will you have to send the a wedding present, nope, how about attend a 25th gay wedding anniversary? Not even close.
The truth is, you will not have to do anything differently than you do now. The only difference is your personal level of being offended, which is a product of YOUR OWN HEAD and the teachings of whatever religion you are. I’m assuming you are Muslim, given your intollerance to other people, is that correct?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:19 amESTNot a lot to add here.
Historically, marriage has been between a man & a woman. It evolved as a way to ensure the survival of children (the future generation) and as a way to socialize aggressive young men. I know of no society in history where marriage between two people of the same sex was recognized. Please feel free to enlighten me if there is one.
For those that argue that the child part of the equation is irrelevant, please remember that reliable birth control did not become widely available until the 1960’s, and abortion wasn’t legal until the ’70’s, so we’ve only had around 40 years here where having children has been a “choice”.
On the socialization aspect - it can be (and has) been argued that part of the current problem with radical Islam is that their young men are prohibited from contact with women, therefore their repressed sexuality feeds into their murderous violence. If this proves true, I shudder to think of the future consequences of China’s “one child” policy, which causes the abortion and infanticide of their female children, resulting in a disproportionate male/female ratio.
Civil unions a reasonable compromise between those who want “marriage” for homosexual couples, and those who feel that marriage is a sacrament reserved for a man and a woman. If the judiciary would just stay out of the issue eventually enough people would feel that homosexual couples should enjoy the “right” to marriage, and it would come to pass the way it should - through the will of the people. The gay activists are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force the issue via the courts - it causes reasonable people to become resentful, as the will of the people and the normal evolution of attitudes becomes circumvented.
Using the judiciary to achieve a desired result, instead of working through the legislatures and the people, also causes a huge backlash. Look at the number of states that added a “marriage amendment” to their state constitutions as a result of the activism of Massachusetts court that forced the issue of gay marriage in spite of will of the people. Now it will be much more difficult for same sex couples to achieve their “dream” of legally recognized marriage in those states.
For the record, I really don’t care what two or more people of whatever gender do behind close doors, as long as they are all adults and consent. What I DO mind is having it shoved in my face and in my children’s faces. (Think gay pride parades on public streets with scantily dressed males running around wearing collars and corsets.) I believe most Americans feel the same way. By shoving our face in their “gayness” via the courts, gay activists have set back their equal (special) rights crusade by years if not decades.
Hmmm…guess I had more to say than I thought!
May 16th, 2008 at 10:33 amESTWell then we’d better do even MORE damage to the institution of marriage!
That’s basically what your argument is, Para. Marriage has already been given a broken leg, so we’d better cripple it the rest of the way while we’re at it.
An excellent point.
Who are these judges (the government) to decide that gay marriage is legal?
Well then you’d better pack up and move to Antarctica because EVERY country does “that kind of shit”.
I can’t marry my sister.
I can’t marry my dog.
I can’t marry seven women at once.
How are any of those prohibitions any different from the prohibition on gay marriage?
No, they did not do their job. Their decision (according to Ace of Spades) was based on the concept of “fundamental rights”.
“It is, in legal terms, an ipse dixit, an “it’s this way because I say it is,” and you can always tell when a court is resorting to ipse dixit because it stops citing the actual constitution and previous decisions and begins speaking of hitherto-unknown “fundamental rights.” How did they become “fundamental rights”? Oh, they always were. Just no one ever noticed.”
May 16th, 2008 at 10:38 amESTI’ll cast my lot with the crowd who wants to know why the government has any part in marriage. I sure wondered that when I forked over $100 for the privilege to the State of Tennessee.
As for this ruling, it’s fine with me. If a fella wants to marry another fella, that does zilch to weaken my marriage to my wife.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:38 amESTMy own personal take on this subject is something of a struggle. I have friends who are homosexual. Obviously they wouldn’t be my friends if I was a bigot. People are people. I don’t really care what they do in their private lives (as long as it is consensual). But if I’m going to be perfectly honest I find the whole thing to be repugnant.
Yes, I am a religious person and as such I was raised with a certain view of how things should be. I believe homosexuality is wrong. I believe that those types of relationships are not valid.
However, that is very much my own personal feeling on the subject based on my religion and my upbringing in that religion. I don’t want anybody to be able to accuse me of forcing my religion on to anybody else. I was raised to respect other people regardless of their acts. Part of that respect is not throwing my problem with their acts in their face.
It is entirely possible to disagree with a person’s actions or beliefs and still be friends. Obviously this is more of a hot-button issue many others, but as long as we leave it at “agree to disagree” it’s fine. My conflict - to allow gay marriage or not - comes into play with this issue because I personally see homosexuality as very wrong.
As far as judicial activism is concerned, it’s just wrong. Regardless of your feelings on religion, the fact is that this country was founded by Christian men with Christian beliefs. It is very much ingrained in our culture. As such, as Americans we tend to view things with a slightly Christan bent.
The people of California voted and their vote very much reflected that cultural leaning, regardless of actual religious belief. As others have said, the tragedy is that four people decided their own opinions and cultural beliefs were worth more than millions of other opinions and cultural beliefs combined.
This is a republic, and as such the laws will reflect the views of the people and their elected representatives. These judges are neither elected, nor are they representatives. Their job is simply to look at laws and see if those laws are in agreement with the Constitution or not. Their opinions on the subject should have absolutely no bearing on their rulings.
Judicial activism is, to me, nothing more than back-door legislation. It give judges all the power of the legislative representative without actually representing anybody but themselves. It’s an end-run around the election process, a loophole that allows judges to dictate policy without the cost of campaigning and the very public life audit.
As said before, regardless of you personal feelings about gay marriage, this decision is very, very wrong and we should all be very, very worried.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:39 amESTPara,
You’re confused on several levels. First of all, my right to free speech is not yours to defend. It’s mine and I defend it very well, thank you. Secondly, free speech is not in play because I am a guest of Ms. Lukis and I’m abiding by her rules for civil discourse. Third, your own bigotry is something you’ll have to come to terms with eventually, but I would suggest that it’s pretty apparent to even the most casual observer of this discussion.
Valid question. To answer: gays as an identity group are defined solely by a behavior, as opposed to a condition of being. Referring to the acts themselves is a manifestation of “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Orientation (if there is such a thing) does not determine homosexuality, only a predisposition for or against. It is the act itself that is shameful, and we focus on it in order to emphasize the culpability of the homosexual (you are the only one responsible for what you do). I do not hate homosexuals any more than I hate myself, or my family for that matter. But when homosexuality is accepted as normal, the impetus for seeking God’s forgiveness is weakened. Ultimately, open homosexuality (like all unrepentant sin) prevents people from being reconciled to God.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:43 amESTMen and women are different. Whether this is the result of design or natural selection, it is the way things are. This difference does not make them natural enemies; it makes them complementary. Each sex can, and should, learn from the other.
One of the Left’s great projects for decades has been to foment mistrust and resentment between the sexes, and to destroy the idea that marriage should be something sacred and transcendent, rather than a mere contract between consenting adults. The Left (as an ideology, not necessarily as individuals) detests the very idea of the sacred, because the Left is, to borrow a phrase from James Lileks, “pissed at Daddy.”
May 16th, 2008 at 10:44 amESTThat is one of the most interesting things I have ever read. I understand a lot more about your opposition to gay marriage now. You focus on the “dirty” sex. interesting.
How do you square that 99.9% of behavioral acts performed by gays are also performed by straight married couples?
May 16th, 2008 at 10:55 amESTPara,
You don’t think the rights of religious people are being infringed upon by the Government here? Remember that there are already laws in place that grant all the same rights to civil unions than to marriage. This is really a push solely for legitimacy, not for rights in CA. I am white, I don’t get equal legal status when it comes to hiring quotas.
We seem to agree 100% about the level of Gov’t interference (0%), I objected to your sweeping usage of the word bigot in its negative connotative sense to anyone who doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Whether we are good stewards, bad parents, or pass on our wealth to the wrong people, that doesn’t change the meaning of marriage. One could easily argue that it is the degrading of moral values that has cheapened the value of marriage, but who is really responsible for that. It is not the ‘religious right’ pushing for 7th grade sex ed. Kids are curious, give them info and know how, but then expect them to abstain until they are older or follow all the rules (like always using a condom)? Were these people never kids? It is not the religious right who pushed the popularity of divorce. Well meaning as it was (and I do think the positives outweigh this negative by-product), it was women’s rights activists that opened the divorce flood gates. That said I do not consider myself part of the religious right, I just have morals.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:58 amESTYou misunderstand (Please try to read and understand my comments in context. I took great pains to qualify the bit you excerpted). The behavior I refer to is any sexual act with a member of your own gender. The mechanics are irrelevant.
Straight, married people are free to judge for themselves (and each other) the morality of their own mechanics. Biblically speaking, that same freedom is not open to anyone else simply because sexual behavior is off the table.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 amESTThat’s a good question and the answer is: NO!
The non-gays are expected to do absolutely nothing in response to gay marriage. They don’t even have to accept it. The religious do not have the “right” to stop gay marriage in the first place, therefore theier rights are not being infringed.
This is the biggest thing that confuses me. How does gay marriage change ANYTHING abotu hetero marriages? the truth is, it doesn’t. these are just arguments to try to soften the (unfortunate) prejudice against gays. You may not liek the term bigotry, but it’s completely accurate in this case, people are against gays because they are not gay themselves.
Bigotry is like Ignorance, both words are seen as insults, where they are merely conditions, like mental retardation.
And Yes Dr, Feelgood, if it makes you feel better, I am bigoted against bigots, liars, thieves, haters, liberals, losers, whiners, creeps, dorks, and mimes.
You got me.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:10 amEST> How does gay marriage change ANYTHING abotu hetero marriages?
It denies that the essence of marriage is the celebration of the complementarity of male and female.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 amEST“It denies that the essence of marriage is the celebration of the complementarity of male and female.”
Well that begs the question, now doesn’t it?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:20 amEST“Para Says:
The non-gays are expected to do absolutely nothing in response to gay marriage. They don’t even have to accept it. The religious do not have the “right” to stop gay marriage in the first place, therefore theier rights are not being infringed.
This is the biggest thing that confuses me. How does gay marriage change ANYTHING abotu hetero marriages? the truth is, it doesn’t. these are just arguments to try to soften the (unfortunate) prejudice against gays. You may not liek the term bigotry, but it’s completely accurate in this case, people are against gays because they are not gay themselves.”
If it were JUST the matter of equality, there would probably not be too much of an outcry. The problem comes into play when my elementary school aged child has to be exposed to a book like “Heather Has Two Mommies”, and I can’t opt out of exposing her to that. I do believe that there was a court case in California which upheld the state’s right to indoctrinate children about the gay life style. Thank God I don’t live in CA!!!
THAT is the problem, the fact that activists are trying to make the lifestyle legitimate and are using the state’s power, via the judiciary, to force it on those of us who DON’T CARE what they do, but do not want it as part of our life. Although we TOLERATE their behavior and lifestyle we should not be forced to ACCEPT it.
It’s not bigotry, it’s a difference in moral values.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:25 amESTPara,
What of a church refusing to ‘marry’ a gay couple. Is the church ‘above the law’, can they say no? If it is law, can’t a gay couple sue to be married at the big fancy Catholic church that one has been a member at their whole life? Do you think the suit should be successful?
Most terms can be used as an insult or not. Are you now saying that you used the term ‘bigot’ in its purely denotative sense? If so, I don’t really believe you, if not, your explanation is a poor deflection.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:33 amEST“The primary purpose of marriage in all societies through time has been for the propagation and raising of children. Husband and wife provide the most stable arrangement for raising and socializing a psychologically healthy child. Any other benefits that accrue to the couple are incidental to the fundamental purpose of marriage. Children are best raised by one man and one woman bonded as a family. ”
I have to disagree with this. The primary purpose of marriage MIGHT have been (years and years ago) for the sole purpose of bearing children. However, how many married couples are there who do NOT want to have children? They get married anyway because they want that legal/emotional bond simply because they love each other. This is the problem with ignorance within the government; too many individuals are set in the ways of the past.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:50 amESTI believe homosexuality is more of a nature than nurture issue. I am all for gay marriage and I feel that if people who are completely committed to each other SHOULD have that option of “legally” expressing it.
As far as “psychologically stable children”…even though that is the ultimate goal (to teach a child how to be functional in society, a capable adult, etc…), no matter who is raising the child, that is not always the end result. I understand that it could be confusing to children if they have two “mommys/daddys”. But they can also feel the same way with the 60% divorce rate between marriages. I think that if two loving, caring individuals are raising a child, no matter if they are gay, straight, bi..whatever, the child has just as much of a chance as any to come out “psychologically stable”.
Yes, they are. They are being required by law to refer to consider a “gay union” as equal to and the same as a heterosexual marriage.
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/new/article066.html
Is this how you plan to spend this thread? Ridiculing people who disagree with you as “prejudiced” and “bigoted”?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:51 amESTGreat title Rachel.
If this saves one kid from committing suicide or saves them from a lifetime of depression and an inability to do something productive in society, fantastic.
You’re here. You’re queer. We’re used to it. Go get married. Fuck yourselves silly. But, please, close the god damned door already! Leaving it open all the time is just plain rude.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pmESTYikes. I’m a Californio and I voted for the “no gay marriage” law. I’m married and I don’t have any children, nor ever wanted any. I don’t claim to be normal in that; in fact I know that I’m not and wouldn’t dream of pressuring others to emulate me. I am tolerant of gays but intolerant of people who insist that they have rights that are defined solely on what they do in their bedrooms. Why do I have to know? Why would I care? Why do I have to be a party against my will to something that ought to be conducted behind closed doors and which would stay there in any moral society?
I’m not a Christian nor am I particularly religious as a non-practicing Jew, but the two things that upset me about this entire thing is the way it abrogates my vote in a legal election as a California voter, and this further shove down the road towards a society ruled by “if it feels good, do it.”
Now please do not call me an anti-gay bigot, or a religious fanatic, or an uptight b*tch. Legally, gays have all the same rights as non-gays in California. I’m fine with that, no problemo. But what they want is not my tolerance or my acceptance, but my approval. In a multitude of ways, from schools to newspapers to television to movies to even some of my favorite authors, year in and year out, they push and push and push for approval of a society which is totally about sex, sex, sex, oh, and by the way, gay sex — for how could I possibly disapprove? I declined to give it so now some judges have decided that I must be forced to it.
Gee, thanks.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:37 pmESTI keep seeing the argument repeated that gay marriage doesn’t affect those not directly invovled in any way. People have already given some examples of how it does affect them but here’s another one.
The company I work for provides health insurance not only to their employees but to their spouses. By granting spousal rights (either through a civil union or gay marriage) to same-sex couples the number of people insured by the company increases. That drives up the company’s cost and they pass that cost down to all of their empoyees. So tell me again how it doesn’t affect anybody else?
Also, I have noticed that nobody who is advocating for gay marriage has addressed the issue that gays currently do have the exact same right to marriage as everybody else: The right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I wonder why not?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pmEST“Also, I have noticed that nobody who is advocating for gay marriage has addressed the issue that gays currently do have the exact same right to marriage as everybody else: The right to marry a person of the opposite sex. I wonder why not?”
Because it’s irrelevant?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pmESTSure, it’s relevant. The law does not discriminate against gays — my rights as a straight female are the same as those of a gay female in both of us are prohibited by that law from marrying another female. Nor are we permitted to marry more than one male person, nor marry someone too closely related to us, nor any number of other things set forth by law in California.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pmESTWhy?
WHY is it “irrelevant”?
Because you say so?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pmESTHow is it irrelevant?
The argument is almost always “We just want the same rights as everybody else.”
Since they already have the same rights as everybody else in regards to marriage, (the right to marry a person of the opposite sex) that arguement is meaningless.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pmESTAnd that is the argument that always makes the MOST sense to me.
I think the court is wrong in their decision. I think the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a woman. But if the state, as determined by the people and their elected representatives, determine otherwise I won’t complain too much. But when judges start creating legislation from the bench I get ticked.
Plus…why is it that gay pride parades are always so full of debauchery? The gay people I know are not freaks. They’re normal everyday folks who just want to live their lives. I never understood how the “pride” part of being gay includes wearing leather chaps (and nothing else!). Although the Dykes on Bikes always make me laugh.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pmEST*Sigh*…I’m of two minds about the whole thing. I can understand both sides’ arguments, and while I tilt in the direction that’s against this court ruling, I can see the other side’s points.
I do think that the gays could have had about 90% of what they say they want if they’d had the common sense to give in on the word “marriage.” Unfortunately, in a lot of religions, “marriage” is what they call a term of art…IOW, it has a very specific meaning.
I also do think that a lot of the problems that gays complain of could be got around without fiddling with “marriage.” Having joint bank accounts with “Pay on death” provisions, for example. As for hospitals and illnesses, having some way to designate a person as “next of kin” would solve a lot of that. For that matter, I’ve had friends and relatives in hospitals many, many times, and at no time have I been halted and grilled about my relationship to that person. If I were gay, and my blood kin were likely to cause that sort of trouble, I’d think that having a no-contact order on file at the local courthouse would solve that little problem.
Yes, a lot of this is rather kludgey. I’m sorry. Being different is often no fun at all. I’m of the opinion that the sudden push for “Gay marriage, NOW!” was a very bad tactical mistake…at least, it was quite premature. In my own lifetime, gays have made absolutely incredible strides; when I was a youngster, even the Yippies would have thought that “gays being married” was nothing but a ploy to screw with the straights’ heads; the idea that people were serious about it would have boggled even them.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pmESTSo how come brother and sister can’t marry? Or a 50 year old man and a 13 year old teenage girl? Aren’t they also victims of discrimination? If “morality” means nothing, then there are no longer limits to anything.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pmESTWoo Hoo!!!!!
I think this is FABULOUS news!!!
I always love it when the gay lobby pokes conservatives in the eye as a group right before campaign season.
Expect to see lots of state constitutional amendments bringing oodles of conservatives to the polls to vote for them, and oh by the way, since they’re already in the booth, they may as well pull a few more levers even if it’s not for John McCain.
Life is good.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:17 pmESTI think everyone here has missed the original intent of marriage. It was not for the “better raising” of children, though that was indeed a beneficial consequence of the true reason.
To understand the real reason for marriage and the marriage ceremony, you have to think way back to tribal times, to pre-history, to a time when mere survival was extremely difficult for the clan.
Remember too, that the small population of this tribe is relatively genetically homogenous. This means that EVERYONE LOOKS VERY MUCH ALIKE.
As you can well imagine, in those times, a new child brought into the world was actually a BURDEN to the clan. (Yes, in the long run the clan needs new life to ensure the survival of the species, but this notion is beyond them - they live in the moment). A baby can’t feed itself (adults have to limit their own food intake to provide for the baby). Can’t run away from danger (has to be carried). Will cry and give away position to other aggressive clans or wild beasts. Yes, a baby was a huge burden, though a necessary one.
There was no DNA testing. No ways to test for paternity. What does the tribe do to make sure the new baby (meaning, the new burden) is primarily cared for by the birth parents??
You have to have a big public ceremony. The chief has to declare something like: “Let it be known that this man intends to be with this woman. No other man can touch her (so that we can be sure of parentage). The children born of this union are theirs. There will be various forms of pain and punishment for anyone who disrespects this union.”
Everyone in the tribe has witnessed the event and everyone knows, understands and follows the rules. This is the real reason for the “marriage ceremony.” That today it bears little resemblance to the original utilitarian purpose is irrelevant.
When Little Og is born, everyone knows he is the son of Big Og. But only due to the public declaration that “Og and Francesca” are a married couple. The tribe understands that Little Og is heir to all of Big Og’s stuff. And that Little Og’s education, upbringing, well-being, etc. are primarily the responsible of Big Og and wife.
Despite the present-day politics surrounding the issue, it simply astounds me that we can discuss something as ludicrous as “gay marriage.” I am not a bigot. I would rather wish that everyone everywhere find some sort of happiness in this life.
But “gay marriage” is quite simply an oxymoron. It doesn’t make sense. You can put a duck on your head, but that action doesn’t make it a hat. It’s still a duck.
We are just mangling the language and twisting concepts here.
If gays want to have a public “declaration of monogamous intent” then fine.
But IT IS NOT NOR EVER WILL BE A MARRIAGE.
I have left out all religious components to this argument, but what remains true is that each of us on planet Earth who lives and breathes is the result of the union between a man and a woman. Do we not all agree that that is a pretty damn special natural arrangement?
May 16th, 2008 at 1:22 pmEST“recognize” means that if i don’t i’ll be sued or imprisoned for refusing to do so. for example, i’m an employer who pays for the hospitalization of an employee’s spouse. now california’s judicial fiat will force me under the law to recognize and financially support a “spouse” that isn’t.
“tolerate” does not mean “recognize, condone, and financially support.”
and thanks for displaying your religious bigotry and prejudice.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pmESTRocinante: Google “children of gay couples” and you’ll find oodles. No statistical difference in the child-rearing outcomes of stable two-parent families, gay or straight. Now, one could argue that gay-couple families are less stable and more likely to become single-parent families, but I haven’t dug into that, and given how rocky straight relationships are, I’d be surprised.
Finally, maybe I’m a little old-fashioned here, but it seems to me that when adults experiment, dependent children pay the price.
They do indeed, but the key is not the adult’s sexual orientation but the stability of the family unit itself. Children of “swingers” often have BIG relationship issues, but once again, that applies regardless of whether the parents are gay or straight. Given that there’s no Magic Fairy Wand (hee hee) you can wave and turn gay people straight, and that even gay people do have children, shouldn’t that stable form of family organization be available to them? As compared to forcing them to be in single-parent families?
Don’t confuse the different arguments, social, legal, and religious. (I’m not accusing you of that, just throwing it out for everyone else.) You can disagree with one subset of arguemnts while still noting that other arguments are false. I think the CA court’s decision was abyssmal in the legal sense, even though I’m all in favor of consenting adults making their own damn family arrangements without interference from the state. But my attitude also runs hard into the fact that there are indeed MAJOR legal rights and obligations and privileges pertaining to marriage that are deeply ingrained in the law that apply regardless of what the married adults may want. EX: You may hate your seperated not-quite-ex-wife, and she may despise you, but should you be in a coma she’ll still be the one with the legal right to pull the plug on you, whereas your ex-girfriend would not.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:25 pmEST> Well that begs the question, now doesn’t it?
No. It’s a proposition that one may disagree with, but it doesn’t beg the question. The proposition is simply that the union of male and female is what marriage is about. (Though Christian theology would take it a step further and say that the union of male and female is itself a microcosm of the relationship of Christ to his church.)
The institution of marriage has numerous implications for society, but it does not exist merely for society’s sake. It is intended to be a reflection of something more fundamental.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pmESTNot that anyone asked for my op…
Nonetheless, I offer my 4 cents—inflation.
It makes me laugh!
Pure camp.
There is something essentially silly about..
“Do you, Scott, take Jonathon to be your lawfully wedded spouse.”
“I do.”
Oh, man. Come ON!
What you are, kidding?
It’s got Monty Python written all over it.
The image of one MALE playing a feminine part and the other being “the husband” is so contrived.
Why would the bond between MALES have to ape the bond between male and female?
Isn’t it more in keeping with the nature of HOMOsexuality that the bond be formalized in an entirely different way?
Making guys “blood brothers” via some kind of cutting ritual would be more in keeping with classic gay coupling as in the Theban Sacred Band.
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/thebes.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sacredband.html
I could—in a weird sort of way—feel proud of guys who got hitched, IF they got hitched as MALES (celebrating male virtues—and the word virtue refers to male, as in virility), not as an ersatz and basically “fruit” version of male-female marriage.
But it is an least interesting that gay men would WANT to maintain the traditional wedding and couple pattern?
But why?
Sadly, I cannot continue to ponder this or any other issue. I must return to my business with Dr. Jose Cuervo.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pmESTI’m feeling good right now. Feeling Dr. Feelgood, that is.
Love the arguments, you make salient points. To deny that Christianity has played a role in the formation of the laws of the American land would be like saying that Michael Jordan had nothing to do with the Chicago Bulls’ six NBA championships in the 1990s. You may want to believe it, you may want to explain it. The “want” however, doesn’t make it so.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pmESTThis isn’t about the right of people to choose who they want to live with. This isn’t about equality for all people. This is really about same sex couples getting spousal benefits. It’s about that and nothing more. That’s it period.
I really don’t care if gay people want to get married. I could give a shit. The fact is gay people live together all over this country and, in general, I don’t believe many people care. Sure, there are groups that are abhorred by it and they’ll do what they can to stop it. That’s their problem.
But let me tell you about one thing that pisses me off about this subject. It’s when people talk about legalizing gay marriage as a form of equality. That’s BULLSHIT. If this is about equality than every person who believes two consenting adults should be able to marry, should also agree that three consenting adults should be able to marry. In other words, if this is about equality than when gay marriage is legalized polygamy should be as well.
It’s only fair and it’s only equal. If you think that’s a slippery slope, well you’re right. Again, I could really give a shit if two men/women want to get married and I really don’t care if one man wants to marry five women or one woman wants to marry five men, or whatever number you wish to use. But, if you think those perverts at NAMBLA won’t try to get the age of consent laws changed as a result of gay marriage, you’ve got another thing coming.
Think it will never happen? Remember, opponents of interracial marriage warned that after legalizing interracial marriage homosexuals would want to marry next. They may have been bigots, but they were right.
This is not about me advocating or discouraging gay marriage, interracial marriage or polygamy, I don’t really care. I’m just pointing out the direction that this situation is headed.
This is about a select group of people getting benefits that other people already have and continuing to exclude other groups of people from those same benefits. Equality doesn’t have anything to do with it.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pmESTIf this is about equality than every person who believes two consenting adults should be able to marry, should also agree that three consenting adults should be able to marry.
bluesincebirth: The big practical difference is that both law and tradition can adapt easily to a shift in the definition of two-person marriages. It would change little or nothing as far as the application of the law, which evolved to handle two-person marriages. There are no centuries of precedent and legal evolution in western law to handle marriages of more than two persons.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:59 pmESTWhat’s funny about this whole arguement/comment-section thing, is that the only thing that bugs me is the overusage of the word Bigot.
The problem here is intolerence. They are not asking you to get married to a gay, or participate in gay activities; they are bringing gay marriages to the same lvl as hetero marriages, for government related issues, such as taxes. thats it. nothing more.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pmESTSumie: Since the legal effects of raising the number of married couples would extend to all, there are indeed legitimate reasons to not be in favor of gay marriage. For example, how much would it boost the strain on the SS program, where spouses get benefits?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pmESTHumor me a little…from the Theogony of Hesiod:
A little different version of Pandora that the one you were told as a child, but the moral is good: Be careful what you grasp for, for the price may be far greater than that which you were willing to pay.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pmESTthe problem here is that the CA courts are forcing the People to legally condone and financially support the homosexual way (through employer “spouse” benefits, social security, etc).
can we opt-out of supporting the homosexual way without repercussions? no we can’t, so i guess you’re right, this really is about intolerance toward those with religiously held beliefs.
May 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pmESTShouldn’t they get those rights too? or are we above them? You make it seem so.
Lets not forget these are people, eh?
May 16th, 2008 at 3:41 pmESTthey’re people, eh, but not married, and i shouldn’t be forced to legally approve of and finance their relationship.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:10 pmESTThen why is it acceptable that homosexuals are currently forced to legally approve of and finance heterosexual relationships?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pmESTIf marriage is a right, then the divorce laws must be repealed as unconstitutional.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:21 pmESTHaving read the comments, I can only add one thing. A question (hey, I learned the Socratic Method in law school)for those of you who claim the CA Supremes overstepped their authority by overturning this law: will the U.S. Supremes overstep their authority if they overturn the D.C. gun ban? After all, I’m told that when it was enacted, it was popular with the majority of the residents. I know what you’re thinking: The 2nd Amendment! But just because something isn’t mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a fundamental right (the right to marry the person of your choice). For example: do you have the right to travel freely between your house in one state and your parents’ house in another? The federal courts actually ruled on this. Nothing in the Constitution says you have the right to do so.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:53 pmESTcknight: your argument presupposes that there actually is a right to marry any person you choose
May 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pmESTAmendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Cknight, you might want to track down your old law professors and ask them for a refund. Apparently they gave you a lousy education.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:05 pmESTThis whole “equal rights” meme is becoming tiresome.
Gays HAVE those rights. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else. All they have to do is marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex and they can get those benefits easy-peasy.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:07 pmESTwho said this was acceptable?
if it is acceptable, i would suspect the reasons why would have something to do with the realities of biology and the obligations that arise with the advent of children. history might be helpful here. someone in one of these threads was talking about “Little Og” and seemed to make sense. “normal” might also have something to do with it.
/me ducks and runs for cover
N.B. i still haven’t said it’s acceptable.
personally, i think the state of California should recognize my right to marry my chihuahua. she’s getting old and the medical bills are killing us! that way i could also take out a life insurance policy on her and my employer would have to pick up the tab or i could sue him into bankruptcy.
my first satire was better.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:26 pmESTAnd, get ready for the Church of Man/Boy Love to argue that there is no reason NOT to lower the age of consent. After all, Polyamory is now legal (the umbrella concept to place polygyny and polyandry).
No wonder Jihadists hate us. I say we throw them the 4 “yes” voting members of the California Supreme Court. Maybe THAT will appease the angry Allah.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pmESTGood questions, “T”.
I feel a Church has the right to refuse service if they want. It is not for the Govt. to stick it’s nose into a Church’s business. As I see it each Church is a Soverign entity as far as thier beliefs, traditions, practices, and anything else contained within the doctrine of the church. The operative word there being WITHIN, as the Church holds no rights outside it’s own doors to impose any of it’s doctrine on anyone else.
That’s what I don’t understand about so many of you who cite the church or religion when debating the gay marriage issue.
It don’t matter what your church says, because your church don’t make the rules….and do you really want churches making the rules? Did you know that in some towns, muslims are the majority? Should thier church make the rules?
I’ve already stated that you don’t have to like the concept of gay marriage, you just have to understand you are powerless to do anything about it from the standpoint of being religious. By the same token, you are rendered harmless by it’s existence. Gay marriage won’t hurt you. If it’s aginst God, let him worry about it, he specifically told you not to judge, yet there you all sit, judging your little asses off. Shame, shame, shame.
Now for question 2.
Yes , I understand that the term Bigot is understood to be an insult, but my point is if you are a bigot ( as a defining characteristic) you should have the balls to stand up and admit your bigotry, not hide behind thinly veiled arguments of insurance premiums and child rearing.
People should be honest ( some of you have)
Just stand up and say, “I love God, and God says Fags are immoral vile creatures without the same rights as me, therefore, I will argue against anything that makes fags more equal to me.”
Have some balls, say it. Stop pussyfooting around and admit your bigotry! I did ( see above)
May 16th, 2008 at 7:35 pmESTRW Donn: NAMBLA has been arguing that for some time:
apparently the main reason the wider homosexual community no longer openly supports NAMBLA is that it’s politically inconvenient:
May 16th, 2008 at 7:41 pmESTOh for the Love of Pete! Mighty Samauri, would you please go read the comments and see how many people have said the same exact thing before you!
That still doesn’t make it right.
Hetero people have the right to marry the person they are in love with, gay people do not. That equality.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pmESTmightysamurai: You’re making my argument for me. 9 & 10 don’t specifically list every fundamental right of the people. Just because it took until now for someone to stand up for his rights, doesn’t mean they are newly discovered. The people are “endowed by their creator” (whoever or whatever that may be) with those rights. The fundamental right in question is not “to marry a person of the opposite sex” but rather “to marry a person.” I get to choose who I marry, so long as he or she wants to marry me. The government can’t prevent it, unless there’s a damn good reason — like age of consent, or the potential dangers of consanguinity. Just like the government can’t prevent me from traveling to Texas to visit my dad, unless I’m spreading disease or something like that.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pmESTWould you care to explain WHY it isn’t right, or are you just going to assert it over and over again?
Bullcrap. There is not and never was a right to marry “the person you love”.
If a man loves his sister, he does not have the right to marry her.
If a man loves his daughter, he does not have the right to marry her.
If a man loves his dog, he does not have the right to marry it.
Laws against gay marriage do not discriminate against gays any more than laws against public nudity discriminate against nudists.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:16 pmESTNo, they leave it to the STATES to articulate those rights.
…Does not exist. You can pretend it exists (perhaps it’s an “emanation from a penumbra”?) but until it is WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION the Supreme Court has no business recognizing it as a “fundamental right”.
Congratulations. You just made the argument for allowing 43 year old men to marry 12 year old girls.
Which is an arbitrary concept. OUR age of consent is hardly the norm.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pmESTcats are people, too!
yeah, you think i’m joking. but i’m not.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:39 pmESTReally? What about your 9th & 10th Amendments argument?
Again, you’re saying I only have the rights the government grants me? What if the government decides I’m not allowed to play air guitar in my living room when a kick-ass Who song comes on the radio? Do I need the government’s permission to have two desserts with supper tonight?
As long as the consent is “informed,” meaning the person consenting fully understands the consequences of the choice, I don’t have a problem. You’re right that society’s default minimum is arbitrary. The “no younger than this” age should be the point at which everyone that age (of sound mind) can reasonably be expected to understand what he’s getting into and what is expected of him. I’m willing to go along with the scientific consensus in that regard, whatever it may be.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:05 pmEST*sigh*
Once again, for the logic-impaired:
The 9th and 10th Amendments give the STATE GOVERNMENTS the power to decide issues not specifically stated in the US Constitution. The SCOTUS does NOT have the right or the ability to arbitrarily claim that marriage is a “fundamental right”.
Clearly you are more interested in being obtuse than in rational discussion.
The minimum age of “informed consent” is also largely arbitrary. It certainly isn’t 18 since there are circumstances where people under that age have been allowed to marry. Some countries place the age of “informed consent” as low as 12 years old. Who are you to say they are wrong?
And besides, why should INFORMED consent be the standard? If we’re going to go around changing millennia-old institutions like the definition of marriage, why not change the standard of “informed consent” as well? It’s not like UNinformed NONconsent is a new phenomenon, after all.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pmESTNO! The 9th and 10th Amendments RECOGNIZE that the PEOPLE HAVE (not granted by the government, but inherently possess) many fundamental rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution. They also ACKNOWLEDGE that the individual states may legislate in areas not superseded by federal authority. Let me be perfectly clear (without resorting to an ad hominem attack): the Constitution does not grant any rights to U.S. citizens. It recognizes that we, as free people, have certain “inalienable rights” (to quote another founding document) that may not be infringed by the government, neither the federal nor the state. If you disagree with this fundamental precept, then we’re just spinning our wheels here at the expense of Rachel’s bandwidth.
If you agree that we have certain basic rights regardless of their inclusion in some government-approved list, then we can proceed with my second point, which is: just because nobody complained about an infringement of his right to marry before today does not mean that right didn’t exist before today. If it’s an inherent right, the government can’t unnecessarily infringe on it. The point at which I think you and I deviate is that apparently you don’t believe it is a fundamental right for someone to marry another of the same sex. Logic, to me, dictates that if a heterosexual has a fundamental right to marry the person of his choice, so does a homosexual. And to me, I have an inherent right to live my life any way I want, free from government intrusion, so long as I’m not unduly burdening my fellow citizens and impinging on their rights to do the same with their lives. Yes, I believe I have a right to privacy, whether spelled out in the Constitution or not. I have the right to travel. I have the right to marry any woman (or man, if I leaned that way) who will have me. And I have the right to walk around naked in my living room (so long as the blinds are closed, because really, NOBODY wants to see that!).
May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pmESTthat would put the age of consent somewhere around 7 or 8 years old. certainly in the prepubescent years, anyhow.
yay NAMBLA!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:22 pmESTAnyone, of any race, of any creed, of any religion, of any condition, is permitted in this great country to love another person. Of course.
But MARRIAGE is a wholly different matter, that implies so much more - a lifetime of work, of sacrifice, of devotion, of many other virtues that are so easily dismissed these days.
Will some of you people please quit pretending that the inability to “marry” equates with some kind of bigotry and oppression??!!
Please go on and love each other. Cohabitate. But don’t think your commitment to one another even remotely approaches what man+woman have to face when first - creating life - and then signing up for the remainder of mortal existence for the responsibility of nurturing, sustaining, educating, and sustaining the human species. We have a word for this sort of unique and heroic human arrangement and it is termed MARRIAGE.
That there exist failings with this formula (only in our modern age is this even a worthy topic) does not negate the fact that man+woman is what makes the human race POSSIBLE on this planet. Please don’t bore me with stories of technological advances that make test-tube babies possible - to be adopted later by some “couple” who think they WANT a child in the way most people debate acquiring a puppy.
Children are not pets. Yet many “progressive,” and “open-minded,” couples believe it is OK to experiment with the relationship between children and the adults whom they ASSUME are their real parents. This notion disgusts me.
Again, I have always left religion out of this conversation. But even if you’re not religious, even if you’re a Darwinist zealot, you must acknowledge that at the very least, that the procreation of the species via the union between a man and a woman is what Nature intends.
Gay couples cannot create life. That’s not a value judgement, it is a simple recognition of reality.
Why am I so evil for seeing this clearly?
May 17th, 2008 at 12:45 amESTFor all those complaining about the judicial activism angle: The state legislature passed a gay marriage bill *twice*, and it only hasn’t become the law because Arnold vetoed it both times. So the idea that gay marriage rights are being created by judges and not the legislature isn’t entirely accurate. The elected representatives of the state support this; if it weren’t for one man, this would have been the law without court involvement.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:23 amESTQuint… sure, the legislature put up two bills, but the People put this law in place with a referendum.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:44 amESTAs someone dating a 45 year old mother and grandmother, who has had her tubes tied, I really don’t have a dog in this hunt.
Do not deny us our love, though. I am armed.
May 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pmESTWell, you are only forced to legally approve of marriages. A goodly portion of those marriages between a man and a woman produce children. Those children, if they are raised to adulthood and taught to be productive citizens, work and pay taxes and social security from which we all (including the homosexuals) benefit. It is in society’s best interest to support the production of children in a stable family unit.
Homosexuals provide no such benefit. So explain to me again, why is it in society’s interest to encourage behavior which will never produce natural children, and whose relationship is actually a detriment to the economy, because by living together they are buying half of the consumables of two single people. One apartment or house, one fridge, one toaster, one frappuccino maker…
May 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pmESTck knight and mighty samurai, interesting debate back and forth. ck, mighty samurai has the last point I think. If marriage were a ‘fundamental right’ then its definition would be self evident. It would not leave out polygamy or polyandry. Further, if it were a fundamental right then no church, which is a public place would be able to say ‘we will not marry you here’. This is still the crux that neither ck nor para has answered. To force legality or recognition of same sex marriage will inevitably lead to forcing churches to perform those marriages. If that will be a result of law, the law is wrong. It is not just a good point para, I believe it is a sticking point.
On your second point, para, I am still not with you 100%. In a denotative sense I am against gay marriage, but either I am not religious enough to judge or I am too religious to judge others. The first time I met someone I knew to be gay, I felt strange, but he was a great guy and though we have drifted over time, I would renew our friendship in a heart beat. I am still against gay marriage, but I have not been against gays since I met one(I admit I was a bigot until then). You mentioned it mattered whether something was ‘within‘ the church or not. The Government took something out of the church, marriage, it is a religious term. The Government has the ability to dictate civil unions, a secular arrangement, the separation of church and state is a two way street. In the ‘rights’ sense that would be equal. They have no more right to claim ‘marriage’ than I have the right to join a woman’s health club. It has nothing to do with superiority or extra rights, marriage is technically a religious state of being. Atheists normally get ‘married’ by a justice of the peace who technically create a civil union. People call it marriage because they are lazy and the Government usurped the term. If I were an intelligent atheist I would object to the term marriage if I was united by a justice of the peace. Might as well call me a Muslim or a Jew.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:21 amESTThere are four judges of the California Supreme Court who have forgotten the lesson of former Chief Justice Rose Bird and two of her activist colleagues . While judges in California are not elected, they are subject to periodic reconfirmation by the voters. That’s how the voters removed three justices who had defied the popular will by their personal opposition to capital punishment.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:58 amESTYikes. Too many comments to read through.
You know what an issue like this does? Detracts from the bigger, more important issues that we should be focusing on. Congratulations, California! Congratulations for distracting the entire country from giving a shit about who is going to be in charge for the next four years.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:07 amEST