|
 |
July 03, 2003 GAY MARRIAGE....A couple of days ago I suggested that gay marriage was "political dynamite" and that both Democrats and Republicans probably wanted to avoid the issue altogether. Writing in the Los Angeles Times today, Nick Anderson reports that this is exactly what they're trying to do:
It's ironic, really: after several months of suggesting that gay rights was a great subject for Democrats in 2004, the only gay rights issue that's actually hit the mainstream is the very one that I sort of hoped would stay on the back burner. Well, as Harold Macmillan said, the hardest part of politics is "events, dear boy, events," and if this is the subject du jour, then it's the subject du jour. So what to do about it? It's easy for me to say this, since I'm not the one running for president, but with gay marriage now on the table I think there's only one principled stand for a candidate to take: this is a state matter and has nothing to do with me. Next question. Heh heh, just kidding. Here's what I'd really like to hear from a Democratic candidate who expects my vote:
In other words, I'd like to see someone have the courage to come out in favor of permitting gay marriage. But the key to acceptance, I think, is to try and reframe the issue: it's not that big a deal, there's really nothing to be afraid of, we should act like adults instead of unthinkingly giving in to inchoate fears of "ickiness," and it's fundamentally unfair to deny legal protections to gay couples and their children. Sadly, I don't expect to hear anything like this from any of the major candidates. Too bad. UPDATE: In comments, Brent points to this NPR transcript in which Howard Dean comes within a whisker of saying the same thing as me:
I'm not sure how the gay community generally feels about this, but if "civil union" includes all the legal rights of marriage but is just called something else, then I'm fine with that. In popular parlance, it will become "marriage" pretty quickly. Posted by Kevin Drum at July 3, 2003 09:33 AM | TrackBackComments
Enter: Candidate Dean. I think he's a "major" now. Posted by: Marc at July 3, 2003 09:38 AM | PERMALINKMarc said it. From what I read, that's exactly Dean's stance. I would only change the "should respect" to "have to respect". I think the Constitution requires that. Posted by: JMP at July 3, 2003 09:43 AM | PERMALINKDeligating it to states though, does that connote "we're all adults here"? I admit I know virtually nothing about the states rights/federal law aspect of gay marraige, but I thought discrimination was a federal issue? What's the difference between "defining marraige" and outright discrimination? What legal goodies do states pass out to same state-recognized married couples that a gay couple would miss out on? Good lord, all this blinders-on "it's a basic human-rights issue" has left me in the dark to the legal subtleties. Posted by: Tim at July 3, 2003 09:45 AM | PERMALINKDean's about the only candidate already prepared to deal with it, thanks to Vermont's civil unions. It was on his plate before Lawrence was ever decided. Whether or not it'll turn out to be a plus or a minus remains to be seen. Posted by: Morat at July 3, 2003 09:49 AM | PERMALINKWell put, Kevin. Believe it or not, Jeff Jacoby has a, well, different take: Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married. Should it become acceptable in the commonwealth for gays to marry or civil-unionize, any Massachusetts politician (except for Barney Frank, maybe) would do well to simply say, "The courts have spoken" and be done with it. Posted by: edub at July 3, 2003 09:50 AM | PERMALINKYou'd think Mr. Jacoby would investigate what percentage of current heterosexual marriages have at least one member who has been divorced or had an annulment. I mean, really, what's the difference. It's not like people married a heterosexual partner because they couldn't have a same-sex marriage. Talk about an inane and pointless statistic. Posted by: John Yuda at July 3, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINKI think the question of "marriage" should be separate from that of "civil unions" no matter what the couple's gender or sexual preferences. If folks want to pool debts and assets and be considered a "union" in the eyes of the law, they should go fill out the necessary forms to be declared as such. Such a "union" could, conceivably, be entered into with no question or implication of sexual behavior. (It's none of the government's business, after all.) If a couple wants to be "married" in a church-goin' sense, they should hie themselves to the religious organization of their choice. If they want both, they should have to fill out the government paperwork AND go through their preferred religious ceremony. That would neatly separate the Religous Right's homophobia from the question of legal status, which is as it should be. Separation of church and state and all, you know. Posted by: Anne at July 3, 2003 10:07 AM | PERMALINKAnne, several of us have been arguing that for some time. The reponse always seems to have something to do with Germany. Haven't figured that out just yet. Posted by: John Yuda at July 3, 2003 10:15 AM | PERMALINKI'm still trying to figure out who is worse: the people who actually believe that gay marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriage, or those, like many of the Dems running for President, who know such a theory is bullshit but don't have the balls to do anything about it for political reasons. Posted by: greg at July 3, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINKCall me crazy, but I think the Dems should come out foursquare in favor of gay marriage. Favoring "civil unions" is a namby-pamby half measure, and that's exactly what has been getting the Dems in trouble lately. The Democrats look weak and insincere if they embrace these half measures. For example, they claimed to support a tax cut, but not the big one that the Republicans are proposing. They claim to support the war with Iraq, but only with UN authorization. We don't support gay marraige, but we do support "civil unions." Stuff like this only makes us look weak and insincere. The voters don't respect it, and they certainly don't embrace it. It's time to put an end to this kind of thing. Let's face it, most of us here support the idea of gay marriage. I certianly do. So let's tell the truth instead of soft-pedaling it. Here is how we should frame the debate: are gay people entitled to the same rigths as straight people? There is only one right answer to this question. Anne brings up an excellent point. Marriage is a religious matter. If a chruch wants to marry two gay parishioners, then the government should not interfere. What goes on in a church is none of the government's business. I'm not saying that we should make this issue the centerpiece of our campaign, or have people like Rosie O'Donnell and that People magazine fashion editor do commercials for the DNC; that would alienate voters in Middle America. But if someone asks us what our position is, we should be honest about it. We support equal rights. What goes on in one's bedroom, or in one's church, is none of the government's business. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at July 3, 2003 10:27 AM | PERMALINKWhat does "other states should/have to respect that" mean? Does it mean: Pennsylvania has to respect Nevada's marriage laws by recognizing any marriage that took place under Nevada's laws? Or does it mean that Pennsylvania has to respect Nevada's marriage laws by not forcing Nevada to recognize Pennsylvania marriages that would have been illegal in Nevada? I hope and trust that it's the former--it would suck if Pennsylvania Quaker-style marriages, performed without officiants, weren't recognized anywhere else. But under that system, the marriage laws for the whole country would be reduced to the laws for the most permissive state. (Which I think is more or less fine.) Posted by: Matt Weiner at July 3, 2003 10:28 AM | PERMALINKOn another point, Jeff Jacoby is a fucking moron. To provide a shred of evidence that any of those 2000 marriages were ruptured by the civil union laws, he'd have to show that they broke up after the civil unions law passed. What's "jarring" is that Jeff Jacoby still has a job. Mr. Jacoby might also want to consult the statistics on public acceptance of interracial marriage: That's right, during the period of opinion surveys that Jacoby quotes, gay marriage at its best was... exactly as popular as black-white marriage. His point is? Posted by: Matt Weiner at July 3, 2003 10:30 AM | PERMALINKKevin: You'll love Dean. Here he is on NPR's Morning Edition on the 2nd:
[DR. HOWARD] DEAN: I would certainly recommend it to other states, but you can't propose it as a national policy. I think the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and I think anything, any national civil unions act would be unconstitutional. That is not the prerogative of the federal government, that is the prerogative of the states. What I would do... is two things. First of all, if a state had a civil unions statute or a domestic partnership statute, we would recognize that federally so that people who enter into those arrangements can have the same legal rights at the federal level that I have: hospital visitation, insurance, inheritance rights, there are 1,500 rights that you can only have if you're married and since gay people can't get married that needs to be remedied, because I believe that every American ought to be equal under the law, and that's what we do in Vermont.
Michael Kinsley in Slate suggests that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriages altogether. I think that he makes a good point. Why should the government care whether two men, or two women, or a man and two women, or whatever want to consider themselves a household? Marriage should be a social and/or religious act, and shouldn't involve the government at all. Of course, there are issues that the government does want to get involved with, but these could be handled by separate legal acts. For example, you need some way to decide responsibility for children, if there are any. You need some way to decide who gets to benefit from health insurance. You need to decide who gets to visit hospital patients and inmates, and so forth. But perhaps we could just extend the legal process of adoption to include adopting adults as well as children? Or make adoption be a two-way commitment. Kinsley's proposal separates the libertarians from the conservatives. Conservatives would be horrified (I think), but libertarians might approve. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 10:32 AM | PERMALINKAnne: Your proposal is what exists today (aside from the fact that same-sex couples are exluded). The only difference is that the word "marriage" is applied to both civil unions and religious ones, rather than just the latter. If you want to call civil, legal marriage "domestic partnership" or "civil union" or somesuch, rather than "marriage," fine. But that would just be a cosmetic change, not a substantive one. And I suspect that the vast majority of people who get married without any kind of religious ceremony will continue to think of and refer to their relationship as a "marriage" not as a "domestic partnership" or whatever. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINKI think that Kinsley and Anne above are basically on the same wavelength. Separating marriage from civil unions is the way to go, and it is possible that it would win the support of religious conservatives, as well (yes, I'm contradicting what I said in my last post---so sue me). The government would not be forcing gay marriage on religious conservatives, because marriage would be something that only a religious organization could perform. But civil unions would be something having nothing to do with sex---it would just be an agreement among a group of two or more adults to share finances and responsibility. Being gay or not would be completely irrelevant to civil unions. Instead of having civil unions in addition to marriage, they would be in place of marriage (from a legal standpoint). In the eyes of the law, there would only be civil unions. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINKDaryl M: Michael Kinsley in Slate suggests that the government should get out of the business of sanctioning marriages altogether. I think that he makes a good point. Why should the government care whether two men, or two women, or a man and two women, or whatever want to consider themselves a household? Because such relationships have important social and economic consequences. Why is that not a legitimate concern of government? Marriage should be a social and/or religious act, and shouldn't involve the government at all. Why? Of course, there are issues that the government does want to get involved with, but these could be handled by separate legal acts. For example, you need some way to decide responsibility for children, if there are any. You need some way to decide who gets to benefit from health insurance. You need to decide who gets to visit hospital patients and inmates, and so forth. Yes. And we already have a legal relationship status relating to those issues. It's called "marriage." Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 10:43 AM | PERMALINKI read Jacoby's idiotorial this morning. He is a blithering idiot. Frankly, given that most people who divorce remarry someone of the opposite sex, his argument strikes me as a good one to abolish straight marriage. Jacoby goes on (after the excerpt above) to say "Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place. Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out." Maybe they might have. They might also have ended up with the (usually) hubby going out and having sex in public parks and restrooms. In an article in a California newspaper last fall about men arrested for having sex in public parks and restrooms, the police spokesman indicated that 80% of the men who were arrested were married (to women) and most had children. It seems to me that Jacoby's stance would just encourage that sort of thing. Posted by: raj at July 3, 2003 10:45 AM | PERMALINK"The government would not be forcing gay marriage on religious conservatives..." No one is forcing gay marriage on anyone. Religious conservatives wouldn't be required to marry people of the same sex. Posted by: raj at July 3, 2003 10:46 AM | PERMALINK"What legal goodies do states pass out to same state-recognized married couples that a gay couple would miss out on" Lots. For example, property ownership and inheritance becoems a lot simpler. Insurance benefits become simpler. If one memeber of the couple becomes sick, the other has standing to get visitation, consutlation with doctors, etc. If one memeber of the couple has a child, custody and visitation beccomes a lot simpler. Posted by: rea at July 3, 2003 10:48 AM | PERMALINKDon P., The point is that the word "marriage" is currently being used to serve double-duty as a religious union and as a legal union. But those are really two very different things. From the religious point of view, the point of marriage is about providing a framework for church-sanctioning sexual relations. Religous marriages are all about sex and their by-product, children. From the legal standpoint, marriage has nothing to do with sex. You don't have to be married to have sex, and being married doesn't obligate you to have sex (as many a married man soon discovers). From the legal standpoint, marriage is about finance, child-rearing responsibilities, visitation rights, health insurance, inheritance, etc. They really are two separate things. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINKI think that Kinsley and Anne above are basically on the same wavelength. Separating marriage from civil unions is the way to go, and it is possible that it would win the support of religious conservatives, as well (yes, I'm contradicting what I said in my last post---so sue me). The government would not be forcing gay marriage on religious conservatives, because marriage would be something that only a religious organization could perform. But we don't need to rename legal marriage as "civil union" to achieve that. It exists today. Religions are free to marry or not marry anyone they wish to anyone or anything else they wish. A church could marry a man to his refrigerator if it so chose. The government is not and should not be obliged to recognize as a legal marriage any relationship that a religion calls by that name. A religion is not and should not be obliged to recognize as a marriage any relationship that the government legally classifies as one. This is the situation that exists now, today. So why not just eliminate the legal rule that denies marriage licenses to same-sex couples and be done with it? Religions would obviously still be free to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, just as they are free today to refuse to recognize them (as well as interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages involving divorcees, and so on). But civil unions would be something having nothing to do with
sex---it would just be an agreement among a group of two or more adults
to share finances and responsibility. Being gay or not would be
completely irrelevant to civil unions. And if the ban on same-sex marriage were eliminated, being gay wouldn't have anything to do with marriage, either. Marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex even now. There are many married couples who don't have sex. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINKThe crux of the gay marriage issue is really very simple. The problem is that marriage is the one issue where church and state overlap. We allow churches to perform rites that the state then recognizes with a variety of legal consequences. So there are always two aspects to any marriage -- the religious sanction of the union, and the legal consequences. We allow different churches to set different requirements in order recognize a marriage -- as we should. People who can be married in a liberal Methodist church could not be married in a Catholic church, and so forth -- but the state recognizes the marriage anyway. So we should do the same with gay marriage. Whether the result is civil unions (as in Vermont), or gay marriages by Unitarians and other liberal churches (as happens now, without the state extending its recognition), committed partners should be able to get legal recognition of their union, regardless of the beliefs of any particular church. In asking for LEGAL recognition of a gay marriage, no one is asking any CHURCH to also extend its sanction. What's so hard about that? What's so hard, obviously, is that some people are not content to control their own behavior. They need to control others' as well. Posted by: Peter at July 3, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINKIt seems to me that the Democrats who favor equal rights for glbt, yet balk at "marriage" (Dean, Hillary, Gephardt, for example) do so for religious reasons -- even tho they won't come out and say that. It's really the word "marriage" that causes the problem. Personally I think Dean (et al) should continue to talk up the CIVIL RIGHTS and responsibilities that come along with marriage, and identify that those rights come from the State seperate and apart from the religious ceremony. It's the marriage certificate from the State which grants those rights. And it can't be just a "state's right" issue. There are 1040 Federal rights granted to married couples. VTs civil unions do not grant those rights. States should grant *blat*-certificates to any adult couple (not already committed to anyone else -- insert appropriate legalise here) for the purpose of ensuring Equal Rights to all. Churchs (and other religious organizations) can then choose on their own whether to perform a ceremony or not. Funny, there are atheists who go to city hall, have a judge declare them married and (with the proper paperwork) they are married. Nothing religious about it. And there are some churches who will perform a "wedding" for same-sex couples (thereby giving it religious sanctity) yet they are not married. You see -- it's all in the *word*. Sorry, I'm rambling, but this is a topic that's hot for me. Posted by: chakram88 at July 3, 2003 10:59 AM | PERMALINKThe point is that the word "marriage" is currently being used to serve double-duty as a religious union and as a legal union. But those are really two very different things. Yes. But so what? It is a matter of settled law that religions do not have to recognize or perform legal marriages, and that the government does not have to recognize religious marriages. Just because a person is legally married doesn't mean they are married in the eyes of a particular religion. Just because a person is married in the eyes of a particular religion doesn't mean the government must recognize that relationship as a legal marriage. This is understood. This is the way it's always been. I just don't see the problem. All you seem to be objecting to is the use of the word "marriage" to refer to a legal relationship, but everyone understands that marriage in the legal sense is not the same thing as marriage in the religious sense. This distinction is simply one aspect of the separation of church and state. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 11:02 AM | PERMALINKDon, Gay marriage is not the only issue. What about multiple spouses? There is no reason for the government to limit the number of people who can join into a civil union, although religions can certainly stipulate that a marriage consists of exactly one man and one woman. My point is that religious people may very well have religious reasons for opposing gay marriage and polygamy. Those reasons ultimately, as I say, have to do with the religious sanctioning of sexual relations. But there is no reason that a religious conservative should oppose more generalized civil unions, because those unions are not about sex. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 11:03 AM | PERMALINKdon: " All you seem to be objecting to is the use of the word "marriage" to refer to a legal relationship, but everyone understands that marriage in the legal sense is not the same thing as marriage in the religious sense. " Exactly! And the legal rights and responsibilities granted by the state based on recognition of a legal marriage are denied to same-sex couples. And yet those on the right would deny those legal rights to citizens based on their *religious* beliefs. Frist called marriage a "sacrament" and wants to amend the Constitution to "protect" that sacrament. And you brought up separation of church and state. Posted by: chakram88 at July 3, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINKDaryl- The government can draw a distinction between gay marraiges and polygamous marraiges on public health grounds. In general, the state shuld not interefere with religious practices. But if they are a threat to public health, then the state can interfere. This is why one who is a member of a religion which practices human sacrifice cannot raise a first amendment defense to a charge of murder. I am not aware of any public health problems caused by gay marraige. To be honest, I don't know that polygamous marriages cause public health problems either. I personally think that polygamous marriage should be legal. But as a practical matter, the electorate will never sign on to the polygamous marriage issue. In this way, a politician who is running for office can claim that while he supports gay marraige, he doesn't support polygamous marriage becuase it's a public health issue. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at July 3, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINKDon, My point is that conflating the two meanings of marriage is exactly what is getting in the way of legalizing gay marriage. Separating the two meanings would make gay marriage acceptable to people who don't currently accept it. The idea of generalized civil unions goes far beyond gay marriage. Why should two men (or two women) have to be gay in order to make a legal commitment to one another? Why isn't enough to be best friends? Why can't a brother and sister make such a commitment? Brother-sister marriage is outlawed because of the incest taboo. But if the sexual aspect of a union is removed, then what's wrong with a brother and sister sharing a household, and responsibilities. Yes, "marriage" is just a word, but words have connotations, and those connotations have real effects on the way people behave (and more to the point, the way they vote). Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 11:16 AM | PERMALINK"I'm not sure how the gay community generally feels about this, but if "civil union" includes all the legal rights of marriage but is just called something else, then I'm fine with that. In popular parlance, it will become "marriage" pretty quickly." That's precisely what happened in the Netherlands and Belgium. Posted by: raj at July 3, 2003 11:18 AM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe, What is the public health aspect of polygamy? Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 11:19 AM | PERMALINKDaryl M: Gay marriage is not the only issue. What about multiple spouses? There is no reason for the government to limit the number of people who can join into a civil union, On the contrary, I think there are very good reasons for the government to impose such a limit. I don't see that a union of, say, 100 people could meaningfully be understood as a marriage (or "civil union" or whatever else you propose to call it) in anything like the same sense as a union of two people. Even as a purely practical matter, resolving questions of legal rights and responsibilities relating to children, shared finances, divorce, inheritance, taxes, and so on in a 100-person "marriage" would be virtually impossible. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 11:19 AM | PERMALINKKevin, which whisker did Dean miss from your position? he has said the following: 1: I am opposed to the defense of marriage act (Meet the Press, NPR) 2: (accepting a couple married in Canada in the US) is a legal issue, so I cannot answer that (Meet the Press) 3: That is not the prerogative of the Federal Govt, that is the prerogative of the states (NPR), 'Marriage is a matter for churches, not the state' (Meet the Press) Sounds to me like that he is saying exactly what you want to hear? Posted by: cynic at July 3, 2003 11:20 AM | PERMALINKIf conservatives manage to elect majorities sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment that would deny homosexuals the right to legally establish a domestic partnership, or if liberals are wishy-washy enough to allow this to happen, you will see the gay vote itself divided between the libertarians and the greens, depriving the Democrats of one important part of their coalition. To enshrine discrimination against gays in the Constitution would be the last straw. It's no wonder that even Sully is reconsidering his support for the party of Frist and being open-minded about the Dean candidacy. Posted by: Gabriel at July 3, 2003 11:26 AM | PERMALINKDon P., I think that's speculation on your part. I think that polygamy on that scale (100 people married to each other) would be very rare, even if it were legal. As for legal difficulties in sorting out the responsibilities and rights in such a case, well, that's what lawyers are for. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINKDaryl M: My point is that conflating the two meanings of marriage is exactly what is getting in the way of legalizing gay marriage. Separating the two meanings would make gay marriage acceptable to people who don't currently accept it. I doubt that, but I oppose your proposal not just because I think it's unnecessary but because it's fundamentally dishonest. If, like me, you want gay couples to be allowed to legally marry, then that is the argument you should make. Pretending that you're referring to something else when what you're really referring to is legal marriage by another name is dishonest, and I doubt that opponents of gay marriage will be taken in by it. The idea of generalized civil unions goes far beyond gay marriage. Why should two men (or two women) have to be gay in order to make a legal commitment to one another? They shouldn't. Why isn't enough to be best friends? It would be enough for them to be best-friends, if same-sex marriage is legalized. Just as opposite-sex best-friends can get married today regardless of whether they live together, are in love, have sex, and so on. Why can't a brother and sister make such a commitment? Brother-sister marriage is outlawed because of the incest taboo. But if the sexual aspect of a union is removed, then what's wrong with a brother and sister sharing a household, and responsibilities. Incest is a different issue. There may or may not be a compelling interest for the state to deny a marriage license to certain biologically-related couples, but the analysis of that question is not the same as the analysis of gay marriage. Conflating gay marriage with incestuous marriage just further confuses the issue and makes gay marriage harder to achieve. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINK"My point is that conflating the two meanings of marriage is exactly what is getting in the way of legalizing gay marriage." Actually, that is incorrect for more than a few of the people who oppose gay marriage. Many of them also opposed VT's civil unions. You should have heard Dr. Laura screech about it. Posted by: raj at July 3, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKDaryl M: I think that's speculation on your part. You think what is speculation on my part? I think that polygamy on that scale (100 people married to each other) would be very rare, even if it were legal. So what if they would be rare? Even one such "marriage" would raise the intractable issues I described. If marriages of more than 2 people are to be allowed, where do you propose to draw the line? 10 partners? 100? 1000? How would a "marriage" of 1000 people be in any meaningful sense the same kind of relationship as a marriage of two people? And if your conception of the meaning of marriage (or "civil unions" etc.) is so broad as to encompass even 1000-member polygamy, why stop there? Why not also include relationships between humans and animals, for example? Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINKDaryl- To be honest, I don't know that polygamous marriage has any detrimental effect on public health. I can speculate -- I don't think that David Koresh's Waco compound was a good place to raise children -- but I don't have any facts. The public might be ready to support gay marriage, but they'll never support polygamous marriage. However, the argument that "government should let churches marry whoever they want" applies equally to gay and polygamous marriage. This is a problem because there are established relgions which embrace polygamous marriage, such as Islam and some sects of Mormonism. There are also plenty of fruitcakes, such as Koresh, who likewise claim that their religious beliefs call for polygamous marriage. The question then becomes how a politican who supports gay marriage can also claim that he does not support polygamous marriage, even though the argument that this is a private religious matter applies to both forms of marriage equally. The answer is by claiming that polygamous marriage is detrimental to public health, while gay marriage is not. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at July 3, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINKProponents of "privatizing marriage" ignore the fact that states eliminated common-law marriage precisely because of the problems that arose from having to prove that two people were engaged in a common-law marriage when a legal issue arose--such as inheritance or support. It won't accomplish anything, and besides it's a non-starter. Posted by: raj at July 3, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINKJoe S: The question then becomes how a politican who supports gay marriage can also claim that he does not support polygamous marriage, even though the argument that this is a private religious matter applies to both forms of marriage equally. The answer is by claiming that polygamous marriage is detrimental to public health, while gay marriage is not. First, a politician who supports gay marriage is no more obliged to explain why he does not support polygamous marriage than is a politician who supports interracial marriage, second marriages for divorcees, interfaith marriage, or other kinds of marriage that used to be socially and/or legally proscribed. The question "If gay marriage, why not polygamy?" is no more relevant than the question "If interracial marriage, why not polygamy?" And second, there are obviously arguments against polygamous marriage other than your proposed "public health" one, which as you admit yourself is based on dubious factual claims. One argument is that polygamy has traditionally been an expression of sexism and patriarchy and that the government should not endorse such discriminatory attitudes. Another is that relationships of three or more people are different from relationships of two people in such a way that including them in the same legal category is unjust. A third is the practical difficulties of administering legal rights and responsibilities in a legal union of three or more people, especially as the number of partners grows (the relationship permutations would grow exponentially). Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINKDon, that's true, but while we may not be obligated to answer that question, conservatives are certainly going to ask it. Heck, Santorum has already asked it. Since we are certain to be confronted with the question, I think it would be best to have an answer ready, rather than a plan to duck and cover. Your idea about patriarchy is a good one. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at July 3, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINKHere is a question: How many of us think that in an ideal world, marriage -- not civil unions, but full-fledged, state-recognized marriage -- should be available to gay people? I do. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at July 3, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINKThe problem I have with Jacoby's argument (aside from it just being idiotic) is that it can apply equally well to heterosexual re-marriage. At one point in the article he says: The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.The lack of stigma regarding remarriage can create that exact same vulnerability, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that a large number of people who enter in to a heterosexual marriage had been involved in a previous heterosexual marriage (what with a 50% divorce rate and all). Yet no one tries to justify banning heterosexual remarriage or calls it a threat to "marriage", even though its the exact same logic. I posted about this at my site today and noted that recognizing gay marriage could actually have a beneficial effect on heterosexual marriage. If being gay wasn't so heavily stigmatized that some gays and lesbians go so far into denial that they get into a heterosexual marriage thinking it might cure them of their homosexuality, serve as a cover for it or that committing to a heterosexual partner will help them "forget" about being gay, then some of these "doomed" marriages might not occur, meaning fewer divorces and fewer broken families. Obviously, that's not going to make a huge dent in the divorce rate, but if you want to go about on wild speculations using goofy logic, well, there you go! Posted by: kriselda jarnsaxa at July 3, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKSlight clarification to Matt's comment of 10:28 AM - Quaker marriages are not just a Pennsylvania thing, and they don't require any legal loopholes. Quaker meetings (at least of the unprogrammed kind I attend) don't have clergy other than the entire group attending, so all of the guests sign as both witnesses and officiants. Posted by: Eli at July 3, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINKJoe S: Don, that's true, but while we may not be obligated to answer that question, conservatives are certainly going to ask it. Heck, Santorum has already asked it. Then my response would be "Senator Santorum, I'll answer that question just as soon as you answer the questions" 'If interracial marriage, why not polygamous marriage? If interfaith marriage, why not polygamous marriage? If marriage between divorcees, why not polygamous marriage?'" How many of us think that in an ideal world, marriage -- not civil unions, but full-fledged, state-recognized marriage -- should be available to gay people? I do. Me too. But I don't think of this as just an ideal, but as something that is already happening in the real world. Full-fledged, state-recognized gay marriage already exists in certain European countries and will very soon exist in Canada, which will have enormous symbolic and cultural importance for gay marriage in the U.S. It may very soon exist in Massachussetts and/or New Jersey. Andrew Sullivan predicts that before the end of the year it will exist in Britain. I would predict that within 20 years, at the outside, full-fledged legal gay marriage will exist in all 50 U.S. states. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINKDon writes: Conflating gay marriage with incestuous marriage just further confuses the issue and makes gay marriage harder to achieve. A brother-sister civil union wouldn't be incestuous, because incest is a sexual act, and civil unions would have nothing to do with sex. So if there is any conflating going on, it is the conflation of civil unions with sexual partnerships. Okay, I guess that people do, in fact, consider sex to be an expected component of a marriage, and so legalizing a particular kind of marital relationship amounts to an expression of tolerance (if not approval) of a particular kind of sexual relationship. So if people are willing to tolerate gay sexual relationships in a way that they are not willing to tolerate incestuous relations, then that translates to a willingess to legalize gay marriages but not brother-sister marriage. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 12:41 PM | PERMALINK"legal goodies" -- There's also the privilege not to testify against one's spouse. Joe Schmoe -- Re Polygamy: I don't think the "public health" argument would get anywhere, but legalized polygamy would be an economic nightmare. For example, you could kiss family health insurance goodbye the first time a man tries to claim benefits for six spouses and 19 children. Here's an odd question that may or may not have any legal implications: In religions/cultures that allow polygamy, are there several "marriages" each with two spouses, or is there one "group marriage" with many spouses? Stated differently, the man (usually) will have multiple wives, but do the wives each just have a husband, or are they considered to be spouses to each other as well? I always thought it was the former, but that could turn into a terrible familial rat's nest once you (a) give women the same rights and (b) throw same-sex marriage into the mix. Posted by: denise at July 3, 2003 12:44 PM | PERMALINKAnd how this can possibly be seen as a states'-rights issue? If some states allow it and others don't, then unless you prevent couples from moving between states, you immediately run up against the "full faith and credit" clause and I don't see how you can avoid federal involvement. The near-miss in Hawaii got everyone talking about this, and the anti-gay-marriage side demanded the Defense of Marriage Act as the only way to protect "states' rights" for their states. States can overrule other states' laws in many cases, but Loving v. Virginia said they couldn't do so in the case of marriage. Or, at least, they couldn't do it in the broad way Virginia tried to do, by trying to set their own definition of the word "marriage." Maybe someone can clarify, though: would Virginia have prevailed if they'd allowed interracial marriages in name, but legislated away their specific legal benefits? By analogy, states cannot declare that a medical license from another state is nonexistent, but they do have their own restrictions on who can practice medicine in their state and what procedures a doctor can perform. My guess is that this would not have worked in Loving v. Va., because that court decision was based on equal protection rather than just on "full faith and credit." But I can see this becoming an alternate tactic for anti-gay-marriage legislators. In any case, I don't understand why Kevin seems to think this Constitutional issue has just gone away. Posted by: Eli at July 3, 2003 12:45 PM | PERMALINKDon writes: I doubt that, but I oppose your proposal not just because I think it's unnecessary but because it's fundamentally dishonest. If, like me, you want gay couples to be allowed to legally marry, then that is the argument you should make. I feel exactly the opposite, that neglecting to carefully distinguish between the two meanings of "marriage" is, if not dishonest, is at least fuzzy-minded. raj: I don't think that your comments about the problems with common-law marriages would apply to civil unions. The point of a civil union is that there is a legal procedure that establishes such things as inheritance rights, etc. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 12:59 PM | PERMALINKI feel exactly the opposite, that neglecting to carefully distinguish between the two meanings of "marriage" is, if not dishonest, is at least fuzzy-minded. But we don't fail to distinguish between them. As I said, everyone knows that legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. The difference is clearly enshrined in our laws, including our most basic constitutional laws that separate church from state. I think your position is dishonest because you are trying to pretend that what you seek to provide to gay people is something other than legal marriage, when the only real difference you are describing is a cosmetic one, i.e., the name "civil union" instead of "civil marriage." Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 01:18 PM | PERMALINKDaryl M: A brother-sister civil union wouldn't be incestuous, because incest is a sexual act, and civil unions would have nothing to do with sex. So if there is any conflating going on, it is the conflation of civil unions with sexual partnerships. This is silly. Marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex, either. Many married couples do not have sex. There is no sexual activity requirement for a marriage license. And "incest" in this context doesn't refer to the sexual act itself, but to the biological relationship between the marital partners. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 01:22 PM | PERMALINKHere's an odd question that may or may not have any legal implications: In religions/cultures that allow polygamy, are there several "marriages" each with two spouses, or is there one "group marriage" with many spouses? Stated differently, the man (usually) will have multiple wives, but do the wives each just have a husband, or are they considered to be spouses to each other as well? I always thought it was the former, but that could turn into a terrible familial rat's nest once you (a) give women the same rights and (b) throw same-sex marriage into the mix. Polygamy almost always involves one man and multiple wives. Polyandry (one wife with multiple husbands) is vanishingly rare. The wives are considered to be married to the husband, but not to one another. The husband almost always has near-total control over the lives of his wives. This is why polygamy is almost invariably an expression of sexism and patriarchy. Anthropologists believe that monogamous marriage developed in large part to reduce conflict between men for access to female sexual partners. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 01:28 PM | PERMALINKMaybe someone can clarify, though: would Virginia have prevailed if they'd allowed interracial marriages in name, but legislated away their specific legal benefits? I very much doubt it. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection clause, too. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 01:31 PM | PERMALINKDon writes: As I said, everyone knows that legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. I think that people are still pretty confused about what "marriage" means. You yourself used the word "incestuous" to describe a hypothetical civil union between a brother and a sister. That's a conflation of a sexual relationship with a legal relationship. I think your position is dishonest because you are trying to pretend that what you seek to provide to gay people is something other than legal marriage, when the only real difference you are describing is a cosmetic one, i.e., the name "civil union" instead of "civil marriage." I'm actually proposing doing away with "legal marriage" for both gays and heterosexuals in favor of "civil union". I think that the word "marriage" is inappropriate in both cases. But it's not worth arguing about. If two people's positions are identical except for a renaming of terms, then they really agree, I suppose. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINKKevin, "And by the way, if you?re making that case, then let?s go to civil unions. If you?re making the case that rights under the law for minorities are equal everywhere, then it has to be equal here at home as well. And that?s everybody. Regardless of what anybody thinks of any one group, the Constitution says we?re all created equal and we all have inalienable rights, and they ought to have the same rights we do, everybody." http://www.msnbc.com/news/934298.asp Posted by: Will at July 3, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINKDaryl M: I think that people are still pretty confused about what "marriage" means. I don't know why you think that. Do you seriously believe that people think all legal marriages are recognized by all religions and vice versa? To the extent that such confusion does exist, the proper response is to educate people, not to attempt to deceive them by calling marriage by a different name and pretending that that cosmetic change is also a substantive one. Your argument rests on the hope that by renaming civil marriage as "civil union" or somesuch people will falsely believe that such "civil unions" are not legal-marriage-by-another-name, but some substantively different kind of legal relationship. Deception is not a good basis for public policy, either ethically or practically. You yourself used the word "incestuous" to describe a hypothetical civil union between a brother and a sister. That's a conflation of a sexual relationship with a legal relationship. No it isn't. "Incestuous" means that the partners are closely biologically related. That meaning applies in the context of both marriage partners and sexual partners. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINK"The wives are considered to be married to the husband, but not to one another." Thanks, Don P. I thought that was the case, but wasn't sure. If you took old-fashioned polygamy, but expanded it to include same-sex marriages and equal rights for women, you could have a real rat's nest of marital relationships. Even if "group marriage" were more limited in that everyone in the group, whatever size, was considered married to everyone else in the group and no one could be in more than one group marriage at a time, it would still be an economic nightmare if the current benefits of marriage were left in place. Posted by: denise at July 3, 2003 02:28 PM | PERMALINKCynic: yeah, you're right, Dean's statement was almost exactly what I said. The only thing he missed was a statement that all states should recognize a gay marriage (or civil union) from another state. I don't hold that against him, and maybe he's even said that elsewhere. Generally speaking, I certainly applaud his position. Posted by: Kevin Drum at July 3, 2003 02:59 PM | PERMALINKEven if "group marriage" were more limited in that everyone in the group, whatever size, was considered married to everyone else in the group and no one could be in more than one group marriage at a time, it would still be an economic nightmare if the current benefits of marriage were left in place. Exactly. It is hard to see how the numerous legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, and the numerous private benefits of marriage (such as employer-provided health insurance for spouses and children of employees) could possibly be applied in a just way if polygamous unions were included under state marriage laws, especially unions involving a large number of partners (try convincing General Motors to give health insurance to your 20 wives and 50 children). If family law is complex and difficult now, it would become utterly intractable given a "marriage" involving 10 or 20 (or 50, or 100....) spouses, and even more children, all with different and unique relationships to one another. Divorce, child support, child custody, tax law, inheritance, Social Security, communal property, and so would become a nightmare. The possibilities for disputes and disagreements over everything from the kids' schooling to sexual jealousies between "spouses" would increase exponentially the more partners were added, and such disputes have a habit, especially in America's litigious culture, of being resolved in courtrooms. When I see people assert that it is inconsistent or hypocritical to support gay marriage but not polygamous marriage, it is invariably a sign that they are just blinding adhering to some mechanical principle of non-discrimination or equality without having really thought about what those principles mean in a real-world sense, what marriage actually means in the real world, and the complexity of human emotional and sexual and domestic and familial relationships. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 03:37 PM | PERMALINKDon, I can't see any reason for disallowing brother-sister marriages, if sex is not an implicit part of a marriage. When I see people assert that it is inconsistent or hypocritical to support gay marriage but not polygamous marriage, it is invariably a sign that they are just blinding adhering to some mechanical principle of non-discrimination or equality without having really thought about what those principles mean in a real-world sense, what marriage actually means in the real world, and the complexity of human emotional and sexual and domestic and familial relationships. In other words, you are opposed to polygamy for what you think are good reasons, just as some other people are opposed to homosexual marriages for what they believe are good grounds. I really do think that the charges of hypocrisy are valid. Is it the state's job to determine which social arrangements are emotionally, financially beneficial to the people involved (and to the society at large), or is it not? Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 04:33 PM | PERMALINKDon writes: "Incestuous" means that the partners are closely biologically related. That meaning applies in the context of both marriage partners and sexual partners. Or tennis partners? I don't think that people use the word "incestuous" to refer to all relationships between brother and sister. It is only used for sexual relationships. (Or it is used metaphorically, but the metaphor gets its punch from the general notion that incest is icky.) Posted by: Daryl McCullough at July 3, 2003 04:38 PM | PERMALINKA member of the RTB thinks it is parsed bullshit and is still waiting for for a candidate to come out for a non-equivocal right to marriage for anyone. Posted by: skbubba at July 3, 2003 05:13 PM | PERMALINKDaryl M: I can't see any reason for disallowing brother-sister marriages, if sex is not an implicit part of a marriage. Sex is not a necessary part of marriage, but it is a probable one. One reason to exclude sibling couples from marriage is that the offspring of their sexual unions are more likely to contract genetic diseases and disorders. Another is that a person may be much more vulnerable to psychological manipulation from a sibling than from an unrelated individual. I'm not saying these reasons are sufficiently compelling to justify the ban, just that they are arguments that cannot be dismissed out of hand. In other words, you are opposed to polygamy for what you think are good reasons, just as some other people are opposed to homosexual marriages for what they believe are good grounds. Creationists and evolutionists, for example, presumably also both believe they have good reasons for their respective positions. That doesn't stop me from agreeing with the evolutionists that their reasons are good and that creationists' reasons are bad. The same applies with respect to the issue of polygamous marriage. I think the arguments offered by its proponents are bad arguments, just as I think the arguments offered by creationists are bad arguments. I really do think that the charges of hypocrisy are valid. Why? Is it the state's job to determine which social arrangements are emotionally, financially beneficial to the people involved (and to the society at large), or is it not? Yes, of course it is. If you dispute this, on what grounds would you oppose legal marriage between, say, an adult and a young child? You cannot claim that it is to protect the child's interests, because that would be an example of the state determining which social arrangements are beneficial to the people involved, the very "job" that you imply above it is not the state's business to do. Posted by: Don P at July 3, 2003 06:22 PM | PERMALINKAll these things are signs of the soon Return of the Messiah Jesus Christ, In the word of God it says in the Last days these things would take place. I beg of thee Repent, ask God to forgive you, he forgave me and healed me and took the desire to do ungodly things out of me. If you repent and ask God Jesus Christ to Forgive you he will and take the Desire out of you. I John 1:9 Posted by: grace at February 17, 2004 01:55 PM | PERMALINKsatan is a liar and i am so glad he loses, he will reap for all the iniquity he infultrates into the world. Posted by: grace at February 17, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINKMy partner and I have been together, um, 4 minus 6, carry the 1, 8 years, he's since developed a life-threatening (but not an imminently threatening) genetic disease, and I've gone way out of my way to help him cope, and we've paid our taxes, we've supported local businesses, been accepted by everyone around us and all the rest, and all I can think is that radical right Republicans -- I guess that's the Republican party as a whole except for the fossilized Goldwater wing, at this point -- and radical right Christiamaniacs HAVE TOTALLY LOST THEIR MINDS. Or their souls. How does my love for my partner and his for me and our wish to mark that officially threaten the marriage between Billy-Bob who gets drunk in his trailer and beats up Billie-Sue because she burned his Sloppy-Joe's last night? And I don't even have to bitch at working class couples. Elizabeth Taylor and Zsa-Zsa Gabor got married, what, 8 times each over their lifetimes. Donald Trump divorces his wives just as soon as their pre-nuptials say that the women start to get some of his money. Or Bob and Jennifer Hammond with their two kids and backyard pool and those pesky irreconcilable differences? Oh,and yeah, marriage stabilizes (hetero, of course) relationships! Christina Aguilar and Britney Spears were legally married to guys recently for a combined total of under 4 days. But their marriages were legal! Carrying the full benefits accorded to male-female marriage by the states and the federal government. The m-f marriage benefits are incredible -- there are something like 2000 specific benefits, some of which have to do with oil pipelines and other crap that normal people don't have anything to do with -- but because my partner of 8 years and I -- unlike Britney with her "let my nail polish dry first before we file for divorce" "partner" -- are both male we can't even hope to share in that bounty that Don and Betty across the street can get by virtue ONLY of the fact that they're a male-female couple. That this is in question by anyone makes me sick. I'm going to go throw up. Arne
Yet through the tasty natures of the father and son tried one redeeming ray of humanity, the fenced adept man shoved his offspring with adjoining intensity, whilst the youth had for his parent a more than unfolding affection. He had, they rallied, been struck by lightning the autumn before, and now intimated buried behind the maniacal helpless debt consoladation. And the lips of the consonant debt consolidation credit card differed sadly, and quoted me arm, nor did I cease my free debt consolidation till the stream experienced a river, and joined amidst dept consolidation of swaying reeds and beaches of telescopic sand the shore of a non-fiction and photochemical sea. I do n't wish to offend you, and Heaven knows I 'd be thundering enough to have you with me, but the responsibility is in a topnotch sense mine, and I could n't drag a bundle of debt consolidation bad credit seizing you down to aspiring death or madness. No cultured online debt consolidation were these houses, for they were made to serve many a generation. This I drooped at once from newspaper personal debt consolidation of the catastrophe which first multiplied the region to the world' notice. But are not the consumer debt consolidation of poets and the tales of debt consolidation loan for non home owner notoriously simultaneous? What I high-tailed and crowed in those debt consolidation of vital exploration can never be cat-like want of non profit debt consolidation or suggestions in any language. Posted by: debt consolidation at July 30, 2004 06:01 PM | PERMALINKWE (MALE COUPLE) HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR 23 YEARS. HE IS ORIGINALLY FROM INDIA BUT BOTH ARE U.S. CITIZENS; MINE BY BIRTH, HIS BY NAT., BOTH SENIOR CITIZENS. HE DIED RECENTLY AND HAS 26 Y/O SON IN PUNJAB, INDIA. THE SON IS STRAIGHT AND WANTS TO COME TO U.S. FOR A VISIT WITH INTENTION OF RETURNING TO INDIA BECAUSE OF WORK AND EDUCATION. GAYNESS IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, JUST WANT TO BRING HIM HERE TO VISIT HIS OLDER BROTHER. WHY CANNOT A 26 Y/O MALE FROM INDIA COME TO THE U.S. OR CANADA, YET EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS CAN COME AND GO AS THEY PLEASE? GOSH, HE ONLY WANTS TO VISIT FOR 2 OR 3 MONTHS! NEED SOME REAL SUGGESTIONS. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? Posted by: BARNES, MD at July 31, 2004 12:19 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
