Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Right Way to Legalize Gay Marriage
Let the people decide, not the courts
When you set out to do something important, it doesn't matter just whether you achieve it—it also matters how. That's why Hank Aaron is a baseball immortal for breaking the career home run record, while Barry Bonds, who did the same, is a pariah.
The maxim holds true in public policy as well as sports. Same-sex marriage is a noble goal designed to serve both individual freedom and social health. But a wholesome end doesn't justify every possible means.
Massachusetts, California and (just this month) Connecticut have all legalized gay marriage the wrong way—by impatient, unpersuasive judicial decrees. Now California voters have the chance to do it the right way—by the free consent of the governed.
The Connecticut Supreme Court decision that came down on Oct. 10, which echoed the California ruling, was a reminder of the flimsiness of the case for judicial imposition of same-sex marriage. The justices said depriving gays of the right to marry would deprive their children of the "immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure." But the state had already provided those adults and their children exactly that, in a 2005 law giving gays the legal benefits of marriage under the rubric of civil unions.
Under state law, civil unions are, as everyone agrees, substantively indistinguishable from what heterosexuals get. The trial court in this case found that the effect of the civil union law "has been to create an identical set of legal rights in Connecticut for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples." The only difference is the name.
But that didn't particularly impress the state Supreme Court, which says the law deprives homosexual couples of the equal protection of the law. Far from advancing their equality, it concluded, the legislature "has relegated them to an inferior status." And: "There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage."
Really? No doubt at all? As one dissenting justice noted, expressing his own doubt, "what is perceived or considered to be an inferior status in a given society may not be readily apparent when the subject is a brand-new institution." It may be that over time people will come to regard civil unions as a pale imitation of marriage. The alternative is they will come to regard them as the full, though distinct, equivalent.
It's a comforting cliche that separate means unequal, but we know better. No one thinks that when a university fields sex-segregated sports teams, it brands women as inferior.
To say that gays should have access to civil unions rather than marriage could mean society regards them as unworthy of true matrimony. Or it could mean society sees same-sex unions not as worse or better than marriage but simply different, and thus properly designated by another name.
Which will it be? At this early stage, the only reasonable answer is: We. Don't. Know. And there is only one way to find out: by giving civil unions some time to operate. The Connecticut court, like its Golden State counterpart, pronounced them inadequate without bothering to acquire the valuable knowledge that would flow from a real-world test.
But the question before California voters is not whether the court correctly interpreted the equal protection clause of the state constitution. It is whether gay couples should be deprived of the right to marry that they gained a few months ago. And the best course would be the one spurned by the Supreme Court: to let the new policy remain in effect long enough to judge its value.
It's not as though any heterosexual couple loses anything from the change. And the effect of letting gays wed is bound to be healthy for everyone, since marriage fosters long-term relationships, discourages irresponsible sexual behavior, and offers a tested means of protecting children.
Now that gay marriage is in place in California, the public might as well see if it lives up to the promises of supporters or the warnings of opponents. If the latter prove right, there will always be time to pass the sort of measure that is on the ballot this year. And if not, Californians will be glad they held off.
A few state supreme courts have decided they don't need the
evidence of experience to make their judgment on same-sex marriage.
That's no reason voters should make the same mistake.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Fitzroy|10.20.08 @ 7:20AM|#
I fail to so see why whether a minority gain equal rights under
law should be the subject of a majority vote.
Also, pretty much the sole reason why we have sex-segregated sport
teams is because women are physically inferior. So, point lost
there.
Some Guy|10.20.08 @ 7:36AM|#
As many people have said before me, let the government get out of the marriage business and call everything a civil union.
armchairpunter|10.20.08 @ 7:52AM|#
IF the trial court's finding is correct,that the benefits of each status under the law are identical, why not eliminate state-sanctioned marriage with all of its religious and cultural connotations, and convert all existing marriages to civil unions? If those married became so by cultural or religious ritual (as well as state certification), then, culturally and/or religiously, they remain married.
Potts|10.20.08 @ 7:56AM|#
Same-sex marriage is a noble goal designed to serve both
individual freedom and social health.
Chapman's argument falls flat from the very beginning. The judicial
decisions may or may not have been approached wrongly, but some
issues - the right of free association, for one - should never be
subject to the whims of a majority vote.
A Racist|10.20.08 @ 7:59AM|#
"Chapman's argument falls flat from the very beginning. The
judicial decisions may or may not have been approached wrongly, but
some issues - the right of free association, for one - should never
be subject to the whims of a majority vote."
Call me when Reason takes up freedom of association for those who
don't want to be around blacks or Mexicans.
|10.20.08 @ 8:11AM|#
Chapman's reasoning is nothing new, but it is as flawed as ever. You can't use the "separate but equal" argument for something as fundamentally immoral as gay marriage. But then, logic never stands in the way of the illuminati, elitist lunacy of those who would reconstruct society.
|10.20.08 @ 8:21AM|#
Fundamentally immoral??
really?
Fundamentally?
Yes, let's just use terms we can't define it's fun for
everyone.
for shits.
Christian support for any foreign war is fundamentally
immoral.
Supporting the drug war is fundamentally immoral.
Judging anyone based on anything is.. you guessed it fundamentally
immoral.
Taking aspirin is fundamentally immoral.
Celebrating birthdays is fundamentally immoral.
Lying (even to children about santa claus)is fundamentally
immoral.
The death penalty is fundamentally immoral.
Taking Eucharist in sacrament is fundamentally immoral.
NOT taking Eucharist as sacrement is fundamentally immoral.
Torture is fundamentally immoral.
Not torturing even if it means saving lives is fundamentally
immoral.
Isn't using that phrase fun. Hell we could apply to to
anything.
VM|10.20.08 @ 8:26AM|#
disagree.
should be legal or have some sort of measure that can be used until
we get the gov't out of marriage together.
warren - I'll join your campaign.
|10.20.08 @ 8:33AM|#
I'd have more respect for Chapman's argument, if he had acknowledged and addressed the fact that the California legislature twice passed a same sex marriage bill that was vetoed by the Governor, with the reason given that the courts needed to decide. Now that they have, the argument is to let the people decide.
|10.20.08 @ 8:35AM|#
Yeah, I'm not sure if we should let voters decide on civil rights related issues. Had it not been for a federal court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the pains of segregation and chains of discrimination may have lasted longer. So, in that case, it seems judicial activism worked to everyone's advantage -- especially the minority community. It might be argued the same way with gay marriage.
|10.20.08 @ 9:11AM|#
Our constitution limits government and lays down individual
protections for the people. The job of the courts is to make sure
that laws aren't made that violate the constitution. If a majority
of people in a state decide to violate a minority group's rights it
is the court's job to fix things.
People can vote to create laws as much as they like - but it is
ultimately up to the courts to uphold or strike down those laws.
The system works.
|10.20.08 @ 9:13AM|#
"As many people have said before me, let the government get out
of the marriage business and call everything a civil union."
Yes, that is real easy to say if you are not gay or lesbian and
trying to get married. Look, I would be thrilled if the government
got out of the marriage business all together, but until them it
seems fucked up to deny gay/lesbians the right to marriage.
The Government|10.20.08 @ 9:19AM|#
let the government get out of the marriage
business
I will if the Church will.
|10.20.08 @ 9:21AM|#
In Connecticut, I believe the argument was made that the law
allowing Civil Unions was discriminatory, based on the equal
protections clause of the state constitution. If Civil Unions were
banned, there would be no argument. It was the act of creating
something almost but not quite like marriage that violated the
constitution.
And really, the only thing keeping the legislature from passing a
same sex marriage law here was that the Governor threatened to veto
it.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 9:39AM|#
The fundamental purpose of the court is to protect the rights of
a minority when the majority decide to infringe the rights of that
minority.
In other words, the court is supposed to trump the will of the
people when the legislative branch passes an unconsitutional
law.
|10.20.08 @ 9:41AM|#
warren - I'll join your campaign.
Glad to stand beside you Moose.
Oust Steve Chapman AlReady
OSCAR OSCAR OSCAR
Fluffy|10.20.08 @ 9:43AM|#
The free consent of the governed?
Wasn't the free consent of the governed exercised when the Congress
and the several states ratified the 14th Amendment?
The amendments represent the consent of the governed too, you
know.
Elemenope|10.20.08 @ 9:48AM|#
The free consent of the governed?
Wasn't the free consent of the governed exercised when the Congress
and the several states ratified the 14th Amendment?
The amendments represent the consent of the governed too, you
know.
Normally I'm all about this argument, but for the Civil Rights
amendments it is simply not historically true. Many states ratified
the 13th, 14th, and 15th only under duress as a condition to
re-enter the Union after the Civil War. They had little choice. Had
there *been* a free choice, it is unlikely they would have been
ratified.
|10.20.08 @ 9:52AM|#
It's a comforting cliche that separate means unequal, but we
know better. No one thinks that when a university fields
sex-segregated sports teams, it brands women as
inferior.
Yet it's still called basketball, whether men or women make up the
roster.
LLStone|10.20.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Isn't the creation of a legal Civil Union the first step towards decoupling marriage and gov't consent? Am I reading that wrong?
Guy Montag|10.20.08 @ 9:53AM|#
As many people have said before me, let the government get
out of the marriage business and call everything a civil
union.
I have almost the same take, execpt I say let people call it
whatever they heck they want to call it. Marriage, civil union,
coupling at the hip, joint account relationship, whatever. Should
be up to the adult, willing individuals involved in the
relationship.
Guy Montag|10.20.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Isn't the creation of a legal Civil Union the first step
towards decoupling marriage and gov't consent?
No.
Am I reading that wrong?
Yes.
It is an attempt by groups not allowed to 'marry' to seek
government handouts, services and automatic wealth redistribution
that 'married' folks should not have either.
root beer|10.20.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Yet it's still called basketball, whether men or women make
up the roster.
Yeah, but the argument for having a women's basketball team isn't
contingent on men having a basketball team.
You can make arguments for straight marriage all day without once
having to bring up equality.
The only argument there's ever been for gay marriage amounts to,
"But mommy, you let them do it!" Absent straight marriage,
there's no argument for gay marriage.
The fact that the only argument for gay marriage is equality
ironically demonstrates that it isn't equal.
|10.20.08 @ 10:04AM|#
I continue to be amazed at how many gay marriage supporters use
a constitutional argument to make their case. Marriage is NOT a
constitutional right, whether it be for heterosexuals or
homosexuals.
If you are going to make your case, at least have the courtesy to
use legitimate points.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 10:04AM|#
The fact that the only argument for gay marriage is equality
ironically demonstrates that it isn't equal.
This is zen, right?
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Marriage is NOT a constitutional right, whether it be for
heterosexuals or homosexuals.
Driving is not a constitutional right either. But if the state
passes laws estabishling who may or may not drive, those laws must
apply equally to all people, not just a select few.
|10.20.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Driving is not a constitutional right either. But if the
state passes laws estabishling who may or may not drive, those laws
must apply equally to all people, not just a select few.
Yes, but the fact that the state allows you to drive a car on the
freeway doesn't mean it's obliged to let you define a Lear jet as
equal and land it on the freeway.
|10.20.08 @ 10:11AM|#
So should the Lovings have waited until Virginians got off their asses and legalized miscegenation?
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Yes, but the fact that the state allows you to drive a car
on the freeway doesn't mean it's obliged to let you define a Lear
jet as equal and land it on the freeway.
Useless example, totally irrelevant.
|10.20.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Marriage is NOT a constitutional right, whether it be for
heterosexuals or homosexuals.
The majority in Loving vs. Virgnia - the case that banned
anti-mescengenation laws - disagrees with you. The right to marry
is an inherent part of the general liberty right.
|10.20.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Useless example, totally irrelevant.
I'd say it's very relevant. "Automobile" refers to a specific class
of vehicle, with a specific class of characteristics. If your
vehicle of choice doesn't adhere to that set of characteristics,
the state is not obliged to guarantee equal access to the roads,
the fact that they're public roads notwithstanding.
Guy Montag|10.20.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Driving is not a constitutional right either.
That would be implied in Article 1, the Congressional power to
establish roads (Postal Roads, specifically). Gotta do something on
those roads, eh? No intent for it to be exclusive foot
traffic.
I differ with most of the State power supporters from their notion
that non-commercial driving rights should be regulated by the
State.
I have not yet found the evidence that animal transportation ever
required licensing. Just because the vehicles have changed, for the
better, to something easier to control than a horse or mule has
never been a justification for regulation and licensing, in my
book.
|10.20.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Straight marriage is to gay marriage
as a car is to a ________
a. A house boat
b. Lear jet
c. A slightly different sort of car
d. Baloo
kinnath, are you really going to tell me you missed this one on
your California Aptitude Test?
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 10:21AM|#
But if the state passes laws estabishling who may or may not
drive, those laws must apply equally to all
people, not just a select few.
PEOPLE, can't you read, PEOPLE
Not fucking vehicles.
|10.20.08 @ 10:29AM|#
"Automobile" refers to a specific class of vehicle, with a
specific class of characteristics. If your vehicle of choice
doesn't adhere to that set of characteristics, the state is not
obliged to guarantee equal access to the roads, the fact that
they're public roads notwithstanding.
Lear jets are a qualititively different class of vehicle than
automobiles. The ability to fly, their size inlcuding wingspan, and
the speed at which they travel amount to a difference in
type.
Gay marriage differs from straight marriage merely in the
demographic attributes of the participants, a distinction more akin
to the color, make, and model of an automobile.
rhywun|10.20.08 @ 10:36AM|#
It is an attempt by groups not allowed to 'marry' to seek government handouts, services and automatic wealth redistribution that 'married' folks should not have either.
A lot of those 'handouts' don't cost anyone anything, and are the
primary reasons gays want to marry, despite your attempt to ascribe
sinister motives to them.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 10:37AM|#
That would be implied in Article 1, the Congressional power
to establish roads (Postal Roads, specifically). Gotta do something
on those roads, eh? No intent for it to be exclusive foot
traffic.
I don't need a license to walk on a public road, ride a bike on a
public road, or ride a horse on a public road.
If you have a compelling argument that imposing the need for a
license to operate a motor vehicle is not consitutional, I'm all
ears.
Guy Montag|10.20.08 @ 10:41AM|#
A lot of those 'handouts' don't cost anyone anything, and
are the primary reasons gays want to marry, despite your attempt to
ascribe sinister motives to them.
That is the funniest thing you have ever written!
You are trying to tell all of us that someone getting Social
Security benefits because they were once married to someone who
earned them is free?
Are you trying to tell all of us that the State giving all of the
property of a dead person away to their 'spouse', despite the
express wishes of the deceased in a proper will did not 'cost'
anybody anything either?
Maybe you just were not aware of these things when you made your
decisions on this issue.
Guy Montag|10.20.08 @ 10:44AM|#
If you have a compelling argument that imposing the need for
a license to operate a motor vehicle is not consitutional, I'm all
ears.
Seems you must have found an expressed power in the Constitution,
with Amendments, granting the government the power to create such
un-needed regulation of non-commercial travel by means of a motor
powered conveyance.
|10.20.08 @ 10:45AM|#
I wouldn't want to subject my marriage to a popular vote, thank you. It's nobody's business but mine and my husband's.
|10.20.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Yeah, but the argument for having a women's basketball team isn't contingent on men having a basketball team.
You can make arguments for straight marriage all day without once having to bring up equality.
The only argument there's ever been for gay marriage amounts to, "But mommy, you let them do it!" Absent straight marriage, there's no argument for gay marriage.
I'm pretty sure the main benefits of marriage to society are just
as strong for gay couples as they are for sterile heterosexual
couples. A stable adopted nuclear family is good for everyone. Any
argument you can come up with for the merits of straight marriage
that does NOT also apply to gay marriage would deny marriage rights
to anyone who was naturally infertile.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Seems you must have found an expressed power in the
Constitution, with Amendments, granting the government the power to
create such un-needed regulation of non-commercial travel by means
of a motor powered conveyance.
I'll take Judicial Overreaching for $200 . . . What is the Commerce
Clause?
|10.20.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Normally I'm all about this argument, but for the Civil
Rights amendments it is simply not historically true. Many states
ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th only under duress as a condition
to re-enter the Union after the Civil War. They had little choice.
Had there *been* a free choice, it is unlikely they would have been
ratified.
Disagree. They did have a free choice. They had the free choice to
remain occupied territories. It's a sucky choice to be sure, but
it's absolutely a reasonable choice to be given to States that
caused half a million people to die out of nothing more than
personal pique. To quote one of the best movies ever, "bust a deal,
face the wheel."
Guy Montag|10.20.08 @ 10:54AM|#
I'll take Judicial Overreaching for $200 . . . What is the
Commerce Clause?
All of those comments just to agree with me that the Commerce
Clause has been misapplied to non-commercial motor
transportation?
Jeesh.
|10.20.08 @ 11:02AM|#
(NOT REALLY) NEW AT REASON: Steve Chapman is still allowed to
post here, regardless of his mortifying take on almost every
issue.
As an aside: EVERYONE who bothered to take a position (either way)
on the Public Road/Lear Jet metaphor is guilty of genuine
douchebaggery. :-)
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:04AM|#
While I think its stupid to be against gay marriage, I agree that government policy shouldn'tbe adopted without the support of a majority. Policy issues come and go, but if we don't have a strong democracy we have no hope. THen again, I already know we don't really have a strong democracy, so whypretend we do?
concerrned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:06AM|#
I probably shouldn't have made that lsat post here. Since most of you guys are elitists who think everything would be better if only you were given sole cntrol of the governmetn, I'm no t surprised that maintaining a democratic system doesn't rank high on your list of goals.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Policy issues come and go, but if we don't have a strong
democracy we have no hope.
Wrong again, we are not a democracy and, hopefully, we never will
be.
So long as the constitution survives, we'll be OK.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:11AM|#
@kinnath-You've done notheing but prove my point that you guys elitist pricks.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:13AM|#
concerned observer, you've done nothing but prove my suspicion
that you're an ingorant moron.
Now would you care to address any specific point in one of my
posts?
|10.20.08 @ 11:17AM|#
So long as the constitution survives, we'll be
OK.
Ouch. I think I'll be booking that flight to Costa Rica after
all.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Right, we'll be okay as long as a document written by elitist racist white men survives. Spoken like a true elitist racist white man.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Right, we'll be okay as long as a document written by
elitist racist white men survives. Spoken like a true elitist
racist white man.
Now would you care to address any specific point in one of my
posts?
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Ouch. I think I'll be booking that flight to Costa Rica
after all.
Unless we find a way to put elistist pricks back in charge of
things, the future of our constitutional, representative republic
is uncertain at best.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:24AM|#
I just did. You said that everything will be okay as long as the US constitution survives and I disagreed. If you must know, I think a parliamentary democracy would be far superior to our current system, which is largely designed to obstruct rather than enact the will of the people.
|10.20.08 @ 11:26AM|#
So long as the constitution survives, we'll be
OK.
What do you mean by "survives". The entire Bill of Rights is pretty
much meaningless. The government has been doing whatever it wants
without the slightest regard to the constitution for some time
now.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:28AM|#
. . . our current system, which is largely designed to
obstruct rather than enact the will of the people.
This is the beauty of the constitution. It is not a bug.
I think a parliamentary democracy would be far superior .
.
Without adequate protection of the rights of minorities, democracy
is just another form of tyranny.
|10.20.08 @ 11:28AM|#
What do you mean by "survives". The entire Bill of Rights is
pretty much meaningless.
Long as they can't force me to quarter Redcoats in my barn, I'm
satisfied.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:31AM|#
What do you mean by "survives".
It is comatose, but not dead yet.
However, the majority of the population seems ready to pull the
plug.
concerned observer is at the front of the line, begging to pull
it.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:32AM|#
I support minority rights as well. For example I don't think the majority at some point in time has the right to disenfranchise the minority because it deprives the minority of its democratic right to participate in government.
|10.20.08 @ 11:32AM|#
If you must know, I think a parliamentary democracy would be
far superior to our current system, which is largely designed to
obstruct rather than enact the will of the people.
Eff that. I'll take the elitist pricks over the baying sheeple any
day.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Yes I'm begging to pull the plug on meaningless and stupid traditions designed to allow an elitist minority to control the government while letting the people think that they are the ones in charge.
rhywun|10.20.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Maybe you just were not aware of these things when you made your decisions on this issue.
I'm quite aware of the issues surrounding gay marriage, thanks.
Maybe I'm just less cynical than you in believing that gays AND
straights want to get married for primarily non-financial
reasons.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Yes I'm begging to pull the plug on meaningless and stupid
traditions designed to allow an elitist minority to control the
government while letting the people think that they are the ones in
charge.
The US is at that awkward stage; too late to work within the
system; too early to start shooting people.
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 11:40AM|#
We didn't put interracial marriage to a vote, so why is this an
issue? If the KKK's church refuses to marry outside their beliefs,
then so be it. That doesn't mean it should still be "illegal" in
the rest of Alabama.
If someone's CONSTITUTIONAL rights are being violated, then it is a
Federal issue, NOT a State issue. You can't condemn someone to a
life of violated legal rights just because a majority of their
state hates them. That's called discrimination.
And when lawyers and medical providers took on their professions,
they swore to treat ALL Americans equally, in the eyes of the law.
This includes NON-Religious, courthouse marriages.
By calling it a civil union you are actually causing legal problems
for these couples. Such as adoption, hospital visitation rights,
last rights, and health and insurance benefits. Once you take away
their right to be legally "married" as defined by a contract, then
you are taking away their rights to benefit as so many other
Americans do from marriage. Everything from Tax Status to Health
Insurance is affected by your "status" as a married couple or a
single individual.
This isn't just a religious debate, it really affects someone's
life.
|10.20.08 @ 11:41AM|#
I am not getting a lot of the learjet = marriage stuff.
But there are some good points made on this thread.
Guy, great point about the licensing of cars. I like it a lot, I
hope you don't mind that I use it in the future.
another athletic supporter hol|10.20.08 @ 11:45AM|#
@ SugarFree @ 10:10am -
s/b basketbreast, yes? In order to parallel the dyad in
men's possession with the dyad in women's possession.
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I support minority rights as well. For example I don't think the
majority at some point in time has the right to disenfranchise the
minority because it deprives the minority of its democratic right
to participate in government.
No you don't.
If the majority decides to fuck with the minority, the fact that
the minority had an opporunity to vote against the majority is of
no consequence.
Minority rights only exist if an independent judiciary can overrule
the majority.
|10.20.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Cassandra | October 20, 2008, 10:45am | #
I wouldn't want to subject my marriage to a popular vote, thank
you. It's nobody's business but mine and my husband's.
And the government right?
Otherwise what is it? How is it different from dating?
|10.20.08 @ 11:52AM|#
another athletic supporter holding court,
I'd be fine with that as well, in fact, it maybe more accurate than
you know... I'm pretty sure most the WBNA's only experience with
balls is of the basket variety.
|10.20.08 @ 11:57AM|#
LLStone | October 20, 2008, 9:52am | #
Isn't the creation of a legal Civil Union the first step towards
decoupling marriage and gov't consent? Am I reading that
wrong?
If it is, then I am wholly in favor of it.
LarryA|10.20.08 @ 11:58AM|#
No one thinks that when a university fields sex-segregated
sports teams, it brands women as inferior.
It would if they were competing in the shooting sports, where men
and women compete equally.
The trial court in this case found that the effect of the civil
union law "has been to create an identical set of legal rights in
Connecticut for same-sex couples and opposite-sex
couples."
Identical legal rights under state law. But are they equal under
federal law? Can partners in Connecticut civil unions file joint
federal income tax returns, etc?
Yes, but the fact that the state allows you to drive a car on
the freeway doesn't mean it's obliged to let you define a Lear jet
as equal and land it on the freeway.
But would you support a law saying gays get a "special" driver's
license that won't allow freeway driving? Or even that their gay
status be flagged on their driver's license?
I support minority rights as well. For example I don't think
the majority at some point in time has the right to disenfranchise
the minority because it deprives the minority of its democratic
right to participate in government.
But it's okay for the majority to prohibit the minority from
forming families and raising children in them? Right.
zoltan|10.20.08 @ 12:09PM|#
This is the beauty of the constitution. It is not a
bug.
Feature, it's feature!!!
|10.20.08 @ 12:17PM|#
apparently 1 person instituting a rule that oppresses a lot of people is worse than 100,000,000 people agreeing to do the same.
Kolohe|10.20.08 @ 12:23PM|#
But if the state passes laws estabishling who may or may not
drive, those laws must apply equally to all people, not just a
select few.
PEOPLE, can't you read, PEOPLE
Not fucking vehicles.
Well, isn't that the issue? Once you allow gay marriage, people
will be marrying their Corvettes?
root beer|10.20.08 @ 12:26PM|#
I'm pretty sure the main benefits of marriage to society are
just as strong for gay couples as they are for sterile heterosexual
couples.
What you're ignoring is that the usual and expected case is that
most heterosexual couples are not sterile. Do you also
require that government demonstrate that each and every dog is
susceptible to rabies to require rabies shots as a general
rule?
Any argument you can come up with for the merits of straight
marriage that does NOT also apply to gay marriage would deny
marriage rights to anyone who was naturally infertile.
No, it doesn't, because good laws are based on the typical case
rather than outlier cases. Since, overwhelmingly, most
hetero-sexual couples are not sterile, we can deduce that as a
general rule recognizing hetero-sexual relationships has an
intrinsic value *usually* that isn't operative in gay relationships
*ever*.
|10.20.08 @ 12:35PM|#
We didn't put interracial marriage to a vote, so why is this
an issue?
Nobody ever disputed that interracial marriages fit the definition
of marriage, the laws merely disqualified certain parties.
In this case, what's being argued is whether the relationship under
consideration even qualifies under the definition of
marriage.
That's why it's an issue.
|10.20.08 @ 12:36PM|#
concerned observer | October 20, 2008, 11:24am | #
If you must know, I think a parliamentary democracy would be far superior to our current system, which is largely designed to obstruct rather than enact the will of the people
concerned observer | October 20, 2008, 11:32am | #
I support minority rights as well. For example I don't think the majority at some point in time has the right to disenfranchise the minority because it deprives the minority of its democratic right to participate in government
If you can't spot the contradiction in these two statements,
apparently you were merely an "observer" during high school civics
class.
A constitutional republic is the best defense the minority has
against the majority. Tyranny is tyranny, whether practiced by a
King or a Mob.
|10.20.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Kolohe | October 20, 2008, 12:23pm | #
But if the state passes laws estabishling who may or may not drive,
those laws must apply equally to all people, not just a select
few.
PEOPLE, can't you read, PEOPLE
Not fucking vehicles.
Well, isn't that the issue? Once you allow gay marriage, people
will be marrying their Corvettes?
In what world is that a bug and not a feature?
|10.20.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Kinnath-
Rights are not created by the constitution. The right to travel
existed long before 1787. The right to travel necessarily embraces
the right to drive automobiles, free from any government
regulation, including licensing and registration.
There are people who actually think that the country would fall
apart if there were no communist licensing and registration
schemes. Some people look at Christ as God; others look to Science
as God and then there are those who look to government as God-all
of these people are a few plays short of a complete gameplan.
Ecce homo|10.20.08 @ 12:46PM|#
apparently 1 person instituting a rule that oppresses a
lot any number greater than zero
of people
|10.20.08 @ 12:52PM|#
An interesting development in this thread is that Concerned
Observer is making arguments, instead of just calling people
names.
This is new to me.
He has elevated past Edward/Lefiti, and now has an opinion and is
eager to argue it in the arena.
He may come to regret that though.
Some Guy|10.20.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Since, overwhelmingly, most hetero-sexual couples are not
sterile, we can deduce that as a general rule recognizing
hetero-sexual relationships has an intrinsic value *usually* that
isn't operative in gay relationships *ever*.
If adoption were easier, you would probably see about equal numbers
of gay couples with children as straight ones. Are you advocating
that only couples with children get marriage benefits? If so, then
I disagree, but at least you'd be consistent.
|10.20.08 @ 12:56PM|#
I'm a little lost here. Prop 8 here in sunny CA would amend the state constitution defining marriage as man+woman only. If it passes it'll be a black day for gay rights. If it fails, nothing changes. I don't see how any outcome here would *help* gay rights; the best we can hope for is to fail to hurt them. I unfortunately don't buy that failure of Prop 8 is an automatic pro-gay-rights victory.
rhywun|10.20.08 @ 1:00PM|#
What you're ignoring is that the usual and expected case is that most heterosexual couples are not sterile.
You're ignoring the fact that makin' babies is not a top reason for
marriage--and never has been.
good laws are based on the typical case rather than outlier cases.
You can deny just about any right to any person based on nonsense
like that.
perilisk|10.20.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Color me another person who believes that the primary difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is religious/cultural approval, a place the government isn't allowed to interfere anyway. Just because a lot of people think the government should establish basic health standards for food doesn't mean that it follows that government should also create a legal definition of "kosher".
|10.20.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Rex,
your post at 8:21 am today was fundamentally Immoral.
Please do not do that again.
|10.20.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Let's hope it passes.
You mean fails. Prop 8 would strip the right to marry from gay
people, a right that was created through the courts.
So it would be little different from what happened in Massachusetts
- the ballot amendment couldn't even the 25% of the legislature
necessary for it to appear on the ballot.
It's kind of funny - the anti-gay activists spent two years howling
about gay marriage being a fringe position the public didn't
support, and then they couldn't get a single legislator voted out
of office for supporting it, while seeing a few of their team lose
their seats, and when the representatives they'd been threatening
were faced with the vote, they came out more than 3:1 against.
|10.20.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Reinmoose | October 20, 2008, 12:17pm | #
apparently 1 person instituting a rule that oppresses a lot of
people is worse than 100,000,000 people agreeing to do the
same.
Having traveled between both those types of countries, I have to
say the tyranny of a million is better than the tyranny of 1.
Not by a lot though.
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 1:39PM|#
"In this case, what's being argued is whether the relationship
under consideration even qualifies under the definition of
marriage."
It still makes no sense that you even have to define marriage in
any terms other than legal. Therefore if a church has a problem
with the LEGAL, NON RELIGIOUS definition being "a union between two
consenting adults" it won't matter.
No church is being forced into anything and no one's rights are
being violated on the other side, so why are we even debating this?
Letting homosexuals being married in the same LEGAL way
(courthouse) and recognized by hospitals, insurance agencies and
tax brackets etc in the same way is not "violating" your religious
rights.
|10.20.08 @ 1:43PM|#
The people that matter have spoken: same-sex couples who have
married in huge numbers in Canada, Massachusetts and
California.
Why does the majority get any say in a question that is neutral
from the perspective of public morality? Churches are welcome to
condemn Homosexuality. They are not allowed to impose sectarian
views on secular law.
|10.20.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Letting homosexuals being married in the same LEGAL way
(courthouse) and recognized by hospitals, insurance agencies and
tax brackets etc in the same way is not "violating" your religious
rights.
Does it not occur to you that forcing hospitals and
insurance agencies to recognize gay marriage is a violation of
their rights?
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 1:45PM|#
*dbl post*
Have to add:
The legal definition as it is now is too vague as it is. There are
actually more than two sexes. Otherwise, you are saying that
hermaphrodites, transgenders and eunuchs can't be "legally wed"
either. Though we know they have for centuries, in most cases
without anyone's knoweledge.
So, unless you have any legal proof that two openly gay, fully
obvious from outawrd appearances MEN getting married is somehow
"worse" than a sex changed female and a man (still two "males"
chemically) then your argument loses weight.
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 1:46PM|#
did it occur to YOU that doctors and lawyers take oaths to treat ALL people equally, depsite personal beliefs? Racist doctors can't deny a black man treatment and say it was his "right" to do so. He'll be fired and possibly sued.
|10.20.08 @ 1:50PM|#
did it occur to YOU that doctors and lawyers take oaths to
treat ALL people equally, depsite personal beliefs? Racist doctors
can't deny a black man treatment and say it was his "right" to do
so. He'll be fired and possibly sued.
Relationships are not people. Show me where they took an oath to
recognize all relationships as equal.
|10.20.08 @ 1:57PM|#
I'll probably be called a moron (and you might be right!), but
I'll voice my opinion anyway. The subject of civil unions/gay
marriages are subject to civil rights under the Constitution as
soon as the word "equality" is read or spoken--in my opinion. The
problem with the execution of legislating gay marriage/civil union
is manifold because marriage licenses are issued by the state, then
recognized from state to state via the Constitution. Civil unions
are inherently inferior--yes, without a doubt inferior--because
they are not recognized across state lines.
Now why has the federal government not corrected this error? (Never
mind that it hasn't needed correction until the People, at least
some of them, brought it to the government's attention.) Simple: if
it were supported by republican politicians, what would happen to
the republican base? Your average conservative republican would no
longer feel a part of the party and would most likely register as
an independent (which should be viewed as a good thing, since our
country has become unhealthily polarized). The republican party on
this issue is populist, representing the populist view, but not
representing what protects the Constitution. They can't support it
because, if they did, it would weaken the membership of the party.
And I imagine it would weaken the democratic party as well, but not
to the extent of the other. Yet the fear of the weakening of the
parties is exactly what prevents the feds from upholding the
Constitution. Sad, isn't it?
|10.20.08 @ 2:00PM|#
As a libertarian who subscribes to the ideas of limited
constitutional government and natural law, I was always under the
impression that the whole point of having a judiciary was to
protect people from the tyranny of the majority.
Otherwise, we could all just have a referendum on whether all of
Steve Chapman's property should be seized and sold, the profits to
be divided equally among those who post comments to his
articles.
Remember, pure democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a
sheep voting on what's for dinner.
|10.20.08 @ 2:04PM|#
It's pretty simple math.
A man has a right to have a wife, if he is so inclined and can find
one to consent. In most states, a woman does not have a right to
have a wife, if she is so inclined and has a consenting partner in
mind.
This is clear sexual inequality.
Likewise, if women are entitled to take husbands, so too must be
men.
I've heard a lot of arguments against gay marriage, and not a
single one of them manages to overcome this fundamental truth about
equal protection under the law.
|10.20.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Wee! Tripple-posting!
"Does it not occur to you that forcing hospitals and insurance
agencies to recognize gay marriage is a violation of their
rights?"
No. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Hospitals and
Insurance companies do not have the right to dictate the terms of
my marriage to me.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Wow its great to see all the platitudes you're piling on ie "democracy is just 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner". I'd hate to live in your world, where apparently everyone is out to get you. But then again, you wouldn't be a libertarian if you weren't completely insane.
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 2:11PM|#
@Why Certainly:
It is sad. I can understand how a small Insurance company might be
emotionally bothered by having to insure people they dislike (we
all know the big ones would just see it as a new target audience
and boost advertising) but I cannot see that as an arguable point.
You see, a transgender couple could already be on your policy and
you wouldn't even know it.
So, technically, unless you are going to screen every insurance
candidate to make sure they are 100% male or 100% female 'down
there' then you are full of it if you seriously think upholding
this ancient, biased definition of a union is really protecting you
from anything. Much like the military, conservatives never had a
problem with it until people got more vocal.
|10.20.08 @ 2:11PM|#
"Does it not occur to you that forcing hospitals and insurance
agencies to recognize gay marriage is a violation of their
rights?"
The Constition and the Bill of Rights exist so that individual
rights supercede those of institutions. It would be wonderful if
politicians would repeat that sentiment like a mantra.
Are you a CEO? :P
|10.20.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Mis-spelled "Constitution," dammit! Then again, with the way some interpret it, maybe it should sometimes be called the "Constition." ;)
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I can see it now... Insurance agencies will adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy so that you can be covered as long as you are secretly homosexual.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 2:18PM|#
@Why Certainly-You can't have an atomistic society in which the individual invariably precedence over institutions. Democratic institutions, at least, are necessary to make society cohesive and to instill a common set of values to help individuals work together towards common goals. A boat with a bunch of rowers cannot move if they are not coordinated and society cannot progrese if there is not some coordination among its indiviudal members.
|10.20.08 @ 2:26PM|#
And another!
"No, it doesn't, because good laws are based on the typical case
rather than outlier cases. Since, overwhelmingly, most
hetero-sexual couples are not sterile, we can deduce that as a
general rule recognizing hetero-sexual relationships has an
intrinsic value *usually* that isn't operative in gay relationships
*ever*."
If so, then there's no harm in allowing gays, who make up less than
two percent of the population according to the best available
census data, to go ahead and get married like any other couple.
They are outlier cases, just as non-child-bearing heterosexual
couples are.
Allowing *all* couples who wish to marry go ahead and do so has an
intrinsic value that is roughly equal to just allowing all straight
couples to marry, while having the phenomenal advantage of not
treating a small minority unfairly.
|10.20.08 @ 2:30PM|#
"Wow its great to see all the platitudes you're piling on ie
"democracy is just 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for
dinner". I'd hate to live in your world, where apparently everyone
is out to get you. But then again, you wouldn't be a libertarian if
you weren't completely insane."
So, it's your position that stomping on individual rights, even
outright bigotry, is A-OK, as long as it's done
democratically?
I guess we know which side you would have taken during the
Lincoln-Douglas debates.
|10.20.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Concerned observer, this is a discussion of civil rights. Of
course some institutions--and I stess "some"--are necessary, but
that's not the subject at hand, is it?
" A boat with a bunch of rowers cannot move if they are not
coordinated and society cannot progrese if there is not some
coordination among its indiviudal members."
You argue the point perfectly. What we're talking about are civil
rights--i.e. working together under the same rules and guidelines.
Civil rights represent the boat. Without them, you just have people
flailing in the water.
Please remember that arguments by analogy are the weakest form of
argument and can backfire. Use them sparingly.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 2:34PM|#
@Tara-that's right democracy=tyranny. While democracy, like your precious free market, can make mistakes, it tends to work out in the end. BTW-Youre making a false comparison to slavery. Slaves were denied civil rights, most importantly the right to vote, and the slave states had disproportionately high representation in the decidedly undemocratic senate. To say that this is a good example of democratic institutions at work is the height of ignorance.
concerned observer|10.20.08 @ 2:36PM|#
@why certainly-exactly but our definitions of civil rights are different. My definition of civil rights looks at the privileges and obligations of the individual in relation to society while the libertarian definition claims the right to be a selfish prick is a "civil right". Hence where we diverge.
Sarah|10.20.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Who's being the 'selfish prick'?
Let me put it this way:
(Beware! Analogy ahead!)
I live in a very diverse part of Brooklyn. Now there are a few
neighborhoods that specialize in Kosher delis and Jewish fashion
trends in order to appeal to the people who live and work around
there. However, it is not illegal to open a NON-Kosher deli in teh
area. Granted that you may no do as well financially, you still
have the right to open shop wherever you want.
Neighborhoods, are like the "states" of a city. They can be diverse
and appeal to the majority of the people in their area, but they
can't decide to violate city laws and free trade laws by "voting"
some business owner out of town. Granted you'll have cases of abuse
or violence or "hate crimes" based on the tension this creates, but
there is no legal precedent for them to "define deli" as someone
suggested above.
It is unecessary. A business is just a business. A marriage is just
a union. You can call it what you like and choose not to patronize
or serve people using whatever discrimination you like (set a
bouncer outside the door to your posh club, put a sign in the
window that says "no gays" whatever you wnt to do.) But kicking
people out of your neighborhood or trying to change city laws to
make it illegal for them to live there?
That's an obviousl violation of their rights to just be free.
|10.20.08 @ 2:59PM|#
It's a huge tactical mistake for those pushing for equality for
gays to push anything with the word "marriage" in it. That sets off
the fundies. But talk about a legal equivalent not called marriage,
say it is about civil rights, and quite a few of the fundies will
support it.
You have fundies who categorically oppose equal protection under
the law. You have gay activists who categorically insist on calling
for "gay marriage". Most other people can be reasoned with, and
would support an uneasy compromise that results in equality.
|10.20.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Concerned observer, so what you're saying is that anyone who
views politics and/or civil rights in a different manner than you
is a selfish prick? That has to be what you're saying because I'm a
registered Democrat--albeit a pretty conservative one--not a
libertarian. I do, however, have a great deal of respect for
libertarians, as well as republicans who value keeping politics as
local as possible while focusing on personal responsiblity and
limiting government, and--of course--democrats who recognize that
it is in government's best interest to invest in its citizens.
Basically, I enjoy different ideas from different people, and I'll
remain respectful. Maybe while keeping the "obligations of the
individual in relation to society" in mind, you can participate in
common courtesy--the most basic of an individual's obligation to
himself and society.
I think I developed I facial tick while fighting the urge to use a
few four letter words. :D
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 3:27PM|#
My definition of civil rights looks at the privileges and
obligations of the individual in relation to society while the
libertarian definition claims the right to be a selfish prick is a
"civil right". Hence where we diverge.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
Nothing about priviledges or obligations here.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed,
The sole purpose of government is to secure our rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, . . .
And hence, the responsibility to start shooting people if it comes
to that.
and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness.
If the constitution dies, we'll just have to start over
again.
So sayeth that elitist racist white man otherwise known at T.
Jefferson.
|10.20.08 @ 3:41PM|#
"So sayeth that elitist racist white man otherwise known at T.
Jefferson."
Replace the word "man" with "prick" so that we can make everyone
happy. :P
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Replace the word "man" with "prick" so that we can make
everyone happy. :P
I on the record above as saying I'm an elitist prick and want the
country turned back over to the control of elitist pricks.
Individual Rights|10.20.08 @ 4:19PM|#
I am pretty disappointed at all of the people on this forum
mindlessly chanting "individual rights! individual rights!" in
regard to the institution of marriage. There is nothing at all
individual about marriage. Furthermore, there is nothing at all
Constitutional about marriage. Fundamentally, "marriage" is a
social construction that is backed by either a religious
institution or a social one. In this particular argument, the
backer of the idea of "marriage" happens to be the Religion of
State.
Now, that being said, two (or more) people who co-habitate, (may)
have children together, have sex together have a type of natural
law "marriage"--they are performing physical actions based upon
their own mutual agreement.
I have yet to see how (with the exception of unenforced sodomy or
polygamy laws), any state in the Union has prevented this
previously-described form of natural law marriage. What they have
done is defined requirements for a tax rebate status, an insurance
status, adoption status, etc. etc. You get the point. Why then is
it unreasonable for a populace (a State nonetheless) to enact
reasonable controls on these governmental-issued statuses? If
anything--the special privileges and governmental backing of a
social institution is the problem. Get rid of all the governmental
privileges associated with a social institution and this all goes
away.
Now, I can hear the exclamations of disagreement already, so I'll
add a rebuttal right now. To all of those people clamoring that a
state not recognizing gay marriage and all it entails is a gross
violation of rights... how should a State respond to polygamy?
Should the State extend legal rights to all the spouses? Should we
have a marriage tax deduction that has a "Number of Spouses"
deduction box like the child tax credit deduction?
What I find humorous is the number of people who would support gay
marriage on these flimsy terms but would deny polygamists the same
type of governmental acknowledgment. What they are effectively
saying is "we want tax rebates too! just like those heterosexual
couples." I hardly believe though that most of these supporters
would rise up to the occasion of fighting for State tax-dollar
sponsored polygamy.
As a humorously offbeat corollary--think of the Church of the
Flying Spaghetti monster and his noodly appendage vs. Creationism.
Creationists constantly try to use their "me-too" approach to
justify inclusion of their version of "science" into education. One
of their main arguments is that State-sponsored backing of a
certain mode of thought is hostile to them because they don't
believe it (read: Religious Science vs. Science). If anyone is a
true believer in Liberty, I think he/she would have to be somewhat
sympathetic to this argument. State-subsidized education makes it
prohibitively expensive in many cases for these people to send
their children to a private school where they could receive an
alternate form of education. (While that argument holds water, they
try to insert their beliefs in to the already established
socialized education system instead of promoting freedom in
education). Likewise, state-sponsored heterosexual marriage makes
it relatively more expensive for homosexual partners in marriage
(inequality in taxation).
But... back to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his
Noodly Appendage. Just as there are a million ways a person could
make claims on what is a "Science" or a "Religion" a person can do
the same with defining marriage. What if I determine that I should
be allowed to sleep with my parents, for instance? Should the state
recognize that as marriage and all of the governmental issued
benefits that come with that? How about if a whole commune decides
to marry each other? Are their "individual rights" (said with
extreme sarcasm) being violated because we don't think we should
enumerate another special case of "marriage" for them?
The solution to this logical quagmire is to get rid of the special
cases and special benefits and uphold true individual rights. If
people wish to live together and have children together, it is not
the business of the government to prohibit it. It is also not the
business of the government to endorse it or give it a special name
and tax code either.
Note: to those die hard supporters of gay marriage who think that
two-person traditional family oriented marriage is good for society
and therefore two-person homosexual marriage should be made legal
even though polygamy is bad and evil and should be illegal--where
does your argument lie? Is it a matter of individual rights or the
social good? And if it *is* based on the social good--why are you
so angry when society believes that their good would be better
served by not having gay marriage at all?
kinnath|10.20.08 @ 4:31PM|#
how should a State respond to polygamy?
As long as the state recognizes and enforces a marriage contract
(with all rights and responsibilities that entails), the details of
the participants in the marriage should not control who is allowed
to get married.
If straight marriage is legal; gay marriage should be legal. If gay
marriage is legal; poly marriage should be legal -- so long as all
participants are consenting adults.
Of course, the better solution would be to disolve the state
recognition of a marriage contract.
|10.20.08 @ 5:04PM|#
It's pretty simple math.
And you're a pretty simple mathematician.
A man has a right to have a wife, if he is so inclined and can
find one to consent. In most states, a woman does not have a right
to have a wife, if she is so inclined and has a consenting partner
in mind.
Show me the law that states, specifically, that "a man has a right
to have a wife". What the law states is that at an age determined
by the state, that he's eligible to enter into an arrangement
called a "marriage".
Given that a marriage is defined, by constitution in 27 states, and
by legislation in most other jurisdictions, as a contract involving
one man and one woman, your math doesn't quite add up.
Everybody also has the right to form a corporation. What they don't
have right to is redefining the definition of a corporation to suit
themselves.
Individual Rights|10.20.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Kinnath said:
"As long as the state recognizes and enforces a marriage contract
(with all rights and responsibilities that entails), the details of
the participants in the marriage should not control who is allowed
to get married."
Kinnath,
I kind of buy this argument but here is my very respectful
criticism of it. What is so special about marriage that "the
details of the participants in the marriage" don't matter? Is there
some other Constitution I am unaware of that has marriage as an
unalienable right? And if so, what does it define it as?
In my view, socially-defined rights are just that--socially defined
and are vulnerable to the crazy whims of a democratic majority.
What makes the U.S. Constitution so special in my view is that it
enforces individual rights and is in theory not susceptible to
abrogation of rights of the few for the "greater good". As long as
people are allowed freedom to form mutually beneficial social
arrangements, they can form their own "social rights".
The type of "marriage" that is currently outlawed is not a behavior
but a social contract. No individual rights are being denied and
there is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government
becoming involved except for the full faith and credit clause.
Which means that if a state determines that gay marriage should be
illegal--what legitimate argument would the Supreme Court have to
even make a ruling on gay marriage based on a strict reading of the
10th amendment?
Now the complication is that pesky full faith and credit clause.
You mentioned earlier that the details of the participants
shouldn't matter in regards to the social construct of
marriage--but that would be very much different than other social
constructs we have!
Laws regarding the responsibilities / rights of similar
institutions vary tremendously between the States. Just think of
vehicle restrictions. You can drive in a State unregistered with an
out-of-state driver's license.... for a while. After living in the
state for a while however, there are various restrictions placed on
your continued ability to drive and have your car registered. Let's
called this institution "Driverhood". In CA, where I live, these
restrictions (especially environmental) are fairly draconian and
are not required in other states.
These restrictions can influence your "Driverhood" eligibility in
the state that you are in when you are driving on *public* roads
(driver's licenses are not needed on private property). Also, I
cannot obey Texas driving laws in California and not expect to
eventually get arrested. I do not see how it is logically a far
stretch for States to make claims on restrictions of what
constitutes an acceptable "Marriage" in a public context and the
rights associated with it if they can determine what is acceptable
"Driverhood" on public roads.
As you said, the easiest way around this is just not to define
marriage in the first place :)
|10.20.08 @ 7:13PM|#
"Laws regarding the responsibilities / rights of similar
institutions vary tremendously between the States. Just think of
vehicle restrictions. You can drive in a State unregistered with an
out-of-state driver's license.... for a while. After living in the
state for a while however, there are various restrictions placed on
your continued ability to drive and have your car registered. Let's
called this institution "Driverhood". In CA, where I live, these
restrictions (especially environmental) are fairly draconian and
are not required in other states."
All this is true.
But nobody is prohibited from driving a certain kind of car based
on their gender.
Men are prevented from marrying men based on the completely
arbitrary and unfair rule that only women are allowed to marry
men.
Women are prevented from marrying women based on the completely
arbitrary and unfair rule that only men are allowed to marry
women.
Gay marriage comes down to equal protection under the law. If I, as
a woman, can marry a man who consents to marry me, then a gay man
should likewise be able to marry a man. If not, then he lacks a
government-granted privilege which I enjoy, with no sensible
rationale whatsoever, beyond the fact that some people see his
marriage as "icky."
It's not that marriage is a right, it's that being treated equally
by the law is a right.
|10.20.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Allowing the people to decide for themselves that same-sex
marriage is as important a right as traditional marriage seems easy
enough. The only problem is that, when given the chance to make
such a decision the people still choose to oppress same-sex
marriages. In 2004 Georgia voters voted overwhelmingly to amend the
Georgia Constitution in a way that defines marriage as that between
a man and a woman, and prevents the state from recognizing any
marriage between a same sex couples as valid.
The truth is that the majority of voters do disagree with idea of
gay marriage. Look at the election today. Obama won't endorse any
proposals that would grant same sex couples the right to the same
sort of marriage as opposite sex couples. it is because he knows he
would alienate voters who vehemently disagree with same-sex
marriages.
And as our past has shown us, the major civil rights cases that
have occurred in this country did not come through popular votes.
They were forced through decisions by the Supreme Court (Brown v
Board of Education is but one example), and only later were they
viewed as common sense. The fact is that right now the American
people would not vote for same-sex marriage rights, and it is
unknown as to how long it will take for us to collectively change
our minds.
JD|10.20.08 @ 11:00PM|#
One of the biggest misinterpretations of our history is after
winning the revolutionary war we traded the tyranny of the minority
(kings) for the tyranny of the majority (the voting masses). That
is incorrect and dangerous. The vote was given to protect people
from the government, not to oppress others. The majority nor the
government (expect in cases of adjudication of breach, etc.) should
not decide the rights of sound-minded individuals to enter
contracts.
I disagree: courts should be able to examine contracts and who's
able to enter them. That's their job, right?
MJ|10.20.08 @ 11:29PM|#
"Gay marriage differs from straight marriage merely in the
demographic attributes of the participants, a distinction more akin
to the color, make, and model of an automobile."
Yeah, joe, men and women are completely interchangable, just ask
the manager at your local Hooter's.
"It would if they were competing in the shooting sports, where men
and women compete equally."-LarryA
That proves your point how? Any innate differences between men and
women that would affect competition in shooting sports are so minor
they don't matter. In sports like basketball the physical
differences in size, strength and speed are such where they do
matter and are treated accordingly. Context makes a
difference.
"Can partners in Connecticut civil unions file joint federal income
tax returns, etc?"-LarryA
Then again they still won't under the CT Court's bastardization of
their state's marriage law.
"Men are prevented from marrying men based on the completely
arbitrary and unfair rule that only women are allowed to marry
men.
Women are prevented from marrying women based on the completely
arbitrary and unfair rule that only men are allowed to marry
women."-Tara
Arbitrary? How arbitrary?
Let's see, the defination is:
ar·bi·trar·y (ärb-trr)
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity,
reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an
arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The
diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are
arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or
statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a
dictator.
I suppose you mean the 1st definition but it's hard to see how that
applies. The reasons that marriage has applied to heterosexual
couples only is to stabilize potential reproductive pairings, and
to accomdate the different gender roles a male and a female have
within a family. You may not like the logic and priciples leading
to that rule, but it is hardly arbitrary and therefore fair.
Your inssistance that it is falls under the 2nd definition of
"arbitrary".
zoltan|10.21.08 @ 12:22AM|#
The reasons that marriage has applied to heterosexual
couples only is to stabilize potential reproductive pairings, and
to accomdate (sic) the different gender roles a male and a
female have within a family.
Was that before or after it was used as a tool for allying
provinces/countries, etc.? Before or after gender roles changed to
accommodate different economic and social periods? Before or after
people married without any thought of children and merely for
love?
As for men and women being interchangeable and asking the manager
of the local Hooter's--take a look at the brave old world of
transgendered and transsexuals--it's becoming harder and harder to
tell when someone makes both the effort and money to achieve
near-perfect similarity to the opposite sex. Then again, you don't
seem like the learning type.
For anyone to think CT "bastardized" marriage law is to say one
doesn't agree with the checks and balances of the Constitution.
You'd probably be arguing half a century ago that the innate
genetic differences between blacks and whites aren't
"interchangeable" and should therefore marriages between the two
should be subject to will of the majority.
(Full disclosure: I think the government should not define marriage
and anyone who wants the current rights which marriage endows--with
the exception of tax exemptions--should get a lawyer and draw up a
contract.)
Ben1|10.21.08 @ 12:59AM|#
Personally, I think marriage is a pale shadow of a serious
relationship. There isn't one single thing about marriage that
interests me; I surely have no interest in the (cough) "approval"
of people I do not consider to be my peers. Marriage, on the other
hand, is a wide-open opportunity to lose enormous amounts of time,
money and freedom to the whims and caprices of lawyers and their
fellow actors in the "you will do it because this paper says so"
realm.
If the gays were thinking clearer, they'd simply snicker and go
their way, instead of clamoring to have a part of the great
religious dumbfuckery of marriage.
But hey... if you're so twisted as to desire marriage, then perhaps
you deserve it. Bend over.
MJ|10.21.08 @ 7:14AM|#
Was that before or after it was used as a tool for allying
provinces/countries, etc.?"
The major reason anyone got married at that time was cementring
poltical alliances? Really, only aristocrats were married at that
time?
Given the reasons for the gap that exists between men's and women's
wages have to do with women dropping out of the workforce for some
time to have and raise children. How much have gender roles
actually changed? And since when have most marriages been for love
and starting a family has been no part of the equation? Also,
marriage also provides a safety net in case intentions about not
having children are superseded by circumstances.
"...it's becoming harder and harder to tell when someone makes both
the effort and money to achieve near-perfect similarity to the
opposite sex."
I don't entirely buy that, but if you think men and women are
interchangable with radical and major cosmetic surgery helps your
case. I do not. Gender is not an equivalent of race, there are
significant and real difference between the sexes that have actual
consequences and have to be accommodated in the real world.
Just a word of advice, you may want to cut the ad hominems, they
say more about your lack of confidence in your argument then it
says about your opponent.
Mike|10.21.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Poor people married to unit property on a smaller scale. The
point of an extended family and marriage has always been to give
families ties to each other and spread out the risk of living.
Whether it was cows or pastures or a whole country, it started as a
method of connections and stabilizing property. Matches in most
societies were chosen by the parents, not the individuals.
That's not so much the point of marriage today. Today the role is
to provide a stable home environment for the raising of children,
and for the providing of the couple themselves. Whatever "inherent"
differences you may feel men and women have, of "inherent" roles
they may have, society sees them as interchangeable in terms of
careers, legal rights, and providing for the family.
Therefore, a gay couple provides the same benefits to society, and
should be able to claim the same rights. They provide a stable home
environment, a stable backup source of income if one partner
becomes unable to work or injured, and an extra hand to raise
children. Whatever "inherent" differences you may claim, the roles
in society may now be filled by a man or a woman, therefore
requiring the combination of a man and a woman has no benefit, and
is merely prejudice.
Unless you are trying to argue that a good family needs a woman in
the house making babies and cooking dinner, and a man working full
time to provide, in which case you are really attempting to set
men's and women's rights back fifty years, not to protect those
rights by not extending them to homosexuals.
zoltan|10.21.08 @ 10:56AM|#
There has never been a steady definition of marriage, that was
the point of the post. The reasons for marriage have been plenty,
people use it for whatever seems convenient to them. Of course, why
people need some priest or government official to tell them it's
okay for them to have children is beyond me. "Safety net"
indeed.
As for differences between the sexes, the intrasexual
differences are so excessive it's nearly impossible to define the
sex itself by such different characteristics. Your lack of
understanding such basic arguments led me to the ad hominems. The
fact that you think because men and women aren't interchangeable
and adhere to certain biologically designated characteristics
somehow supports your argument borders on hilarity.
Don|10.21.08 @ 12:32PM|#
As someone who finds the concept of gay marriage icky, I have
taken a firm stance and decided not to enter into one. I encourage
others to use the same coping technique.
It is an attempt by groups not allowed to 'marry' to seek
government handouts, services and automatic wealth redistribution
that 'married' folks should not have either.
Like the ability to make medical decisions? Make their own
determinations about how their property is disseminated after their
death? There may be financial advantages but it's impossible to
make the assertion that those are the prime motivators for most
gays interested in marriage. That doesn't match up with their
stated reasons and none of us are mind readers.
The concept that we should put personal liberties up to a popular
vote is repugnant, and I'm surprised any Reason reader would think
so.
|10.21.08 @ 12:53PM|#
what you fail to appreciate is that only with a federal recognition of marriage will any of the financial benefits of marriage attach. civil unions are no where close in the realm of sameness as marriage. it is completely discriminatory and dangerous to the health (financial and otherwise) of gay couples and families. I am really concerned that people think they are the same when the discrimination (inability to transfer property, inability to put depedents on insurance, inability to receive pension or social security or disability payments for a spouse/child, imposition of payment of "benefits" such as health insurance from employers and on and on) is HUGE.
A gay man and a gay journalist|10.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
In German, my husband is
'Mein Mann' (literally, my man)
my wife is
'Meine Frau' (literally, my woman)
Husband and wife are so outré; I propose their replacement with "my
man" and "my woman." Sure, it's a little more ambiguous, but it
signifies a devoted partner. And you know what? We could even share
those terms with the gays.
|10.21.08 @ 3:32PM|#
The simple fact that one group of law-abiding citizens can
legally do something that another group of law-abiding citizens can
is wrong.
Constitutionally, it is wrong.
As a mouthpiece for a publication designed to follow reason,
Chapman has proven inadequate. He has failed to escape the bonds of
Christian magical-morality.
It makes no sense to deny equal opportunity to consenting adults
when the result DOES NOT CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS. It is irrational. It
is selfish. And it is WRONG. To deny law-abiding citizens equal
treatment under the law is wrong.
Brian Sorgatz|10.21.08 @ 3:46PM|#
WTF is the problem with Steve Chapman? Is he the least
libertarian person writing for Reason these days? Way back
in 2001, this magazine grokked the wisdom of
The Teenage Liberation Handbook by Grace Llewellyn.
But more recently, they've let Chapman rationalize America's
drinking age of 21--a policy that exemplifies the
un-libertarian upcreep in legal age of majority that has happened
over the last few generations.
This time around, Chapman never uses the phrase "judicial
activism," but he shows a typically far-right belief in the tyranny
of the majority that most Reasonoids are
better than.
Chapman has every right to his point of view, but maybe he
shouldn't be writing for Reason. He doesn't quite get
it.
|10.21.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Since you need a marriage license every "marriage" is already
a"civil union." The moment that said license is signed youhave
entered into a civil union. If in addition to civil recognition two
people wish religious sanction, so be it. If a religious
institution declines to approve particular "civil union" so be
that.
The role of the state here is recognition of legal rights and
duties. The role of religious institutions is a different matter
and the two need not conflict.
Comrade Laissez-Faire|10.22.08 @ 1:15PM|#
The best response to Steve Chapman's advocacy of mob rule on
this issue:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-progressives-helped-religious-right.html
St. V|10.22.08 @ 6:22PM|#
Decide on gay marriage via vote? What a load of bullshit! Why do
idiots keep parroting this stupid ass line? This is none of the
state's (state or federal) business.
Leave the religious institutions to the individual churches. If
Pastor Abe won't marry a gay couple, but Pastor Bart will, then so
be it.
Any state that denies gays to marry, or refuses to recognize said
marriage, is quite plainly an unConstitutional act. Any move at the
state or federal level mandating that gay marriage be legal is an
unConstitutional act.
How about we actually get the government out of marriage? Anything
done at the state level is merely contractual rights, and should be
referred to as "civil unions" or some other areligious term to get
the semantics straight for the religious sensitives.
If a couple (or more) want to get married, then they can do so with
whatever church is willing to marry them.
It's not hard...
|10.23.08 @ 7:10PM|#
The ignorance of the basic principles of true democracy (as
opposed to mob rule) demonstrated by this article - not to mention
its casual attitude towards institutionalized discrimination - is
upsetting. Then again, it won't be the first time flawed dogma and
thinly veiled, patronizing conservative beliefs posed as "Reason"
in this magazine.
First of all, since when have the freedom and enfranchisement of a
legal citizen subgroup been determined by majority rule? Democracy
is rule by the people, which is very different from mob rule - mob
rule is in force when a large, active group with beliefs in common
dictates to everyone else as well as themselves. True democracy
requires that all of the people have the full and equal rights and
freedoms that will allow them to live and make decisions in concert
with their fellows. Subjecting to the will of the mob the right of
a minority group to participate in legally binding contracts with
one another hardly satisfies this requirement.
Secondly, one wonders why, if civil unions and marriages are so
utterly indistinguishable, we need to have two separate
institutions to administer the same rights and benefits. What need,
exactly, does the author see that will be fulfilled by setting up a
system whose only unique and fundamental feature is that a minority
group is legally disallowed from referring to their relationship by
the term other people do?
Like many rigidly dogmatic and "objective" libertarian writers, Mr.
Chapman seems to suffer from the delusion that the language we use
to talk about people and things has no effect on their nature and
treatment, and moreover that if a system of discrimination or power
is not de jure, no one has any responsibility to do anything about
it.
Bullshit, dude. Bullshit.
|10.26.08 @ 10:45PM|#
Marriage is an institution owned by the heterosexual population through the long tradition since its beginning. If homosexual couples want to join this institution they must ask the heterosexual population to allow this. If the anwer is yes then they are in. If it is no then the homosexual population must start their own similar institution but call it something else.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Steve Chapman
- Gun Control, Chicago-Style, Steve Chapman, November 23, 2009
- Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism, Steve Chapman, November 19, 2009
- Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing, Steve Chapman, November 16, 2009
Related Articles (Family Issues, Constitutional Law)
- Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes, Andrew Napolitano, November 16, 2009
- Putting a Stop to Congressional Overreach, Damon W. Root, November 13, 2009
- Baby Barnum, Jesse Walker, November 5, 2009
- Tyranny of the Minority, Damon W. Root, November 2, 2009
- Power to the People, Damon W. Root, October 28, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245