New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 24, 2005

Jonathan Rauch reports from an old-fashioned same-sex marriage ceremony.

Comments

Rich Ard|10.24.05 @ 9:06AM|#

No living with a pregnant spouse? Sounds to me like these two got it right.

|10.24.05 @ 9:27AM|#

On the other hand, Rich Ard, think of the hair in the shower drain.

|10.24.05 @ 10:30AM|#

I've taken to posting this disclaimer on thread that mention Massachusetts' "court-ordered" gay marriag laws:

A civil unions bill was introduced in the state legislature every year since the late 1990s. Every year, it passed in the Senate. And every year, the House version had a majority of members sign on as co-sponsors. But every year, the conservatives House Speaker (Tom Finneran) and Ways and Meand Committee Chair (John Rogers) locked the bill up in committee.

The homophobes currently working themselves into a frenzy about the democratic process were, of course, nowhere to be found during this period.

|10.24.05 @ 10:47AM|#

I'm struggling to figure out how these two guys pose any threat to me, my marriage, the well-being of my wife and I, the well-being of our families, or anything or anyone else that I care about.

I cannot think of one single harm that will come about as a result of those guys getting married.

|10.24.05 @ 10:56AM|#

thoreau,
[tic]The moment gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, they will depend less on the state and more on each other. Hence the great,powerful and benevolent state loses the power to regulate even more lives. You need to get with the program. [/tic]

|10.24.05 @ 11:07AM|#

Then: "Before God and all present, do you, Michael, enter into this marriage with an open mind and heart and promise to love Jamie as long as you both shall live?"


I can hear thousands of evangelical christian heads exploding upon reading those words. Homosexual culture is like a bizarre parallel dimension to Heterosexual culture. A marriage like this one affirms my belief in that, not that I think its wrong to live in a bizarre parallel dimension.

Also, it seems that almost everybody here is unanimous in granting homosexuals equal rights with heterosexuals. I concur. However, lets not forget that the underpinning of social conservative opposition to gay marriage is their belief that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice rather than a neutral, biological condition. I wish somebody would figure out what's biologically different about gay people so we can finally have an argument that exsposes social conservatives as being nothing more than simple bigots on this issue.

Rich Ard|10.24.05 @ 11:11AM|#

joe:

You don't mean that like "think of the children!", do you? Took me a second of trying to figure out how this was bad for shower-drain hair.

|10.24.05 @ 11:54AM|#

I wish somebody would figure out what's biologically different about gay people so we can finally have an argument that exsposes social conservatives as being nothing more than simple bigots on this issue.

Back in my days as a conservative, I remember listening to Limbaugh rant and rave about the "absurdity" of the evidence that homosexuality may be biological in. He often would comment that if that were true, and sexual orientation could be determined in vitro, then the gays and lesbians would suddenly become "pro-life" on abortion. (Because, you know, all gays and lesbians are "commie-libs," and all "commie-libs" are for abortion...)

Of course, you can reverse the argument and ask when the Fundies are going to come out in force for the evangelical woman's right to choose if they discover that their child is a filthy "sodomite?"

Rich Ard|10.24.05 @ 11:54AM|#

mattc:

Do you think that if something so trivial as "they like people carrying the same genitalia around" pisses people off, that a biological explanation will pass any greater muster?

|10.24.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Do you think that if something so trivial as "they like people carrying the same genitalia around" pisses people off, that a biological explanation will pass any greater muster?

I agree, rather than being "sinners" who need to be punished, the Fundies will regarded homosexuals as "freaks."

|10.24.05 @ 12:22PM|#

Fundies have a response ready to go: homosexuality is a genetic disease, like MS or congenital blindness. We need to help those poor, sick people.

|10.24.05 @ 12:33PM|#

"I can hear thousands of evangelical christian heads exploding upon reading those words. "

I don't think that's a gay/straight thing: Vows like that would be pretty unexceptional at any ceremony for urban coastal liberals; I'm assuming from your reaction maybe not so much elsewhere.

Warren|10.24.05 @ 12:55PM|#

Jonathan,
Well done. With all the argle-bargle spilled over this issue, that is the only thing that touched me emotionally.

|10.24.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Yeah, it seems like it's one or the other:
Either gays are bad people because of their choice, or they're sick people because of their 'condition.'
I always kind of wondered why homosexuals were so adamant about insisting that their sexuality is genetic. I'm sure it probably is, but who cares?
Harping on it does make it sound like it's some sort of genetic defect or sickness, and also almost sounds like an apology for how they live: "I can't help it that I'm attracted to the same sex! I was born with this problem!" Rather than, "Fuck you, it's none of your business who I choose to fuck. I'm gay, and I don't have to explain a goddamn thing to you."

|10.24.05 @ 3:53PM|#

I always kind of wondered why homosexuals were so adamant about insisting that their sexuality is genetic. I'm sure it probably is, but who cares?
Harping on it does make it sound like it's some sort of genetic defect or sickness, and also almost sounds like an apology for how they live


It's the difference between the usual legal analysis when it comes to law if it were a choice, vs. being covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and perhaps having elevated standing in court.
In hindsight, gays may have gained government acceptance and legal priviledges a lot faster had they gone with the "gayness is a disability" route.

Larry A|10.24.05 @ 4:08PM|#

If it's biological you can use the "if God hates gay, why did he make me that way" response. Which leads to "if God made me gay, who are you to try and change that?"

|10.24.05 @ 5:38PM|#

To elaborate on metalgrid's point a bit: One of the criteria for a "protected class" under the 14th amendment (that is, one that can't be singled out for unequal legal treatment absent a compelling interest) is that it be defined by an "immutable characteristic." In other words, race and gender get treated different from, say, Sci-Fi fandom. Also, presumably it helps placate people terrified that the scary gays are going to "recruit" their pwecious childwen if "conversion" isn't actually how you become gay.

|10.24.05 @ 6:41PM|#

Yay! This was wonderful. Score one for love.

|10.24.05 @ 6:56PM|#

"Harping on it does make it sound like it's some sort of genetic defect or sickness, and also almost sounds like an apology for how they live: "I can't help it that I'm attracted to the same sex! I was born with this problem!" Rather than, "Fuck you, it's none of your business who I choose to fuck. I'm gay, and I don't have to explain a goddamn thing to you."

That's exactly what I'm saying. Julian has a point, but the reverse side of the argument is that if sexual orientation is a choice, heterosexuals have no inherent rights either. Therefore no extra legal protection could be afforded to ANY marraige, straight or gay.

|10.24.05 @ 6:58PM|#

Sorry for not including this before:

Since the bigots are unlikely to buy that argument, they'll either be forced to accept gay marraige for the sake of constitutional consistancy.