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
Massachusetts Keeps Gay Marriage
The Bay State's legislature has voted to keep a gay marriage amendment off the November 2008 ballot.
Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
Opponents of gay marriage face an increasingly tough battle to win legislative approval of any future petitions to appear on a statewide ballot. The next election available to them is 2012.
The movement for a gay marriage ban fulfilled at least one of its goals—Mitt Romney got some truly awesome photo-ops out of it. But does anyone think there'll be less of an appetite for legal gay marriage five years from now? The pro-amendment movement might stir and moan in a persistent vegetative state for a while, but it's basically been vanquished.
Reason's been all over the gay marriage issue: Gay Marriage author Jonathan Rauch made the case against the Federal Marriage Amendment here. Gay libertarian journalist Jamie Kirchick argued for Massachusetts scheduling a gay marriage amendment vote back in February, in Brainwash.
UPDATE: A statement from Mitt:
Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility.
Odd argument: Seven months ago Massachusetts voters had the chance to elect a legislature and governor who would have opposed gay marriage or supported a vote on the ban. They chose to elect a bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats.
|6.14.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Shouldn't libertarians be against gay marriage, considering that legalizing it will increase the scope of government, who has no buisiness regulating private relationships in the first place?
|6.14.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the
voice of the people small minority of radical
fundamentalists did not need to be heard in this debate."
Jack|6.14.07 @ 2:04PM|#
More importantly, a wedge issue is off the table for 2008. This had nothing to do with keeping gay marriage legal--the amendment would fail by popular vote now, let alone in another 17 months
bourgeoiscowboy|6.14.07 @ 2:07PM|#
It depends on what school of thought you choose to follow. If
one is in favor of equal rights, might favor allowing gays to get
married while marriage exists are recognized by the government. Of
course, one might be against state marriage altogether, but I
guarauntee that many libertarians have been married by the state in
the past and will continue to be in the future - that's because
state marriage isn't going anywhere.
When most people make the argument that they are against gay
marriage because they are against state marriage, I usually doubt
that's the real reason they're against it... it's a lot easier to
be against something that doesn't really exist yet - like gay
marriage - than to passionately argue against state marriage, which
is something I'm sure that people against gay marriage don't
regularly do.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Anyway, I'm gay, and I'm a libertarian, and I'm all for
marriage.
I wonder what would happen if the state were to roll back all
marriages to merely civil unions. That would separate the
church/state conflict and annul the entire argument of gay-marriage
opponents - except for the bigots who are against civil unions as
well.
Lord Jubjub|6.14.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Uh, Dan, marriage licensing (by definition) is state intrusion into a person's life.
Episiarch|6.14.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Dan, many libertarians are against state-defined
marriage. If "marriage" were just a contract, then anybody, gays
included, could participate, and all types of relationships could
be carefully delineated in the contracts. This could even include
three-or-more person relationships, covens, anything.
However, since it is highly unlikely that the state will get out of
the marriage business, the next best option is legalizing gay
marriage for equal treatment under the (stupid) law.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
ed|6.14.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Enforcing contractual law is a legitimate function of government, he who cannot be named.
|6.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Since the Massachusetts State Constitution requires equal rights
as far as marriage is concerned according to the SJC, who like
State Supreme Courts everywhere, they decide on any Constitutional
disputes that are brought before them, as this was.
The opponents of Gay Marriage are just having to do what anyone
trying to make a Constitutional change has to do, get at least
25%(50 out of 200) of the State Legislature to vote in two
consecutive sessions to put it on the ballot. Last year they
succeeded with 62. The problem is since then, in actual practice,
people are not finding any problems with letting Gays marrying. It
didn't effect my marriage or my life in the least, the society did
not collapse and hellfire did not fall upon us, so the opponents
have been losing support.
In today's vote, the opponents came up short. They could only
muster 45 votes thus defeating any attempts to change the
Massachusetts Constitution on this until 2012.
It sounds like Democracy to me. And we did start this country
remember, I think we know how to do it as well as anyone, thank
you.
Roz|6.14.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Not gay...support the gay marriage thing
The only reason's gay's want these type of "special protections" is
b-cause they are "especially" targeted by bigots, religious people,
nosy bodies, etc.
|6.14.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Jill wants to marry Sue. Joe wants to marry sue. The state will license Joe to do what it forbids Jill from doing, and it discriminates solely on the basis of gender. No way that isn't a violation of equal protection.
|6.14.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Dan, many libertarians are against state-defined marriage.
If "marriage" were just a contract, then anybody, gays included,
could participate, and all types of relationships could be
carefully delineated in the contracts. This could even include
three-or-more person relationships, covens, anything.
People can already do that. I know gay couples who consider
themselves married.
|6.14.07 @ 2:46PM|#
The state will license Joe to do what it forbids Jill from
doing, and it discriminates solely on the basis of gender. No way
that isn't a violation of equal protection.
In a state with Civil Unions, how would it be a violation to get
two identical legal statuses with different names?
|6.14.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Considering yourself married doesn't help collect on the life insurance policy, doesn't let you make the big decisions at the hospital bedside, and nixes any semblance of intestate justice, just to name a few. What's the deal, your brain on vacation today?
bourgeois cowboy|6.14.07 @ 2:50PM|#
"People can already do that. I know gay couples who consider
themselves married."
That's still not a solution to the real problem at hand here, which
is that the government is discriminating against homosexuals when
it comes to the legal status of marriage.
Yeah, you don't need government approval to get married personally,
but you do need it to get married legally.
|6.14.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Shouldn't libertarians be against gay marriage, considering
that legalizing it will increase the scope of government, who has
no buisiness regulating private relationships in the first
place?
By George, I think he's got it!
Seriously, that's correct as far as I'm concerned. I mean, not so
much of the increasing the scope of government part as the part
where if we didn't have taxes and all that, it wouldn't matter if
you were married or not. I guess the only legal thing I can think
of for it to matter is with visiting rights, eligibility of
insurance benefits, and authority to make decisions on the others
behalf in the case of emergency. I'm not a lawyer though, so I'm
not entirely sure how those situations would pan out without a
marriage institution entirely.
|6.14.07 @ 2:55PM|#
I consider myself married to Jessica Alba. Sometimes twice a day if I'm feeling rambunctious.
|6.14.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Shouldn't libertarians be against gay marriage, considering
that legalizing it will increase the scope of government, who has
no buisiness regulating private relationships in the first place?
... People can already do that. I know gay couples who consider
themselves married.
I like this Dan - honest questions, albeit dim witted. Snarky Dan;
I'd like to punch in the crotch.
Even though allowing homos equal protection under the law would
increase the scope of government, this is the kind of government
libertarians grudgingly accept. Now, if or not the kinds of perks
the state confers on married folks are appropriate is another
matter. But as long as the heteros get them, so should everyone
else.
ornerycat|6.14.07 @ 2:59PM|#
I guess the only legal thing I can think of for it to matter
is with visiting rights, eligibility of insurance benefits, and
authority to make decisions on the others behalf in the case of
emergency. I'm not a lawyer though
Isn't this what documents such as Powers of Attorney and Wills
ought to cover? I'm no lawyer either, so I don't know how much of
your ass you can cover w/out the marriage license.
|6.14.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Dan, many libertarians are against state-defined marriage. If "marriage" were just a contract, then anybody, gays included, could participate, and all types of relationships could be carefully delineated in the contracts. This could even include three-or-more person relationships, covens, anything.
People can already do that. I know gay couples who consider themselves married.
Considering themselves married and actually being
conferred the recognition of such by the state are two completely
different things. A lesbian couple I know recently discovered that
if you are not condoned by the state to be "married" it is very
difficult(read impossible) to visit your sick partner in the ICU
ward of a hospital. Despite a living will, "Family only" doesn't
apply to a couple who has been together for over a decade but is
not recognized as being "married".
I think bourgeoiscowboy said it best:
"Of course, one might be against state marriage altogether, but ...
state marriage isn't going anywhere."
|6.14.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Gather round while I preach on the correct libertarian position
on marriage.
As fas as the state is concerned. Marriage is a special contract
between two people. It comes with a package of rights, privileges,
and responsibilities. It is an abomination that the state has
claimed the power to aprove and sanction such partnerships by
issuing licenses. However, it is entirely appropriate for the state
to recognize the legal status of such unions. Therefore, in a
libertarian world the state would register, not license,
marriage. A couple wishing to, receive and be bound by, the package
of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that is marriage, would
register with the state, much as you register your vehicles.
|6.14.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Fair enough on the legal marriage vs. "considered" married
issue. I concede the point.
It does bring up another question, however. If the state got out of
the marriage business altogether, who would be allowed to
visit you in the ICU and make decisions on your behalf?
And before you answer "the people you contract with do be allowed
to do so", how is the hospital going to know who that is?
|6.14.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Odd argument: Seven months ago Massachusetts voters had the
chance to elect a legislature and governor who would have opposed
gay marriage or supported a vote on the ban. They chose to elect a
bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats.
Dave, you sound like Dan T. The fact that a majority of the
legislature takes a certain position does not necessarily mean that
the people who elected them feel the same way. Perhaps the voters
thought other issues were more important when they were voting for
a representative.
Also, keep in mind that the legislature didn't legalize gay
marriage on its own, it was forced to do so by the courts. So,
since a majority of the legislature previously didn't want to
legalize gay marriage, does that mean that MA voters didn't want
gay marriage before, but want it now?
|6.14.07 @ 3:11PM|#
People can already do that. I know gay couples who consider
themselves married.
Yes, but what they consider themselves probably doesn't help when
they want to add their spouse to their employee paid health
insurance.
Right now, in order to enjoy the full benifits of marrage, you need
to get a legal document from the state to say that you are married.
Now, I would prefer the government to not issue those legal
documents, and completly eliminate any legal basis for marrage.
That would be the libertarian choice. But so long as we need this
government piece of paper to fully exercise certain rights, denying
that piece of paper to gay people unfairly discriminates against
them... understand?
Look, if gay people didn't pay any taxes, then maybe you could
argue they are less deserving of a marrage licence. But so long as
they are having half their income stolen at gunpoint, just like the
rest of us... they deserve a crappy piece of paper that says they
are married, just like the rest of us.
|6.14.07 @ 3:12PM|#
And before you answer "the people you contract with do be
allowed to do so", how is the hospital going to know who that
is?
For that matter, how is the hospital going to know who you're
really married to? I believe if you're heterosexual, they just take
your word for it. Or do you have to show your marriage
license?
Anyone have insight into this?
|6.14.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Marriage is a special contract between two
people.
So is a Civil Union. In fact, it's an identical contract, except
for the title.
I will never understand why certain members of the gay lobby feel
that it is a worthwhile political exercise to fight for the word
"Marriage", as for example they continue to do in CT years after
the establishment of Civil Unions.
|6.14.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Yes, but what they consider themselves probably doesn't help
when they want to add their spouse to their employee paid health
insurance.
This is interesting because I Do receive my husband's health
insurance, and we don't have a marriage license. Of course, we're
heterosexual; I'm not sure the company would treat gay couples with
as much validity.
|6.14.07 @ 3:16PM|#
So is a Civil Union. In fact, it's an identical contract,
except for the title.
No, it's not. A civil union only gives state-level rights, while
civil marriage gives a host of federal-level rights (or it would,
if said rights weren't being denied by DOMA).
|6.14.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Dave, you sound like Dan T. The fact that a majority of the
legislature takes a certain position does not necessarily mean that
the people who elected them feel the same way. Perhaps the voters
thought other issues were more important when they were voting for
a representative.
At the risk of sounding like myself, you're correct that the
majority of people may not necessarily hold the same views as their
elected representatives.
But that's sort of irrelevant - the elected representatives are the
people whom the majority entrusted to decide policy issues on their
behalf.
So it's fair to either say that the people of Mass. are in support
of gay marriage or they are in support of leaders who are in
support of it. To me, that's more or less the same thing.
|6.14.07 @ 3:20PM|#
How old is the 'updated' statement from Mitt? He may have changed his mind by now.
|6.14.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Dan T. | June 14, 2007, 3:08pm | #
Fair enough on the legal marriage vs. "considered" married issue.
I concede the point.
Just wondering...has this ever happened before? If not, some sort
of award / celebration is deserved...:)
|6.14.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Lamar,
Mitt has updated his position. He now believes that all gay people
should be put in double Gitmo.
|6.14.07 @ 3:28PM|#
*Marching bands start playing*
*children laugh playing ball in the street*
*Old men have a toast to Dan T. in the local Irish pub*
|6.14.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Just wondering...has this ever happened before? If not, some
sort of award / celebration is deserved...:)
I've done it a few times, actually.
Not often, though! :)
|6.14.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I'm sure I will get pigeon-holed into some egregious category for this, but what the hell....Dan, I think you are a hoot. I get a giggle everyday over at least one thing you spew (especially the "social contract" bit). That shit is precious.
|6.14.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I trust Mitt Romney will support my efforts to place on the
ballot proposals to forbid Republicans from owning land, and
Mormons from holding public office.
Look, I'm just saying, the people should have the right to
vote.
bourgeois cowboy|6.14.07 @ 3:34PM|#
"I will never understand why certain members of the gay lobby
feel that it is a worthwhile political exercise to fight for the
word "Marriage", as for example they continue to do in CT years
after the establishment of Civil Unions."
Assuming that this is even correct (which it's not), how exactly
can you justify the idea that separate is equal? Didn't we learn
that this was untrue during the original Civil Rights
movement?
To keep gay marriage under a separate title is still
stigmatization, however you choose to look at it.
I'm fine with civil unions, really - baby steps and all. But
ultimately, if one right - the right to MARRIAGE - is extended to
heterosexuals, I think it should be extended to homosexuals as
well, lest society condones and promotes separation and
stigmatization.
VM|6.14.07 @ 3:39PM|#
if one right - the right to MARRIAGE - is extended to
heterosexuals, I think it should be extended to homosexuals as
well, lest society condones and promotes separation and
stigmatization.
YES!!!!!!!
(sadly people do indeed want such separation and stigmatization.
They don't understand what love is.)
|6.14.07 @ 3:40PM|#
(or it would, if said rights weren't being denied by
DOMA)
Yes but they are being denied. Such is the way of Federalism. So
it's silly to say they aren't equivalent except for the fact that
they are.
the right to MARRIAGE
There is no right to marriage. There's a right to a package of
legal rights that a couple is entitled to when they are married.
When this same package is available to same sex as well as opposite
sex couples, where is the issue?
|6.14.07 @ 3:40PM|#
crimethink,
"So, since a majority of the legislature previously didn't want to
legalize gay marriage, does that mean that MA voters didn't want
gay marriage before, but want it now?"
Funny you should bring that up. For about six years in the late
90s/early 00s, a bill was introduced in both houses of the
Massachusetts legislature to create Civil Unions. For most of those
years, a majority of both houses actually signed on as
co-sponsors.
The Senate passed the bill easily every single year. However, the
conservative Democrats who controlled the House (Speaker Tom
Finneran, Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers) killed the bill in
committee, refusing to let it even come to a committe vote,
nevermind a floor vote.
You know what the "we just want to hear the voice of the people"
jerks were doing during that time? Slapping Tom Finnerand and John
Rogers on the back, thanking them for protecting traditional
marriage, and writing checks to their campaign funds.
So no, there isn't even a pro-democracy reason to side with the
homophobes over my state's gay marriage law.
|6.14.07 @ 3:48PM|#
When this same package is available to same sex as well as
opposite sex couples, where is the issue?
So why not call it "marriage" then? If it the same why use a
different phrase to describe it?
|6.14.07 @ 3:50PM|#
I agree with bourgeois cowboy when he writes, "To keep gay
marriage under a separate title is still stigmatization, however
you choose to look at it." I support gay marriage, and think it is
better than civil unions, even when they provide for all of the
same rights, for exactly that reason. It is nothing more than
petty, neanderthal prejudice to stigmatize homosexuals like
that.
However, I disagree with the Goodrich ruling, insofar as it defined
this stigmatization as a violation of the equal protection clause -
even though I agree with Brown vs. Board in its renunciation of
seperate-but-equal.
In the case of Brown, black and white kids really were kept
seperate. They were sent to different schools, meaning they grew up
in different social circles. When they grew up, they had different
sets of social and professional contacts, which led to unequal
opportunities. Even if the schools were of equal quality, they
really weren't providing the kids with equal protections and
benefits.
That's not the case with calling gay people's marriages "civil
unions" in the lawbooks. Union-ed gay couples would have exactly
the same opportunities, meet the same people, have the same
contacts, and live the same lives than if their marriages were
referred to by the correct term.
In the Goodrich decision, the justification for why civil unions
were inferior was defined as "some people will feel differently
about a gay couple if their union is called a civil union instead
of a marriage."
Well, I don't think that cuts it. Equal opportunity, equal
membership in society, those are protections under the law. They
way people feel about you? That's not protection under the
law.
I don't think such stigmatization serves any good purpose, and I do
support gay marriage over civil unions, but I disagree with the
decision on that specific question. I think it would have been
better law, if not better politics, for the SJC to issue a
Vermont-style ruling.
|6.14.07 @ 3:51PM|#
If libs really believe the majority want gay marriage, then why not put it on the ballot? Wouldn't that be a political victory for them? Is gay marriage only palatable to libs when it's part of a Democrats larger platform?
|6.14.07 @ 3:52PM|#
So why not call it "marriage" then? If it the same why use a
different phrase to describe it?
Because people are homophobes.
I'm not saying that it's not silly to have Civil Unions just to
"preserve marriage". I'm saying that I don't see why certain
members of the gay lobby think that it's worthwhile
politically to fight for "Marriage" when a Civil Union
option has been established.
And I'm not buying this "Oh my, I'm stigmatized!" argument
either.
|6.14.07 @ 3:59PM|#
If libs really believe the majority want gay marriage, then why
not put it on the ballot?"
1. Because a furious, highly motivated minority is much more likely
to turn out at the polls than a less-motivated majority.
2. Because putting people's civil liberties up for a vote is a
disgusting violation of the principles of a liberal society, no
matter how the vote turns out.
|6.14.07 @ 4:01PM|#
The question begs: If you can get all the benefits of marriage without the state recognizing the name of it, can't YOU still call your life parter your "husband" or "wife" or whatever? Only a serious asshole who already hates you would be like "no, he's not your husband, he's your 'life partner.'"
dhex|6.14.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"Marriage is a special contract between two people."
it's an extended liability partnership in many states, if not all
of them.
in some ways it is incredibly fucked up.
SugarFree|6.14.07 @ 4:04PM|#
VM,
I don't understand this human emotion you call "love."
Anyway, while I'll never understand the pure hatred the gay
marriage issue engenders on the "anti" side, it does have one
useful function. It's a fine litmus test for loonies. Against gay
marriage? Boom, no need to speak with you any longer. Gay marriage
is an expansion of human rights* that has virtually no
externalities to society. Opposing it is nothing but rank
bigotry.
*Yes, yes... government doesn't grant rights, I know... work with
me here, people.
Ellie|6.14.07 @ 4:09PM|#
I will never understand why certain members of the gay lobby
feel that it is a worthwhile political exercise to fight for the
word "Marriage",
Because when I meet the person that I love and want to spend the
rest of my life with as a partner in a government sanctioned
contract, it shouldn't have a different name if they have a pee-pee
or a hoo-hah, considering that the contract is the same in every
other way.
Joe makes good arguments about the legal right to have it called
marriage, but I think the feeling and the movement is valid.
Suppose, for example, the government started calling female
military members "almost-soldiers" or adopted kids "non-biological
children" or such. "Oh, but you have the same rights!" Yes, but if
it's not the same name, there's a pretty strong implication that
it's not the same thing, and worse, that it's a second-class, "You
gays should be happy with what we gave you, so stop whining"
substitute. Sure, it's all feeling and perception. That's still
worth fighting for.
Hayekian Dreamer|6.14.07 @ 4:13PM|#
MP - "There is no right to marriage. There's a right to a
package of legal rights that a couple is entitled to when they are
married. When this same package is available to same sex as well as
opposite sex couples, where is the issue?"
According to the Supreme Court: Marriage is one of the "basic
civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and
survival.
|6.14.07 @ 4:16PM|#
there's a pretty strong implication that it's not the same
thing, and worse, that it's a second-class
And "African-American" is not? I mean, we're all Americans, right?
Don't arbitrary racial classifications (and yes, they are entirely
arbitrary) make for second-class citizens?
Oh...that's right...they don't...because they are treated the same.
The are just classified differently.
Of course, you can argue that labeling someone as an
African-American makes them feel bad (and it actually might,
depending on their ancestry). But last I checked, Equal Protection
wasn't all about making us all shiny happy people holding
hands.
VM|6.14.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Sugar Free: that's for sure.
Between pro torture people and those who fear gay marriage (or
those who can't understand LOVE) or get icked out, we have a coupla
strong tests.
What Ellie said.
|6.14.07 @ 4:17PM|#
basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival.
Yeah...yet another Loving lover...too bad they were talking about
same sex marriage.
|6.14.07 @ 4:18PM|#
What I want to know is, when will a gay couple that married in
MA and moved to another state file its own (pardon the term) "Dred
Scott case"? It seems to me open-and-shut that states have an
absolute obligation, imposed directly by the Constitution, to
recognize each other's marriages, and therefore Congress's attempt
to remove that obligation by passing the Defense of Marriage Act is
null and void on its face.
Maybe the ACLU can redeem its tattered pro-liberty credentials by
representing the plaintiffs in such a case.
|6.14.07 @ 4:19PM|#
'Only a serious asshole...'
I'm going to stop you right there, Reinmoose. This is Massachusetts
we're talking about.
Ellie, I think the feeling and movement is valid, too. I hope
there's no confusion about that - I'm on the same side of the
political question.
As far as my legal quibble - y'know, I can live with it. Just
fine.
|6.14.07 @ 4:23PM|#
I also want to make it clear that I am in support of full
marriage rights for homosexuals. I don't mean to come across
otherwise.
Yes.. Mass-holes :)
Ditto on the loony litmus tests
|6.14.07 @ 4:23PM|#
MP,
"The are just classified differently."
No, they are not. "African-American" is a term applied to a
category of "Americans." The equivalent term for gay people's legal
unions would be "gay marriages" - that is, a type of marriage - not
"civil union" - that is, something that is not a marriage.
Robert|6.14.07 @ 4:39PM|#
If the state got out of the marriage business altogether,
who would be allowed to visit you in the ICU and make decisions on
your behalf?
And before you answer "the people you contract with do be allowed
to do so", how is the hospital going to know who that
is?
Finally I see someone besides me who doesn't forget the judiciary
fx of gov't, and who therefore realizes gov't can't duck the
question of deciding who's married.
Since the meanings of words in common use are adopted by custom,
custom alone should direct the court in deciding whether the term
"family" or "spouse" in someone's legal document (such as a
hospital's rules regarding visitors) includes same sex couples --
not legislation, not considerations of "equal rights", etc. What
did the hospital mean when they put that rule into effect?
Atempts by sovereigns to redefine the meaning of words which are
not the sovereign's terms of art are tyranny.
|6.14.07 @ 4:40PM|#
2. Because putting people's civil liberties up for a vote is
a disgusting violation of the principles of a liberal society, no
matter how the vote turns out.
Supposed civil liberties that have been on the books for a few
months in one state, you mean. So, because you finally found one
court that agrees with you on this issue, its ruling cannot be
questioned.
|6.14.07 @ 4:42PM|#
The equivalent term for gay people's legal unions would be
"gay marriages"
"civil union" and "marriage" are both subsets of "partnership
contracts".
However you want to define the set/subset relationships, "Civil
Union" is a classification that carries equivalent legal
protection.
|6.14.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Also, I find it interesting that several of the same people who
were dissing the US Flag as being "just a symbol" on the other
thread, are here saying that homosexuals civil liberties are being
violated if you don't let them use the word "marriage" to refer to
their relationships.
Just an observation.
Hayekian Dreamer|6.14.07 @ 4:47PM|#
MP - What would your reaction be if say California voted (by referendum) to allow gay unions to be called Marriage but defined Heterosexual unions as "civil unions"
|6.14.07 @ 4:50PM|#
What would your reaction be if say California voted (by
referendum) to allow gay unions to be called Marriage but defined
Heterosexual unions as "civil unions"
I wouldn't care if they changed the word "Marriage" to be
"PreDivorce"
|6.14.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Ruling smuling crimethink.
Marriage is a civil right, and it was a civil right long before the
Massachusetts SJC got around to recognizing it, or that it applied
to gay people, too.
|6.14.07 @ 4:54PM|#
MP,
"However you want to define the set/subset relationships, "Civil
Union" is a classification that carries equivalent legal
protection."
I agree, but we weren't talking about their legal protection. We
were talking about the semiotics of the terms "African-American,"
"American," "marriage," and "civil union."
I'm totally with you on the legal-protection angle - I wrote that
above, and you yepped me. You brought up a different point, about
the meaning of the words.
|6.14.07 @ 5:00PM|#
However you want to define the set/subset relationships, "Civil Union" is a classification that carries equivalent legal protection.
Someone familiar with the matter help me out here: Do civil unions
extend fifth amendment protections the way marriages do? That is,
back when I was married, I couldn't be compelled to testify against
my wife. Does the same thing hold for parties to a civil union?
|6.14.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Vermont
Civil Union FAQ
laws relating to immunity from compelled testimony and the
marital communication privilege;
Google is your friend.
|6.14.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Google is your friend.
Touché. I feel compelled to point out, though, that that section is
titled, "Other laws that may apply to parties to a civil
union" [emphasis added].
|6.14.07 @ 5:27PM|#
joe,
So, now having a semantically pleasing term for your relationship
is a civil right?
Forget about your side devaluing marriage. Now you're devaluing
civil rights.
|6.14.07 @ 5:30PM|#
"Goin' to the chapel / And I'm gonna get civilly unioned" doesn't flow very well.
Rhywun|6.14.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Forget about your side devaluing marriage.
When I someday get separate-but-equally civil-unioned, I promise to
value your marriage just as much as you value it yourself!
Another Phil|6.14.07 @ 5:39PM|#
I'll probably lose my libertarian decoder ring for this, but I
see problems with the state getting out of the marriage business
completely. Unfortunately, many people are irresponsible and will
not enter into the necessary formal contracts. A marriage contract
provides a legal framework for resolving inheritance disputes in
the absence of a will. In the absence of a formal power of
attorney, it provides clear rules in the event a person becomes
unable to make decisions. It provides a framework for parental
rights.
I'm sure there are more, but this is what I can think of right
now.
|6.14.07 @ 5:45PM|#
I thought that the purpose of government santioned marriage was
to create little future taxpayers.
Maybe it should be policy that only child bearing people should be
able to be married. Heterosexual couples who can't or won't make
with zee babymaking will just have to give up being married. If you
can't concieve, you must co-habitate.
Seriously, I would be on board with government sanctioned gay
marriage, if and only if the gays have to go through the same hell
when they get a divorce, including alimony, marriage counseling and
community property division.
SugarFree|6.14.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Hark! What is that in the distance?
Forget about your side devaluing marriage.
Yes it is! It's the dulcet trill of the North American
purple-throated bigot!
Please, sweet bird, please enumerate the externalities that gay
marriage will lard onto your narrow shoulders. Will you no longer
be able to get it up for your wife when gays can marry? Will you
have no way to keep the dread homosexuals from turning your lawn
into a leather club on Friday nights? Will you have to learn how to
dance?
Go back to your church steeple, sweet bird, and nest in your
precious Bible.
|6.14.07 @ 5:54PM|#
I'll probably lose my libertarian decoder ring for this, but
I see problems with the state getting out of the marriage business
completely.
Nobody's asking the state to get out of the mutual contract
enforcement business.
Another Phil|6.14.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Nobody's asking the state to get out of the mutual contract
enforcement business.
That wasn't my point. My point was that there will be disputes that
have to be resolved somehow. e.g. Who is the executor of a
person's estate in the absence of a will?
CLS|6.14.07 @ 6:09PM|#
"Shouldn't libertarians be against gay marriage, considering
that legalizing it will increase the scope of government, who has
no buisiness regulating private relationships in the first
place?"
Got it? No way. What if the Klan proposes banning blacks from areas
where the state has no business being, like government schools,
public sidewalks and roads, and denying them access to the post
office, stripping just blacks of social security, and every other
program we consider bad. By this logic we would have to praise them
for proposing a giant leap forward for liberty! Absurd. Get the
state out for sure. Until that happens access must be equal.
By the way I found it bizarre that Romney is defending traditional
marriage. But whose tradition? His great grandfather had five
wives, his great-great grandfather had 12. His father was born in a
polygamist community in Mexico. I put this information up on
freestudents dot blogspot dot com.
|6.14.07 @ 6:10PM|#
VM, I wouldn't go to grylliade for a while if I were you. They know now who led the miserable dickhead to their hideout.
|6.14.07 @ 6:22PM|#
crimethink,
"So, now having a semantically pleasing term for your relationship
is a civil right?"
I am surrounded by idiots today! NO, YOU BLEATING MORON, I WROTE
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!!! READ MY COMMENT AT 3:50!!! READ IS, YOU
JIBBERING IMBECILE!!!
Jesus effing Christ, what the hell?!?
|6.14.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Not only do I have to put up with pinheads reading shit I never
wrote into my comments, I have to put up with them reading a very
detailed, reasoned elucidation of my beliefs and chiding me for
arguing exactly the opposite the position!
It's sort of a chicken-egg situation: does disagreeing with me
about politics make on a moron, or do morons just disagree with me
about politics?
VM|6.14.07 @ 6:27PM|#
OMG! joe - wtf.
Your 6:25 comment - why the hell are you speaking out against
puppies? That's totally not fair.
|6.14.07 @ 6:32PM|#
joe,
Like Nietzche said, contend not with morons lest you become a
moron.
Sorry, I was coming to the discussion late as I was otherwise
occupied, so I was going off a later post where you seemed to be
taking a different stand.
|6.14.07 @ 6:34PM|#
That's ok.
Got a little carried away there.
Ahem, "I belive you may have misunderstood my position. My post at
3:50 addresses the very issue you raise, If you'd be so
kind..."
Andy|6.14.07 @ 6:34PM|#
I'm not saying that it's not silly to have Civil Unions just
to "preserve marriage". I'm saying that I don't see why certain
members of the gay lobby think that it's worthwhile politically to
fight for "Marriage" when a Civil Union option has been
established.
"Gay lobby" huh? Using the same logic, if in some state only
Caucasians were allowed to get married while Blacks were only
allowed to have Civil Unions, you think the "black lobby" should
just accept that? Got to love the "separate but equal"
nonsense.
|6.14.07 @ 6:41PM|#
"I'm saying that I don't see why certain members of the gay
lobby think that it's worthwhile politically to fight for
"Marriage" when a Civil Union option has been established."
Maybe they're hoping that society-wide acceptance of their humanity
and equality will lead to fewer of them being fired from jobs,
denied housing, and having their heads stomped in by hooligans.
|6.14.07 @ 6:54PM|#
But, joe, can society-wide acceptance be brought about by legislation or court order?
|6.14.07 @ 7:09PM|#
If semantics is the only issue, then why not let the gays and other undesirables use the term "marriage" and the uptight homophobes can pick some new title to describe their pure, higher authority approved unions. Maybe something like Christ Unions would work, then it would be impossible for the large numbers of gays, secular and childless couples to defile the sanctity of the real bond between straight, god fearing, procreating men and women.
|6.14.07 @ 7:25PM|#
crimethink,
"But, joe, can society-wide acceptance be brought about by
legislation or court order?"
It depends on what the legislation or court order says. I'd say
that the experience that millions of white Americans had with
having black classmates throughout their eductions certainly did
change white America's mind about black people - and that came
about through a court order.
Let's put it this way - the people who desperately want gay people
to remain despised, second-class citizens are quite explicit in
their assertions that calling gay unions "marriages" will lead to
greater acceptance of gay people.
|6.14.07 @ 7:27PM|#
"Maybe something like Christ Unions would work"
As a married man, I have a proposal: "Jesus-This-Sucks."
Grotius|6.14.07 @ 7:31PM|#
If the vast majority of Mass. voters were all that hot and bothered about gay marriage they would in fact elect a legislature devoted to sending the issue to the people. Note that the threshold here ain't very high either - all the anti-gay marriage folks need is fifty votes in the state legislature (out of what, ~200 legislators). Thus they can't even muster 1/4 of the votes of that body (indeed, they lost by six votes this time).
highnumber|6.14.07 @ 9:00PM|#
Damn. I wasn't paying attention today. Gay-bashing. How quaint.
Anyone up for a lynching later, then?
No, no, no, I'm being a jerk.
Seriouser suggestion: How about you let the gays marry, but a bell
rings at sundown and then they have to start acting like they're
not married? Sounds so fair to me. Tell you what - I'll throw in
separate water fountains for 'em, too. Deal?
|6.14.07 @ 9:26PM|#
"How about you let the gays marry, but a bell rings at sundown
and then they have to start acting like they're not married?"
Man, sometimes they just write themselves...
|6.14.07 @ 10:01PM|#
How about you let the gays marry, but a bell rings at
sundown and then they have to start acting like they're not
married?
I remember a Looney Tunes cartoon like that, except with a a
sheepdog and a wolf.
|6.14.07 @ 11:09PM|#
joe wrote "In the Goodrich decision, the justification for why
civil unions were inferior was defined as "some people will feel
differently about a gay couple if their union is called a civil
union instead of a marriage.""
I imagine this could set up situations of willful hairsplitting
where a bigoted person will say, for example, "I'm sorry, the rules
say 'married couple', not 'civil unioned' so you can't..." and thus
discriminate.
It'd be wrong, and probably actionable, but the distinction in
terminology enhances the potential for such situations. Which is
kinda silly, if the idea is for the underlying concept to be the
same.
Basically, if you want the new thing to fit into all circumstances
where the old thing is applied, it's best to call it the same
thing. Especially when some elements of society are likely to be
resistant to the change.
|6.14.07 @ 11:11PM|#
"Grotius wrote: Thus they can't even muster 1/4 of the votes of
that body (indeed, they lost by six votes this time)."
Not only that, this whole issue just came up in January, too. And
nine people who voted 'yes' then changed their votes to 'no' this
time.
|6.14.07 @ 11:22PM|#
crimethink wrote: "So, because you finally found one court that
agrees with you on this issue, its ruling cannot be
questioned."
Oh, it's been questioned. And protested. And lobbied against.
It's just that they lost. LOST Because it
is an unpopular position they hold, which is growing even
less popular by the day.
The antis gave it their best shot, again and again, and this time
they couldn't scare up 50 votes out of 200. That there is what you
call a lost cause.
|6.14.07 @ 11:27PM|#
John David Galt wrote:" It seems to me open-and-shut that states
have an absolute obligation, imposed directly by the Constitution,
to recognize each other's marriages, and therefore Congress's
attempt to remove that obligation by passing the Defense of
Marriage Act is null and void on its face."
Um, why do you assume that? Many kinds of permit and license are
not honored across state borders. Why should a marriage license
inherently be different than a gun license, or a license to
practice medicine?
Marriages are currently honored across state lines because that's
the rational thing to do given human travel. But states don't have
to do the rational thing. Antipathy towards gay marriage is
eminently not rational, so there's no reason to think states will
honor gay marriages from other states.
|6.14.07 @ 11:30PM|#
bjalder wrote: "If libs really believe the majority want gay
marriage, then why not put it on the ballot? Wouldn't that be a
political victory for them? "
Anything to avoid admitting the depth of the failure of the
anti-gay faction.
It's like they keep trying to believe MA is some backwater state of
Bible-thumpers like Florida or something.
SFG|6.15.07 @ 7:01AM|#
Not necessarily. Boston and its suburbs may be liberal as hell but the rest of Massachusetts is not that left-wing. There's no guarantee gay marriage would pass a plebisicite.
Ellie|6.15.07 @ 9:12AM|#
And "African-American" is not? I mean, we're all Americans,
right? Don't arbitrary racial classifications (and yes, they are
entirely arbitrary) make for second-class citizens?
If the majority of Black people wanted to be called "Americans"
like everybody else, but the government insisted that they be
called "African-Americans" in official documents, then yeah, I
think that's a pretty douchey thing to do, and worth fighting
against.
|6.15.07 @ 5:51PM|#
John David Galt (If that IS your real name),
There is a long-recognized "Public Policy Exception" to the Full
Faith and Credit Clause to the Constitution. If another state's
contracts violate your state's stated public policy, it need not
recognize the contract.
Back in the Jim Crow days, mixed-race couples who got married up
north would sometimes sue to get the southern state they moved to
to recognize their marriage, and lose.
So states that have passed thos odious "No Fags" amendments to
their marriage laws have a very strong precedent to point to if
they are challenged.
And yes, I know that Loving vs. Virginia overturned miscengenation
laws. It did not overturn the Public Policy Exception.
Alan \"not Milton\" Augustson|6.16.07 @ 8:21PM|#
Mitt may want to brace himself. I fully intend to take things a
step further.
Under my administration, a same-sex marriage or civil union
performed in any State, shall be recognized in all fifty.
If an individual State doesn't wish to perform same-sex unions,
that's their business. But under the Constitution, no State can
dictate policy to any other -- including the nullification of its
marriages.
|6.19.07 @ 2:09AM|#
Odd argument: Seven months ago Massachusetts voters had the
chance to elect a legislature and governor who would have opposed
gay marriage or supported a vote on the ban. They chose to elect a
bunch of pro-gay marriage Democrats.
That's an odd argument, ok! I'm pro-choice, but I vote for a lot of
pro-life candidates. Why do I do that? Because pro-life candidates
are frequently the same ones that favor lower taxes, and taxes are
a higher priority issue for me than abortion. But if there was a
referendum on whether abortion should be legal or not, I'd vote to
keep it legal despite that position being contrary to the one held
by my preferred candidates.
Politicians and parties are package deals; you don't get a
line-item veto. That's the object of a referendum, to create an
opportunity to provide that veto. To say that voters prefer a
specific policy because they happened to elect a majority of
politicians that support it is silly. It may only demonstrate that
the issue wasn't their primary consideration.
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