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
Gay Marriage Legal in Maine
Today Maine became
the fourth fifth state to
legalize same-sex marriage (not counting California, where a
2008 state Supreme Court ruling with that effect was overturned by
a voter-approved constitutional amendment last fall). Gov. John
Baldacci signed a bill allowing gay couples to marry less than
an hour after the state legislature passed it, saying, "I have come
to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal
protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to
civil marriage." The other states where same-sex marriage
is or will soon be legal are Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. New Hampshire is
expected to follow suit soon, which would make it the second
state to allow gay marriage through legislation, as opposed to a
court decision.
Last month I explained why I prefer the legislative approach. Last week I noted that public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of same-sex marriage. Other Reason coverage of gay marriage here.
SpongePaul|5.6.09 @ 3:35PM|#
hey if they want to be misrable, i say we let em, lol. but good for maine and good for equal rights
Elemenope|5.6.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Bravo to Maine for doing the right thing the right
way.
Let me ask you, was Brown v. Board bad law?
Nikola T|5.6.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Wait, wait... The right way?! I guess you mean that they used
the legislature and not the courts, but that's not the
problem.
The problem is that the government gives special privileges to
"married" people. This debate is just a symptom of that
problem.
The "right" way would be to treat everyone as
equal. Then, you could sign a contract with anyone. Even multiple
people. Even your relatives. After all, you are just as much a big
boy as the government is.
Nikola T|5.6.09 @ 3:44PM|#
Point being, the government is doling out privileges to people. The "right" thing is not to give them to more groups of people, it's to stop giving special privileges to anyone!
Zeb|5.6.09 @ 3:52PM|#
When someone proposes to eliminate marriage as a legal concept,
I will support it. Until then, this is a good thing and the right
thing to do.
I always laugh when I hear people say "I believe that marriage is
between one man and one woman". Good for you. Your belief just
happens to be contrary to easily verified fact. There are in fact
people of the same sex who are married. This is what our governor
in NH has said on the subject. I will be surprised if he vetoes it
though.
JB|5.6.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Well, if you get rid of civil marriage and make everything a
civil union then they will be equal.
But that would be sensible and anger the far left.
|5.6.09 @ 3:58PM|#
The other states where same-sex marriage is or will soon be
legal are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. New
Hampshire is expected to follow suit soon
Wow, that's all of New England except...Rhode Island. You Rhodies
are always lagging, LMNOP. Except in prostitution, where you have
long been ahead.
Nikola T|5.6.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Marriage should be a religious thing. Let the religions figure
out who they will and won't marry.
Government has no place in defining marriage. Regardless of the
persuasions involved.
|5.6.09 @ 4:02PM|#
But that would be sensible and anger the far
left.
And the far right would have a stroke.
------
Either abolish marriage or expand it to everyone. I also don't care
about polygamy or any other dodge around the issue. The best way to
do away with the privileged status of marriage is to dilute it into
meaninglessness.
|5.6.09 @ 4:17PM|#
The "right" way would be to treat everyone as equal. Then, you
could sign a contract with anyone. Even multiple people. Even your
relatives. After all, you are just as much a big boy as the
government is.
I'd like to point out that when it comes to marrying relatives W VA
is way ahead of the game. We've been doing that for years.
|5.6.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill allowing gay couples to
marry less than an hour after the state legislature passed
it
Well that doesn't give the couples much time...
|5.6.09 @ 4:25PM|#
It's not that government shouldn't be recognizing marriages.
Marriage is a part of common law, and there's no way around it. But
that does not mean government should be passing out special
privileges to married folks.
The two major places where government does need to recognize
marriage is with regards to property ownership and court
testimonies. Other than that the private sector can handle it just
fine. It's up to the hospital to determine visitation rights, up to
the insurance company for benefits, etc, etc.
Elemenope|5.6.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Wow, that's all of New England except...Rhode Island. You
Rhodies are always lagging, LMNOP. Except in prostitution, where
you have long been ahead.
Oh I know, and I say loud and often how annoying it is to get beat
on this of all things by every other New England state.
But nobody can hold a candle to our (likely and unfortunately soon
to change) prostitution laws.
|5.6.09 @ 4:32PM|#
But nobody can hold a candle to our (likely and
unfortunately soon to change) prostitution laws.
I was wondering how you worked your way through college.
Elemenope|5.6.09 @ 4:33PM|#
No. Thanks for asking.
Well, then how do you justify the judiciary redefining terms as
being the "wrong way" to do things, since that is how
Brown was decided and the basic reasoning behind
overturning Plessy?
I mean, they made up their "integration == equality" out of whole
cloth, as separate but equal is also de jure equality, no
less the one authored and preferred by the legislature.
Elemenope|5.6.09 @ 4:33PM|#
I was wondering how you worked your way through
college.
Working at Dunkin' Donuts is kinda like prostitution, I will
admit.
|5.6.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Well, then how do you justify the judiciary redefining terms
as being the "wrong way" to do things, since that is how Brown was
decided and the basic reasoning behind overturning
Plessy?
Racial equality was already explicit in the law and just had to be
enforced, but homosexual marriage rights are only implicit under
equal protection.
That said, I have no problem with activist judges... I'll take an
expansion of liberty by hook or crook.
Jeff P|5.6.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Q: What's a girl from Maine say during sex?
A: Get off me dad, you're crushing my smokes.
Sorry, it's my only Maine joke and I don't get to tell it
much.
Maine also has a sweet scale model of the solar system.
http://www.baddaystudio.com/solarsystem.html
|5.6.09 @ 4:42PM|#
You're a smart boy, I just figured you pimped.
Pimps not allowed in RI, NutraSweet. You have to represent yourself
and do it out of your home. So LMNOP picking up johns in Dunkin'
Donuts would have been illegal, but I guess it worked for him.
|5.6.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Minor jack:
No green flag yet for the WolframAlpha Platonic search
engine that Reason teased us with
last month. Still says "Launching May 2009".
|5.6.09 @ 5:13PM|#
As a hetersexual I find this offensive. This detracts from the meaning of my divorce. Now the god damn gays can get divorced too. WTF?
Forty-Two|5.6.09 @ 5:26PM|#
JeffP,
Good pickup lines to use on Maine girls:
Nice white tooth you got there.
or
You don't sweat much for a fat girl.
|5.6.09 @ 5:30PM|#
New Jersey permits civil unions which, as a matter of decisional law, must confer all of the rights and obligations of marriage. See N.J.S.A. 37:1-31a; Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, 908 A.2d 196 (2006).
Elemenope|5.6.09 @ 5:51PM|#
Minor jack:
No green flag yet for the WolframAlpha Platonic search engine that
Reason teased us with last month. Still says "Launching May
2009".
It might have to do with Wolfram being a raving lunatic. Not that
he isn't brilliant too, but evokes in me an image of what would
happen if you crossed Steve Jobs and Nikola Tesla in some crazy
transporter accident.
Other minor jack:
Anyone else seen Caprica yet?
|5.6.09 @ 5:58PM|#
SugarFree has it at @ 4:38 pm. A court overturning court-made
precedent (separate but equal) is well within the role of the
courts.
A court enforcing the plain language of the Constitution to
overturn a statute is well within the role of the courts.
A court redefining a term such as "marriage" - not clearly within
its role at all. Much more of a legislative thing.
Redefining marriage to include gay marriage - a good thing.
Doing it via the legislature - the right way.
Unlike SugarFree, I have a problem with judges who exceed the
judicial role. A judge who can play fast and loose to expand your
freedom can play fast and loose to limit your freedom. RC'z Fifth
Iron Law:
5. Any power used for you today will be used against you
tomorrow.
hmm|5.6.09 @ 5:59PM|#
"Barack Obama was for gay marriage before he was against
it."
Starting a pool on this being uttered in 2012.
By the time the current administration gets done raping every thing
from income and estate taxes to civil liberties it won't matter who
can marry. We will all be in the same "fucked" boat. But heh at
least we will recognize another group as equal.
Elemenope|5.6.09 @ 6:32PM|#
The fifth iron law is true, and yet means little. Of course any
power used can be used by anyone for any purpose. This is as true
of legislators as the judiciary. This is the fire we play with when
we set up systems of governance.
The singular fact is that the judiciary is set up to be better
equipped to protect rights that the majority would wish to take
away than any other part of government, because it is insulated
from direct influence by that majority. The discovery and embrace
of that fact is literally the history of SCOTUS in the 20th century
in a nutshell from Carolene Products all the way to
Lopez.
Does it follow that what the courts giveth the courts can take
away? Of course. But that is no different from a legislature. The
distinction is that legislatures are more likely to do so for
appeasing the whims of the majority, whereas for whatever reason
the judiciary may, it would likely be for different ends.
|5.6.09 @ 6:35PM|#
R C Dean:
If you are implying that the language of the due process and equal
protection clauses of the 14th amendment of the federal
constitution are in any sense "plain," I will plainly, but
respectfully, suggest that you are wrong.
It can be fairly said that the the Supreme Court "redefined" the
meaning of marriage in Loving v. Virginia. Virginia, and many other
states, had defined marriage to mean the union of two people of the
opposite sex of the same race. The Court redfined that definition
of marriage, removing the "of the same race" part. I think it is no
great stretch to redefine marriage to remove the "of the opposite
sex" part, popular opinion notwithstanding.
Perhaps in a few decades, we will redefine the "two people"
part.
JB|5.6.09 @ 7:23PM|#
And the far right would have a stroke.
Some of them, but a sizable portion actually don't like the
government and don't care if it recognizes marriage. The far left
tends to seek and desire government sanction more often than the
far right.
Syd|5.6.09 @ 8:07PM|#
"New Hampshire is expected to follow suit soon, which would make
it the second state to allow gay marriage through legislation, as
opposed to a court decision."
Won't it be the third, after Vermont and Maine?
MJ|5.6.09 @ 8:27PM|#
The mental deterioration of western culture into senility and
madness continues apace. The elites no longer have confidence in
social institutions nor do they understand what the reasons those
institutions exist for.
Same sex marriage is of a piece with the opinions of the political
class which call acts of terrorism "man-made disasters", illegal
aliens "undocumented workers", and government agencies which punish
free speech "human rights commissions".
|5.6.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Good for you!!!! I always believe in equal rights. What is good for the goose is good for the geese!! Please let's support same sex rights!! "It is better to be hated for who who are than to be loved for whom you are not!"
maddy|5.6.09 @ 9:26PM|#
I am so happy that you decided to marry me and i think we should do in in MAINE!!!
Juliana bravo|5.6.09 @ 9:35PM|#
hahahah!
i love u too my lief!
and i think that's a great idea...
im a happy person because i have u!
143
Fist of Etiquette|5.7.09 @ 7:18AM|#
Government: Get out of the marriage business altogether.
People: Stopping looking to the government to validate your
love.
MJ|5.7.09 @ 7:23AM|#
"When someone proposes to eliminate marriage as a legal concept,
I will support it."
And you would be a fool to do so:
"When a libertarian radio talker calls for the state to "get out of
marriage," he is encouraging the further breakdown of the family,
the only institution that can supply the needs of children. As
Prof. Michael Novak memorably put it: The family is the original
department of health, education, and welfare.
For libertarians to call for a laissez-faire policy on marriage is
to guarantee a greater role for the federal government in a futile
attempt to stave off the disaster of family breakdown and to deal
with the predictable consequences." - Ken Blackwell
ed|5.7.09 @ 7:55AM|#
Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill...saying,"I have come to
believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection
under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil
marriage."
Why isn't a civil union "equal"? Because the word "marriage" is not
used? For some advocates of same-sex unions, it's not so much about
equality under the law as it is an attempt to force social
respectability through semantics.
robc|5.7.09 @ 9:12AM|#
When someone proposes to eliminate marriage as a legal
concept, I will support it.
I proposed it 20+ years ago.
robc|5.7.09 @ 9:16AM|#
RC,
Redefining marriage to include gay marriage - a good thing.
Doing it via the legislature - the right way.
I would normally agree, but "marriage" isnt a legal term, its a
religious term, and the legislature has no power to redefine the
term.
robc|5.7.09 @ 9:18AM|#
MJ,
Does Blackwell explain how eliminating marriage as a legal concept
eliminates marriage? Churches and etc would still be issueing
them.
You and Blackwell are making the same mistake that Paine pointed
out in Common Sense - society and government are two different
things, not the same.
|5.7.09 @ 10:07AM|#
The fifth iron law is true, and yet means little.
Au contraire. It is a cautionary law, that if observed would save
us much grief, by putting the lie to the widely held belief that
the problem is that we don't have "the right people" in
charge.
It can be fairly said that the the Supreme Court "redefined"
the meaning of marriage in Loving v. Virginia. Virginia, and many
other states, had defined marriage to mean the union of two people
of the opposite sex of the same race.
I don't think so. Marriage at the time meant a union of two people
of the opposite sex. The statute at issue added a restriction that
barred inter-racial marriage. That restriction did not exist
outside the statute, and could not fairly be said to be part of the
definition of marriage. The Loving Court did not redefine
marriage when it struck down the state bar on interracial
marriage.
I would normally agree, but "marriage" isn't a legal term, its
a religious term, and the legislature has no power to redefine the
term.
No, it is a legal term, used in marriage statutes. If it wasn't
there would be no equal protection argument, court cases, or bills
on gay marriage.
robc|5.7.09 @ 10:44AM|#
RC Dean,
Its a religious term being used in legal statutes.
Which it never should have been.
MJ|5.8.09 @ 7:39AM|#
"Its a religious term being used in legal statutes."
Marriage has both legal and religious meanings. To be against legal
marriage because of the religious aspects says more about your
neuroses about religion then it does marriage.
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