Gay Marriage Is No Roe v. Wade: Everybody Loves a Wedding

Everyone Loves a WeddingCredit: DreamstimeNext week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for overturning California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act in favor of extending constitutional protection to same-sex marriage. Earlier this month the Washington Times reported:

The 1973 Roe decision — which the justices hoped would settle the legal question on abortion once and for all — instead spawned a political and cultural clash that is still raging. Many traditional-values advocates are predicting a similar divisive scenario if the high court overrides laws approved by legislatures and voters in dozens of states defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

If the Supreme Court “mandates genderless marriage, the resulting social divisions and political contentions will probably equal — and may surpass — those resulting from Roe v. Wade,” Nevada lawyer Monte Stewart and the Coalition for Marriage said in a friend-of-the-court brief in support of California’s voter-approved Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both of which take a stand against same-sex marriage.

Stewart is just flat out wrong. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality will be a political non-issue in less than a year after it comes down. Why? J.F. Orlando over at the Economist blog gets it right:

It is a vote for gay people to have the same defining, challenging, fulfilling, frustrating, enriching, beautiful and complete marital relationships that the rest of us have. And that is a fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and abortion. Everybody loves a wedding; nobody likes an abortion. Supporters of abortion rights simply believe that safe, legal and rare is better than unsafe, illegal and rare. The better analogy for same-sex marriage is, of course, interracial marriage. Some people still don't like it. Fine. They can marry within their own race and grumble impotently at the TV. But what they can't do is tell anyone else who to love and who to marry. Same-sex marriage supporters frame the case as a vote for gay people to be happy because that is precisely what it is.

Yesterday, a new Pew Poll reported that Americans favor same-sex marriage 49 percent to 44 percent. I predict a year after the Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8 and DOMA that the polls will show that at least 60 percent of Americans are in favor of marriage equality. Wide public acceptance of gay marriage will be even faster than it was for inter-marriage between blacks and whites, which now stands at 86 percent. 

Disclosure: Forgot to put this in - My wife and I have been supporters of Equality Virginia for a number of years now. I apologize if anyone momentarily thought I was objective on this issue.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R C Dean||

    I tend to agree that it won't be as politically and socially destructive as Roe, but that's setting the bar awfully low.

    I have serious jurisprudential issues with SCOTUS mandating gay marriage recognition and with SCOTUS mandating the performance of gay marriages. I think gay people should be able to get married, but "by any means necessary" all too often ends in tears, and the precedents set by having SCOTUS push this particular social crusade, however laudable it may be, are not likely to be happy ones.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Agreed. To be frank, this is such a minor issue that the people currently blowing this out of proportion on both sides will forget about it almost immediately after gay marriage is recognized by governments. The average % of gays who get married in the countries and states where it's legal is ~5-10%. Considering that gays make up about 2-3% of the population, that's at most .3% of the population that will be impacted in any way -- and again, the vast majority of the benefits obtained through marriage can be garnered through other legal actions. It's a tiny issue that gay people themselves by and large don't care about (revealed preferences).

    In contrast, rule of law is *hugely* important. It is a large part of the reason why countries like the US do so much better than their Latin American neighbors, and it impacts every single person. In fact, it impacts gays even more than the average person: gay rights are precarious and relatively novel in the course of human civilization, and it only takes one populist in a system without rule of law to completely overturn all the progress which has been made.

    I don't very much care what the outcome is, but the *process* should be legal (i.e., legislatures or referenda at the state level), rather than some obscure reference to legal penumbra as an excuse for judges to legislate from the bench.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So you think that the Heller and McDonald rulings should have gone the other way, in favor of waiting for legislative or referenda in DC or Chicago to recognize Second Ammendment rights?

  • Virginian||

    Marriage is not an explicitly protected constitutional right. I mean, I consider it to be part of the 9th Amendment rights, but that's not as easy an argument as "Read the 2nd Amendment, and let the people buy guns."

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Agreed, but my point is judicial action on a law isn't automatically illegitimate and legislative passage of a law isn't automatically legitimate.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The 2nd Am is itself a law passed legally in the context of the Constitutional republic which was established. The judiciary is doing its job when it correctly puts the Amendments on a higher plane than other types of legislation.

    The court would have been acting in an unlawful manner if the Prohibition-era court had ruled against the 19th Am while it was still in effect, to use an example far and not-so-dear to libertarians' hearts.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The problem is you getting the constitution entirely backward. We don't have an all powerful government, except for a few enumerated rights. We have an all free people, except for a few enumerated powers.

    The question is not whether the Constitution provides for a right to get same sex married, it's whether it provides for a power to ban same sex marriages.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Only true at the federal level. At the state level, depending on

    And "bans" on government recognition of same-sex marriage are only "bans" in the same way that "bans" on government recognition of the rights of a fetus would be "bans": they are prior restraints on government action, not restrictions on individual action. (That is why gay marriage in this context is considered a *civil* rather than a natural right.)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What Virginian said. FWIW, I disagree with the libertarian position that negative rights not enumerated in the Constitution can just be assumed and adjucated through the 9th.

  • Virginian||

    Eh, I don't know if assumed is the right word. But there is nothing in the Constitution about food and drink. Yet I have no problem whatsoever with asserting I have the right to drink and eat whatever I want.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Nor do I, but legally is another matter entirely which should be left to state governments.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "I tend to agree that it won't be politically and socially destructive a Roe, but that's setting the bar awfully low."

    Exactly. You may as well say "at least it's not as bad as [Godwin edit]."

  • Ron Bailey||

    RCD: Where do you get the idea that SCOTUS would be "mandating the performance of gay marriages?" Civil officials, say justices of the peace, of course, but nobody is seriously suggesting that the Court would order church weddings.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    nobody is seriously suggesting that the Court would order church weddings.

    Yet.

    Seriously, Ron, do you think the "social justice" crusaders are going to stop at merely overturning bans on gay marriage? Because I have $100 that says as soon as the ink's dry on those decisions, they'll be back in court suing various churches for refusing to perform weddings, under state public accommodation/anti-discrimination laws, Free Exercise Clause be damned.

  • Ron Bailey||

    UCc: If they really are silly enough to sue, I am confident that they will lose.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Well, that's nice, but your confidence and a buck-fifty will buy me a cup of coffee. Besides which, even if they lose, they'll cost a lot of churches an awful lot of money defending against claims they should never have to defend at all.

  • Marshall Gill||

    If they really are silly enough to sue, I am confident that they will lose.

    I have one word for you, Ron, Penaltax.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A church in New Jersey *already* lost such a case. It was covered in Reason. Washington state specifies that churches are subject to the SSM law if they charge money for wedding ceremonies.

    And of course, secular, for-profit businesses are absolutely left out in the cold, and are subject to being sued, as wedding photographers, bakers, Bed and Breakfast owners and T-shirt makers have already discovered.

  • Tony||

    So should we restrict the right to marry for gay people, or the right for gay people to sue, or both, libertarian?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "the right of gay people to sue"

    You use the term, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And the New Jersey case was flagged by a H&R commenter, not by Reason staff, sorry:

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/05.....nt_2299175

    But Reason has covered some of the other situations, like the wedding photography case:

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/06.....tes-you-to

  • Tony||

    So what's your issue? The only reason you aren't citing cases of straight couples winning discrimination suits is because straight people don't fucking suffer discrimination.

    Why do so many of you behave as if the right to be a stupid bigot is more important than the right to be treated equally under the law? We have to fix the glaring problem in the law first--the lack of equal protection for gay couples--then you can have at the courts for discrimination rulings. They're separate issues. Arguing against equal rights out of fear of discrimination suits is a version of the very discredited slippery slope argument against gay marriage.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "We have to fix the glaring problem in the law first--the lack of equal protection for gay couples--then you can have at the courts for discrimination rulings. They're separate issues."

    Tony at least has an excuse for believing this - he is a moron.

  • Tony||

    Has "people might sue!" ever been considered a legitimate argument for anything before a court? People have the right to sue. If they win, it's because a court found them in the right. What on god's earth does that have to do with equal marriage rights?

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Attention, asshat:

    I was not suggesting that "people might sue!" is a legitimate argument for not overturning DOMA or Prop 8.

    Rather, I was pointing out that Ron's blithe agreement with the Economist blog's "everybody loves a wedding" tripe is wrongheaded, because the "social justice" crusaders will not stop at equality before the law.

  • Cavpitalist||

    straight people don't fucking suffer discrimination.

    You've obviously never watched American Idol.

  • Ron Bailey||

    EvH: As egregious as both cases are (and they are egregious), they are not examples of forcing churches to marry people.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Why should our concerns be limited to churches? Don't secular, for-profit businesses have rights?

    In any event, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association may not be a church, but it *is* "a ministry organization whose mission is to provide opportunities for spiritual birth, growth, and renewal in a Christian seaside setting." Close enough for Protestants, I would think.

    ttp://www.oceangrove.org/pages/aboutus

  • yonemoto||

    hahaha hahaahahhaha hahahaha ahahhahahaha

  • Marshall Gill||

    Only $100? I would put several thousand on that sure bet.

  • R C Dean||

    If they say that there is an "Equal Right" to gay marriage, states will be required to issue licenses for them. That's what I meant.

    You're right, it wouldn't necessarily mean that any given church would be required to perform a gay wedding. They aren't required to perform interracial weddings.

  • GW||

    Yeah, but to this point, if a photographer can be compelled by the courts to take pictures for a gay wedding, then a church can be made to perform them. I hadn't thought of this outcome, but now that it's mentioned, it scares the hell out of me.

    Given that gays basically want to have state sanctioned marriages for the benefits, which is another fine of example of "don't end the injustice, just cut me in on the deal", I'm about ready to tell both sides to shove it.

    You want the government to call the shots, you get what the government gives you. Don't like it? Tough shit. We're trying to help you, but that's not what you want.

  • Tony||

    How about any nondiscrimination laws apply equally to gays and straights? You can't discriminate against straight couples in your business? Or, total free association. Whatever. It's an entirely separate debate from whether gays should have the equal right to marry.

  • ||

    but nobody is seriously suggesting that the Court would order church weddings.

    Maybe not church weddings, but the venues couldn't be kept off limits despite the proprietor's point of view, just as photographers or bakers or any other person associated with the wedding industry has come under attack for refusing to do business with a gay couple.

    Maybe they are deserving of any backlash they get in the public sphere, but they certainly shouldn't be ordered to give services to same-sex couples (or anyone else they disagree with).

    Gays in general may be happy with just the same recognition for their union, but the majority of their crusaders won't stop until they are put on a pedestal. There will need to be a whole new CRA forcing businesses to provide services based on sexual orientation.

  • Zeb||

    Well, I guess we'll find out. Things are definitely moving toward legal gay marriage.

  • Paul.||

    RCD: Where do you get the idea that SCOTUS would be "mandating the performance of gay marriages?"

    Gay marriage is a right, isn't it? Just like abortion and birth control, those are rights, aren't they? So they'll be provided to me free of charge.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/articl.....ng-keep-it

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I hate weddings. I have to waste a whole Saturday because two idiots put themselves on display in exchange for me giving them gifts like I give a shit? And on top of that a cash bar? What the fuck. It's literally as bad as spending a Saturday killiing what may or may not be a human being.

  • ||

    If it's a cash bar, my invitation goes back with "FUCK YOU" written in the "are you bringing a guest?" section.

  • Brett L||

    Some of us have large Irish families. You want them to start their life with an Ivy League education sized debt just because you can't be arsed to load a flask?

  • ||

    I would never go to a mick wedding, Brett. I have some standards.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Dagos at least try to pretend that they aren't just there to drink all the booze and ravage all the women they can.

    Well, until the priest leaves anyways.

  • ||

    I prefer Jewish weddings. All the Manischewitz I can drink! OK, that was gross, even for me.

    "Shalom hunger, shalom free food!"

  • Another David||

    The only way I'd put "all the Manischewitz you can drink" on my invitations would be if it was a dry wedding.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's a damned impolite way to tell your boozehound friends that they are formally disinvited to your wedding, if you ask me!

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Some of us have large Irish families and wouldn't dream of not having and open bar. You'd be beaten and then ostracized by the whole family.

  • Paul.||

    You want them to start their life with an Ivy League education sized debt just because you can't be arsed to load a flask?

    Like one flask is going to do the job at your large Irish wedding...

  • Zeb||

    I love weddings as long as there is an open bar and a place to smoke.

  • Paul.||

    I hate weddings. I have to waste a whole Saturday because two idiots put themselves on display in exchange for me giving them gifts like I give a shit? And on top of that a cash bar? What the fuck.

    Jesus H. Christ. I think I'm in love with First of Etiquette. I now not only want to gay marry him, I want to abort his love child free of charge.

  • yonemoto||

    get your abortions out of my wallet!

  • yonemoto||

    in retrospect should have written "butt-baby abortions"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Everyone's in love with me, dummy. Get in line.

  • lap83||

    I'm late to this thread, but I had to put in my two cents on the cash bar thing. I've been a bartender at enough weddings to know that 95% of the time you don't want liquor to be free. Ideally, beer and wine are hosted. Free liquor at a wedding is usually a bad idea. It usually leads to crying, fighting, sometimes worse.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Supporters of abortion rights simply believe that safe, legal and rare is better than unsafe, illegal and rare.

    Which is an immoral and contradictory position to hold if one does not apply a similar test to newborns, or if one is not a utilitarian.

    The better analogy for same-sex marriage is, of course, interracial marriage. Some people still don't like it. Fine. They can marry within their own race and grumble impotently at the TV. But what they can't do is tell anyone else who to love and who to marry. Same-sex marriage supporters frame the case as a vote for gay people to be happy because that is precisely what it is.

    Gay people are going to let a piece of paper from the government impact their happiness? What the goddamn fuck is wrong with people?!

  • Ron Bailey||

    IMT: It's the legal benefits like not having to pay more estate taxes just because you don't have that official piece paper. Wouldn't it make you happier to know that your loved ones wouldn't be soaked by estate taxes. Ditto for lots of other legal stuff that comes with marriage.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Sure. I don't see how what someone pays in estate taxes should in any way be tied to their marital status, though. One way or another single people are getting screwed.

  • Zeb||

    True. But marital status is not going away as a legally relevant thing. Nor are estate taxes, as much as I would like them to.

    They should also either end the tax exemption for employer provided health insurance or exempt all insurance premiums whoever pays them. Then you wouldn't need the piece of paper to get your partner insurance from work. But I don't see that happening either.

  • Paul.||

    Why do people keep calling them estate taxes? They're not, they're income taxes on the people receiving the estate.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Which is an immoral and contradictory position to hold if one does not apply a similar test to newborns, or if one is not a utilitarian.

    Also, I would dispute the characterization of a non-trivial number of pro-choicers as people who simply believe that safe, legal, and rare is better than unsafe, illegal, and rare.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yes. I did think about making a cheeky comment about abortion's rarity impacting the bottom line of a number of high-profile Democratic donors, but thought better of it.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Don't get me wrong. I'll readily concede that there are a large number of nominally pro-choice folks who are discomfited by abortion, think it's used too often as a form of birth control, and would like to see it resorted to much less often... but who nevertheless want to keep it legal, rather than see it pushed into backalleys.

    But there is also a significant pro-choice constituency that is downright celebratory of abortion, and aggressively seeks to subsidize it and increase its availability as an option, at every turn. It's impossible to square their behavior with the suggestion that they folks want abortion to be "rare," even if they claim they do.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, it would be against their financial self-interest for abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood to make abortion rare.

    So much for "nobody is *for* abortion, derp derp."

  • R C Dean||

    Supporters of abortion rights simply believe that safe, legal and rare is better than unsafe, illegal and rare.

    They probably do, but they aren't really pushing for the "rare" part. They raise and spend millions of dollars to subsidize abortions, after all. You can say "It shouldn't be illegal, but I don't think this is a good idea and I hope its rare." You can't really say "Let's spend millions of dollars subsidizing this, and I hope its rare."

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It would be against the interests of the relevant parties in the Democratic party for abortions to be rare. Abortion is one of the most undertaken elective surgeries in the US, is relatively inexpensive, and is in high demand. The abortion industry is one of the Democratic Party's biggest donors. If "safe, legal, rare" really is the position of pro-choicers, then their interests aren't served by the party which depends on there being a large and thriving abortion industry.

  • AuH20||

    Jesus H, you sound like the wrestling episode of South Park.

    "The Democratic Party? Why, they're addicted to abortions!"

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They raise and spend millions of dollars to subsidize abortions

    We raise millions of dollars to subsidize cancer treatments too; that doesn't mean we want more people to get cancer.

  • Virginian||

  • Stormy Dragon||

    We want cancer treatments to be rare in the sense of people not getting cancer, not in the sense of people not getting treatment. Like wise pro-choice people want abortion to be rare in the sense of people not having unwanted pregnancies, not in the sense of people not being able to get abortions.

  • Virginian||

    Except cancer, with a couple obvious exceptions, is not the result of human behavior, but of genetics or other causes. The vast majority of abortions are elective, lifestyle abortions.

    Personally I think an innovative politician might be able to neutralize the issue with a technological and market based approach:

    Make the Pill OTC.
    Legalize compensated adoptions.
    Earmark a five billion dollar prize to whoever invents an artificial womb capable of nurturing a viable fetus to term

  • Tony||

    Memo to libertarians: rights claims can conflict. The alleged right of an embryo to be born conflicts with the right of a woman not to have the state force her to give birth against her will. We just have to decide which one is more important. Preferably leaving Jesus out of it.

  • Virginian||

    Question: is it possible for you to make an argument that isn't mendacious?

  • ||

    But that's an inaccurate description of the debate. The debate is over the right of the fetus to not be killed, not "to be born" or the mother's right to not be "forced to give birth" A fetus may not be born, that doesn't necessarily mean it was killed. The questions is whether this right exists for the fetus, not which right is more important. If the fetus has this right, the mother has no right to kill it. If it doesn't, the mother does.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'd say that whoever is being paid to administer and perpetuate those treatments has a financial interest in administering as many cancer treatments as possible.

    Likewise whoever is being paid to administer and perpetuate abortions has a financial interest in administering as many abortions as possible.

    The relevant object of comparison is the service being performed; while a firm administering cancer treatments might say that they want to see less cancer, they can't really say that it's not in their interests to see less cancer treatments administered. Likewise, an abortionist might say that he doesn't want to see more neglected children or whatever else soothes his conscience, but it's not in his interests to see a substantial drop in demand for his services.

    Revealed preferences.

  • R C Dean||

    We raise millions of dollars to subsidize cancer treatments too; that doesn't mean we want more people to get cancer.

    Possibly the worst analogy ever, as you are equating a fatal disease with pregnancy.

  • Zeb||

    You can't really say "Let's spend millions of dollars subsidizing this, and I hope its rare."

    Sure you can. They do it all the time. I think an awful lot of them really don't see the contradiction.

    So I say it should be safe and legal. Personally I'd prefer it be rare, but that's not up to me (beyond being opposed to subsidy).

  • Ron Bailey||

    FoE: Hold on just a minute - We had an open bar at our wedding.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When then obviously that's different. It means I will forget the hell of the ceremony and waiting at the reception to eat until the happy couple shows up. And I mean I will literally forget it.

  • John||

    Everyone may love a wedding, but no one loves divorce court. I bet that fewer and fewer gays get married as time goes on and the entire issue fades away as both sides find new ways to fight the culture war.

  • Brett L||

    Honestly, if the courts weren't so dickish about next of kin, there would be no push for gay marriage.

  • John||

    The SOCONS have totally overracted. First, there are actually very few gay people. it is like 2% of the population. The SOCONs get their view of the world from TV where one out of every four characters is gay. The real world isn't like that. And even of the 2%, not all of them or even most of them want to get married. Again, Hollywood makes you think a quarter of the world is gay, in a stable loving relationship that is just so perfect, and adopted three children.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Again, Hollywood makes you think a quarter of the world is gay, in a stable loving relationship that is just so perfect, and adopted three children.

    Wait, you mean real life is not like the movies? Who would have thunk it. You are right though, the SOCONs lost their freaking minds.

  • John||

    Sadly a lot of people believe what they see on TV.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Sadly a lot of people believe what they see on TV.

    Yeah, or that The Daily Show is news; or is funny.

  • Bobarian||

    Only if it's Game of Thrones or Justified

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yeah, the SOCONs went pretty over-the-top on this one, and gay rights supporters had a fun time baiting them.

  • Zeb||

    Wow really? I honestly haven't really seen much TV or many movies for about 7 years so I really don't know.

  • Marla Singer||

    Eh, the last time I checked, Democrats and other assorted pinkos overstated the number of GAYZ in the population by a larger margin than socons and other assorted right-wingers. The moral here is just that most people believe that, not that socons don't believe it.

  • sarcasmic||

    The better analogy for same-sex marriage is, of course, interracial marriage.

    Yep. People who believe marriage to be a union between a husband and a wife hate homosexuals. Yep. They're trying to prevent those homosexuals from reproducing with each other and making more homosexuals. Yup. It's bigotry. Yup. And the only possible way to prove that you're not an anti-homosexual bigot is to support redefining marriage. Yup.
    Prove your innocence! Now!

  • ||

    Interracial marriage really is not an apt point of comparison since laws forbidding it were based in fears of miscegenation and the mixing of the races.

    Ironically, it was for this reason that SCOTUS ruled the way it did in Loving by affirming the right to marriage between a man and a woman as a means of procreation.

  • ||

    I think the legal arguments against are pretty much the same. The reasons why people are against gay marriage are not, of course, the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage.

    I'm okay with the legal issues being compared because I do think they're similar, but I hate when people try to use interracial marriage as a bludgeon against the people who are against gay marriage, implying (erroneously, I think) that they would have been against interracial marriage as well. I hate ad hominems as a means to delegitimize opponents.

  • ||

    Sorry, the legal arguments for recognizing it, not the legal arguments against recognizing it. I wasn't precise with my wording.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The legal arguments are not similar at all.

    Loving v Virginia looked at whether the state had the authority to ban interracial marriages based on what it perceived to be the general welfare, or if equal protection applied.

    The cases related to gay marriage are all about what the definition of marriage *is*.

    Very different issues in play, from a legal perspective.

  • ||

    Banning interracial marriage is discrimination the basis of race, and refusing to recognize gay marriage is discrimination on the basis of sex. That's the same reason why they qualify for equal protection.

  • Tony||

    Loving clearly (re)established marriage as a basic human right. For all intents and purposes, that right is denied to all gay people at the federal level and in most states.

    And the same bullshit rhetoric that's employed against equal rights now were employed then. Not that it matters.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Loving clearly (re)established marriage as a basic human right."

    As a procreative relationship which does not apply to homosexual couples. You seem to insist on forgetting the context. The right is not denied to "gay people". No one is denied marriage for being gay, marriage simply does not apply to a same sex relationship.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Indeed. No one ever argued that an interracial marriage was *not* a marriage. In contrast, that is exactly what is in question when it comes to gay marriage.

  • R C Dean||

    Prohibitions on inter-racial marriage were an "artificial" restriction on the "standard" definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That's why they failed the Equal Protection test.

    You can't say the same thing about gay marriage. At least, not without changing the "standard" definition first. It becomes a circular argument.

  • ||

    The people who were against interracial marriage obviously didn't think marriage was between a man and woman of different races. Declaring THAT an "artificial" restriction but not the subject of the current argument is arbitrary.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, they thought mixing the races was against society's interest. Rather than thinking an interracial marriage was different than an intraracial one, they thought it was the same and should not be encouraged because mixed race children shoot race based laws all to hell and gone.

  • ||

    You're basically saying "majority rules" insofar as what's considered a marriage. Many people back then thought the "standard" definition didn't include interracial couples. Others disagreed. The same is true now.

  • ||

    The same is true now with same-sex couples, that is.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Outside of some very out-of-the-way examples, marriage has never been defined as solely between members of the same ethnic or racial group. Some countries have prohibited interracial marriages on the basis of racial hygiene, simple spite, or any number of reasons, but very few said out and out that they were not actually marriages. The "standard" definition of marriage has never excluded interracial marriages, especially if you are looking at recent history and Western civilization in particular.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In fact, if you will look at Loving v Virginia, the definition of marriage was never in question: the authority of the state to restrict couplings on racial grounds was.

  • ||

    The "standard" definition of marriage has never excluded interracial marriages

    So your argument is.... tradition. Because the way they talked about interracial marriage is different from the way people talk about gay marriage, it's okay to discriminate on the basis of sex. Even assuming that gay marriage is excluded from the "standard" idea today of what marriage is, I don't think that holds water.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    My "argument" is that this argument is facile. You'll note that I never made an argument in favor of the status quo, and in fact I think it's ridiculous that government is involved in marriage at all.

    It's still an inaccurate and unlike comparison, and those in favor of gay marriage would do best to come up with better (and more accurate) arguments.

  • Zeb||

    How about this. A man who has had his balls cut off and a woman who has had her breasts and uterus removed and been getting testosterone injections for years can get married. What real difference is there between that and two men or two women getting married (other than the latter being less surprising and weird)?

  • Tony||

    You'll get over it.

  • Zeb||

    It's too late. Marriage has already been redefined.

    Also, what material difference that is legally relevant is there between a gay couple and an infertile straight couple?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Then it can defined back.

  • ||

    I wonder if the press will be covering the inevitable wave of gay divorces as gay couples that rushed into marriage as soon as it became legal for them begin to separate.

  • Ron Bailey||

    ASM: People who regretted getting married get divorced - where's the news in that?

  • ||

    Nothing against gays getting married and having the same legal rights and all that, but the coverage in the media can be over-the-top.

    And I think comparing the divorce rate between hetero and gay couples would be an interesting project for researchers.

  • John||

    An interesting project that will never be undertaken because the results might not fit the narrative.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Disagree. There have been studies regarding the marriage rate of gays in countries where it's legal. With time, there will be enough data that people will want to study the divorce rate of that community, as well.

  • ||

    The numbers are gonna be skewed during the period of time that SSM is still rolling out. CA was a particular mess because of Gavin Newsom being impetuous. A lot of people rushed out to get married while it was available, and then many of them realized they'd gotten caught up in the moment.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Exactly. You need time so that the results you get aren't skewed by non-normal conditions.

  • SIV||

    A lot of people rushed out to get married while it was available, and then many of them realized they'd gotten caught up in the moment.

    Just like the Great Miscegenation following Loving vs. Virginia

  • ||

    Gay news outlets covered it pretty heavily when the first few waves of states issuing gay marriage licenses. It also comes up when people get married in one state or country, move and then try to get divorced in a non-SSM jurisdiction.

  • NoVAHockey||

    FWIW, my honky catholic parents for Pittsburgh are attending a gay wedding in a few weeks. if they're on board, it's over.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Honky catholic pittsburghers?

    Isn't that like doubly redundant, or soemthing?

  • John||

    Gay or straight Gary Oldman is a hell of an actor. This is amazing

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/briang.....-chameleon

  • John||

    http://www.deadline.com/2013/0.....om-movies/

    What movies is this women talking about? The noble gay person is right up there with the magic negro and the hooker with a golden heart as the most common standard Hollywood character.

  • ||

    How old is she? Current gay tropes didn't really come into pay until the mid-90s and it was at least another decade before they were solidified. Prior to that gay people rarely survived a film and were nearly always portrayed as lonely and broken.

  • John||

    Not sure. And regardless, is it her opinion than movies can never reflect an unpleasant reality? That they can never make fun of or put down any group or is there something special about gays, as opposed to any other group that makes it bad for them but everyone else should just suck it up?

  • ||

    Everybody loves a wedding; nobody likes an abortion. Supporters of abortion rights simply believe that safe, legal and rare is better than unsafe, illegal and rare.

    Ron, you (well, and Orlando) should check out David Benatar. Some people like abortions. Just sayin'.

  • John||

    Liberals love abortion, just as long as it is poor people and other such undesirables having them.

  • ||

    Actually, he thinks everyone should have them and that it's wrong to reproduce.

  • John||

    Let me guess, she is a environmentalists wanna be mass murderer?

  • ||

    No, he argues that existence is a net negative for all sentient beings and that it is harmful and thus immoral to create more.

  • John||

    If existence is a net negative for ALL Beings, then it is a net negative for him in particular. Why has he not killed himself? Is he just that selfless of a guy?

  • Sidd Finch||

    http://hooverhog.typepad.com/h.....-harm.html

    The current issue of the South African Journal of Philosophy is devoted to antinatalism and features a number of critiques of David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, as well as a detailed response by Benatar. I do not yet have a hard copy of the journal, but contributions are bulleted below, with free links to the abstracts and full-text content that I can find online. Unfortunately, the the gate fees at the journal homepage are prohibitively high.

  • Zeb||

    Sweet merciful crap, that's what passes for Philosophy? I'm glad that I stuck to my own particular interests as a philosophy major (Math, Plato and aesthetics if anyone wants to know).

  • ||

    This used to be my desktop wallpaper back when the world was young and screen resolutions were low.

  • prolefeed||

    Disclosure: Forgot to put this in - My wife and I have been supporters of Equality Virginia for a number of years now. I apologize if anyone momentarily thought I was objective on this issue.

    Don't worry, Ron, no one here is gonna accuse you of the dastardly deed of being objective about this or anything else. =D

  • Wind Rider||

    Like AGW or anything.

  • ||

    I suspect that if Prop 8 and DoMA are struck down, the opinions will be narrowly tailored to apply mostly to the issues before the court. Don't be surprised if this means that the SCOTUS does NOT recognize an "equal right to marriage," but instead allows the Federalism we've been experiencing to continue, while forcing the Feds to acknowledge marriage as each state defines it.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    but instead allows the Federalism we've been experiencing to continue, while forcing the Feds to acknowledge marriage as each state defines it.

    The problem comes in when the married couple moves. What if they move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage?

  • John||

    The problem comes in when the married couple moves. What if they move to a state that does not recognize gay marriage?

    Same thing that happens now. The state doesn't have to recognize it. If cousins marry in a state where that is legal, do other states where it is not have to recognize the marriage? I don't think so.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You're correct. My state of residence (AZ) doesn't recognize marriages from other states between first cousins.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    If cousins marry in a state where that is legal, do other states where it is not have to recognize the marriage? I don't think so.

    Do you have a link or cite for this? If that is true, then this is how it should be handled.

  • John||

    Honestly, I am not totally sure. But I think it is. I could be wrong, however.

  • ||

    Wikipedia: Cousin Marriage in the US There's a handy map. Some states accept but won't perform first cousin marriages, some states consider them annulled for the purposes of that state's business.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Like a license to carry a firearm.

    Why is marriage between a man and a woman recognized in every state? Is it a binding reciprocation, or is it based on a court case?

  • SIV||

    Or a "prescription" for medical marijuana.

  • John||

    In that case, prop 8 should be upheld. The right result is for DOMA to go down and Prop 8 to be upheld. There is no and should be no federal law of marriage. If someone has a valid marriage license from a state, the feds have no right to opine on its validity.

    At the same time there should be no federal right to gay marriage either. Let the states do what they want to.

  • ||

    The states get to define who is and isn't married, not the states. The exception you're going to cite is when immigration says a couple is committing fraud to get a green card. To my knowledge they don't dissolve the marriage they just don't grant the green card.

  • John||

    Exactly. You don't get a federal divorce. You just get deported. And oh by the way, you still have to go to state court and get divorced from your sham spouse.

  • ||

    Typo, *not the feds. Y'all know what I meant.

  • Zeb||

    Seems to me that states also need to recognize all valid marriages from other states. Full faith and credit and all that.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Personally I'd like to see Prop 8 upheld, if only because the "logic" the Ninth Circus used to uphold it was so tortured.

    But I'd like to see some enterprising group put a repeal proposition on the ballot, because I'm fair confident it'd pass.

  • Zeb||

    DOMA definitely needs to be struck down. An equal right to marriage under the 14th seems like a stretch.

  • R C Dean||

    The bit in DOMA about not recognizing out-of-state gay marriages is probably surplusage; either states have that power, or they don't, regardless of what DOMA says.

    I would actually respect the Court if that was the sum total of their ruling on this issue in the current case. You want a decision on whether a state has the power to refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, rather than whether this provision of DOMA has any legal effect? Then bring that case, which is not before the Court.

  • briannnnn||

    It's identical to roe in that it gives the federal government the duty and right to define language that has a direct and significant impact on individuals. As libertarians we shouldn't be on either side of the gay marriage debate, because we don't believe we have the right to define words for people. This is only important due to special government benefits associated with it, another idea we don't tend to support. So I really think the debate over whether gay marriage is good or not, doesn't really fall under the purview of libertarian policies, just individual beliefs. The government shouldn't give it or take it as a right.

  • Tony||

    So you're for the Court overturning DOMA, I take it?

  • messup||

    Progressive New Left Activists have created new meanings (words) from old concepts. Need examples?Gay Rights was and always has been a shill for eradicating religion thru "civil rights.". If everything religious could be swept under the rug, an aimless, religionless populace would readily embrace a "State Religion" (whatever that means)or have "social justice"...so goes the narrative.
    Marriage, basically is a union for procreation and continuation of the species. "Gay rights," tied to "civil rights" and the larger picture "social justice" are red herrings for population control. Gay rights are also a revolutionary movement aimed at:1) decimating religion, 2) creating indoctrination in education,3) confounding government and governance, and lastly, 4) collapsing capitalism. Remember "dialectical materialism?" Gay Movement is but one aspect of Progressive New Left Activist's agenda.Pray. Amen.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

  • jcw||

    Because procreation only happens with holy marriage.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    And obviously marriage is only valid if it's for procreation. I guess the fact that my wife and I have decided to be childless completely negates our wedding. Well, I suppose I have to tell my wife the bad news that we're not actually married because some dumbfuck on the internet said so.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Beat that strawman, jcw!

  • Zeb||

    So fertility tests should be required before people get married? Is that what you are saying?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Well, obviously, Zeb. As should a religious test be required to make sure both people are the RIGHT religion.

  • califernian||

    Why does the govt have anything to do with marriage again?

  • Tony||

    Because marriage is a contract.

  • R C Dean||

    No, not really. The government has nothing to do with an awful lot of contracts out there in the real world, which are entered into, performed, and terminated without any government involvement at all.

  • Wind Rider||

    Having been down the matrimonial path 4 times myself, hey, if they've got the guts, then they should be allowed the glory or the gory.

    And, it'd be kind of nice for the longest term gay couple I know to be able to 'formalize' their arrangement of 22 years. They'd probably throw a helluva party, for one, and it'd also be really neat to see a bride that's 60 years old, physically resembles Phil Jackson to the point of being hounded for autographs even after telling people he isn't, and runs their immaculate Victorian-era furnished household in a manner that has him described by friends as "a 60 year old Jewish housewife named Stella", walking down the aisle, happy.

  • stuartl||

    Good Lord, Mr Bailey! 40 goddamn years of stupid anti-life and anti-choice arguments and you want to risk repeating it? We are only a few years from a majority of the states approving gay marriage.

  • Number 2||

    WhenI think of the utter hash we heterosexuals have made of marriage, the thought of gays having the "same opportunity to participate" in it as we do is actually sadly depressing.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The people who are supporting homosexual marriage are the largely the same ones who made a hash out of marriage to begin with.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement