Gay Bar

Some Massachusetts legislators are proposing a compromise constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Judicial Court's rulings on gay marriage (or, as The Washington Times would put it, gay "marriage"): Instead of simply declaring that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, it would explicitly allow civil unions as a consolation prize for homosexual couples. Naturally, everyone hates the idea.

"I've heard from people on the left that it's totally unacceptable and preposterous, and I've heard from people on the right that it's totally unacceptable and preposterous,'' says Republican Brian Lees, the Senate minority leader, who helped put the proposal together. "It very rarely happens that you get both the left and the right saying the same thing….When that has happened in my career, I know that I'm on the right track."

I'm not sure this is such a great rule of thumb. Left-right alliances can be instrumental in fighting government abuses in areas such as privacy, freedom of speech, even property rights (as with civil forfeiture reform). In any event, I think both sides may be right about this proposal: The definition of civil unions should be handled through ordinary legislation (assuming it's an appropriate task for government to begin with), and unequal treatment for gays and lesbians should not be embedded in the state constitution.

Comments

[Russ]

I still don't see what's wrong with "civil unions" for everyone.

It's nothing more than the "civil" authority recognizing the "union" of two people in regard to the laws established by that "civil" authority. (eg. freedom from subpoena, joint ownership of property without the need for incorporation or commercial partnership, joint filing of tax returns, direct transfer of estates, etc.)

Why it should matter who those two people are (provided that they are both of the age of majority), is beyond me.

As usual, one can turn to America's Finest News Source for guidance.

[Vigilance Matters]

Personally I'm getting pretty tired of this whole "unequal" business.

As a heterosexual male, i am equally prohibited from marrying another man as any other. And a homosexual man is as equally entitled to marry a woman as i am.

Until Mother Nature erases "gender" completely, nothing could be more equal.

But then, we know that's the real agenda here, erasing gender completely...

Might i suggest a knife?

[Les]

Might I suggest that clarity matters as much as vigilance?

Erasing gender? Whahuh?

[Jean Bart]

Why should one's gender be up to the state?

[rst]

Sullum - such gems as McCain-Feingold and the Patriot Act are also "shining" examples of bipartisan legislation.

That the left and right are both decrying it is rooted in their ideological stances; the left won't accept anything less than full blown marriage, while the right won't accept anything less than a gay holocaust. It doesn't say anything about the suitability of the idea, just how its nature as a compromise is to be avoided. Who wants to be seem compromising in an election year?

Marriage was hijacked by the government in the first place; why we'd support allowing them to hijack it any further, even if for "progressive" (which always means "good," apparently) purposes, is beyond me. And at least a popular vote in a way recognizes that the term was hijacked and the power of its definition stolen from us while we weren't looking. It is an issue that a court has no place deciding...it was a stretch to wrap the guarantees of the Mass Constitution around gay marriage.

Just because you call it a right don't make it so. The arguments for making such a change are yet unconvincing, and it is not upon us to change something simply because there's a segment of the population made uncomfortable. It is upon us to change policy when it makes sense to do so, not because we want to have a nice big group hug on the steps of the state bldg.

[joe]

Unfortunately for you, VM, (and fortunately for everyone else), the courts have long held, without controversy, that sham marriages are - you might want to sit down - NOT REAL MARRIAGES. That's right, if you take out a marriage license for the purpose of getting government benefits, but don't intend to actually live a married life, you aren't actually married. This is why immigrants who pay Americans a few hundred bucks to go through the motions get investigated by the INS and deported - because a fake marriage isn't a real marriage.

There are also thousands of cases of people being granted annullments - not divorces, but annullments, meaning no legal marriage ever existed and the paperwork and ceremony was a sham - based on the fact that their spouse is gay.

So no, the fact that gay people can enter into loveless marriages without physical and spiritual intimacy - and only loveless marriages without physical and spirtitual intimiacy - does not demonstrate that they have the equality under the law that you are clearly so concerned about granting to them.

I'm about to suggest a knife myself. Oh, and I love the "women are like men, but missing something" implication of you remark. What are you, six years old?

[Hank]

This has got to be the most nauseatingly Big Non-Issue ever. How in The HELL is it anyone's business who gets hitched to who? Who cares? Why would you care? Shut up and marry whom you want.

[garym]

rst: Who exactly are the people on the right calling for a "gay holocaust"?

[xray]

Vigilance Matters: how long did it take you to come up with that stunningly cogent argument? Nice blog btw, you have an extremely healthy obsession with homosexuality. I bet it feels great to spend so much time thinking abt a topic which clearly fills you with such joy. (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:44)

[Les]

Yes, but what are the citizens saying?

http://www.theonion.com/4006/wdyt.html

[Les]

Sorry for the repeat. How did I miss that first link from Russ? I feel so gay!

[dhex]

gender is boring. why not allow those who want to ditch it to do so?

(i think because, many of those who live ideological rigid lives have difficulty keeping their rigidity alive through their children.)

(though i'll be damned if i can figure out why anyone would want to raise a slave. if one's point of view is so inspired, divinely or otherwise, it should be able to withstand any puritanical/hedonistic assault the social group can offer)

(but competition and rigidity don't necessarily go well together, unless physical isolation can be achieved. i.e. hacidim in boro park)

[rst]

rst: Who exactly are the people on the right calling for a "gay holocaust"?

Jesus freaks. The breed of jackass who would tie some kid to a fence post and pistol whip him for being gay, then show up to church and claim the kid is burning in hell. Falwell, Roberts, etc. The notion has a popular voice.

To many people perhaps the fight is adversarial, in that what is important is not that a few gays have the "right" to get married, but that the right gets a blowtorch rammed up their moral base. I know, how dare I suggest that the left have anything other than the purity of civil liberty in mind, after all, it's the republican conservatives who are the evil illuminati.

[xray]

garym: http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[joe]

And if may pre-empt garym's retort:

Religious Right : Rev. Phelps :: Segregationists : KKK

[Gadfly]

Separate but equal, the legal equivalent of civil unions but not marriage, was shot down 50 years ago in Brown v Board of Education.

The Mass Supremes are not "activists" and they are not creating law. Rather, they are applying equal protection principals properly, with respect to both the letter of the law and established precedent.

If this opens the door to polygamy, bygamy and man on dog, so be it. Let them argue it and take there chances in a competent court.

[SM]

Vigilance Matters -
"As a heterosexual male, i am equally prohibited from marrying another man as any other. And a homosexual man is as equally entitled to marry a woman as i am."

Sounds like a joke along the lines of Anatole France's - "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Was this what you intended, VM ?

[SM]

JB can provide the french.

[rst]

Separate but equal, the legal equivalent of civil unions but not marriage

That's a stretch.

Marriage is not a right, it's a contract that two parties enter into consensually. The state has the right to limit the set of those parties because the rights being extended are above and beyond what is afforded to individuals of any kind. No individual person can get any marriage rights if not married. And until the gays come up with a reason why the court should hijack a social institution that straight people invented, they can afford to ignore you. It's not a club, it's a convention, and straight people no more feel like sharing it with homosexuals than black America is inclined to share the term "nigger".

And Goodridge didn't rely on too much case law. It was mostly progressive moralizing and precedent. Functionally no better than its conservative variant.

[Dan]

I still don't see what's wrong with "civil unions" for everyone.

What's "wrong" with it is that, despite all the spin (and outright lying) to the contrary, this isn't about defending marriage as an institution; it's about denying homosexuals as many of the benefits of marriage as possible. If the government *only* recognized civil unions, gays lose their second-class-citizen status -- and that wouldn't make cultural conservatives happy at all.

[rst]

Dan, spare us the sanctimonious I-know-they're-out-to-get-me bullshit. Face it, the gay lobby has not made a convincing argument that it's necessary. It's been the same vapid moralizing as the Jesus freaks, but with a different god.

It is not difficult to fool a judge. Paint a picture the judge agrees with, and you'll get a decision in your favor. Miss something or fail to answer a judge's question to the satisfaction of the judge, and you'll get beaten. Whether something is objectively right or wrong has little to do with a court decision. If you want to make it law, tell NAMBLA and whoever else to make a better argument than, "because we wanna." Because as a Mass voter who will likely be voting on whether gays can get hitched, I am the constituency.

[alkali]

The Mass Supremes are not "activists" and they are not creating law. Rather, they are applying equal protection principals properly, with respect to both the letter of the law and established precedent.

I agree that the members of the Mass. SJC are not activists, but I would put this somewhat differently.

In 1976, Massachusetts voters amended the state constitution to add a very broad equal protection provision. It doesn't specifically mention sexual orientation, but its language is extremely comprehensive. It is actually the first substantive provision of the Mass. constitution.

In the years since 1976, Massachusetts has legislatively dismantled most but not all forms of de jure discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 1989, it barred discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, education, housing, etc. In 1992, it offered domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian state employees. Its hate crimes law includes sexual orientation. There is a state commission to protect the interests of gay and lesbian youth.

Although the state's law against incestuous marriages strongly suggest that man-woman marriage was contemplated, nothing in the Massachusetts law of marriage licenses specifically requires that marriage be between a man and a woman.

The various policy arguments against same-sex marriage generally have to do with traditional notions of ethics and/or broader social implications, rather than a threat of immediate and tangible harm.

Based on that record, I think I would be hard pressed to say that in 2004, it is consistent with the Mass. constitution's equal protection guarantee to forbid same-sex marriage. What are the justices supposes to say, "Yes, it's unequal, but our hands are tied because it seems like a big deal, and we'd rather not be involved"?

[Mark Anderson]

rst,
How is the "because we wanna" (which isn't really the argument of pro gay marriage) any better than "because we invented it." I don't think the pro "sanctity of marriage" crowd would get very far with that lame argument.

[Mark Anderson]

Crap, this is what I meant

rst,
How is the "because we wanna" (which isn't really the argument of pro gay marriage) any worse than "because we invented it." I don't think the pro "sanctity of marriage" crowd would get very far with that lame argument.

[alkali]

rst writes:

And until the gays come up with a reason why the court should hijack a social institution that straight people invented, they can afford to ignore you.

Exactly how do we know this? (Indeed, I'd suspect some medieval pope or another set down the rules for marriage in its modern form, and what do we know about him?)

[Jean Bart]

"If you want to make it law, tell NAMBLA and whoever else to make a better argument than, 'because we wanna.'"

Why is it that those who despise homosexuals always try to equate them with pedophiles? Are you that dishonest and utterly bankrupt in your notions?

[steve]

Jacob: "The definition of civil unions should be handled through ordinary legislation (assuming it's an appropriate task for government to begin with), and unequal treatment for gays and lesbians should not be embedded in the state constitution."

Given the legal situation in MA (the constitution and the SJC ruling) I don't see how you can get the former without the latter.

[Walter Wallis]

Why should you have a right to sex with your partner and I not have an equal right? Marriage discriminates against the hound dog.

If I don't care what you do in your bedroom, or in the Castri Street gutter, then you let me alone with what I do in my head.

[Jean Bart]

rst,

"And until the gays come up with a reason why the court should hijack a social institution that straight people invented, they can afford to ignore you."

Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. Take a remedial course in logic.

[Dan]

Dan, spare us the sanctimonious I-know-they're-out-to-get-me bullshit.

"Out to get me?" I'm not homosexual; I just don't like bigots. Which means, basically, I don't like any of the people opposed to gay marriage.

[scott]

On vigilance matters' comment on equality, how about this hypothetical counter-example. Let's say someplace, California, DC, wherever, passes some civil unions legislation, open only to same-sex couples, that gives them greater benefits than marriage. How about something ridiculous like an exemption from property tax and dibs on adoption. How long do you think it would be before straight couples started pissing and moaning about equal protection? Gays could then say--"Hey, if you want these benefits too, get a same-sex civil union. It's all equal." You know why it'll never happen? Because the minority can't pull the same shit that the majority can. We rely on judges to throw out bigoted, unconstitutional laws.

[dj of raleigh]

> gender is boring.

[Xmas]

Of course, Massachusetts could end this simply. They could declare marriage is a simply a religious recognition of a couple and just declare all state recognized couples to be "civil unions". This separates the religiously loaded term of "marriage" from the legal entity of a state recognized "union".

[shane]

What is the primary reason that marriage is a state issue at all? Taxes?

[rst]

Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. Take a remedial course in logic.

Ideally, JB, the government has no hand in this process. I am not entirely an idealist, however. My argument was not one of should be or should not be. It was an argument of is and will be (IMHO, of course). On a daily basis we express amazement at the lack of logic and reason behind a majority of our government's decisions. The bipolar reaction to this issue is a shining example. The fact remains that civil unions became law in Vermont with far less fanfare and controversy than gay marriage became "constitutional" in Massachusetts. The idea had a better chance to pervade on a national scene by adopting it here (in Mass) similarly. How far has this legal wrangling set back their progress? If the legislation adopts an amendment, what option is there? The ninth circuit holds no sway here and SCOTUS is of a conservative mindset...notions of "equal protection" might not make even Ginsburg flare her nostrils in this case.

Ideals are pretty, shiny things but from a tactical standpoint the overly aggressive stance was foolish; this is not Alabama in the 1960's. Those were ideals you could march on Washington for. Gay marriage is not an idea that has captured public imagination or interest in even a similar way.

As far as my personal opinion, I myself define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Not out of opposition towards homosexuality; I'm straight, I don't care what other people do with their equipment. Rather, the intention and design of marriage, whether successful or not, statistically tends towards propogation of the species in a stabilized setting. As we reproduce by a biological process which drives us from birth through sexual maturity and into menopause/midlife (when women get heart attacks and men prostate cancer, because surprise, surprise, you are no longer of use to the Organism), a social construct surrounding the process would require man and woman. I am willing to extend that defintion, however, the gay marriage camp has since been unable to convince me to do so.

[scott]

Shane, please read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17037-2003Dec20&notFound=true

It can partly answer your question...

Scott

[Dan]

Why does someone who has a (to them at least) legitimate, faith based, objection to homosexual unions being called a marriage have to be classified as a bigot.

For the same reason a person who has a (to them at least) legitimate reason for making comments like "you can't trust a nigger to do a white man's work" has to be called a bigot. Because they are bigots -- that's why.

I don't care if their invisible playmate told some desert-dwelling religious zealot "kill all gays" six thousand years ago. Here, on Earth, in reality, homosexuals are normal, healthy, loving people, the same as everyone else. It is a profound injustice that they are not allowed to marry, and I see zero reason to tolerate the diseased beliefs of fuckwit Christian conservatives who just can't learn to leave other people alone.

I'm not interested in diseased Christian thinking. I'm interested in reality. The reality is that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality. The reality is that homosexuals can form loving families, and be loving parents. And reality is

[Dan]

... that they should be allowed to marry.

[Jean Bart]

rst,

Oh, argument from tradition and a spliced argument from biological determinism and what is "natural." *chuckle*

You are, to be blunt, a bigot. Indeed, you are as much a bigot was George Wallace was in the 1960s, simply on a different issue.

Anyway, whether one accepts your logical fallacies or not, what business is it of the state to intervene here? Human beings self-organize in most ways, so why "marraige" is particular has to be questioned.

[Jean Bart]

rst,

BTW, you are a primary example of the term "tyranny of the majority" means, and it is exactly why in a government based on the ideals of Montesquieu (as is the American government) of seperated powers and a judiciary that defends individual rights (as opposed to the communitarian/communist rights you try to defend) that this tyranny is trumped in the courts, and is not allowed to continue, despite the bigoted cancer that eats through your head.

[MALAK]

Dan, I am somewhat ambivalent about gay marriage, and have, at best, a laissez-faire (?) relationship with the religion I was raised in. Still, I have heard many people, of many faiths, make very reasoned, rational, and non-hateful arguments as to why they oppose this. To me, calling their thinking (Christian or otherwise) diseased strikes me as equally bigoted. That is what I oppose. If the argument is whether 2 men should be allowed to pledge their lives to each other, I will gladly take up a placard and march side by side with you. If the only acceptable name for this action is 'marriage', and you and your ilk will brook no compromise, then why should others compromise their beliefs to accomodate you?

[MALAK]

Women too, by the way.

[MALAK]

And one last thing. When I say pledge their lives to each other, I mean all the benefits and perils that face a heterosexual couple taking the same steps. To me, if both sides of this debate would give, just a little, then everyone would gain a lot. Sadly, I see most of the willingness to bend coming from the hetero side of the debate.

Goo night all.

[fishfry]

I'm not a lawer or constitutional scholar, but I think this will ultimately conflict with Brown vs. Board of Education. That's the decision that said "separate but equal" accomodations for blacks and whites are unconstitutional. In the end you can't treat one class of citizens one way, and another class another way.

What the hell is the right so worked up about? I just don't get it. If politicians actually cared about the sanctity of marriage, all the hookers in Washington would go out of business.

[Jean Bart]

MALAK,

In a society that respects individual rights; that is revolves around the protection of individual rights; why should what you think on the matter make much of a difference? Let individuals freely order their lives.

[rst]

You are, to be blunt, a bigot.

A bigot is one who strongly favors their own politics and is intolerant (i.e., launches ad hominem attacks) against those who differ. I don't attack folks who disagree with me. My opinion is mutable, but I don't change it on the whims of progressives "just because I should."

You, JB, are a different story. You believe deeply enough in this gay marriage bit that you'll attack those who don't, for no other reason than that they don't, and call them a bigot for the same reason that you yourself are one. Get over yourself, frenchie.

[scott]

Kind of on a side note, dj_of_raleigh said:

"Why shouldn't gay lovers raise children to be gay?
Do I have to teach my children that being gay is OK?
Can I say it is OK for others, but not for me and mine?"

You don't raise children to be gay...they're born that way. My parents thought they were raising me straight. Surprise. Teach your children whatever you want, but realize this...there's a good chance that one or more of your kids is gay. There's nothing you or they can do about that. If you raise them to believe that homosexuality is wrong, or that somehow homosexual relationships are of lesser value to heterosexual ones, you'll be doing them a great deal of harm. Trust me on this. And if they grow up watching you support these unjust laws that needlessly discriminate against them...laws that intend to keep them from having a family of their own someday...they could end up hating your guts. Personally, I love my parents. I know many gay men who can't say the same.

[scott]

rst said:

"I am willing to extend that defintion, however, the gay marriage camp has since been unable to convince me to do so".

Luckily, you're not the queen of the universe, and this definition isn't yours to extend. If you can't see the immorality in depriving a family of the fundamental right to equality in the eyes of the law, and you don't understand how this situation puts not only the parents, but any children involved at an artificial disadvantage in life, nothing will ever convince you to change your mind.

[KJ]

Apropos of bigotry and our resident Frenchie - not even in France, the paradise of progress, enlightenment, and civil rights, same sex "marriage" dares not speak its name, but has to be called "civil union" instead; officially at least.

But of course that cannot be cuz Frenchies are bigots, oh no! I'm quite sure they must have a compelling reason to do that, no? (As well as the Germans, Norwegians, Danes, Swedes and Icelanders, of course)

[rst]

Luckily, you're not the queen of the universe

No, but there is a strong possibility that I will be voting on this issue in Massachusetts.

If you can't see the immorality in depriving a family of the fundamental right to equality in the eyes of the law

You people don't read. Try to read the things I've typed from beginning to end, then comment. I don't oppose civil unions, nor have I ever opposed them. What I don't agree with is the foul-cry of "separate but equal" w.r.t. civil unions vs. "marriage". Catchy but vacant.

And as far as the battle as a whole, I think the effort was marred by very poor legal strategy. You can call it wrong if you like, but your estimation of the situation doesn't matter in the grand scheme any more than my definition of marriage.

Now, right or wrong, the gay marriage camp will have to garner popular support. Good luck with that.

[scott]

Don't worry, rst, popular support is inevitable. Any constitutional amendments passed today will eventually be repealed. And in the future, folks will look back with disdain on the people who tried to keep gays and lesbians at a second-class status, no matter how well-intentioned they were.

It's easy for you to say that civil unions will fix everything--you don't have to live with the consequences when they don't. You're willing to take the risk that civil unions will provide me and my family with total equality under the law, and if they don't, well, hey, you tried. Gee, thanks.

[dhex]

DJ:

"viva la difference was not a phrase without merit."

no, but we're seeing a lot more differences arise. getting rid of "gender" - and i'm not convinced it's more than a weird persecution fantasy from the neo-osirian death cultists - seems to mean getting rid of what was culturally held for men and women to be/are. i don't think that's really possible. if anything, it's modifying the culture to include more choices (depending on location and family, of course). there's nothing stopping people from raising their kids according to certain roles because there's more choices to pick from, at least in theory...

again, i think the large problem here is people have such little faith in their ability to raise children who will grow up to be more or less like them - natural cloning, if you will. otherwise people would have greater faith in their ability to raise a straight christian child/gay vegan child/liberal protestant child/conservative muslim child/andsoonandsoonandsoon...

etc.

[rst]

Don't worry

I've nothing to worry about. If homosexuals still can't get "married" ten years from now, but can have civil unions that afford the same benefits, that's not going to have damaged the quality of life for society as a whole anymore than the fact that they have not been able to has damaged it thus far. The only distinguishing factor is whether such a thing can be accomplished.

Gee, thanks.

Risk is a characteristic which an endeavor adopts when taking action without any advance knowledge of the outcome. Such endeavors include crossing the street, investing your child's future college tuition in the stock market, and writing law. I'm willing to risk more than most on this issue. So, you're welcome.

[MALAK]

Anti gay marriage folks are bigots. Pro gay marriage folks are trying to ram an agenda down everyone's throat. Everybody on both sides needs to grow the fuck up. Why does someone who has a (to them at least) legitimate, faith based, objection to homosexual unions being called a marriage have to be classified as a bigot? Similarly, why can't the gay lobby accept the term 'civil union' so long as all the protections and privileges that come with a traditional 'marriage' are enshrined in the legislation. Would you people (on both sides) just pitch your fucking agendas and get over yourselves. This should have been solved in about five minutes, tops.

[dj of raleigh]

Would not, in a libertarian society,
you ask for nothing, expect nothing;

Do as you please within broad limits,
and not as you please within strict limits?

Why should there be marriage as an institution,
of state,
with encouragement or consideration of it?

Do I have to view homosexuality as acceptable
to not be considered a bigot or homophobe,
or does the homosexual have to care what I think?
Why would I then care what they thought of my ideals?

Why shouldn't gay lovers raise children to be gay?
Do I have to teach my children that being gay is OK?
Can I say it is OK for others, but not for me and mine?

If straight couples have children they can't support,
why should a gay couple have to be taxed to support them?

Rather than marry divorce marry again over and over,
why not marry, and marry again, and who has a say but me,
for it is my life, my relationships, my gain or loss?
Can government govern my personal life to make me happy?

In a libertarian society, isn't one reason to work
to have food, shelter, health care and clothes?
If someone doesn't work, for whatever reason,
how is it my duty to work for them to have those things?

Can I let nature take its course and let others suffer,
suffer their consequences, for whatever reason or excuse?

As a libertarian, why would I concern myself with rules
such as marriage which I can live without, work around?

Do I need government sanction to have a valid relationship?

Does a libertarian have to, want to, need to,
get involved in petty bureaucratic politics of others?

What are proper political priorties for libertarians?
If we want government out of our lives as much as possible,
then why would we want to bring it ever more upon us?

Can people fair well without the hand of government?

[Brendan Perez]

Off topic, but:

Left-Right alliances have been pretty damaging to youth rights. The left and right both joined hands to vote in the 21 drinking age. They've both gladly pushed laws seeking to punish youth as adults for crimes and criminalize youth possession of firearms,to name a few.

So yes, Left-Right alliances can be great when dealing with civil rights abuses, but when dealing with youth issues, the results are pretty damaging.