Dangerous Liasons?

The city of San Francisco's decision to marry gay couples is, as all Right Thinking folk will tell you, a dire threat to civilization and an insidious blow to good American heterosexual families everywhere. But what does this new menace look like? Radley Balko has a posted a photo.

Update: Ok, I have to shed my thick, thick ironic armor for a second and confess that I actually got misty eyed at this one. I'm not sure whether the proper response to those who can look at this and say it's a bad thing is contempt or pity.

Comments

[Shultz]

Maybe I've listened to Stern one time too many, but when I think of lesbians getting married, I get a certain picture in my head.

They may not be a menace to society but they definitely ruined my plans for the evening.

[anon]

Newsflash:

*Lesbians get married in San Francisco.
*Man rides surfboard in Newport Beach.
*Seattle woman, aged 43, walks into Starbucks, orders coffee.
*Study shows Vermont children prefer maple syrup on pancakes.

Film at 11.

Wake me when two gay guys get "married" in Dallas.

[alkali]

[Here is where some libertarians will comment that the real solution here is for the state to get out of the business of legitimizing marriages, and allow people to make their own familial arrangements through contract. Query whether any part of the real solution will ever involve those libertarians' taking a stand for civil liberties in the here and now, as opposed to merely posing pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals that won't annoy any of their right-wing pals.]

[alma hadayn]

The civil disobedience was endorsed by that conservative Mayor Gavin Newsom, who beat Green canididate Matt Gonzalez.

Officials say they plan to fully honor the licenses immediately.

I'm across the bay but reading that made my day.

[Jason Ligon]

alkali,

Methinks you too much weight to the love felt by conservatives for libertarians. Scary as it may be to those in these parts who think I am a Neocon, to some members of my family, I am the model of the Godless Libertarian.

Discrimination in the benefits conferred by government on couples is intolerable and unjust. Libertarians make the distinction because, like public education, things get murky when the government supposes it is conferring a holy blessing instead of joint and survivor rights. If we can convince the government that they can't be doing that for Separation reasons, maybe they will let go of it.

I don't know that it is exactly realistic, but it is probably more realistic than trying to convince conservatives that holy matrimony MUST under law be permitted for homosexuals.

[Lonewacko]

I guess if I were advocating for this I'd choose two grannies to be my spokesmodels too. And, a lot of people would either fall for it or attempt to get others to fall for it.

[thoreau]

Lonewacko-

Why 2 grannies? Why not 2 really hot young lesbians? I know, such things are largely a made-for-TV construct, but surely somewhere in SF there must be 2 attractive women who want to get married.

Anyway, have two such women as your spokesmodels, and a lot of men might reconsider the matter...

[Radley Balko]

Together 51 years. If there's one thing I'm fairly sure they aren't, it's "grannies."

[joe]

Wacko, you mean they aren't actually old women? They aren't actually getting married? They aren't actually lesbians? What am I falling for?

[MJ]

"Today a barrier to true justice has been removed,"

Actually, today a plank in the structure of common sense has been removed (sort of, as the San Francisco government very likely has no authority to do what it did).

The biological reality of the human species is that male/female relationships can produce children. That a civilized society would create a legal framework for such a relationship is both understandable and probably necessary (as evidenced by the fact that such a framework exists in every human society). That legal framework is called "marriage". Marriage is not about the validation of a romantic relationship between two adults. Homosexual relationships do not produce children, can not produce children, therefore it is not unjust to deny marriage to homosexuals, their relationships simply do not meet the definition. Attempting to change the definition to meet some spacey progressive quest for cosmic justice does not alter the truth.

[Julian Sanchez]

You're rather abusing the term "cosmic justice" if you mean to use it in Thomas Sowell's sense: the gay marriage fight is precisely about the kind of formal, procedural equality that Sowell contrasts with "cosmic" justice.

[joe]

Once upon a time, MJ, marriage was about assuring inheretance rights and creating formal bonds between potentially warring clans. Society changes. Please try to keep up.

[agentalbert]

Silly Thoreau. Don't you know that young lesbian couples consist of one feminine lady, and one butch one with a Patrick Swazye mullet.

[Dan]

some libertarians will comment that the real solution here is for the state to get out of the business of legitimizing marriages, and allow people to make their own familial arrangements through contract. Query whether any part of the real solution will ever involve those libertarians' taking a stand for civil liberties in the here and now, as opposed to merely posing pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals that won't annoy any of their right-wing pals.

Suggesting that the government get out of the marriage business entirely IS "taking a stand for civil liberties", dumbass. You have perhaps heard of freedom of choice? Freedom of contract? Freedom of conscience? Any of this ringing a bell, little brain?

You may think that it's a "pie-in-the-sky hypothetical", but so was gay marriage ten years ago. Gay marriage is preferable to the current system of discrimination, but better still would be for the government to butt out entirely. If a guy wants to marry a woman/a man/a goat/six women/two men, three women and a goat/whatever, that's between him and the men/women/goats in question, in my opinion.

[MALAK]

I still have one question: If a "Civil Union" statute will devolve all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of 'marriage' onto a gay couple, then why the continued insistance that it has to be called a'marriage'? To me, this particular aspect of the debate strikes me as being more about taking something from the opposition than it does about getting something for yourselves. Beyond that, go marry your dog for all I care

[SM]

"cosmic justice" isn't something that happens in Silver Surfer comics ? Hmmm ...

[Brian]

MJ--

Infertile couples?

Women past menopause?

Couples who just don't want kids and have no intention whatsoever of having them?

Would you not allow any of these to marry, either?

[alma hadayn]

"I still have one question: If a "Civil Union" statute will devolve all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of 'marriage' onto a gay couple, then why the continued insistance that it has to be called a'marriage'?"

"Separate but equal" is a recipe for discrimination.

[MALAK]

Not being American, could someone give a brief rundown on 'separate but equal'? Also, why not the Dutch solution, or what it will be called if used. My parents were married in '54. They needed to have a civil ceremony to go along with their church wedding, as at that time neither institution would recognize the legitimacy of the others' services. Best of all, two sets of anniversary gifts! So not only are the Dutch wonderful soccer players, who will win Euro 2004, but eminently civilized, and tolerant, people as well. Happy 50th to my parents, even though they'll never read this.

[s.a.m.]

To me, this particular aspect of the debate strikes me as being more about taking something from the opposition than it does about getting something for yourselves.

Maybe the opposition should reconsider holding onto a failing institution not brought about by gay marriage. Maybe, just maybe, gay marriage will spark a new marriage revolution where being married is the latest cool thing resulting in a rebound in the number of successful marriages not ending in divorce. If one can speculate that gay marriage will be the end of civilization without empirical evidence, one could also speculate about a potential marriage reniassance. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy anyone?

[alma hadayn]

Well, I don't substantially disagree with most of what thoreau,method have said, but I have a lot less sympathy for the hoohphobes (and not b/c I don't understand them- I grew up in acommunity where homosexuality was not even acknowledged to exist other than as a depraved choice of the godless).

But here in the Bay area things are a lot less complicated. I don't know the poll numbers, but the Mayor would not have done it were it not overwhelmingly popular (remember, Newsom just beat out the more liberal candidate 53-47 2 months ago!)

[Ignorant Law Student]

I'm still wondering what marriage is for, though; although it was said earlier that "society changes," we're still stuck with an institution legally and functionally designed to funnel money for the production of small children.

If that's not the reason for marriage (and certainly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dismisses it as a reason), why should any cohabiting couple have more rights upon commingling finances?

[MALAK]

amr, they do NOT have to get 'married' twice. The civil ceremony would only be required of those who wished the sanction of the state on their union. I gather there is some tax benefit to marriage in the U.S. The marriage would occur in the church of your choice. But if you expect the state to acknowledge you and your spouse, go to City Hall for a civil ceremony.

[thoreau]

Alma-

Thanks. Basically, I figure that gays will call them marriages in social situations even if the piece of paper from the gov't says "civil union." So they'll get social acceptance from, well, everybody who's willing to grant it. They'll get legal recognition from the gov't. And they'll get scorn from people who would heap scorn regardless of what the piece of paper says or doesn't say.

But, if they care about the piece of paper, in another 10 years things will be to the point where they can quietly pass a law changing the name from "civil union" to "marriage."

[method]

alma, the people against gay marriage probably don't see themselves as trying to perpetrate any kind of persecution. Of course, there are some bigots who do, but they don't really matter for the discussion, as they are a minority and won't be swayed by logic. People are against this for a wide variety of reasons. Some have serious moral/religious problems with it. Some really feel that marriage is primarily, or at least partially, about procreation, and that it should be between people that, at least nominally, can, or could have, children. Some simply can't wrap their brain around marriage being anything but a man and a woman; sort of a "one hand clapping" thing. I'd say some just don't understand gays. Some probably don't want to have to think about gays, even though they're willing to let people do what they want as long as they don't have to see it. (Call that bigoted if you like, but at least they're trying.)

It's funny when you think about it. What is marriage anyway? My wife and I were married recently in her country. So what is our marriage? We both have rings, we have a piece of paper, and our names are written in a book somewhere halfway around the world. That's it. But we love each other, and intend to stick with each other, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. To hell with what anyone else thinks, and the only reason I care about the actual "official" stuff is for immigration purposes.

[method]

alma, I understand what you're saying; I guess I've just got plenty of experience seeing good people trying to come to grips with something that they are unaccustomed to, and may even think is wrong, while making an honest effort to respect people and their choices. It's a difficult thing, as any anti-smoking activist will tell you. 🙂

thoreau, you said it better than I could (obviously). Maybe you're right about 10 years; at any rate, I'd say in 50 we'll all be doddering or dead, and everybody then will have forgotten it was ever any other way.

[alma hadayn]

method,

i'd certainly concede that there are many good people who are homophobic (my entire family, all my teachers in school, basically everyone I grew up with) amd there are even good people who are hardcore racists (I have friends in the looniest Israeli settler circles.)

And I can even believe that there are people who are not homophobic but genuinely think that gay marriage is not a good idea.

But I really cannot understand people who are so opposed to gay marriage that it becomes a major political priority to make sure it stays legally unrecognozed, and who set up these advocacy groups to troll political talkshows and yap about the sanctity of the American family which is about to be washed a way by a cascade of same-sex unions.

[MALAK]

alma, I have always believed that good people will find a way to get along with other good people, in spite of the silliness and stupidity which passes for "leadership" in all areas of our daily lives. May God bless you all, and keep you in Her care. Good night all.

[Les]

I'm confused. If the two women pictured are activists, does that somehow decrease the chance that they sincerely wanted to get married? Does it mean that they're trying to receive the same protections/priveleges afforded to heterosexual couples in a sneaky or suspicious way?

Also, I'd appreciate it if someone could tell me how this issue is different from, say, Brown vs. Board of Education or any other decisions that forced public entities to treat everyone the same regardless of their race. Certainly, people weren't "ready" for it and they resented the court's "activism."

I'm stumped as to why anyone would care. I mean, in what possible way will it will affect heterosexual marriages?

[scott]

As the social situation for gays improves in this country, more and more folks are going to come out and lead openly gay lives. You'll see more gay couples...with families. Any of you parents out there...would you sit back and watch your family be treated like dirt by the gov't? If your family were the one being singled out by the state, being deemed unworthy of equal treatment, I bet you'd feel differently about the situation. There seems to be a lot of misguided talk in this thread about gays just wanting acceptance.

[joe]

So in other words, JD, there are sufficiently strong legal arguments on both sides to allow Renquist's majority to do what it always does: decide which outcome it prefers, then make up some reasoning.

See, Bush v Gore, Barrier Islands Case, California Case on Medicinal MJ

[Lonewacko]

"The two old ladies are the founder of the Daughters of something, the country's oldest lesbian rights organization. A couple of lifelong agitators. Kind of blow to the "they're putting forth a nonthreatening public face" theory, no?"

Daughters of Dorothy?

Anyway, most people will just see the picture. Kind of supports my theory of them being wolves (of a kind) in sheep's clothing, no?

[method]

alma, I'm with you on that; people are putting waay too much time into this, myself included, I guess. I think it's shock, as much as anything for a lot of people. They've hardly had time to get used to the idea of openly gay couples, and now a judge says they have to get married? I think a few years from now the reaction would've been much more muted.

And yeah, a lot of the arguments are just grasping at straws. Homosexuality is a funny thing from a Christian point of view; most of the other major dictums (not talking about crazy Toric laws), that don't deal purely with one's relationship with God, deal with treating others fairly or with respect (turn the other cheek, thou shalt not kill, etc.), as opposed to a consensual, nonharmful act. And even though the scriptural basis is highly debatable, homosexuality=bad has entered the dogma of just about every major sect. So I think a lot of people have trouble reconciling this when they realize that it doesn't actually hurt anyone any more than "onanism" does.

As far as myself, this whole argument just happened to hit at a time when I was thinking a lot about marriage and what it means, and getting married to someone from a very different culture in a very different country. Which had me thinking about the weird relationships between the legal, personal, civil, spritual, familial, etc. aspects of marriage, anyway.

[Randy]

"But does full faith and credit require the recognition of licenses?"

Ask yourself this, and you'll have your answer:

If you live in Florida and have a FL driver's license, and you drive over the border into Tennessee, do the TN staties pull you over for driving without a valid driver's license?

[rst]

decide which outcome it prefers, then make up some reasoning.

Welcome to Constitutional Law 101. It didn't start with Rehnquist, and it's not a behavior owned by the republicans. The devil is in the machinery, not the mindset.

[Citizen]

I'm stumped as to why anyone would care. I mean, in what possible way will it will affect heterosexual marriages?

As someone who does not support gay marriages, I'll bite. I don't think it will affect heterosexual marriages. But I agree with the earlier poster that regarded state sanctioned gay marriages as tantamount to forced "acceptance" of something I deem immoral. Yeah, there are a lot of current laws that I'm not happy with either. And I'm not trying to legislate morality, because the goal is to minimize the legislation. Law is the morality that we agree on. It should not be the morality that people think we should agree on.

Yeah, I can "tolerate" gay marriage, but I don't have to like it, and I don't have to pretend to like it.

I take Les' comment about "activism" to mean that the government ought to do "what's right" regardless of whether or not people want it. But that's the rub with democracy: you've got to let people decide whether or not they want it. It's no good to act on whether or not they *should* want it.

[Anonymous]

Joe asked: "But does full faith and credit require the recognition of licenses? For example, if you have a permit to carry a certain type of gun in Texas, and that gun in illegal to posess in Massachusetts, does the Texas license get you off the hook? And why or why not is this example applicable to marriage licenses?"

Excellent question Joe. The answer, I suspect, is that Full Faith and Credit does not extend to the issuance of gun licenses. Whether or not this is actually constitutional, I do not know. Generally the states regulate the gun industry within their borders and all citizens within those borders are technically supposed to adhere to those policies.

I do not know why this is the case. Given the 2nd Amendment, I personally do not understand why there are any licenses for guns at all, but the debate continues as to what exactly the 2nd Amendment actually means. Go figure.

Under Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution, full faith and credit is given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. For whatever reason, gun licenses do not necessarily fit into this category. Again, I know no reason why. I would think that a gun license would be a matter of public record but that's just me. As for marriage or civil unions (as in Vermont), this apparently fits into the public act or public records. I suspect that this is a far bigger issue because all states recognize heterosexual marriage and always have. So, the argument is likely to go that if a state is willing to recognize the marriages of heterosexuals from other states, then that state cannot discriminate against same-sex partners who are also married from other states. Eventually the argument will just turn on discrimination.

I do not pretend to know the answer to your questions. In fact, I'm rather unsatisfied with the one I attempted to provide. Full faith and credit is actually a bit more complicated than it seems, particularly since the states still have the right to govern themselves based on their own particular principles provided it does not contravene the intent of the Federal Constitution.

As for Alma who mentioned that the city of San Francisco was already challenging the California statutes governing marriage, I suspected nothing less. But the judicial process is long, so don't expect San Francisco gay marriages to have more meaning than those in Massachusetts. In May we will be issuing licenses with all the benefits that those in San Francisco will not be able to tap into just yet.

[joe]

Randy, the fact that states choose to recognize each others drivers licenses does not mean they are required to. There is no political movement featuring large numbers of officeholders dedicated to denying drivers licenses to Floridians.

Though now that I think about it...

[rst]

Doing "what's right" is a function of one's overall philosophy. That the left sees gay marriage as "what's right" is of no higher objective validity than that the right sees gay marriage as "wrong". So far the argument from the gay camp has leaned too much towards "it's just the right thing to do," which has no greater value than the bible banging "God hates homosexuals" bit. Goodridge was a decision based almost entirely on precedent. Were there any recourse to re-examine the decision you'd likely have a > 50/50 shot of it being overturned, again and again. There is no basis to determine anything what is the "right path" here. There is thus no overriding reason to change. Unless you're blindly progressive.

[Les]

Citizen, thanks for biting. I'll reward you with more questions!

Do you think that it should have been illegal for a man and a woman to co-habitate when it was frowned upon by most of society? Should it have remained illegal for people of mixed races to marry when it was disapproved of by most of society? Should Satanism be denied the same tax breaks as other religions because most people find it offensive?

[alma hadayn]

Maybe a legal expert can clarify things, but my understanding is that the city's position is that the state ban on same-sex marriages is not binding because it's unconstitutional, and therefore they consider the licenses to be valid immediately. City officials have apparently said that they plan to honor them immediately for all benefits conferred by a marriage license.

If and when some state agency refuses to honor them or some group sues them, then they will argue the Constitution. But I think that as far as city business is concerned, the marriages are fully recognized right now.

[scott]

rst, "it's just the right thing to do", in my experience, isn't the thrust of the debate from the gay side, but rather the insistence that the legal guarantees of equal protection extend to gays.

The overriding reason to change is that the government is overstepping the law, to the detriment of people's well-being. That should strike a chord in any libertarian's heart.

[Heather]

"The biggest issue I have with gay marriage is not two people destroying the fabric of western civilization or whatever gobly gook is coming from the right. Mine is that my tax dollars will indirectly go to support things that I believe are morally wrong."

This is exactly how I feel about school vouchers. I hate the idea of my taxes going to support parochial schools which teach that my agnostic self and atheist husband are going to be tortured for eternity by the agents of their god. Sigh. What the 1040EZ form really needs is an opt-out list, "I would NOT like my taxes to be used to finance the following programs..."

[J]

Joe asked: "But does full faith and credit require the recognition of licenses? For example, if you have a permit to carry a certain type of gun in Texas..."

What about for marriages themselves? There are different ages for statutory rape in different states, and I assume there are different ages for marriage as a result. If two 16 year olds are married legally in one state and move to a state with a higher legal age, is their marriage recognized? Or am I just completely full of shit that there are differences between states on legal marriage age?

Regarding the more "conservative" SF mayor, if I remember correctly he's affiliated with the democratic party and was more or less hand picked by ol' Willie Brown as his replacement; the candidate he beat was a green. He probably wouldn't be considered conservative in too many places in the US besides SF.

[alma hadayn]

"Regarding the more "conservative" SF mayor, if I remember correctly he's affiliated with the democratic party and was more or less hand picked by ol' Willie Brown as his replacement; the candidate he beat was a green. He probably wouldn't be considered conservative in too many places in the US besides SF."

Yeah, I was kidding- out here our politicians are comprised of the moderates (who in the rest of the country would be known as the liberal Democrats) and the liberals (who in the rest of the country would be known as off-the-charts-leftists.) But I predict that this move will make Newsom more popular.

[Citizen]

Les, you betcha. I thought most of this would jump to the new thread at the top. I'll stay here for a while.

Co-habitants and mixed ethnicity marriages: no, these should not be illegal. But 1)AFAIK there are no laws regarding co-habitation one way or the other and 2) I don't have any moral problems with mixed ethnicity marriages. If this is supposed to reveal some inconsistancy on my part, I fail to see it.

Should other religious groups be getting tax breaks at all? Possibly, if they provide a service that society deems worthy of it. Do Satanist groups meet that same criteria? I don't know. If so, great; if not, there's discrimination to deny them the tax breaks.

[Les]

Citizen,

I brought up the mixed race/co-habitation points, not because I suspect you or others are against them, but rather because less than a hundred years ago (75? 50?), the same arguments you're using were used to deny mixed race couples the right to marry.

I understand that gay marriage offends people's morality, but I don't think the government has any business defending people's morality unless that morality can be clearly shown to prevent victimization of one kind or another. So, the question is: how does gay marriage victimize anyone?

I don't think that churches should receive tax breaks just because they're churches, but if that's the law, then it should mean that ALL churches get tax breaks, not just the ones that are approved by the majority of Americans. Otherwise, Muslims and Hindus would be treated unfairly under the law. Most Americans are Christians and most Christians believe that it's immoral to worship someone other than Christ. And even though it would be democratic to let the Christians deny Muslims and Hindus the same treatment from the government, it would be simply wrong.

But I'm rambling now.

[Citizen]

Les,
The misapplication of my (or any) arguement does not denegrate the validity of it in another application.

but I don't think the government has any business defending people's morality unless that morality can be clearly shown to prevent victimization of one kind or another.

If I'm reading this right, this IS your morality. And I agree, in that light, there's not much room to prevent gay marriage.

but if that's the law, then it should mean that ALL churches get tax breaks, not just the ones that are approved by the majority of Americans. Otherwise, Muslims and Hindus would be treated unfairly under the law.

No, not ALL churches. Only those that can meet the criteria for justification of the tax breaks. If you don't meet the criteria, it's not unfair. If you can't come up with a justification, there shouldn't be the tax breaks.

it would be simply wrong

What does that mean?

[rst]

The overriding reason to change is that the government is overstepping the law, to the detriment of people's well-being.

What law? Courts do not write law, cf. Andrew Jackson..."the SC has made its decision, now let it enforce it." The SJC in Mass, by a slim majority, found mostly through newly established precedent that the oldest - and thus most syntactically flexible - active constitution in the world dictated that the state of Massachusetts could not refuse to give marriage licenses to gays who want to get married. Legal decisions are a function of which side's lawyer makes the most compelling argument and can answer the judge's challenges to points of their case to the satisfaction of a majority of those judges. If the case were brought again tomorrow with different counsel, the case would quite possibly go a completely different way. Goodridge doesn't have very solid legal ground, but if you're scratching your head at how SCOTUS produces more and more draconian decisions, it's the same basic game: the Law is based on interpretation of the words that are written, not the words themselves. Interpretations of words vary widely depending on time and interpreters, whether it's a code of law or a book about invisible crop-helping deities. Getting someone to agree with you is the art of rhetoric; getting a judge to agree with you has since Marbury v Madison been the foundation of our law.

Whose well-being? Marriage is not a human right, that's reproduction you're thinking of. It's not a constitutional right, because marriage rights are not additional protections, they're conventions by which two people share amongst each other the same rights they have individually. The notion of marriage is owned by society, and society is the mob, not the government.

[nobody]

Can I marry myself and leave all my money to me?

[Les]

Citizen,

"The misapplication of my (or any) arguement does not denegrate the validity of it in another application."

I didn't apply it. The majority of Americans did last century. Maybe a clearer way of making my point is: What's the difference between the majority of Americans being morally against mixed-race marriage and the majority of Americans being morally against same-sex marriage?

What does "it would be simply wrong" mean?

Christ, I dunno anymore! Lemme have a drink and think about it!

[Phil]

Everyone is treated equal when it comes to marriage- you have to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination. There aren't too many other laws that are more equal in application ... maybe speeding laws.

Who was it who once said, "The rich and the poor alike are prohibited from sleeping under bridges?"

[method]

What's the difference between the majority of Americans being morally against mixed-race marriage and the majority of Americans being morally against same-sex marriage?

All right, with all the requisite caveats that this is simply a statement about this particular argument and thus doesn't necessarily impact the greater issue one way or the other...

The difference is all in how the question is framed. Stated that way, there doesn't seem to be any difference. However, I would say that a more accurate wording of the question would be as follows: "What's the difference between banning mixed-race marriages and not creating the institution of same-sex marriage (or modifying marriage to include such)." And the answer to that question is: a lot. Historically, there've been plenty of mixed-race marriages, in the US and elsewhere, and thus the prevention of such required an actual ban. Which of course is rightly seen as an assault on civil liberties.

However, there really is no significant historical precedent for same-sex marriage as such. You won't find many laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, per se. What you'll find (if anything) is a definition of marriage that includes in some form the fact that the people involved number two and are of the opposite sex. I stand firmly behind the notion (whichever side is right in this debate) that this argument can only correctly be framed as an argument over the creation of same-sex marriages (or the modification, blah blah). So while saying so certainly doesn't invalidate other arguments for same-sex marriage, I do find the analogy of this situation with anti-miscegenation laws to be inapt. The difference between an outright prohibition of something preexisting and the lack of the creation of something that has never really existed may seem subtle, but I think it is important.

This makes me think again of a question I've never seen answered. So, the opponents (of same-sex marriage) say "procreation", and the proponents say "hah! childless couples, old/infertile people, etc." So what about incestuous marriages? The argument that this could lead to animal marriages is clearly peurile, but how is the case for incestuous, and perhaps polygamous, marriage not, if anything, stronger than the case for same-sex marriage? I'm not saying that implies a judgement, but I've never seen it properly addressed.

[I am too embarassed to say]

Dear nobody,

No. But if I change my name to "nobody" and we get married, then we can be nobody x 2, an irresistable force!

Yes, I am insane.

[Julian Sanchez]

Phil:
Anatole France. Though I think the better analogy is to anti-miscegenation laws. "Everyone is equal: you can marry anyone of your own race." Sophistry on stilts.

[Heather]

Missing the good ol' days when men could beat their wives and children in peace there, Mossback?

[bigbigslacker]

Any lawyer-types see significant legal problems arrising over this? Filing joint tax returns and signing on the line at the end that says ~"this stuff is true and you can send me to guantanamo if I'm a big fat liar"? Or maybe from signing up your "spouse" for health insurance bemefits he/she is not legally entitled to? Auto insurance discounts? I see a day in court where the lossing side's insurance company decides not to pay because Dan and Jim are not insured afterall because they commited fraud. Or maybe one of these "married" couples will sue to recieve a benefit denied them by an organization that will not recognize their marriage?

How about actual fraud charges? Are these officals conspirators? Or maybe they have warned the participants their marriage is not legal?

[Critic]

It seems that the most vocal critics of same-sex marriage are religious fundamentalists. They view atheism in much the same way.

I ask: What are you so afraid of? If there is a god, and he disapproves, let him do something about it.

[speedwell]

My fellow and I are straight; we've been living together six years; we're not married because the family law in Texas... ah, the sheer bureaucratic idiocy leaves me speechless.

So long as the government is the implied third party in every marriage, so long as the marriage license requirement implies we are government property and need its permission to have sex/raise a family, we're not likely to opt in to the institution.

[Les]

method, you make some interesting points. But I think that looking at it in terms of having to "create" a thing called "same-sex marriage" is convoluting the issue somewhat. Whatever you call it, there is still a segment of society that is being denied the same priveleges afforded to others for no objective reasons (or for the exact same reasons that marriage was denied to mixed-race couples).

The possibility of multiple-partner marriages (relatively rare) or incest marriages (extremely rare) seems just more of a reason for the government to get out of the whole thing and let adults do what they will together.

[yelowd]

I'll say that I definitely stand on the side of "disturbed" by homosexual marriage. I simply can't help it, I think it is wrong. (on this point that was brought up earlier, the bible is pretty clear on the issue in both the new and old testament and as for Jesus talking about love they neighbor and all of that, let's not forget that that is how christians are supposed - they certainly don't always live up to it - to act toward their fellow man, the overall message of the bible though is certainly to repent. I'm not trying to be preachy or anything, just wanted to make that clarification)

All of that said, I've come out in defence of gays wanting to get "married" - which is not popular with church folk. My belief is one that I think it is wrong, but certainly not my job to use the gov't to prevent someone from doing what I believe is a sin. As for the churches that are "marrying " gays, so be it. They believe that God sees what they are doing as right and good. What you do before God is your business.

The biggest issue I have with gay marriage is not two people destroying the fabric of western civilization or whatever gobly gook is coming from the right. Mine is that my tax dollars will indirectly go to support things that I believe are morally wrong. With "legitimacy" through the state, new rights and issues develop. Adoption, education, housing laws, etc. I may be wrong, discuss...

[method]

Les, Sure, but you do at least have to alter the generally accepted meaning of the term, or at the very least use it legally in a manner that's not entirely consistent with the generally accepted meaning. Which I guess isn't all the uncommon. 😛

My point is just that I don't think anyone ever sat down and said "Ha ha! We're going to deny gays the right to marry!" It just wasn't thought of as a possibility; which is of course not to say that it would have been accepted had it been introduced. But the sentiment of deliberate denial was very real when anti-miscegenation laws were introduced. I guess I'm arguing as much about intent as effect.

As for the rest, what you said is true, but I think those examples provide an important proof of concept. As long as those laws are on the books, there is a definite moral component to the marriage laws. Most people may well find the marriage of a brother and sister to be repellent (as do I), but what makes those laws right (within the current framework) if not allowing same-sex marriages is wrong? Will the day come when a group of people stands up for incestuous marriage rights? And will we have any logical or moral grounds to oppose them? And would that really make any difference to the world anyway? I don't know; I just think this whole issue is a lot more nuanced than people realize. And, realistically, as long as we have taxes, immigration, and spousal claims to property, the gov't will always have to decide what constitutes a marriage, at least for its own purposes.

[yelowd]

After that post I saw this
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040213/480/macs11002130041&e=12

The ring on the man's finger certainly indicates that they are already in one way or another married. Just an observation on whether it is for legitimacy or not.

[ron]

the fact that there is debate about this is depressing.

[joe]

Wacko,

The two old ladies are the founder of the Daughters of something, the country's oldest lesbian rights organization. A couple of lifelong agitators. Kind of blow to the "they're putting forth a nonthreatening public face" theory, no?

[Anonymous]

I do not support same-sex marriage. I do not believe that this makes me a bigot, but what the hell do I care what any of you think of me. I also happen to live in Massachusetts and am witnessing this debate first hand. Putting all that aside, being a law student, I can at least provide those of you who inquired with some of the legal ramifications (or challenges) about same-sex marriage.

As for San Francisco, I do not know what will happen there. The "marriage" (and I only use quotes here, not because of my supposed bigotry but because of the California Statutes as they are now written) of these ladies will most likely not be recognized anywhere else in the state of California other than San Francisco. That means that these 2 women cannot file joint tax returns as a married couple nor apply for social security benefits and the like that the state or the feds handle apart from the city itself. This particular marriage does nothing to bestow benefits because the state does not recognize same sex marriages. It is merely a marketing tool that will be used to further the cause of same-sex marriage. It is rather clever. I do think California will follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts, the question is, will it be through the courts, or through the people.

Now this is where it gets really interesting. Because of DOMA, the various states are not forced to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states, so if same-sex married couples move to those states that do not recognize them as such, those couples will not have any of the benefits that they would have received if they stayed in the state within which they were married. But, this is going to create a mess for the federal government because technically DOMA is merely a statute and the Constitution of the US clearly provides a full faith and credit clause that basically says that what one state permits, the other states must recognize. Like marriage.

So, what this is really about is not a state campaign, it's about a national campaign to legitimize homosexuality. It will get uglier before it gets better. It is my undertanding that DOMA is being challenged, but hasn't yet made it's way to the Supreme Court. But it will unless the Congress decides to entertain a constitutional amendment, and that is a long shot. And while I'm personally opposed to gay marriage, I'm not sure that a constitutional amendment is the way to go.

Haveing said all that, what bothers me about this discussion is that most of you think that only conservatives are anti-gay. That cannot be further from the truth. While perhaps more conservatives than liberals are opposed to same-sex marriage, it is obvious from watching the legislature in Massachusetts (which is predominately made up of democrats...who historically tend to be liberal) liberals too are bothered by same-sex marriage. And Clinton did sign DOMA into law, enough said.

[joe]

"while wife-beating has always been both rare and unacceptable in America"

Do non liberals find mossback's comments as offensive and bag of hammers dumb as I do?

What a dishonest piece of crap. If I appear to be sneering at you, it's because I am.

[joe]

"the Constitution of the US clearly provides a full faith and credit clause that basically says that what one state permits, the other states must recognize. Like marriage."

But does full faith and credit require the recognition of licenses? For example, if you have a permit to carry a certain type of gun in Texas, and that gun in illegal to posess in Massachusetts, does the Texas license get you off the hook? And why or why not is this example applicable to marriage licenses?

[yelowd]

good question, joe.
Anon, what's the answer?

How specific is the congress going to be in defining the amendment? Will it just pertain to marriage or will it be more broad to deal with issues such as the one joe brought up?

Federalism vs. states rights. At one point, I thought all was lost. Good to see it coming back.

[little f]

That picture! Reminds of the lesbian who was so ugly that she had to date men. Ugh!

[thoreau]

I have no idea how frequent wife beatings have been in this country. I don't much care what the numbers are, except to the extent that any downward trend is a good thing.

What I DO know is mossback seems pretty upset about people being upset about wife-beating. I figure wife beating is a bad thing. I'm against it. I don't see why mossback is so angry that somebody would be against it.

[rst]

I do not support same-sex marriage. I do not believe that this makes me a bigot

Here is where many will differ with you. To certain individuals here and in the supporting camp, that you are opposed to what they support automatically makes you a bigot, because any reasoning you have is void on account of their highly enlightened progressivism. Society in general does not desire to see a term hijacked which it allowed the government by consent to adopt in an official manner, and there is no "constitutional" right to do so. The only thing to which homosexuals have proper claim from the gov't, if anything, are the legal rights extended by the government on account of the contract, if the underlying legislative and litigatory processes are satisfied.

Whether you wish to concede the difference, or you'd rather gloss it over by using "people" instead of gender terms for this issue, saving those terms instead for issues where you feel gender is relevant, is irrelevant; there are demonstrable differences between a heterosexual and a homosexual couple: gender differentiation, absolute in the former, none in the latter. Reproduction potential. Family issues. Custody battles. Default favoritism in domestic disputes.

*begin sarcasm* But why oh why would they even think of adopting a different name for the contract? How utterly repressive...*end sarcasm*...especially given that few but the most progressive regions of the world will provide marriage to gay couples. There is no palpable reason to adopt such a deeply progressive stance over a moderate compromise, given the divisive nature of the issue. That the social conservatives are grossly upset may not mean anything to you, but you selfish bastards are not the only ones on the planet. Learn to co-exist - an effort that requires constant compromise - or move to San Francisco. Especially since it does not seem that the legislative or popular votes are going to save your movement.

[I'm just saying]

Critic said: What are you so afraid of? If there is a god, and he disapproves, let him do something about it.

One might suspect that that is preceisely what they are afraid of.

[alma hadayn]

"Not being American, could someone give a brief rundown on 'separate but equal'?"

In 1896 the US Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment's "equal protection clause" as long as the separate facilities were equal. In 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, he court decided that in education, "separate facilities are inherently unequal".

The phrase has become something of a mantra for civil rights activists, and the analogy here would be that the creation of a separate legal category same-sex couples would in practice lead to unequal treatment.

[thoreau]

"separate but equal" is only discrimination if the inequality is solely in name. What's in a name? A contract to share all responsibilities and privileges by any other name would still a contract be.

I figure gays should just cool down, give civil unions a few more years, call their civil unions by the word "marriage" in social situations, and eventually the distinction will blur to the point where nobody notices when the bill is passed to change the name from "civil union" to "marriage."

I know, I know, it isn't perfect. Well, they've waited thousands of years to be fully accepted in western culture. Another 10 years to complete the paperwork won't hurt.

I'll pause while both sides throw rocks at me.

[thoreau]

When I wrote:

""separate but equal" is only discrimination if the inequality is solely in name.

I should have written

"separate but equal" is only discrimination if the inequality is in more than just a name.

[yelowd]

Seriously, why is this such an issue? If I stick to my libertarian ideology, then yeah, get the gov't out of marriage- leave it to private/religious institutions. Civil unions can be the domain of the state.

At this point the gays are pissing me off- let the arrows fly. The gay movement reminds me of a religious movement (much like many other things- politics, libertarianism, greens, exercise fiends, etc). As such, it is trying to use the gov't to a) batter the country with its morality and b) legitamize itself. Everyone is treated equal when it comes to marriage- you have to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination. There aren't too many other laws that are more equal in application ... maybe speeding laws.

Personally, both sides can all go play foursquare on a busy highway. Clearly, there are "religious" groups actively working to control the gov't and wield it like a sword to make america more like their worldview- be it pagan, atheist, or judeo-christian. My only hope is that the majority of politicals will not want to touch this issue and will push for "marriage" to be abandoned by the state for some sort of new term like Sullum writes about.

I'll add to the above by pointing to sex awareness classes vs. prayer in school; and the like in public school. Whomever is in power, attempts to use the gov't in many ways to influence the next generation.

By the way, nice column, Jacob.

[MALAK]

Thanks, alma. So my parents DID get the best of both worlds. 'Civil Unions' should henceforth be the domain of governments, while marriages will be the perview of the churches. The religious folks will have to go through both ceremonies in order to acquire legal standing for their religious ceremony. Neither ceremony will be recognized by the either side in any official capacity, but the dissolution of either will result in the same legal obligations and consequences that occur now. Okay now that that's settled let's talk about Palestine . . .

[alma hadayn]

"The "marriage" (and I only use quotes here, not because of my supposed bigotry but because of the California Statutes as they are now written) of these ladies will most likely not be recognized anywhere else in the state of California other than San Francisco."

The city plans to argue in court that current California law is unconstitutional, and hopes for a decision like the one in Mass. If that turns out to be the case then these licenses will in fact be the first legal gay marriages in the country.

Anyway, there really does not seem to be much of a debate over here. The "rogue mayor", as I mentioned, was actually the more conservative candidate, who beat out his liberal counterpart 53%-47% two months ago. I have not been able to find citywide polls, but I suspect that there will be virtually no opposition within SF (and prob not here in Berkeley either), but all of California is not the Bay area.

And whatever happens, I think most San Franciscans will probably be proud of the Mayor's civil disobedience.

[Will Wilkinson]

Contempt first, then pity.

[alma hadayn]

It's undoubtedly true that part of the push for gay marriage comes from a desire for official legitimacy-they want the gov't's blessing. This is what libertarians seem to find annoying, especially those who don't like the idea of gay marriage.

But whether Jane and Jill get married really only affects Jane and Jill, and the fierce opposition to granting them the license is way more unreasonable and petty than Jane and Jill's request for affirmation. And that's w/o even getting into the question of civil rights.

This is what is so disturbing to me about this "major issue": who are the potentials losers? In most political fights, two parties are tugging on the same resource, and someone's got to let go. Here, the only thing opponents of gay marriage have to let go of is their hostility. If you don't like same-sex marriages, just don't marry someone of the same sex.

[MALAK]

alma, that would only be reasonable if there were not a significant number of people who DO feel that legitimizing what they feel is anathema to their belief system DOES harm. To me the ideal solution, from a libertarian stand point, would be to respect both groups equally. One last time, in very simple terms:

Marriages will take place in the church

Civil Unions will take place at City Hall

If you want the government to recognize your 'marriage', then do it again at City Hall.

Anything wrong with this proposal?

[alma hadayn]

Just to be clear, I agree that ideally the government should not be in the business of defining marriage and affirming lifestyles. But I object to the implication of much of the right-libertarian writing on the issue that the "gay agenda" and the "anti-gay agenda" are equally oppressive. One is about a historically persecuted group affirming themselves, maybe getting in your face a little too much; the other is about trying to perpetuate the persecution.

[amr]

why make people have to get married twice?

[alma hadayn]

Malak,
your proposal is fine with me

[JD]

Joe,

As far as I can tell, it's just a complete mess. States hate giving up autonomy on that kind of thing (imagine telling New York that they had to abide by Arizona gun laws, or Alabama that they had to recognize California gay marriages) so they tend to just tell you go piss up a rope, and unfortunately the Supreme Court seems to have either not cared, or mumbled something about the states having a valid regulatory interest. IANAL, so it's just my view.

[yelowd]

Ok, not to be an ass and make everyone hate me. But how much of this is all for show? I know its very cynical, but just figuring the discussion on kerry alone shows that when people know the camera is watching they act a certain way. If these two older women are movement folks, as a poster said earlier, than I'm going to be very suspicious. I would say this for them if they were on the right or the left.

The attire throws me off, too. The only people dressed up (in the photos) are two lesbians, who interestingly enough are dressed similar to a bride and groom.

[Lonewacko]

"Don't you know that young lesbian couples consist of one feminine lady, and one butch one with a Patrick Swazye mullet."

I knew this 30-something attractive lady with a nice tan. Had a picture or something of Collette on her wall, worked for a gay org. Introduced me to her new girlfriend. Holy Moses! Looked like Frankenstein's sister. You can do better, says I to myself.

Anyhoo, you know how advertisers sell things using kids and puppies? Well, that's kinda how the gay marriage advocates are selling this. Since there are no kids or puppies around, they're using inoffensive old ladies. Who's going to object to a couple of nice old ladies? What kind of monster are you? What would you object to next, kids and puppies?

[method]

I'm reminded at this point of Mr. Garrison: "It's called tolerance for a reason, if you had to like it they'd call it acceptance." (Paraphrased, of course.) A lot of honest, more or less unbigoted people aren't comfortable with homosexuality. Most of those same people are perfectly willing to live and let live--to tolerate other people's lifestyles, even thought they may not like or understand it. But the fight for gay marriage is seen by both sides, rightly I think, as a fight for legitimacy, as stated above. And state legitimacy will be interpreted as acceptance. Argue all day long about whether it should be seen that way or not, but I think that's what makes a lot of people seriously uncomfortable. People who are perfectly willing to let others do their own thing are highly uncomfortable with what they will see as the gov't trying to force them to accept something they may honestly not want to accept.

And a lot of people will say tough tookies for them. Well, that's fine, just understand that doing things this way may make things harder in the long run. There's a right way and a wrong way to right a wrong. Wrongs should be righted, but if its done in the wrong way it can create a lot of problems and long lasting resentments that could be avoided. Slavery was evil, but freeing all the slaves overnight with the stroke of a pen was probably not quite the best way to solve it. (Oversimplification, I know, but I hope the point stands.)

So? So go with thoreau on this one. Go for civil unions. Yes, it won't quite convey the legitimacy that's the true goal here, but trust me, forcing the issue now will probably only make things worse.

[dj of raleigh]

Why 2 grannies? Why not 2 really hot young lesbians?

[method]

Mona, No offense, but if you'd read the first sentences I wrote, that statement was to specifically address the comparison between same-sex marriage and mixed-race marriage, a comparison I see repeatedly, and that I don't think is valid. Those statements were intended solely to counter that argument, not to be an argument themselves. Although you did come up with a pretty good analogy.

Actually, to play with that analogy, the reason allowing women to vote, serve on juries, etc., is just is because any person can do those things equally well regardless of gender. That we know. What the current issue is about is whether homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships according to whatever standard there is for marriage and the benefits thereof. That's a difficult argument to make, defend, or oppose, and one that a lot of people are uncomfortable with the gov't deciding. Marriage is supposed to be about love, so how do we test for it?

[Dan]

Look at the "misty-eyed" picture in the update. Look down.

Am I the only one disturbed by the fact that San Francisco City Hall has wall-to-wall brown shag carpet? I realize the city has a rep for being "trapped in the 70s", but dayum.

[scott]

MJ, just out of curiosity, what's your argument for why anti-miscegenation laws were a form of discrimination? I would like to see a cogent argument from you as to why limiting marriage to same-race couples is discrimination, but limiting it to opposite-sex couples isn't. The distinction you tried to make earlier regarding straight-couples' ability to have kids was already debunked by Brian. The ability to have kids isn't a prerequisite for marriage. In your opinion, should it be?

You also implied that gay marriage is just a way for gays to gain acceptance. This isn't the case. I'm starting to feel like a broken record (not necessarily from this thread), but as a young gay man who aspires to be a parent someday, I'm looking for equality in the eyes of the law for my family. Explain to me why my family should not receive the same protections that the majority of American families are afforded.

[MJ]

"You're rather abusing the term "cosmic justice" if you mean to use it in Thomas Sowell's sense: the gay marriage fight is precisely about the kind of formal, procedural equality that Sowell contrasts with "cosmic" justice."-Julian Sanchez

I have not seen Dr. Sowell comment on this issue yet one way or the other. However, I did read the book and thought I came away with a good understanding of what he meant.

"Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice."

I think that adequately decribes what the pro-gay marriage forces are seeking.

"Because ordinary Americans have not yet abandoned traditional justice, those who seek cosmic justice must try to justify it politically as meeting traditional concepts of justice. A failure to achieve the new vision of justice must be represented to the public and to the courts as "discrimination."

"In short, to promote cosmic justice, they must misrepresent what is happening as violations of traditional justice-- as understood by others who do not share their vision. Nor do those who make such claims necessarily believe them themselves. As Joseph Schumpeter once said: "The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."

The next thing the idealist will do is character assassination. All those who disagree with the great vision must be shown to have malign intentions, if not deep-seated character flaws. ...In short, demonization is one of the costs of the quest for cosmic justice" - Thomas Sowell, http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html

From what I've seen the pro-gay marriage forces are infected with a strain of progressive utopianism. I've yet seen a cogent argument as to why limiting marriage to heterosexuals is discrimination, just that not doing so is backwards. So people who think marriage is properly defined as a man and woman are "bigots" or comtempible, or pitiful and wish to perpetrate a holocaust on gays.

[MJ]

"Society changes. Please try to keep up."

From what I've seen "society" is resistant to this change. Do you have a better point?

[MJ]

Brian;

"Infertile couples?

Women past menopause?

Couples who just don't want kids and have no intention whatsoever of having them?"

I do not undertsand the argument that because you can make an easy determination in one case, all others must be subjected to microscopic examination.

In the case of the couple who does not want children, what of it? Nature has a nasty way of blowing such intentions to hell and gone.

[Mona]

Citizen writes: "No, not ALL churches. Only those that can meet the criteria for justification of the tax breaks. If you don't meet the criteria, it's not unfair. If you can't come up with a justification, there shouldn't be the tax breaks."

You mean whether they can satisfy the IRS that they are really religious? And so, what if the govt amended the tax code to say that, by definition, only Xian denominations would be considered truly religious? No Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. Only Xians get to be tax exempt. That would be cool? (Assume for purposes of this inquiry that the religion clauses of the First Amendment do not control; I'm only interested to know whether you think it would be right and fair for the state to discriminate against some faiths in this manner.) If you do not think this would be cool, then why is it ok to discriminate against gays when it comes to state recognition of same-sex marriages?

And method writes: "You won't find many laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, per se. What you'll find (if anything) is a definition of marriage that includes in some form the fact that the people involved number two and are of the opposite sex. I stand firmly behind the notion (whichever side is right in this debate) that this argument can only correctly be framed as an argument over the creation of same-sex marriages (or the modification, blah blah)."

Until about 100-150 yrs ago, in the West you very seldom, if ever, found women voting, or sitting in deliberative bodies for either purposes of legislating or rendering justice as a a juror. Laws just did not include women in these franchises, just as marriage statutes have not included same sex couples. Fortunately, extreme breaks from prior custom can and do occur, even when an injustice has a long pedigree; we "created" female jurors, voters and senators. So too can we "create" same-sex marriages and end another injustice. (It is unjust to prohibit same-sex marriage *if* the state is going to recognize a thing called marriage to begin with, and confer benefits to the married.)

--Mona--

[thoreau]

you need to repeat first grade

I'll get right on that as soon as I finish my Ph.D in physics next year. 🙂

[Mona]

Richard Bennett writes: "The point is that Del Martin made a career out of exaggerating the problems in American families in order to make her disordered life seem more acceptable. If I'm upset about anything it's about her fundamental dishonesty."

She may have exaggerated the extent of wife-beating, but she helped bring it out of the closet. I know it happened in my family and I simultaneously thought it was normal for my mother to be punched around like that, but also a shameful secret. And normal for Dad to knock the tar out of me. You'll find few well-educated, politically active females who are more criticical of feminism and its excesses than I am (Cathy Young is my kind of writer about such things), but your remarks seem benighted in the other direction. The tip-off is your insistence that Ms. Martin crusaded against wife-beating in order to gain acceptance for her "disordered" life. Mindreader, are you?

I think my mother's bruises were disordered; I see nothing disordered about Ms. Martin and her spouse being together.

--Mona--

[Yehudit]

"Since there are no kids or puppies around, they're using inoffensive old ladies. Who's going to object to a couple of nice old ladies? What kind of monster are you? What would you object to next, kids and puppies?"

What is significant about this is that Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been out of the closet lesbian activists since the 1950s, when that took a lot more guts than now. Anyone in the gay world knows who they are. Whether or not they are grannies is besides the point,

[Steven Crane]

As one of my northern cohabiting friends is proud to point out, in her home state of North Dakota, there is a law preventing an unmarried man and woman from "openly and notoriously" spending the night together.

[Heather]

"In the case of the couple who does not want children, what of it? Nature has a nasty way of blowing such intentions to hell and gone."

Then Technology can come out and kick the hell out of Nature for being so nasty. Abortion's still legal, doncha know?