Principle (n): Look It Up, Cheryl

I tend to watch Crossfire for laughs, but right now I'm livid. Tucker Carlson just asked Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques why, for all the reasons she advances to support gay marriage, polyamorous groupings of three or more men or women shouldn't be recognized. Her brilliant, principled answer?

"Because I don't approve of that."

Oh. Because you don't approve of that. So then why, again, is a majority's nonsensical disapproval of your lifestyle supposed to be trumped by a principle of fairness? Why should anyone now take your fine language about equality and human rights seriously?

Look, I understand that for political reasons it might be prudent, right now, anyway, for defenders of gay marriage not to publicly acknowledge what a real principle of fairness here entails. I could've even, reluctantly, swallowed a dodge like: "Well, that's not at issue right now, and it'd be have to be considered independently." But this kind of BS answer takes the wind out of your sails pretty badly. If you're going to demand the equal treatment that is your right, then you ought to have both the empathy and the cojones not to buckle when the rights of even less popular groups are at stake.

Comments

[late for the boom]

I completely concur with your statement Julian, but I really must ask, why CANT we recognise polyamorous relationships??

Seriously though, can someone please give me a real, honest, to the point reason why we cant recognise gay unions?? One that doesnt rely on some centuries old myth of a man in the sky.

[Karl Rove]

That's the best thing I've read on this site today!

[Warren]

A better answer:
"Because marriage bestows privileges, such as 'power of attorney', which by their very nature can only be enjoyed by individuals and not groups."

[titus]

Or how about:

The one group into polygamy - Mormons - actually are trying to take over the world, and have resorted to murder to do so.

Those hat-talkers freak the shiznit out of me.

Seriously, though, I'm with Julian.

[Drew]

I support gay marriage because the arguments against it are idoitic and without foundation(ie. It isn't in the bible/it will destroy traditional marriage). I'm a married hetero and my marriage is just fine thank you even after 2000 couples have been married in SF. The real issue here is that a man and woman can get certain benefits after being married that gays cannot. In fact if the government would get out of the marriage business all together then I'd support polygamy(though I wouldn't practice it). If I remember right our Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So if a religion endorses gay marriage(or gays create their own religion that does) then the gov. can't do anything about it. So which is wrong, people practicing their religion or gov. granting certain people(married heteros) special rights?

[Russ]

I'm not sure I'd go for having government out of the marriage business "altogether".

Somebody still has to enfore marriage contracts (since all civil marriages represent a contract between parties wedded parties... holy matrimony involves a contract with God as well, which would be beyond the jurisdiction of the government).

The government's role is to see that contracts are honoured, not to decide which contracts between consenting adults it will or won't respect.

More importantly, the government should get out of the business of bestowing privileges upon married couples. The IRS has no need to know who you're hitched to.

The only issues I can think of that are the government's business are freedom from subpoena, joint property rights, transfer of estates, power of attorney and custody of minors. Last I checked, none of these things depended on sexual orientation.

[Andrew]

I don't think any Libertarian supports any form of affirmative action...you will never find someone describing themselves as a libertarian, and arguing that while they don't support affirmative action based on gender classifications, they do with respect to racial classifications...or vice-versa.

And no libertarian would argue that whenever the state has promulgated one form of affirmative action, some liberty interest compels us to also adopt the other form.

The case of marriage is analogous. That the state has created a package of privledges (and liabilities) called "marriage", and designed a civil code consistent with it, in the case of heterosexual couples who opt to enter into it, does not create a compelling liberty interest in having the state extend that package to everyone who could conceivably be interested in it.

If you were opposed to welfare, it really shouldn't bother you if the state of Utah limited some form of state welfare to Mormons...your only interest would be in eliminating the provision for Mormons-- not extending it to everyone who would otherwise qualify.

[Coarsetad]

I think a better answer to give, would be that "gay marriage and polygamy are COMPLETELY seperate issues; therefore, have no interest in comparing them."
This kind of arguement is the same as a gun control proponent asking the head of the NRA, "If you support a citizens right to bear arms, then you must also support thier rights to carry nuclear weapons."

If using polygamy, incest, bestiality is you only way to agrue against gay marriage... it kinda shows, you cant make much of a case.

Actually, if i been asked that question, I would asked the interviewer to get back on topic.

[Mark Anderson]

The only thing I disagree is that this is a dodge: "Well, that's not at issue right now, and it'd be have to be considered independently."

These are two different issues and this is the best answer to this rhetorical trap.

I second late for bloom's request: Someone give me the reason gays should not be allowed to marry. What reason did the Mass. Supreme Court miss?

[thoreau]

I think that, as a practical matter, even in an ideal libertarian state the gov't would find it useful to have a pre-defined marriage contract. Think about it: Lots of couples would go about drafting these contracts to share property, power of attorney, etc. They'd all be pretty much the same. From time to time courts would have to interpret/enforce these contracts, so a body of precedents would accumulate. Most precedents would only apply to the "standard" contracts with the usual clauses, but those who don't like the precedents could write contracts with different clauses in them.

Eventually, with most people doing the standard thing, the courthouse would probably just stock some standard forms with blanks to fill in the names of the spouses and whatnot. And legislation pertaining to contracts would probably, for expedience, say "All contracts for joint property between two persons shall, unless otherwise stated in the contract, be enforced as....blah, blah, blah...."

So, even in an ideal libertarian state, there would probably wind up being a "standard" marriage contract for any two (or more, in Utah) adults to sign, but people wanting different contracts would be free to draft their own contracts.

Seen in that light, I can't get too bent out of shape over legal recognition of marriage contracts.

[Mo]

Interesting note on polygamy. When my father came here back in the day and applied for the green card, he came due to his half-brother's citizenship. However, because he came from a country where polygamy is legal, my dad had to prove that his mother and my uncle's mother were not married to my grandfather at the same time (they weren't). Since my grandmother had passed away years before then and the Egyptian bureaucracy is notoriously bad, he had to get documentation from my uncle's mom (the "old" wife), which was, understandably, very uncomfortable.

I just find it interesting that my dad's blood relation to my uncle would, in essence, be nullified had my grandfather been a polygamist (even if my father was born only when his mother was my grandfather's only wife), something completely out of the control of my father. I just throw this out because this is one of those quirks of immigration law you'll never run across unless you had to go through it and it's tangentially related to the point at hand.

On a side note, why are "traditionalist" saying that polygamy should be legal before gay marriage. Plygamy is about as old as marriage itself and is mentioned frequently in the Bible.

[Mo]

Grrr, the last graf should read "On a side note, why aren't "traditionalists" saying that polygamy should be legal before gay marriage. Polygamy is about as old as marriage itself and is mentioned frequently in the Bible."

[RedHerring]

If you think divorce proceedings are a nightmare now, just imagine what would happen when one of three wives goes splitsville from the other two and the man.

Or, to continue in the Heinlein (Moon Is A Harsh Mistress) approach to polygamy, suppose a formerly stable arrangement of three men and five women splits into a single man, a triad of two men and one woman, and a foursome of women. Property issues aside, who gets how much custody of which kids?

[Xrlq]

This kind of arguement is the same as a gun control proponent asking the head of the NRA, "If you support a citizens right to bear arms, then you must also support thier rights to carry nuclear weapons."

Not quite. Polygamy has a lot more historical precedent than gay marriage does. A better analogy would be to someone who argues that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to carry nukes but not small arms.

[Julian Sanchez]

While I don't know how compelling the arguments about legal workability are-multi-party partnerships of other sorts dissolve all the time-any of them would've been at least a passable response. I don't think it would've been a problem for her to say that the cases are different, only to suggest that the salient difference is her disapproval.

Neither do I think the question was totally misguided, though: Rather clearly, the central argument for gay marriage-that the state shouldn't distinguish between loving partnerships between consenting adults if it's going to recognize any at all-does cross-apply. Maybe there are some interesting countervailing considerations, but they're just that: countervailing considerations. The overlap in the core issue is still there.

[NCDan]

RedHerring,
You may have identified the pivotal issue that will make lawyers in legislatures support polyamourous marriage! Divorce lawyers can make massive amounts of money on such splits!

[I love everybody]

Since when did the gummint start giving a rat's ass about who loves whom?

[rst]

Seriously though, can someone please give me a real, honest, to the point reason why we cant recognise gay unions??

I'll join the gay marriage camp only if they fight for the right of polygamous and incestuous marriages as well. After all, we do want to protect everyone equally, right? And you can't say that unions of 2 people are more equal than unions of 3 people (any more than you can say that a racial or ethnic group of 10 people is more equal than one of 7), especially since only 2 of those 3 people can currently get married, leaving 1 person out in the cold, unable to enjoy the benefits of power of attorney. And why shouldn't some guy be able to marry his sister? Safe bet they love each other, right? The kids will be fucked up, but hey, they just peeled apart some toddlers attached at the head. Medical science has advanced to the point where Billy Bob and Betty Sue could probably make a good toothless life for each other.

Where's the outrage?

the arguments against it are idoitic and without foundation(ie. It isn't in the bible/it will destroy traditional marriage)

You're only getting the popular opposition. Much of the rest of it is rooted in the fact that regardless of what the state says, society has already defined marriage for itself, and on the majority it sees no reason to include gay unions in that definition. They do not want to be associated with gays, even by the state. Vermont has a compromise that society can more easily abide, and until the gay camp has shown a basic willingness to compromise at least towards a more amenable solution, why should the straight camp move an inch? Because it's "right"? The court has made its decision. I doubt it will bear any fruit.

[rst]

Since when did the gummint start giving a rat's ass about who loves whom?

Since when was marriage about who loves whom? It's about valid and invalid partes to a contract. Love is for society to worry about.

[I still love everybody]

^bingo. So why did the rhetoric of love enter these legal questions?

[rst]

So why did the rhetoric of love enter these legal questions?

Because people are stupid.

[Jennifer]

I can't think of any reason to oppose gay marriage, but there MIGHT be a possible reason to not approve polyamorous marriages: the human animal, whether gay or straight, does seem to have a hard-wired part of the brain that wants to do what biologists call 'pair bonding;' while there are certainly individual exceptions, humans seem pre-programmed to want to find That Special Someone, just as housecats mostly seem pre-programmed to want to be loners.

Thus, it seems natural to me that societies composed of human animals would arrange themselves to fit human needs, including the need to form relationships. As one of Reason's writers (I think Cathy Young) pointed out in a recent essay, allowing gays to marry will not threaten hetero marriages, but the threat of allowing additional members to enter the marital unit would.

This is all hypothetical to me, though. I am a conscientious objector in the marriage war; though society would allow and even encourage my boyfriend and I to marry, neither of us wants to.

[Heather]

"I'll join the gay marriage camp only if they fight for the right of polygamous and incestuous marriages as well. After all, we do want to protect everyone equally, right?"

And I'll start paying more attention to the arguments against gay marriage when it isn't reduced to "then we'll have to make incest legal too!" Why don't we agree that when there's a significant portion of Americans demonstrating a desire to extend marriage rights to incestuous unions and/or plural unions, we'll take it up? Right now, the argument is gay marriage not why certain members of society can't fulfill their lifelong dreams of plural marriages with their relatives. When Jackson, Miss. starts marrying siblings because "incest discrimination" is illegal, then we can argue the point, eh?

And yes, I know, a significant portion of Americans are against gay marriage, probably more than are for it. But other than Mormons, I haven't really heard of any groups outraged they can't marry any or all of their nieces.

[Andrew Lynch]

Hey Julian, here's an idea. When you have the good sense either to 1) stop watching sensationlist slop like Crossfire, or 2) stop baiting us with fantasy-land quotes from fantas-land shows designed to reinforce the fantasy elements of reality (through so-called argument), then come back with a real topic. I can't believe you people are freaking out about something someone said on Crossfire. I mean, really.

[alkali]

Julian Sanchez writes:

While I don't know how compelling the arguments about legal workability are?multi-party partnerships of other sorts dissolve all the time?any of them would've been at least a passable response.

That's possible only because it's possible to reduce the partnership interests to money and divide the money up if no other division can be made. You can't divide up the right to make health care decisions for the other, etc.

Real bad failure by CJ's people to prepare her. "Why not polygamy?" is a standard response to the gay marriage issue; she should have her counter hardwired into her brain.

[Heather]

Oops-- change "incest discrimination" to immoral from illegal, please. Sigh.

[jon]

If the human animal is hard-wired for pair bonding, why are there still so many attractive females?

I don't have a problem with polyamorous relationships getting official recognition. If someone wants to be wife #4, let her (or him). As long as the whole thing is out in the open (all parties are conscious of the marriage), let it happen.

As for bestiality, I don't know how a dog or a goat or a whatever can enter a legal contract. If we get some really smart chimpanzees, maybe. But until then, it's a no go as far as I'm concerned. But as for using them for sex? I really don't care unless their feelings are hurt.

[Kate]

I want to marry my sister.

We're both heterosexuals, by the way.

[rst]

when there's a significant portion of Americans demonstrating a desire to extend marriage rights

Sounds like a great idea. Doesn't seem to be too popular to the left, though.

By the way, that notion isn't the vaunted "equal protection" everyone seems to be chasing.

[tim]

perhaps the best response would have been: "the state can outlaw any behavior that its want to, so long as when challenged in a court of law it can show a compelling reason." i imagine that folks can come up with compelling reasons to ban incest and, maybe, polygamy, but i've yet to hear even one for the ban against same-sex marriages.

[rst]

And I'll start paying more attention to the arguments against gay marriage when it isn't reduced to "then we'll have to make incest legal too!"

That's not an argument against gay marriage so much as it is against offering gay marriage up as an icon of Equal Protection. It's not. Marriage is not a right, it's a contract.

[Polyangular Ruthless]

In my Utopia, family would be the most sacrosanct of sovereignty--countries would be far down the list--and family would consist of whomever individuals of sound mind declare family members to be.

In my Utopia, it would be so obvious that Kurds and Armenians and Mississippians should be nations.

Does everybody on Hit and Run realize how the rest of the world can't find its ass with both hands? I mean the majority is still in favor of the war on drugs. The majority is still in favor of telling you who can be part of your family.

Imagine how much peace could flow and how much fung shuei there could be in the world if families--self-defined families--were top of the pecking order.

[Jennifer]

I know marriage licenses differ from state to state, but some of my married friends have told me that when they applied for their license, there were no questions asking about gender.

So, here is a hypothetical scenario, which any gay activists are welcome to try: suppose you have a gay couple, and one partner has a sexually ambiguous name, like "Robin" or "Chris?" Let's say I'm a lesbian and want to marry my girlfriend Robin. She does not lie on the marriage application, about name and date of birth and whatnot, but she does dress as a man and speak in a deep voice. Then we get married by a Justice of the Peace down at City Hall.

Since, so far, the law doesn't specifically require marriage to be between a man and a woman, would this marriage be allowed to stand?

Damn. Now I want to find some manly woman and marry her, and I'm not even gay! I bet my boyfriend would get a kick out of it, though.

[chairm]

>>>but i've yet to hear even one for the ban against same-sex marriages.

[Rick Barton]

Andrew at 05:43 PM:

"no libertarian would argue that whenever the state has promulgated one form of affirmative action, some liberty interest compels us to also adopt the other form."

"If you were opposed to welfare...your only interest would be in eliminating (it)...not extending it to everyone."

"The case of marriage is analogous."

Interesting approach, but surely marriage is not analogous and also, the case for extending it to other groups may indeed be consistent with libertarian principle.

Government affirmative action programs require forced preferential treatment of one group over another. Government welfare programs are naked theft. Both violate the non-aggression principle. A libertarian would oppose both of these because of this, so of course a libertarian would oppose the extension of both as well.

There is no like libertarian objection to marriage. The marital legal package does not initiate coercion and the extension of it to Gays also violates no rights, as opposed to the extension of welfare or affirmative action.

The libertarian case for extending marriage or, at least, equivalent "civil union" to Gays:

Marriage is voluntarily entered into and a set of legal protections and obligations are part of this government sanction. If only one type of adult gender combination is recognized you have set up a government favored class. The way to remedy this is to make the opportunity available to Gays as well.

I have ignored here the question of polygamous combinations but I will say that the case that there has been a violation of individual rights based numerical preference seems weak compared to the case of gender preference. (gotta think about that one more though)

Things might very well be better if there were no government sanction of marriage at all.

[John T. Kennedy]

joe,

Pity anyone who thinks they need state certification to pursue happiness.

The benefits package you allude to has nothing to do with rights. Equality? The entire point of the state institution of marriage is to treat people differently, in the first palce to treat married individuals different from single individuals.

Julian knows that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all but like so many other libertarians he can't resist jumping on the bandwagon for this expansion of government involvement in private life.

[Don]

'"Because I don't approve of that" is a wonderful answer. She is being honest. I usually have to argue with people for hours before they admit that the real reason is "I don't approve of that".'

So true.

Has anyone pointed out that polygamy is a common option worldwide? Muslims as well as most primitive socities practice it. And almost everywhere, it is practiced by powerful men, w/o the benifit of any official marriage, but for all practicle purposes . . .

[chairm]

This may be a naive question from a conservative point of view, but here it goes:

Is there a libertarian case for recognition of a favored class of people? For example, senior citizens who are unable to work, how does society protect their liberties? Or a fetus? Or an abandoned infant? Or someone impaired in a courtroom due to his inability to speak the local language. Not to get into too broad a discussion here, I just wanted to suggest that there may be "classes" that are natural in society and are not created by government but society is best served by providing government recognition of the existence of such classes.

And that perhaps the procreative model does naturally distinguish between same-sex couples and traditional couples. For example, the law assumes that when a child is born into a marriage, the mother's husband is her child's father -- with all the rights and obligations of a blood parent. Even if the child's actual father is not the husband. Of course, this wouldn't apply to same-sex couples.

[Bill Dillinger]

About FMA and civil unions.

"construed to require"

If you don't know what a word(s) mean, don't just skip it, look it up.

construe : to analyze the arrangement and connection of words in (a sentence or sentence part)

What that means is that nothing in the Constitution would be "analyzed" and discovered to "require" the incidents of marriage. If there is explicit authorization, that is another thing, that doesn't require "construing". Thus, the language does not prohibit future action, but it prevents previous language from being twisted.

[Don]

". . . the human animal, whether gay or straight, does seem to have a hard-wired part of the brain that wants to do what biologists call 'pair bonding;' while there are certainly individual exceptions, humans seem pre-programmed to want to find That Special Someone, . . ."

I dunno. Most men seem "programmed" to find a series of "someone special".

Also, lots of women seem OK sharing a POWERFUL man (not the typical guy next door, but a politician, rock star, etc.). And in any case polygamy has a long tradition in many cultures. In our culture it would present some advantages since women are now very capable economic units. Polygamy could add to the houshold bottom line, while providing for quality day care. The lawyer issues can be dealt with (we need to reign in the lawyers in any case). The real issue is getting women past all those silly concepts of romantic love . . .

[MALAK]

How can you expect any lobbyist/politician to take a stand on something so anathema to them as 'principle'?

[joe]

John, Rick Barton,

I'm guessing that you're both opposed to Social Security. Shall the government deny benefits to white people or Baptists to keep costs down?

[Rick Barton]

Joe,

Yeah, I do oppose SS, but it's different, for instance, than the "Fresh cut flowers and fresh cut greens promotion act of 1993"; from pg.8 of the list of the 1049 civil rights that accrue to married people, that you cited...

http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

...because everyone has to pay in for their own SS "account".

What's wrong a Gay marriage or civil union situation where full civil equality is granted to Gay couples, but there is examination of how it impinges on government programs, on a program by program basis, before we decide to add to those programs.

[tim]

chairm:

i'm confused by all the talk of marriage as an "institution". it's a convention or set of conventions really, isn't it? perhaps my brothers 26 year marriage, is in itself an institution, but the idea of marriage and the laws and rituals that define it are conventions. i hardly think that the institution of my brothers marriage will somehow be lessened by the change in conventions that will allow adam and steve to form their own marriage that one day their families might see as an institution.

the proposers of the FMA are the ones trying to change the law. they seem to have acknowledged by their approach that the US constitution as written will soon be understood to no longer allow for the exclusion of same sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage. understanding that they are losing their argument on its merits, they now seek to alter the constitution. theirs is the radical approach.

[John T. Kennedy]

What human rights are infringed upon when the state declines to recognize your marriage?

[joe]

In general, the pursuit of happiness.

To get a little more specific, equal protection under the law and the freedom of association.

To understand that in concrete terms, go here.
http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf

It's a list of the 1049 civil rights that accrue to married people.

[kuro]

it is getting more difficult to live in this heterosexual dictatorship

[So Many of Us]

You're here.
You're queer.
We don't care.
Get used to it.

[Anonymous]

Amending the Constitution is not a radical approach as suggested by quite a number of people on this panel. In fact, it is the only way of protecting the institution of marriage as it stands and has always been. And by the way, preserving marriage for heterosexuals in no way discriminates against homosexuals. Homosexuals are not prohibited from living together or entering into contracts to protect themselves and their assets.

But putting all that aside for now, I want to address why an Amendment is being considered. It's all fine to talk about state rights and if there was any way to guarantee that gay marriage would stay in the states and never enter the federal arena, then no one would discuss the need for an Amendment. I've seen some interesting posts regarding the Full Faith & Credit clause and as I read it, marriage is one of those things that must be recognized by other states. There is room for debate here. However, Full Faith & Credit isn't really what is at issue. What this ultimately comes down to are benefits.

So, if some states permit gay marriage and pass all the benefits that heterosexuals receive, they still will not be able to file a joint tax return at the federal level or receive federal pensions or social security or medicare etc at the federal level. So, while it's all nice and wonderful to talk about state rights, which at first blush seems appropriate, the real issue here is how long before gay couples start suing in federal court? All of you must be smart enough to realize that if gay couples are denied benefits that heterosexual couples receive, certainly there is a possible issue of discrimination here. This is where the issue is ultimately going, all the way to the feds.

And so, the attacks on the feds for interfering with state rights or just basic attacks because of your personal opinions on gay marriage are really just a subterfuge. This will become a Federal Issue whether you like it or not, the question is, who gets to fire the first shot.

[Rick Barton]

To perhaps disagree with my own post at 02:06 AM:

What if extending full marital status to Gay couples increases the amount of feeding at the government trough? Then there is libertarian case for not having Gay marriage.

see: pg. 8 of the link that joe provided. The, "Fresh cut flowers and fresh cut greens promotion act of 1993" is an example. (btw, where is that budget ax? this program should be "cut off"!)

Perhaps Andrew at 05:43 PM, understated his case;
he argued a for negative case against extending marriage to Gays, which I attacked in my post at 02:06 AM. But, there may be a positive libertarian case against if it increases the size of the government.

Civil union could be a solution, where full civil equality is granted to Gay couples, and how Gay marriage impinges on government programs could be examined on a case, by case basis.

As I said before;
Things might very well be better if there were no government sanction of marriage at all.

[tom Hynes]

"Because I don't approve of that" is a wonderful answer. She is being honest. I usually have to argue with people for hours before they admit that the real reason is "I don't approve of that".

[joe]

Anon, this is the text of the amendment:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Please note "...or the constitution of any state, nor state...law" This amendment restricts states ability to regulate marriage as they see fit. Special language was included for that very purpose.

Rick, please note "...or the legal incidents thereof..." This amendment would prevent states from being able to pass laws extending marriage-type rights to gay spouses. If hospital visitation is a legal incident of marriage, then a state law allowing hospital visitation by gay spouses would be unconstitutional.

[Rick Barton]

joe,

If correct, that seems like another compelling reason to oppose the amendment. One can be simultaneously skeptical of Gay marriage and against this amendment, for sure.

[Shannon Love]

late for bloom,

"why CANT we recognise polyamorous relationships?"

"We" as in "We the People" can create any form of marriage we want legislatively. The question is, can the courts create any form of marriage they please? If the courts do create a specific form or marriage how does they stop from creating other?

No current restrictions on marriage evolve from any form of legal logic. The restrictions based on age, consanguinity, sexual relationship, number of spouses etc have no axiomatic basis in law. They exist legally purely because legislative s at some point have thought them a good idea.

Courts can't decide if a law is valid or invalid based on whether it is a good idea or not. It must decide whether the legislative has the power to make the law in the first place. If the courts rule that the legislative does not have the power to restrict marriage based on sexual orientation, how does they logically say that the legislative still retains the power to create the other restrictions?

The answer is: it can?t. In order to prevent a runaway slippery slope new forms of marriage must be created by the legislative.

[Rick Barton]

By, "skeptical of Gay marriage", what I mean to say is that; I'm concerned about the government growth ramifications.

[R C Dean]

joe - I am not sure that the "legal incidents" language can be stretched to cover every single thing that states allow spouses to do for each other. But leave that for the lawyers.

The really interesting question in my mind is whether the lanugage you quote above would bar a state from adopting civil union laws. I don't think it is intended to go that far, but if so, then it will fail for sure.

Most Americans, according to the polls oppose full gay marriage, but would support or at least tolerate civil unions. This strikes me as an eminently sensible position, and I think the gay activists will rue the day that they provoked and hardened so much opposition to their agenda by going after gay marriage outside the legislative process. They have invited a backlash by taking this route, rather than doing the hard slog of state-by-state civil union laws.

"Marriage" should be the province of churches, and "civil unions" should be the province of the state. How hard is that? Too hard for the fundraising activists on both sides of the issue, I guess.

[Don]

"It violates the 14th amendment to have different castes of people, some of whom are qualified to receive certain protections, and others who are barred by law from ever getting those protections."

I fail to see why this only applies to gays. What about bigamy and incest as well? Pretending, of course, that this is indeed a 14th amendment issue . . .

[rst]

What is most amusing is that you silly rabbits think equal protection is a real thing. What happens when you point out the fact that the left doesn't want to use the law to protect equality, but instead wants to use the law to protect minority groups?

[joe]

Don, bigamy and sister-fucking are things you do. Being gay is something you are.

[TJ]

What is most amusing is that rst (by posting that link) disingeniously suggests that the term "African-American" in todays semantics means anything other than a black American. Or that a white kid, who grew up in Africa, using the term "African-American" to describe himself, is doing anything other than rabble rouse. Of course, he's just a kid. I don't know what rst's excuse is.

"the left doesn't want to use the law to protect equality, but instead wants to use the law to protect minority groups? "

I don't consider myself to be a "lefty", but the first half of this quote is stupid, and I just don't know what problem rst is referring to with the second.

[John T. Kennedy]

Joe,

I'm guessing that you're both opposed to Social Security. Shall the government deny benefits to white people or Baptists to keep costs down?

I couldn't care less, it doesn't matter. How the loot is divvied up is not the problem, the only problem is that it's extorted from people in the first place.

[John T. Kennedy]

Joe,

"It violates the 14th amendment to have different castes of people, some of whom are qualified to receive certain protections, and others who are barred by law from ever getting those protections."

The legal institution of marriage by it's existence produces different castes, single people and married people. Gays are already allowed to marry like any other single people. How is a gay single person who isn't interested in prospective spouses the state will sanction any different from a straight single person who isn't interested in the prospective spouses the state will sanction? Are both of these in a separate caste from married people, or just one?

[TJ]

"How is a gay single person who isn't interested in prospective spouses the state will sanction any different..."

Geez, do you really need that question answered? Yeah, you probably do. Here goes:

Because the state prohibits none of the (past the age of consent) spouses a straight person might be interested in, and the state prohibits ALL of the spouses a gay person might be interested in.

[John T. Kennedy]

In the first place that's wrong because you're assuming a straight man would only want to marry someone he's sexually attracted to. Considering the benefits package available that need not be the case.

But many people don't want to get maried at all. Why should privileges be granted to others that are not granted to them. Why should benefits be granted to others at their expense?

Why should benefits now be extended to married gays that are denied single gays?

[TJ]

"In the first place that's wrong because you're assuming a straight man would only want to marry someone he's sexually attracted to. Considering the benefits package available that need not be the case."

So you're saying that straight guys ought to be able to marry rich fags? Fine, whatever blows your skirt up.

"Why should benefits now be extended to married gays that are denied single gays?"

Well, this isn't the discussion at hand, but I'll try to handle your non-sequitur. The same benefits should be extended to straights and gays. If you object to the state sanctioning marriage at all, that's fine, just try to state it a little more clearly.

[rst]

I don't know what rst's excuse is.

As opposed to disingeniously (the word is "disingenuously") suggesting that the term "marriage" in today's semantics means anything other than a man and a woman? That some homosexuals seek to extend the popularly accepted definition of marriage does not compel the state or society to do so, any more than some disgruntled or mischievous white Afrikaaner should compel society as a whole to re-examine what it calls "African".

[John T. Kennedy]

Well, this isn't the discussion at hand, but I'll try to handle your non-sequitur. The same benefits should be extended to straights and gays.

But not to marrieds and singles?

If you object to the state sanctioning marriage at all, that's fine, just try to state it a little more clearly.

I did state it clearly.

[TJ]

(the word is "disingenuously")

Gosh thanks JTK, I learn something new everyday. Today I learned to use the spell checker, if I want to keep you happy.

"suggesting that the term "marriage" in today's semantics means anything other than a man and a woman?"

Where did I do that in this thread?

"But not to marrieds and singles?"

JTK, if you are referring to taxes, the state treat marrieds and singles the same. As to other benefits, you already have power of attorney for yourself. What benefit are you referring to, specifically?

[TJ]

Oops, I missed the fact that it was rst generating the "disingenuously" spelling flame. All apologies, JTK.

[TJ]

rst, if you were referring to that earlier "gay" thread, I wasn't making a disingenuous analogy, I was extending the usage of the term marriage in an obvious way to illustrate the point about "all men are created equal". If you don't see the difference, than this is a waste of time.

[joe]

It violates the 14th amendment to have different castes of people, some of whom are qualified to receive certain protections, and others who are barred by law from ever getting those protections.

If you want to argue agains the cut flowers law, go right ahead. But your solution would neither eliminate the law, nor solve the equal protection problem. At best, you'd keep it from growing by 2%, while keeping a segment of society from having equal access, equal opportunity, and equal rights.

[rst]

That is not different castes of people, joe. A civil union vs. a marriage is a different type of contract; nothing about these notions of equal anything justify forcing society to extend its definition of marriage. Tolerance is not accomodation; society has no obligation towards the latter.

[John T. Kennedy]

Are gays prevented from granting power of attourney to their paeters?

Why should gay marrieds be granted *any* benefits or priveleges denied gay singles?

[John T. Kennedy]

TJ,

JTK, if you are referring to taxes, the state treat marrieds and singles the same.

Of course it doesn't.

" As to other benefits, you already have power of attorney for yourself. What benefit are you referring to, specifically?"

If there are no benefits to being married as opposed to single then what are gays currently being denied?

[TJ]

"JTK, if you are referring to taxes, the state treat marrieds and singles the same."

This comment box deletes my underlined words, damnit.

The above should read "the state "should" treat marrieds and singles the same" wrt taxes.

"If there are no benefits to being married as opposed to single then what are gays currently being denied?"

Don't be obtuse, JTK. Of course there are benefits. One of them is having power of attorney for your spouse in the case of emergencies. There are others, inheritance laws for example. You had alluded earlier to singles not having the same benefits as marrieds. I was illustrating the point that most married benefits simply aren't applicable to singles.