That Was Quick…

Josh Marshall is just one of many noting that, if you add up just the Senate opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment who've already made public statements, the FMA is already dead in the water, given the need for a supermajority in both houses. And if they don't get it now, given the long term trend toward greater acceptance of gay relationships, they're probably never gonna get it.

Still, as Howard Dean taught us, it's always dangerous to get complacent with apparent victories. The debate over this will be a good opportunity to spotlight just how impoverished are the arguments against gay marriage. Who knows—Bush's proposal may even end up accelerating recognition of gay unions.

Comments

[Skip Oliva]

A related question: Will the president's position adversely affect the GOP's chances in any Senate races? Ultimately, this issue probably won't affect the presidential race, but it could come into play in a close Senate race or two.

[Ron Hardin]

They might get support by explaining the thing against the echo-chamber effect that's there now.

It severs the connection between civil unions and legal benefits that have been legislated for marriage, on the theory that the voters get to decide on that, not the courts.

It doesn't prevent civil unions, but that is how the echo chamber wants to put it. Also jokesters. Not that there's anything wrong with jokes, and there is a rich lode of them in the area.

[Warren]

Bush's hetero only amendment would only serve to make gay marriage the new abortion.

[Warren]

Bush's hetero only amendment would only serve to make gay marriage the new abortion.

[Equality 7-2521]

Does anyone think that Bush would have made the announcement if the votes were there? As it is, he has a way to placate the Passion of the Christ crowd without any risk of it becoming law.

[Jennifer]

There's something I've always wondered about concerning gay marriage (well, always since I first thought of it a few days ago): I know marriage licenses are different depending on which state you go to, but I've spoken to some married friends and they said that when they got their marriage licenses there wasn't a specific question asking about their genders.

So here's my question: say I'm a lesbian, and my girlfriend has a sexually ambiguous name like 'Robin.' One day Robin dresses like a man and speaks in a fake deep voice, and we go down to City Hall, show our legitimate, government-issued driver's licenses, and get a marriage license from the old-fashioned homophobic judge (who naturally assumes she's a man, though we never outright say this lie), and then after the two-or-three day waiting period the same judge marries us, still assuming she's a man until the words "You may now kiss the bride," at which point Robin chirps, "That would be me!"

Assuming this isn't one of those states that's passed a hetero-only marriage law in the past few years, exactly what legal statute says this marriage would be illegal? And even if the Constitutional amendment is somehow passed, wouldn't this marriage be grandfathered in, along with those in Massachusetts and San Francisco??

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

I'm pretty sure that when my wife and I got our marriage license last summer it had specific lines for "Bride" and "Groom". OK, I don't think it actually said "Bride must be female" and "groom must be male" but that's implied.

One thing being overlooked here is why straight men are getting upset over the prospect of two women having sex? Yes, I know, some of those women are REALLY ugly, but then again, some of the pictures in the paper suggest that there are also some attractive lesbian couples.

Maybe the guys from the Man Show could act as judges on which lesbian couples get the thumbs up...

[Equality 7-2521]

Jennifer,

Any marriage certificate is going to have a reference to a bride and a groom. These are gender specific terms.

[Jim Walsh]

My guess is that Bush knew all along the amendment was doomed. It's nothing more or less than a bit of pandering to the far right. It's gonna backfire on him; he's lost more than he's gained. I mean, if he had said nothing, would the Religious Right types have voted en masse for Kerry? Get serious.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau and Equality-

Of course 'bride' and 'groom' are generally understood to be female and male, respectively, but my point is, exactly where does the law DEMAND that brides be female or grooms be male? Yes, I know this is nit-picking, but nit-picking is what our legal system is made of.

If I really want to cover my bases, I'll try this: before my lesbian marriage, I arrange for a hetero couple to get a license, but put the bride's name in the groom spot and vice-versa. Hopefully the clerk will be too distracted to notice, and then later, when people try to annul my marriage on the grounds that a groom can't be female I'll bring out the other couple and see what hits the fan.

[JimBob]

Dream on. Zogby poll says 70 percent of Massachusetts's voters favor an amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state.

Hypocrites are rather deluded people

[Jennifer]

Just wanted to add that in real life I live in boringly stable sin with my boyfriend, and while we could get married we've decided to just sit that out.

Technically speaking, if the government did pass an anti-gay marriage amendment on the grounds that it will save traditional marriage, what's to stop them from passing an anti-living-together amendment? My lifestyle choice threatens marriage far more than gay people.

[Jennifer]

Just wanted to add that in real life I live in boringly stable sin with my boyfriend, and while we could get married we've decided to just sit that out.

Technically speaking, if the government did pass an anti-gay marriage amendment on the grounds that it will save traditional marriage, what's to stop them from passing an anti-living-together amendment? My lifestyle choice threatens marriage far more than gay people ever could.

[kmw]

Good point Jennifer, and I believe the answer comes down to clout.

~60% of the entire US population SUPPORTS cohabitation. Less than half support Gay Marriage.

It's illogical, I know, but then when did the bulk of the population start believing in logic?

[Rick Barton]

OK; So now can the Republicans in congress get back to the only issues that ever make them worth voting for? Cutting Government!

[al-Roker Martyrs Brigade]

Bush is becoming so deeply unpopular with moderates and independents that I think his support of this amendment probably just doomed whatever chance it ever had to begin with.

[agentalbert]

Jennifer -

The dictionary defines the word bride as "a woman who is about to be married or has recently been married". It defines groom as, among other meanings unrelated to this topic, "a man" and "a male servant". So I believe the words themselves designate gender.

Also, what do you mean by asking why hetero men would be against gay marriage when they like lesbian sex???? Yes, they LOVE porno lesbo sex, or hollywood lesbo sex like the movie Bound. When Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly get it on, all is right with the world. But A) they don't have to be married to get it on, and B) nobody is proposing an amendment demanding marriage before the wild thing.

[Mark S.]

"Hypocrites are rather deluded people"

And what about hate-mongering homophobes such as yourself?

[Ruthless]

Jennifer,
I'm sure you've attracted many admirers other than moi for your willingness to turn over rocks here on Hit & Run and see what scurries.

Rosie and her new groom/bride surely asume Karl Rove is driving the federal/Shrubbish response.

Why can't families just be self-declared?

This issue will bite Shrub in the butt come November. Billary will be our next Prez.

[Shultz]

"Who knows?Bush's proposal may even end up accelerating recognition of gay unions."

This is reminiscent of Prop 187. For those of you not from California, Prop 187 was put on the ballot to deny state program participation to illegal aliens. It was supported in a big way by the state's Republicans, and it passed.

What was the net effect?

The California Supreme Court nullified it. The Republicans who supported it became unredeemable racists in the eyes of voters, and Mexican-American voters showed their strength as THE indomitable swing vote in California. Meanwhile, the Republicans lost the Governorship and both seats in the U.S. Senate to Democrats, even amidst the Repulican sweep of '94.

Could there be a similar, national backlash against Republicans who vote for an ammendment to ban Gay Marriage?

I don't think so.

For one thing, many of the supporters of a Gay Marriage ban are from places like Mobile and Dubuque. Contrast your picture of how the average voters in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego feel about poor, hardworking, illegal immigrants with your picture of how voters in Mobile and Dubuque feel about Gay Rights. Got that picture? Good, now try to picture the backlash.

Also, (Dare I mention the unmentionable?) there's the propagation problem. Gays don't propagate in the same way that other groups do, minority or otherwise. So, most politicians don't need to worry about them having 4.2 children and demographicly dominating their district sometime in the next decade. That is, most politicans who vote for a Gay Marriage Ban, in terms of voter retribution, have little to fear in the LONG TERM by discriminating against Gays.

The Civil Rights movement picked up speed when African-Americans started to vote en masse. No one paid much attention to Women's rights until Women got the vote.

The reason people in the sixties wanted the right to vote for eighteen year olds was because the average soldier was nineteen and couldn't vote. It was presumed that once the average soldier could vote, politicians would be less likely to start or keep waging an unpopular war.

The politician have decided that we should now have an all volunteer military.

Historically, no one has paid much attention to the rights of Native Americans because, historically, Native Americans have been such a small minority. Nationaly, politicians have had little reason to fear them.

I suspect that Gays and Gay rights are likely to suffer a similar fate for the same reason.

[Dan]

Bush's hetero only amendment would only serve to make gay marriage the new abortion.

That's precisely wrong. The reason the abortion fight continues to rage is that the Constitution doesn't say anything about exactly when human life begins; thus, the courts were forced to rule via judicial fiat that fetuses had no right to live.

Furthermore, only 2.25% of the population is homosexual (3% of men and 1.5% of women). Support for gay marriage is like support for drug legalization; it's widespread, but weak, because the overwhelming majority of the population has no desire to engage in the activity in question. Few people march in the streets for the right to do something there's no chance they'll ever want to do. Abortion, on the other hand, is something that almost everyone in America may potentially have to deal with, either personally or because of their wife's/girlfriend's pregnancy.

Finally, the abortion controversy continues because much of the "pro-life" side believes that abortion is murder. While a ban on gay marriage would be bad, only a fool would consider it the moral equivalent of murder; it is therefore unlikely to stir up the kind of backlash that Roe vs. Wade did.

[Ruthless]

What did Dan just say?

[SM]

He said that an overwhelming majority of Americans don't do any drugs whatsoever.

[PapayaSF]

Dan, you make some good points, but just miss the mark on a few others.

the courts were forced to rule via judicial fiat that fetuses had no right to live

Not quite. The Supreme Court chose to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, meaning that states had no right to ban it. One thing that frustrates me is that many NARAL types believe (or claim to believe) that before Roe v. Wade "abortion was illegal." Nope: it was legal in states holding about 1/3 of the population, IIRC.

That, I think, is much of what animates anti-abortion types: the sense that the Court ruled by fiat, taking the issue out of the legislative realm. And that is what bothers many people about the gay marriage issue: the courts overreaching and forcing an unpopular social change on the majority.

[Jennifer]

Hooray for democracy and all that, but as a minority myself (atheist), I am very uncomfortable with the idea that minority rights must be held up pending majority approval. A lot of people who oppose democracy attack it with the same arguments used to justify the marriage bans--the majority gets to decide what the minority can and cannot do!

Which is why, unless anyone can prove a direct link between gay marriage and the premature death of innocents, I don't give a rat's ass what the majority of Americans think about it. Hell, the majority of white Southerners opposed abolition and integration, so the courts had to force it down their redneck troglodyte throats, and I say that's a damned good thing.

[Jeff Smith]

Are there any lawyers in the house? No one has
actually answered Jennifer's smart question yet.
The dictionary, whatever it may say about brides
and grooms, is not a legal document. Do state
marriage laws actually specify that the bride
must be a woman and the groom a man - i.e., that
butch and fem just won't cut it?

On the (off topic) abortion point. The constit-
ution does speak to abortion, in the 10th
Amendment.

Jeff

[Ruthless]

"so the courts had to force it down their redneck troglodyte throats, and I say that's a damned good thing."

Jennifer, you may be asked to be a consultant on the next Mel Gibson flick.

[thoreau]

And that is what bothers many people about the gay marriage issue: the courts overreaching and forcing an unpopular social change on the majority.

The problem, at least on this forum, is that some people think gay marriage (or abortion) is a matter of individual liberty that should be kept off-limits from majority tyranny (which the legislature supposedly represent).

Others, of course, feel that these are not matters of individual liberty, so there's nothing wrong with subjecting it to a legislative process that (supposedly) represents the popular will.

One side fears judicial tyranny, and the other fears majority tyranny. "Majority tyranny" is sometimes a code word for "I disagree with the majority" rather than "The majority actually tyrannized me". "Judicial tyranny" is sometimes a code word for "I disagree with the judges" rather than "the judges actually tyrannized me."

In regard to the issue of gay marriage, I have a firm position: I favor it being legal (well, actually, I favor separation of marriage and state with the state simply recognizing contracts to share property and power of attorney and whatnot, and neighbors and churches and families bestowing the social approval inherent in the word "marriage", just to be technical about it, but it more or less amounts to the same practical result in the end, with all nitpicky differences duly noted).

But on the subject how how it should be legalized, I'm a little more ambivalent. A legislature can be just as tyrannical as a court (just ask anybody who's run afoul of unjust laws). I'll now pause as one side insists that this is about an individual right that shouldn't be subject to legislative whim, while the other side insists that this is something the courts have no business touching.

[joe]

Skip,

Bush will probably drop the like he dropped Mars and Africa, and it will be similarly fogotten. If he decides to plug away and stick his neck way out to push this through, it would probably cost his party some seats, but principled stands for unpopular causes haven't exactly been the hallmark of this presidential term.

[Kevin Carson]

Ron Hardin,

Whether the amendment would ban civil unions is, to say the least, a matter in dispute. It says that no provision in the federal or state constitutions, or federal or state law, shall be "construed" to require the extension of "incidents" of marriage to same-sex couples.

Arguably, that could be interpreted as preventing the courts from enforcing civil unions, regardless of what a state statute or constitution says.

The lawyers disagree on this.

[Kevin Carson]

By the way, for all you folks who remember the following stunt from the 1992 election: how about a pool on when Laura Bush will announce, in a soft-lit Barbara Walters interview, that she's "personally" for civil unions--"and George didn't tell me to say that."

[Phil]

Also, (Dare I mention the unmentionable?) there's the propagation problem. Gays don't propagate in the same way that other groups do, minority or otherwise.

I'm not entirely convinced that the opponents of gay marriage can afford to admit this little fact. It's part and parcel of the whole "Gays are icky perverts who recruit your children" deal.

[John T. Kennedy]

Bush doesn't give a wet slap if the amendment is ever enacted, all he cares about is that it puts Kerry in the position of having to piss of his base or the center. Bush doesn't need any super-majority to get elected.

[Jennifer]

Ruthless--

Me, consult on the next Mel Gibson film? If he thinks his wife's going to hell just for being Episcopalian as opposed to Catholic, imagine what he's say about an atheist whose favorite Bible verse is "Balaam tied his ass to a tree and walked forty leagues."

Or was that Obadiah?

[rich]

women in wedding gowns and combat boots turn me on...

[dj of raleigh]

Jennifer will soon be teaching with pictures of Daddy
kissing daddy goodbye at the door. Bye, daddy bye!

There will be new social lessons about "bigots"
who are raising their children to NOT be gay,
telling their daughters to date boys, but not girls.
It will be like the old redneck saying don't date outta your race.

The old homophobic hypocrite Archie Bunker type
will be telling his children to not listen to the school.

[Jennifer]

DJ--
I've made enough anti-public-school rants on these postings that I think I can stick up for schools once in awhile without being accused of pro-NEA chauvinism and I'll say this: for all the PC bullshit schools do that makes my teeth crawl, the stories of schools 'teaching' homosexuality are not true. Oh, sure, there are isolated school districts that go 'too far,' but for the most part the modern curricula don't teach that being gay is GOOD, but that being gay is NOT BAD. A subtle distinction, but an important one.

The stories you hear about schools putting 'Heather has two mommies' on the curriculum tend to be schools where there are, in fact, children with two mommies or two daddies.

The idea of "raising children to not be gay' is false. Children can't be raised to be gay or straight. I had a gay friend who was raised in Gastonia, NC (which I believe is near your neck of the woods). From the time my friend was four, he found he had crushes on little boys rahter than little girls. He tried denying this, he even joined the Navy in the hopes it would 'make him a man.' No dice. I'd hardly say that Gastonia, North Carolina is the type of environment that 'makes' children gay.

Homosexuality is fairly common in the animal kingom, too. When two male giraffes go at each other, is it because of all that homosexual propaganda on the African veldt?

[Screamapiller]

I don't get all worked up about the gay marriage fracas, cause it'll happen pretty soon anyway. I guess that makes me a, uh, consequentialist or something. But, I'll never forgive Bush for giving the Vile Hated Rosie O'Donnell a new platform on which to flap her fat gums. Damn you Bush!

[Shady O'Grady]

I don't know, sing ci-vi-ly as eighth note triplets and mar-ried as two eighth notes and you could make that work.

This will usher in a new era of wedding bands performing Relax by Frankie goes to Hollywood.

[agentalbert]

Jeff wrote: Are there any lawyers in the house? No one has actually answered Jennifer's smart question yet. The dictionary, whatever it may say about brides and grooms, is not a legal document.

Say what? Tell us, Jeff, what is the official resource for explaining the meaning of ANY word in any legal document then? Who's to say "we the people" doesn't actually translate to "Mike likes peanutes" if we don't agree on a common meaning of words such as we, people, bride, groom, etc?

[MALAK]

So Rosie got 'married' today. BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL! I'll be more inclined to care when I hear that her 'spouse' is suing for divorce, along with the demands for support payments, half the assets, etc. Welcome to equality, everyone. As an aside, could not the common-law statutes be used by homosexuals to acquire the benefits they are currently seeking through marriage? Not that I'm saying this is a substitute, just another way of getting what you want . . .

[Walter Wallis]

Denying the definition of words is one way lawyers make their living.

[PapayaSF]

Jennifer, many of your points are well taken, but:

1) Of course, there must be a balance between, and limits on, the powers of the majority and the powers of the judiciary. One such limit is the wording of the Constitution (and those of the states), so I object to judges misreading Constitutions for any ends, good or ill. The notion that the Massachusetts Constitution means gay marriage is required would be laughable to the people who actually wrote the darn thing. That's a good example of "judicial tyranny."

2) Perhaps my major worry is that if marriage is no longer restricted to one man/one woman, there is no logical reason to restrict it in any way. Why not three people? Why not a father and his adult daughter? I've thought and read about it, and all the arguments against polygamy and incest are just as "unfair" as those against gay marriage. I'm not a fan of slippery-slope arguments, but it sure looks applicable here.

3) I'll admit that some of my objection comes from a conservative reluctance to blithely toss out long-standing social norms for what are mostly symbolic reasons. I'm sure many libertarians will have no objections to polygamous incestuous marriages, but I'm wary of unforseen long-term effects.

4) I'm not sure how to articulate this, but when a group wants a change in a democratic society, it's a matter of the size of the group and the size of the change. The bigger the group and the smaller the change, the easier it is. When you have a small group pushing for a huge change, it's difficult, and I'm not sure I'd want it any other way.

5) The non-symbolic reasons for gay marriage are unconvincing: Hospital visitations? You don't need gay marriage to change that. Inheritance issues? Write a will. Government benefits? Oh, great, that's a good reason to change a major aspect of an entire culture.

[dhex]

i fricking love peanutes!

the very definition of what's covered by "man" has changed considerably in the last 230 years. each generation has considered its defintion, by and large, pretty frickin' obvious.

[Mo]

agentalbert,
I dunno. But somehow planes are not vehicles and tomatoes are considered vegetables in courts of law.

[KJ]

"gay marriage will be the next abortion"

Perhaps not. After all, homosexuality simply is not abortion as a moral phenomenon. Abortion is, nearly everyone agrees, morally very complicated. The moral arguments against its legality aren't successfully met by "if you don't like it, don't have one;" the reasons offered for not 'liking' it, if they are valid, demand its prohibition. Many moderate voters were sufficiently morally uneasy about abortion to attract them to social conservatism, at least for a little while. Homosexuality, even gay marriage, in 2004 will not attract moderates to social conservativsm. The number of people who feel deep moral horror or revulsion at its legality is much, much smaller than the number who feel that way about abortion. The "ain't nobody else's business" argument is much, much stronger in the case of gay marriage than in the case of abortion (which, according to its opponents, violates the harm principle). Republicans will try to play the judicial overreach card; but they will not be able to play anything analogous to the "we've got to save little babies!" card.

[Jennifer]

I think it was "redneck troglodyte" who said that when the courts forced integration, Southerners weren't opposed to integration per se; they were concerned that the Feds were interfering with "state's rights.' Bullshit--the only right the states wanted was the right to mistreat people.

I know of what I speak--I grew up in the white-trash part of the South. In fact, my high-school diploma was from a town that didn't even exist until 1954, when the desegregation ruling was put out, and so the white section of York County, Virginia separated into a small town called Poquoson. Apparently, until 1975 the town limits had signs saying "Nigger, don't let the sun set on your black ass here."

State's rights indeed. The difference between rednecks and San Franciscans is that in San Francisco, they claim state's rights END discrimination against individuals, not support it.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

Like some have said or impolied here, "states rights" is usually a code word "I disagree with the feds." Separation of powers between the feds and the states has a lot of merits, but few people support it in real life as a matter of principle. Usually people support it only when something that they deem "good" is being banned by the feds, but they think (however rightly or wrongly) that the other residents of their state are sympathetic.

Now, I realize that everyone here is a principled federalist, and that all of us are deeply committed to a separation of powers between the states and the feds, and that none of us would ever apply that doctrine selectively. But not everybody out there is as deeply committed to principle as we all are. The world is full of people who will amp up the states rights rhetoric the moment it serves their purposes, and back away from it the moment it is inconvenient.

[Lurker]

Jennifer,

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this article, but here is one opinion for the state of NY:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/164743p-144340c.html

A 1997 report published jointly by three committees of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and endorsed by the association's committee on matrimonial law concluded that New York's current domestic relations law is gender neutral. The association concluded that marriage licenses can and should be issued now to same-sex couples under existing law. A supplemental joint committee report by the association in 2001 reaffirmed this conclusion.

The report states: "Nowhere in Article 3, which sets out the requirements and procedures for entering into a marriage, is there any requirement that applicants for a marriage license be of the opposite sex. Nor are same-sex marriages among the categories of marriage that are void or voidable."

[Dan]

The Supreme Court chose to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, meaning that states had no right to ban it.

That's not correct. The courts "found" a right to control one's own body. This didn't take much "finding", since (a) it's strongly implied by the fourth amendment and (b) most of the Framers believed in it, which strongly suggests that it is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the ninth amendment.

This right is the reason why the government may not (for example) pass a law dictating that people with two functional kidneys are required to donate one for transplantation.

The major finding of Roe v. Wade was not that the court "discovered" a right to control one's own body (a right recognized by the court many times prior to that), but that the fetus did *not* have rights.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Jennifer's smart question..."

Her question is stupid. She and her partner would be committing fraud.

[Steve in CO]

Jennifer,

I don't care what anyone says here, you rock! I mean, you are my opposite gender twin. I grew up in rural Georgia (no longer rural Merrietta), and North Carolina (Goldboro), and I can totally understand your distaste for the "redneck lifestyle." If that makes me a bigot to dislike racist/mysogenic/homophobic all around assholes who also thump their Bibles with self-righteous glee (I am also an atheist thanks to them), then so be it. To be clear, I don't loathe all of them, as I have many times been surprised by the enlightened musings of the occasional redneck who doesn't fit that mold. But overall, the stereotype holds pretty well.

Warm Regards,

Steve

🙂

[Steve in CO]

oops, Goldsboro...

😀

[thoreau]

Just re-read the top of this thread:

Bush's proposal may even end up accelerating recognition of gay unions.

If so, it would be about as successful as any other government program. Like Harry Browne once said about abortion, "Given the government's success with the war on drugs and the war on poverty, it's safe to assume that a war on abortion would lead to men having abortions within a few years."

(I know that some here have a low opinion of Browne, and maybe with good reason, but that particular quote is a riot regardless of Browne's merits or demerits.)

[Steve in CO]

I second that motion thoreau! Hey, it sure sucks that they are going to make us wait until the end of next month to continue 24?!?

I wonder what it is the terrorists want the prez to do, huh? Gawd, I sound like my wife discussing her soap opera.

🙂

[thoreau]

I think 24 is finally getting good again. It lost something when they spent several hours fumbling around in Mexico searching for a plot. But once they found a plot it got good again. I have no idea what the terrorist wants. Maybe he's demanding that Palmer put some FOX executives in Gitmo as punishment for postponing 24 until March 30...

And is it just me or did that baby spend most of her scenes with an expression that said "Hey, don't blame me that this plot sucks, I'm not one of the writers"? Well, if that girl is already on 24 at the age of 1, imagine where her career will be in a few years.... 🙂

[Jennifer]

Thanks, Steve! But in all fairness, there is ONE cool thing about the South--if you're a college student going through your pothead phase, you can get cataclysmically stoned and then go to an Assembly of God church and watch them speak in tongues. I prefer the churches where 'Jesus' has three syllables: Jay-a-zus.

[Jennifer]

Douglas--
Fraud against what? My point was, I don't think the law has spelled out a requirement that brides be female and grooms male.

[JimBob]

Rump Riders, everyone knows the pole smokers are nothing but a bunch of Stalinists

Stalinists, Rump Rider Gestapo. Gay rights folks at Reason, Julian Sanchez, Stalinist's all the way..

[Andrew]

I guess I disagree with everyone: I believe a constitutional amendment will pass-- the major hurdle will be the congress, and that may take an election cycle (or maybe not). Passing the states is a slam-dunk.

Meanwhile, Kerry gets hurt on this...especially because the man himself is so maladroit when it comes to handling a hot issue. I will enjoy watching him make it worse.

[Ron Hardin]

Kevin,

Volokh suggests a version that ought to be worded to prevent it from preventing civil unions, from lawyers' points of view. There's political advantage for opponents in it though, so I doubt it will appear above the din.

[Ron Hardin]

> There's political advantage ...

should be ``There's no political advantage ...''

I wonder how proofreading circuits work to miss such things when posted but not when then read after posting.

[speedwell]

Malak, common-law marriage has been quietly repealed (if you can repeal a common law) in many states over the past dozen years or so. And thank the stars for that, too--the laws were usually pretty stupid.

Suppose you were told you were now obligated to take over someone's car payments because you had been borrowing his car longer than an arbitrary statutory length of time (say one month). Would that sound fair? Or would you argue that the government cannot just up and sign you on to a contract you had no intention of contracting?

The common-law marriage law sometimes required no more than a certain minimal length of time of cohabitation. I guess it was presumed that men and women couldn't be trusted to live innocently together. I had a friend in Georgia who had a guy roommate; when she married her boyfriend, evidently the guy could have claimed she was already married to him (he didn't do that though).

[alkali]

Jeff Smith restates Jennifer's question:

Do state marriage laws actually specify that the bride must be a woman and the groom a man - i.e., that butch and fem just won't cut it?

Depends on the state.

For example, in Massachusetts, the answer was no. However, the Massachusetts court did decide that the marriage statute contemplated man-woman marriage despite that omission (for example, because the statute prohibiting incestuous marriage prohibited father-daughter and mother-son marraiges and not "parent-child" marraiges generally). The court's decision that Massachusetts law required granting marriage licenses to otherwise qualified same-sex couples was based on the 1976 "equality under the law" amendment to the Massachusetts constitution, and *not* on any unusual characteristic of the Massachusetts marriage statutes.

[Redneck Troglodyte]

Jennifer, I don't think that your statement about most southerners is true. What is true is that a vocal, sometimes violent, minority (sort of like Queer Nation) resisted intergration and racial equity on a purely black/white platform.

I think what most rational troglodytes resented was the federal government infringing once again on states' rights. The truth of the matter is that blacks were discriminated against in the northern states also, albiet to a lesser extent.

If Mr. Bush sent federal troops to San Francisco or Arnold called out the National Guard to force the city to cease and desist their defiance of state law, how would you feel?

Trog

[Southern by the grace of some]

Putting aside the Southerner-bashing that Jennifer and Steve in CO (we grew up about an hour away from each other) are engaging in, "redneck troglodyte" is not that far of from the truth when he says that Southerners were not opposed to segregation per se. The state governments surely, but the average man or woman of the time working hard to make a living had far greater worries than whether or not their children would be going to school with Negros. This is borne out by the fact that relatively little resistance to desegregation by the general populace occurred. Just because the same Klansmen and rabble-rousers appear in that 50s and 60s TV footage does not imply that the majority of Southerners were in on it. Besides, Yankees created "white flight", not us.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"So Rosie got 'married' today. BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL!"

The fascist moralists are spawning more evil then they could ever imagine. They're making Rosie a cultural hero. I was hoping this fat bitch would finally go away after her play flopped.

The gay community should get Dan Savage up in front. He's COOL!

[Vigilance Matters]

FMA is not quite dead in the water yet -- first we must have a national discussion about the perverted "diginity" of the homosexual lifestyle.

These guys don't help your case one little bit:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040227-073854-8112r.htm

[Mr. Nice Guy]

If you truly get your "facts" from a fascist Moony paper I pity you.

[[e-mail]]

Civil rights matters may not be trusted to the voting public, because popular opinion should not decide what rights certain people get. If we could trust civil rights to the public, we'd still have slavery, women would have no autonomy, and the only people who could vote would be white land-owning men over the age of 21.

[Disappointed in Denver]

I've always been under the impression that all lesbians were cute hard-bodies who secretly liked men. But what I see on the news is very disturbing indeed: homely, sagging, middle-aged women with bad haircuts. My disappointment notwithstanding, if this is the enemy, all we have to fear is fear itself.

Not that I'm not afraid...

[Vigilance Matters]

MrNiceGuy, if you cant refurte the facts, attack the source, right? Well here, have a look around.

Facts are Facts, it's being repoted everywhere -- and ALL SIDES admit these numbers are LOW!

see em for yourself
http://news.google.com/news?q=John+Jay+College+study&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d

[joe]

VM, your efforts to detail the wrong-headedness of denying people the opportunity to marry are much appreciated.

Marriage rules. Eveyone should get married.

[Brian Carnell]

Josh's list is a bit premature. Of course this amendment is not going to pass *today*. And I doubt Bush would even want it to pass at the moment.

On the other hand, coming out for it does let Bush score points with his conservative base and it puts him out ahead in case the California gay marriages and the Mass. ones start to increase support for a constitutional amendment.

Once again, btw, we see Bush and many Republicans on the side of the federal gov't with Dems. like Kerry suddenly getting that ole states rights religion.

[Gadfly]

Here's a thread on homosexual marriage and Vigilance Matters hooks it into a matter of child abuse by Catholic priests.

Assuming VM is well intending (a stretch, I admit) and fairly typical of the voting public who swallows every rumor, exagerration and outright lie about gays, liberals, the war on terror, evolution, fad diets, second hand smoke, chocolate chip cookies and hoola hoops, this is proof positive that Randy Wanat should be elected President.

[Mo]

Kerry's not the only one to convert concerning state's rights. A lot of elephants seemed to have renounced that belief the second Bush got elected. Compare Bush's views on this exact issue during the campaign.

[joe]

Has there ever been a "states rights" movement that was actually about states rights, and not arena shopping?

The southern politicians behind the Fugitive Slave Act, for example, didn't seem too concerned about states rights, until they saw the tide turning.

[SteveInClearwater]

Just by virtue of Bush and Co announcing that they are seeking a Constitutional amendment, we can see the legal writing on the wall.

The reason he endorses a C.A. instead of just creating a carefully worded and crafted law against same sex marriage is that it's bound to be deemed, uhhh, UN-constitutional.

A group of 157 gays just sued today Broward County (Ft Lauderdale area) FL for being denied wedding licenses). It may take quite some time, but they will prevail if they stick with it. And they have no motivation not to stick with it. They can't be bought off by receipt of some comparable political fruit.

I forecast that within the next 5 years, every state in the Union will face significant challenges of this nature, and one by one they will follow the legal lead of Massachucetts and realize they can't legislate this issue away. Only a literal C.A. at either the state or the federal level could do that. And it doesn't look likely, as noted by the lead theme of this thread.

[dhex]

VM - so what about gay people who don't molest children?

i mean, i know there's only like, two of them worldwide, but those two should be allowed to get married, right?

still waiting for the RICO hammer to fall in rockville center (i'll be waiting a long time)

[Walter Wallis]

Perhaps we need to rethink the whole consent think in marriage. Just because we traditionally ask the bride if she does is no reason to slavishly follow tradition.

[dhex]

"Hospital visitations? You don't need gay marriage to change that."

actually, it depends on the hospital. spouses are always allowed to visit patients in every area (where they can accept visitors at all, of course). everything else is a big ole ? depending on the institution and their visitation rules.

[Lincoln Ellis]

Let me posit a naive technical solution to this mess: forward a soft copy of all marriage laws to me. I will change every instance of the word "marriage" in said documents to "civil union." Now the holy word "marriage" is no longer associated with government benefits and no laws need to be added or changed. All government benefits will be available to any party which can be represented in a court of law. Even if your desire was to enter into "marriage"(now a civil union) with a rock, you could, provided another person agrees on a contract to represent the rock in court.

Let religious beliefs determine the meaning of marriage and let the government simply adjudicate civil union contracts.

[Gadfly]

Going to the chapel
and we're
Going to get civilly uni-i-i-ted...

Nope. That don't work.

[Jennifer]

To paraphrase Bill Maher and add a few thoughts of my own, if Southerners want people to stop assuming they're stupid assholes, they should stop being stupid assholes! Granted, modern Southerners can't be blamed for past sins of slavery and segregation, but perhaps they could stop trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution, stop waving the Confederate flag (a sign of pride in treason), stop using taxpayer monies to try and shove Christianity down people's throats, stop naming schools after traitors like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, and maybe come clean about the fact that in Southernese, "state's rights" is just code for "keep the niggers intheir place."

[Walter Wallis]

The success of abortions has left holes in our population increase that are being filled with Islamics. Where will the Gays go, then, when Islam wants to sew them into sacks and throw them off cliffs, and when the new majority puts women back in Shari, and the tolerant white guys are no longer strong enough to stop them?

[chairm]

>>>Let religious beliefs determine the meaning of marriage and let the government simply adjudicate civil union contracts.>>If we could trust civil rights to the public, we'd still have slavery, women would have no autonomy, and the only people who could vote would be white land-owning men over the age of 21.

[thoreau]

Walter-

Please tell me you're joking.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau--
Even if Walter is serious, I'd tell him not to worry. Long gone are the days when superior numbers meant superior military might--the reason the rest of the world fears the American military is not because of the millions of people who live here, but because of the advanced technology of our weaponry.

[chairm]

The issue is not slavery. It is marriage.

Wait -- My wife tells me that's the same thing.

Nevermind.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Poor Jennifer, nobody's told her about all those hosers up in Canada.

[Hudson]

Here's a modest proposal which may help (A) resolve the gay marriage issue, while also (B) sort the fake free marketeers from the real heirs of Hayek:

Marketize marriage.

Example: I'm straight. In a permanent relationship. I've got a commodity that's in demand that I have an excess supply of (namely, my right to get married). Shouldn't I have the freedom to sell that to the highest bidder?

If the highest bidder is gay, so what? It's the market. Or, if it's a loony zillionaire (like some of the folks whose foundations set up Reason) trying to buy up all the marriage contracts to prevent gays from marrying -- well, that's the market, right?

Click my URL for more.

[thoreau]

Hudson-

So, um, the right of consenting adults to enter into contracts on property, power of attorney, etc. (which is the only aspect of marriage that the law has any power over, the rest is all up to individuals, families, churches, and other private groupings) should be a commodity?

Um, isn't that taking the market just a bit too far?

[Jennifer]

Douglas-

Hosers in Canada? What are you talking about?

[joe]

"The success of abortions has left holes in our population that are being filled by Islamics."

And on that note, let's all Google Christian Identity, so we'll be able to recognize the philosophy when we see it.

[Lee]

Not only are same sex marriages in trouble, but so are common law marriages. Slowly, our government is taking away our rights to the pursuit of happiness.
Who says I have to have the gov., preist, rabi, or Rev marry me? (Marraige is Between two people who want to estblish everlasting love, and companionship to each other.) Do I really need to prove that for legal reasons? Make a living, and legal will and leave everything to your spouse/partner. Put in the will that your spouse/partner should be entitled to any survourship benefits.
Maybe, I don't want a big wedding affair. But, my rights were abolished. It was wrong for Pa. to abolish my right to a common law marriage. The Gov. should stay out of personal affairs. They stay out of a woman's right to choose abortion, they should stay out of my right to have a common law marriage, or same sex marriage. Pursue your right to happiness! Write to have these laws changed.