A friend of a friend of mine, writing about same-sex marriage, wrote this on her blog. I haven’t linked to it, because I don’t think this person wants a link from “Alas,” but I can’t resist replying to it:
1) In only one of the four states where gay marriages were legally recognized, was a court responsible (the famous Massachusetts Supreme Court Goodridge decision). In the other three states, the same-sex marriages were put in place by elected officials and then invalidated or halted by judges. Both sides of the SSM debate have used judges to further their cause – your side more than mine.
2) More fundamentally, your comment ignores that judges (or, more accurately, courts) are not an outside imposition on the American system. They are part of the system, part of the Constitutional design of checks and balances. Are you seriously suggesting that courts should not be allowed to over-rule the legislature – or the popular will – ever? Should courts take polls of public preferences before issuing legal opinions? That’s an approach which goes radically against the Constitution’s design.
3) To claim that the Massachusetts judges ever said or implied “the masses are too stupid to know what’s good for them” is a lie, and one that covers up the real issues. What they actually said, in the Goodridge decision, is that the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution prevents the state government from providing marriage rights to opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples. They didn’t say a word about what was good or bad for the masses, or about the intelligence of people who are against SSM.
I happen to think that the Goodridge judges were correct, but I admit that it’s possible for someone to disagree with me in good faith. Will you admit the reverse – that when judges make a decision you disagree with, it’s possible they were interpreting the law as best they understand it, and not actually accusing the masses of being stupid?
What if, in response to Brown v. Board in 1954, southern states had held referenda on segregation. I don’t doubt for a second that every southern state would have passed pro-segregation referenda by similar margins to what we saw in the anti-gay referenda last Tuesday; the racists would have interpreted the results as the triumph of the “governed” over the elitist courts.
“Elitist” of course is a code word for “Massachusetts liberal” or “not Real Americans because they’re from the Northeast.” I’m having a lot of trouble with this issue right now, because I’m frickin’ sick of being labeled with this crap. At the same time, I hear a lot of red-state liberals complaining about the venting of blue-staters and talk of secession (I have a friend who’s returning to Texas because he can’t deal with this). I’m sure it’s partly a matter of selective perception as to how much of this you’re hearing directed at you, but I think the Bush people were very canny in their use of terminology to whip up the passions of those who consider themselves “values voters.” “Values” = anti-gay-marriage. “Elitist” = smug Northeasterner who thinks he’s better than you and can tell you what to do. “Judicial activist” = some uppity judge who goes against the Will of the People. It works because people who are inclined to feel aggrieved and don’t really understand how the system works hear these code words and feel justified in their grievances.
Hell, if they had a vote now in the South, Brown v. Board would probably be overturned. Something to keep in mind, because if you suggest that we would still have laws against birth control, laws for segregation, etc. to them, they dissemble in order to basically make the “that was then this is now” argument that we are enlightened now and don’t need to court to force us to abide by our democratic principles.
And that’s what it comes down to. Democracy isn’t just *voting*. Democracy is meaningless with systems to secure equality between citizens.
*without
Sorry.
I think charges of elitism come from those who are jealous of the unequal distribution of priveleges such as the higher education generally required to become a lawyer and a judge. A Tom Delay can exterminate bugs for a living then run for congress successfully, but few elected officials would appoint him to a judgeship nor would anyone take his run for an elected judicial post seriously without legal experience.
What I find odd is that “activist judges” get accused of elitism, and liberal lawmakers, but not evangelical christians whose own creed states that only those born again through Christ can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Granted, Christ himself is supposed to be a pretty open door as policies go; but in a secular democracy, it takes a lotta gall to deal with other belief systems that way. Moreover, isn’t the whole “heartland” idea pretty elitist, too? As Zuzu suggests, ya don’t have to be a midwesterner to be a “true American.”
I think charges of elitism come from those who are jealous of the unequal distribution of priveleges such as the higher education generally required to become a lawyer and a judge. A Tom Delay can exterminate bugs for a living then run for congress successfully, but few elected officials would appoint him to a judgeship nor would anyone take his run for an elected judicial post seriously without legal experience.
What I find odd is that “activist judges” get accused of elitism, and liberal lawmakers, but not evangelical christians whose own creed states that only those born again through Christ can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Granted, Christ himself is supposed to be a pretty open door as policies go; but in a secular democracy, it takes a lotta gall to deal with other belief systems that way. Moreover, isn’t the whole “heartland” idea pretty elitist, too? As Zuzu suggests, ya don’t have to be a midwesterner to be a “true American.”
Speaking of letting voters rule on Brown, Atrios has a post about an Alabama ballot measure to repeal language in the Alabama Constitution mandating segregated schools. It lost.
Funny how judges can elect a president and therefore carry out the ‘will of the people’ but a judge that tries to uphold a state constitution’s guarantee of equality is a ‘judicial activist’.
Everyone hates lawyers (in this case judges) until they need one.
I think the “elitist” charge has to do more with an emotional perception than any articulated, rational belief set.
There is a fairly widespread feeling among conservatives and traditionalists that liberals, as a bloc, want gay marriage. There is also a suspicion that liberal officeholders – whether judges, or mayors, or what have you – will do whatever they have to do in order to implement that agenda item.
In other words, there isn’t resentment that the judges in Goodridge came up with the decision they came up with, per se; instead, there is resentment that the judges in Goodridge were bound and determined to come up with a gay-marriage affirmative ruling, regardless of any other consideration.
Obviously, judges and other elected officials are somewhat responsive to the cultural climate they inhabit. There were gay people in Massachusetts 50 years ago, and the constitution said the same thing it did then, but it is highly doubtful that the Massachusetts Supreme Court would have reached the decision it did if the case had played out in 1954.
So at bottom, what is really being resented is that other people have “wrong” cultural values, and that through the vagaries of our legal system, those “wrong” values may be exported.
The answer to that, of course, is federalism. I’m all for Massachusetts getting to set its own marriage law, and for my state getting to set its own marriage law. A federalist solution would quell 80% of the unhappiness being generated on this issue on my side of the fence.
Unfortunately I think it would not quell much of the unhappiness on the other side. But I could be wrong.
Federalism. Well, hmm, once upon a time these United States were groping towards a Federalist approach to abortion. Some States (Hawaii, California and Alaska IIRC) had legalized abortion, and many had not. In various legislatures, the debate was playing out.
Some folks fretted about a “patchwork quilt” of laws, and took Jane Roe to the USSC, which then rammed a unified standard into existence.
More than a few people fully expect _Goodridge_ to be rammed into a unified standard by the USSC in the near future, either directly via a _Lawrence_ style decision, or indirectly via a “full faith and credit” decision, and thus when “Federalism” is suggested, they point to _Roe_ as an example of what liberals REALLY mean by “Federalism”: one uniform standard mandated from the bench, with no alternatives accepted or even tolerated.
Might want to take history into consideration in this discussion.
So a “federalist” approach to basic civil rights is a good thing? Where you can have one state that will impose the death penalty where another won’t, for the same offense (or, worse, one county within a state which will impose it where the other won’t)?
Circuit splits are a basic reason why the Supreme Court grants certiorari.
Funny how judges can elect a president and therefore carry out the ‘will of the people’ but a judge that tries to uphold a state constitution’s guarantee of equality is a ‘judicial activist’.
Ah, but the “will of the people” judge is called a “strict constructionist.”
There are certainly ways to affect policy on the local level of courts, even through declining to prosecute. The new DA in Albany ran on a single issue platform: repealing the Rockefeller drug laws. My friend (a former Bronx ADA in drug crimes) and I have discussed working to get progressive, anti-Rockefeller-drug-laws candidates for DA elected in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, where there are substantial populations of minorities affected by those laws.
A confounding factor at the state level is the power of representatives from the upstate counties where the two largest prisons are. Their state funding formulas are based on not only their permanent populations, but also on the prison population. Which, of course, takes away from the funding of the inmates’ home communities.
“elitist”, “activist”. They are words used by some folks in the right to create a wedge.
About 13 years ago I read an article about “The Contract for America” that the Republicans came up with. What it boiled down to was if you read between the lines of this so called “contract” it was a way to separate the rich from the not rich.
Unfortunately everyone has yet to read between the lines. The Republicans use words that people associate with the rich and then point to the Democrats. (If all Democrats were as rich as the Republicans try to make us out to be this world would be a better place.)
The average working person sees that and thinks (and rightly so) ‘who do those people think they are telling me how I should live my life just because they have money.’ And then the Republicans talk about “values” and “morals” like only they know what they are. (they do, but that’s how they abuse them). Then they get the vote they want. Meanwhile back at the ranch the Republicans are raking in the bucks and still pointing at the Democrats like we have all the money.
It’s scary how manipulative they are. There are these people who are voting with their hearts and minds. They are voting for things they truly believe in and not realizing that they are about to be betrayed.
I don’t agree with this whole “moral value” issue. When the Founding Fathers started this country I don’t think they planned to vote in religious control.
The separation of Church and State was to prevent the State from dictating what religion everyone had to be. What we have now is the Church trying to dictate to the State which will still have the same outcome.
If the Church becomes the State what religion will we be? Because in this country there are a number of different religions.
we could have government by the consent of the governed
I’m confused. What do judges have to do with an elected government? The words “government by consent of the governed” implies elected (by consent) by the people… but I don’t understand what that has to do with judges. Are judges not very experienced lawyers who interpret the letter and intent of the law and wether or not it is congruent (I can’t think of the word I mean) to the constituion?
I understand how the elected government creates and votes on a bill, which then becomes (or fails to become) a law, and the only check/balance after that seems to be the Supreme Court. I don’t understand how “judges doing an end run around legislation” is a problem when it’s their job (as far as I can see) to make sure that the law/legislation in question does not conflict with the Constitution.
Are judges elected? By whom? This might be a Canadian blind-spot I’ve got, so someone please help?
If you think words like elitist, activist, strict-constructionist, etc are simply political buzz words without a body of thought behind them you are mistaken.
There plenty of people knowledgeable in the area, including judges, who think we are getting dangerously close to becoming a judicial oligarchy. The judicial branch was set up to be an equal but limited branch of the government. With all of the new power accumulated by the courts (due to their own decisions expanding their own power) it is definitely the most powerful branch of government today.
Here are a few articles on the subject, generally, with similar opinions.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2478
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9611/articles/bork.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/feb04/04-02-04.html
Not exactly objective sources, those.
Federalism (noun) – The principle that people from another state cannot prevent you from infringing on the freedoms of people in your own state.
Oh, Wookie, you don’t know the half of it! Due to peculiarities of voter, and therefore jury-duty, pool, state and local laws, and judges currently in place, Madison Co, IL (the IL county right across the river from St. Louis MO) is a preferred location for plaintiff’s lawyers seeking class action suits. So lawyers seek out plaintiffs residing in Madison county in order to bring these nationwide-implication lawsuits in a Madison Co. venue. Corporations are furious.
We just had a 10 MILLION DOLLAR election for IL Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that the great majority of the money on both sides was from out of state and region (ie, excluding those lawyers who practice both sides of the river in the St. Louis Metro area). As a resident on the MO side of the metro area, served by the same TV stations that broadcast both sides fo the river, I can assure you that I saw more TV ads for “the two bozos”, as I thought of them by the end of the election.
This judicial election broke all records for money spent – probably by 5 million or more.
Walt, that’s one way to look at it.
Another way to view it is that federalism is the principle that since humans are fallible creatures, it is better to permit experimentation and diversity to see which public policies work best, rather than enforcing conformity. Maybe gay marriage will be a huge net plus in MA; let’s watch it and see. Maybe three-strikes will really cut crime in CA; let’s test the proposition. Maybe Hillarycare really is a workable idea; let’s look at what happens in TN and get some data.
Federalism gives us a laboratory of democracy in action; it lets us see the results of things before committing our entire nation to radical experiments.
Generally speaking, diversity and experimentation are better ways of approaching social issues than uniformity. There is a cost – good ideas might go unimplemented for a while instead of being put in place right away – but I believe the benefits far outweigh that cost.
What kind of conformity is forced by allowing more people to get married if they want to? Conformity of a belief system? That doesn’t make any sense. Nobody’s insisting people support same-sex relationships against their will–but by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, we are forcing same-sex couples to conform to a belief against their will.
Some things that are very unfair “work.” The world isn’t falling apart because we don’t have SSM. But discrimination should be eliminated everywhere, not just state by state. Sure, some things are better left to states; SSM is not one of them.
I’m not sure how legalizing SSM could be a “huge net plus” anywhere, but it doesn’t matter. The argument isn’t, “SSM will make everybody happier and smarter and richer,” but rather, “SSM will make the country less unfair without harming anyone.” All it has to do is not mess anything up–and it won’t. It’s been six months since it was legalized in MA, and neither the state nor the country has fallen apart.
I sort of agree with Robert. I want to see SSM happen all across the USA; but it’s not going to happen that way all at once.
Since we can’t have what we want – universal SSM -I think Federalism offers the best route for now. Masachusetts is a start; next comes New Jersey and Connecticutt, I hope. A decade or so of demonstrating that the sky will not, in fact, fall if two dudes kiss, and then further spread will be possible.
Eventually, I think that there will be SSM all across the country, and it will seem bizarre that anyone ever objected to it. But that’s just not gonna happen in the next few years; any attempt to create universal SSM right now would just lead to a universal Federal (anti-)marriage amendment, which is the thing I want least.
Right now, the best route to SSM is through federalism.
Apparently you are right Amanda and others, if it was up to a huge portion of voters in the south, segregation might be reinstituted…
Alabama voters just failed to pass a referendum that would have taken segregation language out of their constitution.
apparently, 50%+ like the language there.
I just say, thank god for judges.
Heck in Alabama they still have a law on the books making interracial marriage illegal (even though they can’t stop it). I don’t know why anyone thought they would change segrationalist wording.
I have to agree with Amp and Robert, SSM is not going to make it across the board all at once.
Here in Virginia about 10 years ago a woman had her children taken away from her because she was a lesbian. The SSM issue will probably be up as a state constitutional amendment with the next elections in 2006. We (the Democrats) are not expecting VA to allow SSM. The State is just such a Christian Fundimendalist haven. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell I believe they would break commandments to prevent SSM in VA.
The thing with that Alabama referendum was that in order to vote for getting rid of the segregationist language, you also had to vote for guaranteeing public education. Which of these was an issue? Apparently, it’s not so clear it was only the race issue that got the measure defeated.
In all honesty, I think that the fight (for now) is better fought, and easier won at the state level. With conservatives in control of the federal government, the issue is too easily hijacked for political soundbytes, which in turn causes too much panic and drama.
Maybe it’s just because I’m feeling very anti-federal government right now.
Our ancestors did not die so that passing fads and mob rule could do an end-run around the Constitution–the law of the land.
Tough call, zuzu. But I can tell you that interracial marriage is still a BIG ISSUE to a lot of white Southerners.
It may even be best to try legalizing same-sex marriage at the local level in those states where it’s not too late. It might have a chance in a large enough urban area, where people seem a little hipper to that kind of thing anyway. Hell, it may even work in some college towns and small artsy communities. It’s definitely worth a shot, and would probably freak people out slightly less than even a statewide measure would. And once the influx of same-sex couples starts driving the property values up, as it eventually must, it just might catch on elsewhere.
Or it just might trigger more statewide bans, who knows…
That’s not going to work, Dan, because marriage is a state issue, not a local one (and not, for that matter, a federal one either). The mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, NY found that out when they tried to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
I think the government should get out of “marriage” altogether and only deal in civil unions. Marriage, if it’s so sanctified, can go back to being a matter for the churches, not recognized under the law but still the special thing people seem so desperate for.
At risk of thread-hijacking, I wanted to bring up something.
I come by every few weeks to catch up on debates and ideas regarding same-sex marriage, etc…and have wondered about one issue that hasn’t gotten the prominence I might have expected (or that was covered sometime but I missed it.)
I was outraged at the recent Virginia statute, passed over Gov. Warner’s veto, that not only banned same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions, but also specifically disallowed any private contract that purported to convey benefits similar to those conveyed by marriage — the language, quoting from http://www.overlawyered.com, is any “partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage”
That is, the law goes far beyond having the state NOT recognize gay marriages or civil unions, but rather actively seeks to block even non-state legal means to protect same-sex couples. Moreover, without having looked at all 11, my impression is that some of the recently passed referenda in various state tended in the same direction
There’s a lot of talk about how the majority might support civil unions in the US, but such laws make me think that’s an illusion.
Would a thread on Virginia and Virginia-like statues be worthy? It might help some of the “I’m friendly to your position but it’s really not so bad” people wake up!!
“Our ancestors didn’t die so that we could have government by the consent of the well-educated– they died so that we could have government by the consent of the governed. Period.”
Er… they must have gotten their education from a Texas textbook.
My ancestors were not around at the founding. But those white wealthy male landowners who wrote the consitution did not fully embrace the idea of consent of the governed.
Debates over the value of federalism often appear to be driven more by the end policy a person wants, rather than a principaled defense of the importance of state independance or federal control.
Many progressives in the early 20th century looked at federalism and states’ rights as a way to foward their cause. At that time the Supreme Court read the Due Process Clause to strike down minimum wage laws, and the Commerce clause to limit local regulations of railroad monopolies.
Today, as many progressives have come to see the Federal Courts of the last 50 years as powerful protectors of individual liberty and distain the states’ right campaign of religious fundamentalists and racists.
Amp, your second point was brought up in Massachusetts regarding legislative checks-and-balances. I heard the topic brought up at legislative hearings. If the popular vote ruled a few decades ago, schools would have been racially segregated much longer than they were. (per the first comment about Brown v. Board of Education)
I think the government should get out of “marriage” altogether and only deal in civil unions. Marriage, if it’s so sanctified, can go back to being a matter for the churches, not recognized under the law but still the special thing people seem so desperate for.
Yeah, I think this is fair from a separate-church-from-state standpoint. I also like it for purely self-centered reasons. Having deep-seated issues with “marriage” as an institution and all the baggage it comes with, I’d be happier all around with a civil union for me and my partner, as opposed to marriage.
Of course, I’m weird. I feel that there should be state-recognized partnerships for those who are sharing a life under the same roof w/o any sexual or romantic basis for the union. I don’t know how this would be implemented, but if two adults were living under the same roof for a set number of years, saving resources and being partners in all but the sexual/romantic sense, why shouldn’t they get a few tax breaks and the right of hospital visitation and so forth, if they want them ?
More than a few people fully expect _Goodridge_ to be rammed into a unified standard by the USSC in the near future, either directly via a _Lawrence_ style decision, or indirectly via a “full faith and credit” decision
These people are laboring under misconceptions. There won’t be a Lawrence decision, since gender isn’t a fully suspect class.
It won’t happen via FF&C decisions either – the borders between the states on matters like these are doubly fortified: there’s DOMA, and there’s the Constitutional doctrine of ‘Public Policy’ exceptions to FF&C.
So chill. The sky ain’t gonna fall.
Debates over the value of federalism often appear to be driven more by the end policy a person wants, rather than a principaled defense of the importance of state independance or federal control
Debates over ‘activist judges’ track this pattern, too. I have yet to see a coherent unpacking of the term that doesn’t ultimately boil down to disagreement over results of cases.
In the other three states, the same-sex marriages were put in place by elected officials and then invalidated or halted by judges.
I am not familiar with all 3 cases. But in the case of San Francisco, the elected official acted outside the law, so it’s not analagous to the case in Massachusetts. Now, if you had a legislature pass a law allowing same sex marriage, and then had that overturned by a group of judges, you’d be closer to what happened in Massachusetts.
I say closer because, while I was not in Mass. at the time that their equal rights legislation was passed, I well imagine that no one expected that it would legalize same-sex marriage.
At any rate, the issues is not yet at rest in Massachusetts. IIRC, in 2004 a DOMA amendment to the Mass. Constitution (the oldest one in effect in North America) passed the Mass. legislature. If it passes again in 2005, it’ll be on the 2006 ballot, where I’ll bet it’ll pass.
There won’t be a Lawrence decision, since gender isn’t a fully suspect class.
It is a suspect class; it’s just not as suspect as race. At least not under the federal Constitution.
“Elitist” is simply a term used by conservatives to classify liberals as outside the mainstream and unlike the average citizen. It has a purely political function of trying to drive a wedge between liberals and those whose interests liberal policies serve. For people who support a graduate of Harvard and Yale to claim that liberals are elitists is absurd. My college-educated mother, who lives in a beachfront condominium in California with my father, who has a Master’s degree, calls me an “elitist,” though I am no more educated and went to no better schools than did she or my father, and though I have less money and work in a less prestigious field than does my father. The word “elitist,” when used by conservatives, has no meaning beyond “liberal.” The conservatives have simply chosen a term that they believe has negative connotations and applied it to liberals regardless of whether the term is appropriate or not. It is just a piece of political propaganda.
The whole point of having a “constitution” is to set down how the government will work and what rights the government has as opposed to the people. The citizens of the various states voted to ratify our Constitution and so, through an electoral process, decided that they wanted to be governed as set forth in the Constitution, including the judiciary and the Bill of Rights.
The point of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee that individuals have certain rights regardless of the desires of the government or of the majority in the country. The judiciary is the check on the power of the legislature and the chief executive to pass and enforce laws contrary to the precepts of the Constitution.
So, by accepting the Constitution in the first place, the people have agreed to a system in which laws favored by the majority can be struck down by the judiciary if the judiciary finds them unconstitutional. The voice of the majority isn’t being ignored: it was heard when the majority chose to ratify the constitution. The majority had the chance to influence the appointment of justices when it elected the chief executive and the various Senators, who choose justices as representatives of the people.
Once chosen, as Amp noted, it is not the job of the judiciary to consider the will of the people. By the will of the people, judges are tasked to rule on points of law in accord with the Constitution, fairly and impartially, considering only the law and the Constitution, not the will of the people. Yes, it is by the will of the people that judges are expected *not* to consider the will of the people in their rulings! This all makes cries of “judicial activism” incoherent at the most basic level: “This judge is ignoring the will of the people by performing his or her job according to the will of the people.”
The problem with conservatives who complain about “judicial activism” is that they are really just complaining that the system didn’t produce their desired result. They know it won’t be popular to criticize the system and the Constitution (especially since their own leader took an oath to defend it), so they try to attack the people working in the system. They focus on the judges and try to say that the judges have overstepped their authority and ignored the will of the people, when the judges are part of a system put in place by the will of the people in the first place. By arguing against “judicial activism,” conservatives are really (knowingly or not) arguing against the will of the people as established in the Constitution.
Also, the arguments, as noted above, are disingenuous. “Judicial activism” is just code for “ruling against the conservatives.” As Amp pointed out, judges rule in favor of conservatives all the time, but when they rule against the conservatives, it is suddenly “judicial activism.” By giving rulings conservatives dislike a special name, they separate them from the normal business of the judiciary as if it is something different, something “other.” They use the terminology to disguise the truth that “judicial activism” isn’t a judge stepping beyond the bounds of his or her power: it is a judge using his or her power in a way that offends the conservatives. But creating a term like “judicial activism” makes it appear to be something extraordinary and beyond the pale, when it isn’t.
If the people of Massachusetts adopted a state constitution that requires same-sex marriages to be recognized just as heterosexual marriages are, then the legalization of SSM in Massachusetts is not due to “judicial activism” but due to the will of the people, set down in the state constitution, as interpreted by those appointed by the people to render judgments on the constitutionality of laws passed in the state: judges. The people of Massachusetts have chosen to legalize SSM, whether they intended to or not. Because the implementation of the state constitution has consequences unforeseen by the people who adopted it does not relieve the judges appointed to uphold the constitution from doing so. If the people are unhappy with the consequences of the constitution they have adopted, the constitution itself sets forth the process to change it.
Of course, I’m weird. I feel that there should be state-recognized partnerships for those who are sharing a life under the same roof w/o any sexual or romantic basis for the union.
Well, they could just get a civil union, couldn’t they? Or get married. I mean, when I got married, I don’t remember being asked to sign any forms promising that Chaz and I would actually consummate said marriage. It may not be “traditional” marriage, but there’s a long history of people entering into platonic “marriages of convenience.”
I have a feeling that if civil union legislation ever passed here, it would probably not include the sort of clauses about “consummation” that exist in many marriage laws — primarily because I think that those clauses have come to be seen culturally as fairly archaic and distasteful.
(Personally, I don’t think that the question of whether two people are having sex is any of anyone’s damned business, whether they’re married or not, so I would certainly not weep bitter tears to see the term “consummation” go the way of the dodo.)
Admittedly, there’s still the issue of public perceptions of marriage, or civil union, as being all about the sex. We’ve seen ample proof of that in some of the anti-SSM rhetoric. But I don’t know if I think that the best way to approach that problem would really be to create a special legal designation for platonic marriage. Let platonic couples start marrying, and the public perception might well start to change on its own, just as better contraception (and other social conditions which make childlessness a more popular option) have caused a shift in people’s perceptions away from marriage as being all about children.
I have more of a problem commingling my credit with another person’s than my bodily fluids. Love and hearts and flowers and sacred bond lalalala, but joint credit? That’s some serious shit.
The one group denied the use of the benefits of either marriage or civil unions is family members (sibling pairs and adult child-parent). Apparently, these (non-sexual) pairings were one of the major beneficiaries of Portland and San Francisco’s domestic partnerships ordinances.
Zuzu and Alsis38 I have to agree with your postion on who should be handling marriage and who should handle civil unions.
I was thinking about that while I was driving home Sunday. If these “Evangelicals” are so concerned with the marriage then let them deal with all of it. And not just the marriage, but also the divorce, division of property and child custody.
Each religion can have their own little marriage system and deal with all the problems.
Leave the goverment out of the whole thing.
And zuzu, I am concerned that you share bodily fluids more easily than credit. both should be guarded with your life :-)
I didn’t specify which fluids. You can use condoms to protect yourself, but once someone gets their credit mixed up with yours, it’s a lot harder to undo any damage than it is to get over a bad date.
Kelli, thanks for the concern, but have you ever tried to get something removed from your credit that belonged to someone else?
“And zuzu, I am concerned that you share bodily fluids more easily than credit. both should be guarded with your life :-)”
Damn, I knew there was a reason that my momma always told me to throw my used kleenex in the locked trashcan instead of the one anyone can go fishing around in.
Hey, look what happened with a blue dress.
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Fool's Blog
Pingback: Pacific Views