From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Sacramento — The state Assembly, in a stunning victory for the gay rights movement, approved a landmark bill allowing same-sex marriage Tuesday night and sent it to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The measure, which passed with no votes to spare, marks the first time that a legislative body in the United States has approved a bill that legalizes gay marriage. Schwarzenegger has not taken an official position on the legislation but has hinted that he would veto it.
Regardless of Schwarzenegger’s probable veto, this is a notable achievement. And sooner or later, a pro-gay Democrat will wind up elected to the Governor’s office.
The funny part is that Schwarzenegger has said that he’ll veto because he thinks this is a decision properly made by the courts or the people – not by the legislature. As Fred Vincey of Stone Court points out, “Governor Schwarzenegger seems to have forgotten to check his talking points with the anti-SSM establishment.”
Of course, it’s not hypocritical for Schwarzenegger to disagree with the conservative consensus (Schwarzenegger has always been a bit from Bizzaro-world anyway; remember his statement that “gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman”?).
So who are the hypocrites? The thousands of anti-Same Sex Marriage (SSM) folks who, after the Massachusetts Goodridge decision, screamed loudly that SSM is a decision for the legislature. I bet that not more than a handful of them will object to a legislature’s decision being vetoed in deference to the Courts.
A judge could just as easily find a right already exist for polygamy
Sorry, no. As you admitted at the start, the judge did not “find a new legal right.” At all. There was no ruling that homosexuals have a right to marry. (Do you believe that when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, that it “found a new legal right” for interracial couples to marry?)
I’d be interested in hearing your argument as to why a two-person-only limit is unconstitutional. Religious arguments along the lines of “our religion says it’s OK” don’t cut it, especially after Employment Division v. Smith (a Scalia opinion).
As far as changes in tradition, well, guess y’all should have thought of that before you changed millenia of tradition by giving wives and husbands equal rights in marriage. Or of granting no-fault divorce.
Hellcat: If it not creating a new right, its at the very least a significant change in a long established legal, cultural, and and traditional human relationship, one that transends national boundaries, and has no long standing historical basis.
I hate people who can’t construct sensible sentences. I’m just saying.
Marriage meaning only one woman, one man, is certainly a long-established tradition in the West. But there are multiple other human definitions of marriage, some of which include same-sex marriage. The idea that it has never been known before in human history for two people of the same sex to be regarded as married according to the customs of their culture is, frankly, absurd. On the North American continent there were berdache marriages, and examples of same-sex marriage occur in other cultures world-wide. cite (Note that this does not, to my mind, constitute an argument for same-sex marriage in US or anywhere else, any more than the absence of any previous examples of same-sex marriage would constitute an argument against same-sex marriage. It is nonetheless absurd and untrue to argue that same-sex marriage has never previously existed.)
Mythago
Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, or even trisexuals for that matter have the same right to marry as society defines marriage. Court rulings that struck down miscengenation laws, prohibitions on interracial marriage (which I beleive only prohibited marriage between blacks and whites, not blacks and other races, nor whites and other races, not positve on that) did not in anyway indicate that marriage was no longer a relationship of a man and a woman.
http://www.lmaw.org/freedom/docs/MN%20Baker%20v%20Nelson.pdf
If I understand it, the Supreme Court refused to hear this case for lack of a substantial federal question. In this case, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, the MinnSC clearly stated that “marriage union of a man and a woman…is as old as the book of Genesis”.
As far as changes in tradition, well, guess y’all should have thought of that before you changed millenia of tradition by giving wives and husbands equal rights in marriage. Or of granting no-fault divorce.
All of these changes still held marriage to be a male female relationship. It may have changed the parameters, if I used that word correctly, but it didn’t change the defintion of marriage.
Jesurgislac
Okay I concede there are more examples in the non western world than I thought. I’d heard of the Chinese examples, and was familiar with the classical world’s treatment of homosexuality, but admit the number of African examples did surprise me. I don’t dispute the existence of some historical examples of same sex marriage like cermonies and practices, but as you stated Marriage meaning only one woman, one man, is certainly a long-established tradition in the West. Absolutely its from the western world that we have received our marriage, traditions, culture, and jurisprudence from. If same sex marriage was an universally accepted practice thoughout time and place, on par with oppposite sex marriage, its logical to assume that it would have rippled throught time and ended up on our shores, and thus perhaps, would have been legally recognized before now.
Now is there greater historical example of polygamy than SSM? What of SSM in the Middle East/Islamic world/cultures?
Hellcat: its logical to assume that it would have rippled throught time and ended up on our shores, and thus perhaps, would have been legally recognized before now.
“Logical”? There is nothing “logical” about prejudice, as you must surely be aware. See James Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality : Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century for a detailed description of the rise in homophobia in Western Europe over the past thousand years. Western marriage, traditions, culture, and even jurisprudence are older than a thousand years: while homophobia has been an apparently integral part of Western culture, we know that has not always been so, and there is no reason why it always should be.
Absolutely its from the western world that we have received our marriage, traditions, culture, and jurisprudence from.
Indeed. See Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, also by Boswell, for detailed accounts of same-sex marriage traditions in Western Europe.
But in any case, even were there a lack of historical precedent, this not be a valid argument against equal civil rights in the present day. What if there were no examples in Western culture of a society where black people were not slaves? Would that, in your mind, justify not freeing black slaves? (That was an argument used against freeing black people, incidentally: that the whole historical tradition was that black people were “naturally” slaves, so it would actually be wrong to free black slaves.)
Absolutely its from the western world that we have received our marriage, traditions, culture, and jurisprudence from.
“Since Genesis,” men have had rights over their wives and greater power in marriage before the law. That is no longer the law in America. Are you saying we should undo this grave mistake?
If you can’t be bothered to get off your butt and read Loving v. Virginia, or Judge Kramer’s recent opinion in California, or Baehr v. Lewin, then don’t pluck a 1971 state court case off the ‘net and try to persuade me that it is binding precedent that sets the whole course of American law.
While you’re at it, go bone up on what “equal protection” means. Perhaps you’ll learn that “we always did it this way” and “my religion says so” are not trump cards.
Jesurgislac
I am merely pointing out that same sex marriage, despite some historical examples, was not so pervasive as to ripple through time, entrencing itself on the North American continet at Jamestown. Clearly that did not happen
Indeed. See Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, also by Boswell, for detailed accounts of same-sex marriage traditions in Western Europe.
Okay http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm
But in any case, even were there a lack of historical precedent, this not be a valid argument against equal civil rights in the present day. What if there were no examples in Western culture of a society where black people were not slaves? Would that, in your mind, justify not freeing black slaves? (That was an argument used against freeing black people, incidentally: that the whole historical tradition was that black people were “naturally” slaves, so it would actually be wrong to free black slaves.)
Let’s keep things in perspective here. We discussing a very specific point regarding marriage as it’s currently legally defined in forty nine states and the federal government, not slavery.
Society defines marriage as a male female relationship. It requires no sexual orientation test, nor a requirement that one disclose his or her sexual orientation prior to entering into a legal marriage. The respective parties to a prospective marriage must be of age (varies by state), not currently married, mentally compatent, and not blood realtives, first cousins not withstanding depending on the state. There’s no denial of “equal civil rights”. A gay man has as much civil right to marry a woman, gay or straight, as straight man does. Same with women. The marriage laws are applied to men and women equally. Now if you are arguing that your sexual orientation makes this impossible, or undesirable, that’s a different issue. If so, then say so. But don’t say you lack the equal civil right as everyone else.
Could one who is bisexual argue that due to thier sexual orientation, the bianary requirement of marriage violates their civil rights? If the argument is that one’s homosexuality necessitates that one be allowed to legally marry some one of the same sex in order to ensure equal protection, than certainly that argument could be utilized by bisexuals to argue for two spoues, one of each sex.
Just a note:
Never in the history of the world has the same word been used to describe heterosexual and homosexual comitted relationships.
Institutionalized same-sex relationships (mostly among warriors such as the case in Rome, Sparta and Japan) even carried with them property rights. But they were never considered the same as a marriage.
GIGO (my acronym to contribute) is my way of saying that if you start with a bad conflation all you will wind up with is a bad conflation. Hellcat is right, Jesurgislac is quoting sources who only have a shade better understanding of the subject than she.
Hellcat: am merely pointing out that same sex marriage, despite some historical examples, was not so pervasive as to ripple through time,
Indeed. I am merely pointing out that your initial wide claims that same-sex marriage was something unknown and new were just wrong. It’s not. Furthermore, same-sex marriage in one form or another has been around in the West for well over thirty years, if we include in religious ceremonies solemnising same-sex relationships that did not have the force of law, and legally, in a vastly increasing number of countries, since 1989. The US is not pioneering, not breaking new territory: it’s dragging behind on a trail many other countries are going ahead on.
Let’s keep things in perspective here. We discussing a very specific point regarding marriage as it’s currently legally defined in forty nine states and the federal government, not slavery.
Oh, for heaven’s sake. Recognise an analogy when one is in use, please?
Society defines marriage as a male female relationship.
“Society”? That is really an extraordinarily US-centric (it ignores Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the other countries and cultures which accept same-sex marriage) and heterocentric claim. (It also wipes the State of Massachusetts off the map.) Marriage is no longer, in Western society, exclusively a “male-female relationship”: that’s changed, and permanently. This is recognised by everyone except those determined not to recognize it.
gay man has as much civil right to marry a woman, gay or straight, as straight man does. Same with women. The marriage laws are applied to men and women equally.
Ah, the creepy claim that it just isn’t important or relevant that a marriage should consist of two people who are able to have a happy sexual/romantic relationship with each other. Well, if that’s your view of marriage – that it’s irrelevant whether both parties enter it expecting to have a fulfilling sex life, or entertain romantic feelings about each other – you are welcome to seek out a partner about whom you know you can have no sexual feelings whatsoever. However, I think you will find that society in the West really doesn’t agree with you on this one: the concept that a marriage ought to aim to be sexually and romantically fulfilling to both parties is of rather long standing.
Of course marriages fail: of course this doesn’t always happen. But the idea that partners ought not to expect it, and married couples ought not even to want to have a fulfilling sex life with their spouse, is not a widespread or widely expected one in Western society.
Hee. Hellcat, you cite a book review (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/A_002br_SameSex.htm) by Marian Therese Horvat, whose credentials are primarily that she is doctrinaire Catholic (see Google Scholar) as proof that the late John Boswell (see Google Scholar. John Boswell was a Professor at Yale University and Chairman of the history department. He was an award winning scholar, author and historian. He was a Roman Catholic his friends said that for a Lenten exercise he read the New Testament in a new language each year. He was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow and a Fulbright scholar. I think his academic achievements stand up against critique from someone who is writing primarily from a homophobic/religious viewpoint, not as a scholar.
Caslim: Hellcat is right, Jesurgislac is quoting sources who only have a shade better understanding of the subject than she.
Whoops, I just read that. Hee! again, Caslim.
The assertion that because the “sources” don’t agree with you they must not “understand” is cheap. I was attempting to compare Hellcat’s favored source, Marian Therese Horvat, with John Boswell, and the problem is (as seen by the rather confused comment by me) is that Horvat simply doesn’t compare to Boswell. She may have a PhD, but she’s simply not in Boswell’s league. Her claims that Boswell got it wrong simply don’t add up: he was a thorough and respected historian who worked solidly with source material.
The marriage laws are applied to men and women equally.
Therefore, a law that banned interracial marriage is OK because it applies to all races equally. Right?
Mythago
RE: 112
Not quite. There are TWO sexes. There are a number of races, according to the government. The bans on interracial marriage banned marriage between blacks and whites only. It did not, unless I’m mistaken, ban marriages between blacks and Asians, or whites and Asians, or blacks and hispanics, whites and hispanics, etc. Now again if I’m not mistaken on this, the marriage laws did not require Asians only to marry other Asians, Hispanics to marry Hispanics, Europeans to marry other Europeans, etc. I’m not sure if the law legally defined “white”, and “black”, or any other racial/ethnic category. In order for the law to be applied equally it would have had allow marriage only between two members of the same racial and/or ethnic group, not just ban any and all interracial marriage, not strictly those between whites and blacks.
Mythago
RE: 106
If you can’t be bothered to get off your butt and read Loving v. Virginia, or Judge Kramer’s recent opinion in California, or Baehr v. Lewin, then don’t pluck a 1971 state court case off the ‘net and try to persuade me that it is binding precedent that sets the whole course of American law.
I referenced a Minnesota State Supreme Court case that was one of the first, and then, few, to deal specifically with the issue of SSM. (I’m sure you’re fully aware of the case) Thus a precedent set by which other state courts, while not bound by, could at least reference. I did not say it was “binding precedent” on the whole country. Nor is the MassSC case binding outside of Mass, for that matter. Two court cases, two states, two separate highest state courts, issuing esentially opposing opinions.
So if such a law existed – requiring Asians to marry only Asians, blacks only blacks, Caucasians only Caucasians – should the court accept that as “equal treatment,” in your view?
For that matter, if an employer offers job class J only to men, and job class N only to women, is that “equal treatment” in your view?
Hellcat: am merely pointing out that same sex marriage, despite some historical examples, was not so pervasive as to ripple through time,
Indeed. I am merely pointing out that your initial wide claims that same-sex marriage was something unknown and new were just wrong. It’s not. Furthermore, same-sex marriage in one form or another has been around in the West for well over thirty years, if we include in religious ceremonies solemnising same-sex relationships that did not have the force of law, and legally, in a vastly increasing number of countries, since 1989. The US is not pioneering, not breaking new territory: it’s dragging behind on a trail many other countries are going ahead on.
I never said “unknown and new”, rather that ssm, considering the lack of extensive historical example, at least of the past 400 years of American history, if not an additional thousand years of western history, is a relatively new concept. It did not naturally develop among western societies, and achieve equal status with OSM. You know that, and I know that. As far as the past thirty years, a drop in the historical bucket, but then again Rome wasn’t built in a day. Of the western nations that have allowed same sex couples to enter into legally recognized relaltionships, not all of them are referred to as “marriage”, nor is adoption always allowed. Now if we include religious ceremonies, assuming there have been some, solemnizing polygamous relationships, multi-partner marriage also has been around along time, a longer time I suspect than SSM.
Exactly how many nations have sanctioned legally recognized same sex relationships? Of those, how many refer to them as marriage?
“Society”? That is really an extraordinarily US-centric (it ignores Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the other countries and cultures which accept same-sex marriage) and heterocentric claim. (It also wipes the State of Massachusetts off the map.) Marriage is no longer, in Western society, exclusively a “male-female relationship”: that’s changed, and permanently. This is recognised by everyone except those determined not to recognize it.
“Heterocentric claim”? I like that. Marriage is still in western society a overwhelming male-female relationship. Not all western countries have SSM.
Ah, the creepy claim that it just isn’t important or relevant that a marriage should consist of two people who are able to have a happy sexual/romantic relationship with each other.
Never stated that wasn’t important, but from a legal standpoint, a happy sexual/romantic relationship is not required. Although lack of sex can be grounds for divorce. Why just two people anyway?
Well, if that’s your view of marriage – that it’s irrelevant whether both parties enter it expecting to have a fulfilling sex life, or entertain romantic feelings about each other – you are welcome to seek out a partner about whom you know you can have no sexual feelings whatsoever. However, I think you will find that society in the West really doesn’t agree with you on this one: the concept that a marriage ought to aim to be sexually and romantically fulfilling to both parties is of rather long standing.
That’s all well and good, and we agree on that. It is important from a sociological psychological perspective, but from a strict legal perspective, romance, good happy sex, holding hands walking along the beach, etc, are not a prerequsite, nor requirement, of marriage. One doesn’t even have to live with his/her spouse. Also those characteristics that you mentioned, do not need government approval.
Re: 110
I confess. After reading your post referencing that author, I typed his name in a search engine, and a number of sites came up. That was one of the first few that I explored. Naturally I offered it to counter your contention. Don’t know the reveiwer, nor heard of her work, or credentials. She does possess a PhD. As to whether or not she’s in the same league as Boswell, I do not know. I would suspect that there are others with similar credentials that disagree with Boswell’s work, as well. I’ll try and do my homework and find some more.
Amp
So if such a law existed – requiring Asians to marry only Asians, blacks only blacks, Caucasians only Caucasians – should the court accept that as “equal treatment,” in your view?
Why not? Why should blacks be prohibited from marrying whites, but not Asians? Why should whites be prohibited from marrying blacks but not hispanics? What was it about a black white interracial marriage that was so offensive as to only ban that racial pair but not others? Was a white man marrying an Asian female less offensive, than a Black man marrying a white woman?
For that matter, if an employer offers job class J only to men, and job class N only to women, is that “equal treatment” in your view?
Depends, what is the job being offered? Is a strip club required to hire male strippers? What about a Nevada brothel? Do they have to offer an equal number of both male and female service personel?
Getting back to the marriage issue. The law defines marriage, accept in Mass, as a legally recognized relationship requiring the participation of both sexes. Not one but two. Each is needed in order to have a valid marriage. All men have the same right in that sense as all women. If marriage isn’t defined as a legal relationship requiring both sexes, then by all means SSCs can apply.
If the argument is that one’s homosexuality sexual orientation negates (right word?)the male female requirement of marriage, then could one also argue that one’s bisexuality negates the binary requirement of marriage?
Hellcat: rather that ssm, considering the lack of extensive historical example, at least of the past 400 years of American history, if not an additional thousand years of western history, is a relatively new concept.
Now, now: we’ve gone through that, and you accept that you were wrong. It’s not.
Further, as I have persistently said: while there are plenty of examples of same-sex marriage in other cultures and at other times – not only the thirty-plus year history of same-sex marriage in this culture – it wouldn’t be a valid argument against same-sex marriage if there were none: no more than the fact that there are examples is a valid argument for same-sex marriage. You keep ignoring this point, or diving off after red herrings. It doesn’t matter if no one else has ever done the right thing before, or if examples of other people doing the right thing are few and scattered: what matters is doing right, not being able to find precedent. Equal civil rights for same-sex couples is only right and just: you seem to be arguing that the US needs more twenty-six years of precedent to look at, in Western culture only, in order to be sure that it’s okay to grant same-sex couples equal civil rights. Is that your argument? If so, how many decades do you feel the US needs before it can follow other countries in granting equal civil rights?
Exactly how many nations have sanctioned legally recognized same sex relationships?
Twenty-two, as of this year: not counting the State of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, California, New York, or Hawaii, all of which are hampered by the homophobic “Defense of marriage Act”. These are all countries which provide civil unions legally extremely similar to marriage (or virtually identical) or just straightforwardly same-sex marriage. They are virtually all Western countries, aside from South Africa.
Not all western countries have SSM.
Depends how you define “Western”, of course: but many of them do. The US is the big hold-out.
That’s all well and good, and we agree on that.
No, evidently we don’t. I think it’s important; rather creepily, you asserted you don’t.
The law defines marriage, accept in Mass
…and the Netherlands, and Belgium, and Spain, and Canada…
The assertion that because the “sources” don’t agree with you they must not “understand” is cheap.
Heres some currency then…
Daniel Mendelsohn is a writer who also teaches classics at Princeton University. He says the ceremony that Boswell describes, called the Adelphopoiesis, the making of brothers, was never meant as a marriage.
Mendelsohn further refutes the claims of ssm in Rome and Greece…
I read Hellcat’s review of Boswell’s book, and honestly *no* one takes it seriously but people who don’t already know their history. No example in Boswell’s book rises above being an institutionalized homosexual relationship at best, which today would be met with Reciprocal Benefits and Civil Unions. Never until the past couple of years were mating relationships and homosexual relationships called by the same name anywhere. And even that is absurd when you look at it.
Ampersand:
Problem here. Both legally and rationally gender and race equality are not implemented the same way, and especially not in marriage.
In a marriage when two genders meet you get a child that is either of only two genders. In a meeting of one gender you get impotent redundancy. Overcoming that impotent redundancy by using a shell game to pretend they are fertile, producing neither sex of themselves but a using of another sex in a material and commercial way, which is highly disrespectful. (Yes, I think it disrespectful when heterosexual couples do this also).
Encouraging female-male marriage then is the only real way of gender integration where people overcome their prejudices by being forced to reconcile their differences with the other sex, or fail the marriage entirely. (That reconciliation can be lopsided either way, btw, but that is the fault of the participants, not the institution). The three most dominant ways I have learned to love the opposite sex comes from marriage. Starting with my father’s marriage, participating in marriage with a wonderful woman (who’s womanly qualities I discover daily to the result of making me appreciate here even more every day), and in having children of both sexes to help nurture. Those who are for gender equity are for marriage. Those that want to bypass this institution of gender integration are for gender segregationist, which is a symptom of personal gender bias.
When two races meet you dilute the racial identity of both, but as a benefit you get a unique fusion. *Either* marriage appropriately expresses free will, either marriage will benefit racial diversity. Both should be encouraged, discouraging either would be a violation of racial equity. But encouraging same-sex marriage simply gives effect to gender preferences, even by making the government endorse and subsidize “my gender is the only one I’ll marry” bias.
Race is only marked in cultural boundaries, there is not genetic capacities that one race has that another does not. So “mixing” or identifying with such a race is a choice that can be made and re-made throughout their life. Gender (in the true biological sense of sexual reproduction) is not.
(ammendment, I’ve found that people who already know their history don’t take Boswell seriously, just in case I wasn’t clear enough on that point before)
Depends, what is the job being offered? Is a strip club required to hire male strippers?
If the reason for the classification is a bona-fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), then offering the job to one gender is OK. e.g., you can’t hire women as sperm donors. But the argument you propose–it’s OK as long as there’s discrimination all around–does not apply.
Thus a precedent set by which other state courts, while not bound by, could at least reference.
Then why aren’t you “referencing” more recent court decisions, such as Baehr? You still haven’t explained to me whether you’ve looked at anything other than the Minnesota case, much less whether you think their reasoning is valid.
You harp on a “strict legal perspective,” but you don’t understand the law a whit. Here’s the deal: OSM-only marriage creates a prima facie classification on the basis of gender. Constitutionally, this is a no-no. Having made this classification, it is now up to the government to explain why it should nonetheless be permitted to have such a law.
Tradition, you might wish to know, is not a trump argument.
Caslim: I’ve found that people who already know their history don’t take Boswell seriously
Nice to see you dismiss the entire history department of Yale. And your scholarly credentials for doing so are… what?
Caslim: Those who are for gender equity are for marriage.
To the contrary. It’s been demonstrated that as cultures approach gender equality, they are more likely to support same-sex marriage. (One cultural reason for the US being such a hold-out against same-sex marriage may be that financially/socially, men and women are treated more unequally in the US than they are in many European countries.)
Caslim
Thanks for the information. Apparently there are other scholars also with legitimate credentials, who disagree with Boswell’s assertions.
Jesurgislac
Further, as I have persistently said: while there are plenty…
Very subjective word, it can me 100 or 1000 depending on one’s point of view.
…of examples of same-sex marriage in other cultures and at other times – not only the thirty-plus year history of same-sex marriage in this culture – it wouldn’t be a valid argument against same-sex marriage if there were none: no more than the fact that there are examples is a valid argument for same-sex marriage. You keep ignoring this point, or diving off after red herrings.
I simply pointing out that same sex marriage has not naturally developed alongside OSM. Even in soiceties where homosexuality was openly practiced, accepted, and/or tolerated, it was not equated with marriage between men and women. Those countries that have legally recognized same sex unions are not doing so out of a long standing practice in their respective countries of equating same sex unions with marriage, but rather it seems to allow SSCs a legal structure for their relationship. I do not see this as a red herring, more of an observation.
It doesn’t matter if no one else has ever done the right thing before, or if examples of other people doing the right thing are few and scattered: what matters is doing right, not being able to find precedent.
Not everyone agrees that allowing same sex couples to marry is the “right” thing to do.
Equal civil rights for same-sex couples is only right and just:
Are you asking that one’s individual right to marry, in the US, as marriage is legally defined, Mass excluded, should be subjected to, or perhaps based on the sexual orientation of the individual? If so, should bisexuality be also considered? Are LGBT rights all inclusive?
…you seem to be arguing that the US needs more twenty-six years of precedent to look at, in Western culture only, in order to be sure that it’s okay to grant same-sex couples equal civil rights. Is that your argument? If so, how many decades do you feel the US needs before it can follow other countries in granting equal civil rights?
Again you seem to be stating that one civil right to marry should be based on one’s sexual oriention, not gender? Should the granting of “equal civil rights” be extended to any and all adult interperonal intimate relationships? As for how many decades should pass? None if one wishes to be technical, everyone possesses the equal right to marry based on the prevailing societal definition of marriage as a male female relationship. That facetious, I know.
Twenty-two, as of this year: not counting the State of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, California, New York, or Hawaii, all of which are hampered by the homophobic “Defense of marriage Act”. These are all countries which provide civil unions legally extremely similar to marriage (or virtually identical) or just straightforwardly same-sex marriage. They are virtually all Western countries, aside from South Africa.
Thanks for the info. It was a two part question. Of those countries/states you mentioned, how many, and which ones, have called it same sex marriage, or simply marriage with no distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexuals couples?
Depends how you define “Western”, of course:
Good point. Let’s move from west to east. Portugal? Ireland? Italy? Luxembourg? Denmark? Norway? Austria? Poland? Czech Republic? Russia? China? Japan? North Korea?, South Korea? India? Arab countries?
“That’s all well and good, and we agree on that.”
No, evidently we don’t. I think it’s important; rather creepily, you asserted you don’t.
Actually we do. If I gave you the impression otherwise, I appologize for the confusion. The aformentioned characteristics you mentioned are vital for a successful marriage, or any personal intimate adult relationship for that matter. Some folks maintian such marriages/relationships without government approval.
I don’t think it’s only one or the other. The reality is, our current marriage rules are driven by both sex and sexual orientation discrimination.
In the most literal sense, current marriage rules engage in sex discrimination. Julie has a right to marry Chuck, but Wilbur does not. The one and only trait giving Julie, but not Wilbur, that right is discrimination against an individual based on his sex.
But the passion against gender-neutral marriage laws is driven by prejudice against same-sex couples. So in that sense, sexual orientation is involved, even though literally speaking marriage laws do not address sexual orientation except by implication.
Thank you so much for saying that! Too many SSM opponents don’t realize that it’s facetious.
From an earlier post by Hellcat:
Why not? It should not be accepted as equal treatment because “black-white couples only are prohibited from interracial marriage” and “all races are prohibited from interracial marriage” are not the only options. The option of prohibiting no one, because of their race, from marriage to the consenting adult of their choice is fundamentally superior to either of the options you’re comparing. It is superior because the other two options involve telling people “you cannot legally marry the person you love because you’re the wrong race,” and a racial prohibition of that sort is wrong.
Similarly, rules prohibiting someone from marrying the person they love because they’re the “wrong” sex are sex discrimination, and wrong.
Your bisexuality example is bizarre, because it’s based on a false stereotype about bisexuals – that all bisexuals are polygamous, and will not be satisfied unless they have simultaneous relationships with two people of both sexes at the same time. That’s not what bisexuals are like in real life; the vast majority of bisexuals have one relationship at a time, just like the vast majority of heteros and homos do.
I don’t think it’s only one or the other. The reality is, our current marriage rules are driven by both sex and sexual orientation discrimination.
Actually the laws are an acknowledgement of a long standing intimate human relationship comprising both sexes. It presumes that there are two sexes, and each is needed to perform the basic functions of marriage, acceptance of the each other as husband and wife, consumation of the marriage, physical obstacles notwithstanding, and conception as the natural result of marital relations.
Why not? It should not be accepted as equal treatment because “black-white couples only are prohibited from interracial marriage” and “all races are prohibited from interracial marriage” are not the only options. The option of prohibiting no one, because of their race, from marriage to the consenting adult of their choice is fundamentally superior to either of the options you’re comparing. It is superior because the other two options involve telling people “you cannot legally marry the person you love because you’re the wrong race,” and a racial prohibition of that sort is wrong.
I agree , but I would reword it as “no one should be prohibited from marrying the opposite sex consenting adult of their choice”.
Similarly, rules prohibiting someone from marrying the person they love because they’re the “wrong” sex are sex discrimination, and wrong.
This is where you and I disagree. In order to accept your premise, one would have to beleive that marriage is a union of two persons, not a union of a man and a woman. Accepting the latter, there is no “wrong” sex, nor should one sex be excluded. What you seem to be advocating is a legally sanctioned sex exclusion marriage. Also no one is prohibited from “marrying the person they love”, what is prohibited is legal acknowledgement of intimate adult human relationships that do not fit the legal definition of marriage. Two men can have a “unofficial” common law marriage, or two women, or a brother and sister for that matter. While I agree with you that love is an important part of marriage, as we both know it is not a legal prerequsite for marriage.
Your bisexuality example is bizarre, because it’s based on a false stereotype about bisexuals – that all bisexuals are polygamous, and will not be satisfied unless they have simultaneous relationships with two people of both sexes at the same time. That’s not what bisexuals are like in real life; the vast majority of bisexuals have one relationship at a time, just like the vast majority of heteros and homos do.
Okay, I grant you that I was employing a stereotype, and it may be false…well to a degree, I contend. Never the less, while the majority of bisexuals may engage in one relationship at a time, it still doesn’t address the issue. Could a bisexual person legitmately argue that the binary nature of their sexual orientation negates the binary requirement of marriage? Or put another way. If a heteosexual is allowed by law to marry oppostite sex, the homosexual same sex, shouldn’t the bisexual, if s/he so chooses, be allowed to marry one of each sex? Would it matter, one way or the other if children were involved? Would this be a legitimate issue for LGBT advocates to take up if someone actually petitioned a court for such a right?
Nice to see you dismiss the entire history department of Yale.
False on two accounts, Mr Boswell is not the entire history department of Yale, and I didn’t dismiss Boswell. His arguments do not jive with known history, and those are easily dismissed on substantive grounds provided. Grounds I note that you did nothing to support except pretend the full weight of the Yale history department was behind them. I’d rather see you debate historic facts, and in turn you simply try to pretend experts of people who tell you what you want to hear.
It’s been demonstrated that as cultures approach gender equality, they are more likely to support same-sex marriage.
In the military they have a code of classification that states that you cannot speak about things you have not read. Its a smart policy for people to adopt also.
So far your examples have not withstood scrutiny, one wonders if that plays a role in why you play these cards so close to your chest.
Actually the laws are an acknowledgement of a long standing intimate human relationship comprising both sexes.
That is to say, they create a gender-based classification. Such classifications are constitutionally suspect. Repeating over and over that this is “long standing” does not make that fact go away, however much you might want it to.
Either admit that you don’t give a rip about the law and wish to change long-standing legal principles to fit your prejudices, or quit yammering about how law and history support your position. Because your legal ignorance would shame a 1L.
Could a bisexual person legitmately argue that the binary nature of their sexual orientation negates the binary requirement of marriage?
No. Why would it?
Mythago
Re: 123
..you can’t hire women as sperm donors.
Good one, never thought about that.
Then why aren’t you “referencing” more recent court decisions, such as Baehr? You still haven’t explained to me whether you’ve looked at anything other than the Minnesota case, much less whether you think their reasoning is valid.
Actually I have, and you are correct, Behr is a more recent case. But the reasoning hasn’t changed. Either one beleives that marriage is a one male one female relationship by legal definition, and thus a homosexual as individuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual does, or one beleives it is simply a relationship of two persons, in which case a variety of combinations is possible.
You harp on a “strict legal perspective,” but you don’t understand the law a whit.
I do not claim to be a legal expert in any way shape or form.
Here’s the deal: OSM-only marriage creates a prima facie classification on the basis of gender. Constitutionally, this is a no-no.
It a classification that incorporates both genders into one legally recognized relationship. It acknowledges the differences between the genders, and the function of both genders in human reproduction.
Having made this classification, it is now up to the government to explain why it should nonetheless be permitted to have such a law.
Why shouldn’t government acknowledge this classification? Government exists to carry out the will of the governed. Marriage is not a mere legal creation that government conjured up, nor it is a simple collection of benefits. Government does have a legitimate role in fostering couplings between men and women in a legally recognized relationship, that can result in conception. Is not encouraging men and women to engage in potentially procreative sexual activity within the confines of a legally recognized relationship a valid government aim?
Tradition, you might wish to know, is not a trump argument.
True, but it can play a role in formulating policy, and legislation. Does government tradtionally close down for Christmas, a religious holiday celebrated by one religious group, in a religiously diverse nation that proclaims “separation of church and state”?
That is to say, they create a gender-based classification.
If marriage is classified as a legally recognized relationship of both genders, then yes it is gender based.
Such classifications are constitutionally suspect.
Does that mean marriage is constitutionally suspect?
Repeating over and over that this is “long standing” does not make that fact go away, however much you might want it to.
Okay. I’ll try this another way by asking a few questions. Did the government create marriage? Did it exist prior to the establishment of the United States Constitution? Was there ever a time in this country, say prior to 1 January 2004, when it was considered anything but a male female union? Was this concept of marriage created arbitrarily? Is government obligated to recognize marriage legally? Is it require to recognize any and all adult human intimate relationships? If yes, in what form? Is it require to apply the same form to all relationships?
No. Why would it?
Why not? If one’s same sex orientation can change the opposite sex pair requirement of marriage, why can’t one bisexual orientation change the binary marriage requirement if one so chooses? Is one alternative sexual orientation superior to other alternative sexual orientations? Its a legitimate question. How would someone entering into a trinary marriage effect anyone else’s binary marriage?
Hellcat said:
It a classification that incorporates both genders into one legally recognized relationship. It acknowledges the differences between the genders, and the function of both genders in human reproduction.
::sigh:: Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage. One can reproduce without being married and one can be married without reproducing.
Marriage is not a mere legal creation that government conjured up, nor it is a simple collection of benefits.
Are you sure about that?
Is not encouraging men and women to engage in potentially procreative sexual activity within the confines of a legally recognized relationship a valid government aim?
No, it isn’t. It is not the government’s job to breed citizens.
Does government tradtionally close down for Christmas, a religious holiday celebrated by one religious group, in a religiously diverse nation that proclaims “separation of church and state”?
It does. And it shouldn’t. There should not be any religious holidays sanctioned by the government. But that would be a different discussion.
Mousehounde
You are correct. Procretion is not a legal requirement of marriage. Additional non existent requirements needed in order to enter into a legal marriage would be love, a pledge to cohabitate, and sexual intercourse, or a statement of intent to do so. Thus a person can marry without being legally required to cohabitate, procreate, or have sex with one’s spouse. However in order to exit a marriage on legal grounds one can cite the aforementioned non requirments as grounds to do so. So is the law/government presuming a married couple will cohabitate, copulate, and procreate, barring physical obstacles to do so, by allowing such reasons as grounds for divorce?
Are you sure about that?
I ask questions again.
Did the government create marriage? Did it exist prior to the establishment of the United States Constitution? Was there ever a time in this country, say prior to 1 January 2004, when it was considered anything but a male female union? Was this concept of marriage created arbitrarily? Is government obligated to recognize marriage legally?
No, it isn’t. It is not the government’s job to breed citizens.
Waitaminit if procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage, certainly it can’t be said that governemt is “breeding citizens”. Does government have a legitimate role in encouraging responsible personal behavior? Government encourages its citizens to eat right, and excercise. It publishes dietary guidelines, and recomends a certain amount of exercise needed each day. There is a President’s council on physical fitness. So is encouraging its citizens to eat healthy and exercise a legitimate aim of government?
It does. And it shouldn’t. Okay.
There should not be any religious holidays sanctioned by the government. Okay again, you’re consistence, I can accept that.
But that would be a different discussion. Absolutely. But is it an example of tradition having an influence on effecting governemnt policy, or law?
Hellcat: Either one beleives that marriage is a one male one female relationship by legal definition, and thus a homosexual as individuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual does
…but only if you believe that the concept that a marriage ought to aim to be sexually and romantically fulfilling to both parties is not relevant. If you believe that a marriage ought to consist of two people who cannot have sexual/romantic feelings towards each other (and who enter the marriage knowing they cannot), then your statement makes sense. Otherwise, no.
Jesurgislac
re:135
…but only if you believe that the concept that a marriage ought to aim to be sexually and romantically fulfilling to both parties is not relevant.
On the contrary, I’m sure there’s many a married man who would love the sexually fulfilling part, and many a married woman who would opt for the former, in addition to romantically fulfilling part. Is there a government program for that?
If you believe that a marriage ought to consist of two people who cannot have sexual/romantic feelings towards each other (and who enter the marriage knowing they cannot), then your statement makes sense. Otherwise, no.
Are you saying that a person with a same sex sexual orientation cannot have sexual/romantic feelings at all for their opposite sex spouse?
What of individuals who enter into an arranged marriage? Do they always feel sexually/romantically attractive to their spouse. Do they ever feel such? Is it possible to grow to love a person under such conditions?
Is fostering sexually and romantically fulfilling relationships a legitimate government aim?
If marriage is classified as a legally recognized relationship of both genders, then yes it is gender based.
Precisely. In the law, we call this a prima facie classification–the law doesn’t try to be coy or secretive about this, it says right there on its face that it creates a gender-based classification. And gender-based classifications are Constitutionally suspect. You cannot get around the Constitution by saying “but we’ve always done it this way!”
Okay. I’ll try this another way by asking a few questions.
In other words, you don’t have any answers, because you don’t understand the legal basis of marriage and don’t care to, in case it might lead to a conclusion you dislike.
If one’s same sex orientation can change the opposite sex pair requirement of marriage
False premise. The issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation. And I thought you pretended that you understood “bisexual” does not mean “must have one of each”.
Hellcat: On the contrary, I’m sure there’s many a married man who would love the sexually fulfilling part, and many a married woman who would opt for the former, in addition to romantically fulfilling part.
Indeed: and why do you feel they should not aspire to a marriage in which that happens? That is your argument: that they should not.
Are you saying that a person with a same sex sexual orientation cannot have sexual/romantic feelings at all for their opposite sex spouse?
Well, human sexual orientation (as I’m sure you’re aware) ranges from 1 to 6 on the Kinsey scale, or, in other words: perfectly heterosexual (for example, a man who could find Harrison Ford in his bed, naked, willing, and eager, and have not a sexual thought about him) to perfectly homosexual (for example, a woman who could do the same). Plus, a whole range of bisexual, people who have degrees of sexual attraction to both sexes. I would turn your question around, if it’s a genuine question, and ask: “Do you suppose that a heterosexual man would aspire to and be happy in a marriage to another man?”
What of individuals who enter into an arranged marriage? Do they always feel sexually/romantically attractive to their spouse. Do they ever feel such? Is it possible to grow to love a person under such conditions?
Do you suppose that a heterosexual man, entering into an arranged marriage with another man, would ever feel sexually/romantically attracted to his spouse? Would it be possible for him to grow to love his husband? In fact, I suspect, that if his spouse was kind to him and respectful of the fact that the heterosexual man felt no initial sexual attraction or desire, and especially if this het guy was used to the idea that come adulthood, he would be given in marriage to another man regardless of his feelings, and would be required to live with him and have sex with him for the rest of his life, I should think that this heterosexual man might well grow to love his husband, perhaps even romantically, and might get to enjoy having sex with him.
But to me, that would not seem like a marriage to aspire to. To me, a marriage to aspire to ought to be one that begins with two people who want to be married to each other because they love each other, sexually/romantically. You may see nothing wrong with the preceding paragraph – indeed, given your argument that marriage need have nothing to do with sexual/romantic feeling, I should expect you to see nothing wrong with it. Right?
Is fostering sexually and romantically fulfilling relationships a legitimate government aim?
Certainly I would see it as more legitimate than arguing that the government ought to sabotage sexually and romantically fulfilling relationships. There seems no harm in fostering sexually and romantically fulfilling relationships: what harm do you see in it?
What is constitutionally suspect regarding a definition of marriage which incorporates both sexes into one legally recognized relationship? I know of no other legally recognized relationship that requires the participation of both sexes. There are very few gender specific legal roles that by definition a person of the opposite sex cannot perform. One of which, sperm donor, you already mentioned. Others would be “father”, a male parent, “mother”, a female parent, etc. What you’re advocating is a gender exclusionary form of marriage, which thus renders the definition null and void.
False premise. The issue is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation. And I thought you pretended that you understood “bisexual” does not mean “must have one of each”.
How is it gender discriminatory when you are proposing that one gender be eliminated? Eliminate one, you eliminate marriage, certainly marriage as is legally defined within forty nine states, by the federal government, and numerous foreign governments, including those that have created legally recognized same sex civil relationships.
In other words, you don’t have any answers, because you don’t understand the legal basis of marriage and don’t care to, in case it might lead to a conclusion you dislike.
Or in other words you are unable, or unwilling to answer the questions. Marriage is not some abritrary created government program designed to exclude gay people. The legal recognition of a male female union didn’t happen over night. Its not like some government official came up with this brand new idea. Why is marriage even recognized? So that people can form intimate adult relationships with government sanction?
As for the bisexuality issue, how would someone’s trinary marriage effect everyone else’s binary marriage? Is marital status an accepted form of discrimination. If one is currently married, and wishes to marry again, why should he or she be discriminated against because of his/her marital status? Is it because it violates our binary sensibilites?
Hellcat: Eliminate one, you eliminate marriage
Not so. Couples are still getting married in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, the state of Massachusetts, and so on and so forth. Why try to claim what you can see is not so?
Not at all! Aspiring to have a sexually and romanticly fulfilling relationship is a natural human desire, and it doesn’t always mean marriage. People do maintain such relationships with out marriage. As to marital motivation, people marry for a variety of reasons, love, sex, companionship, money, to provide an opposite sex parent/parental figure for their child, immigration, inheritance, etc. Its interesting that SSM advocates primarily stress the “love” and “benefits” motivations, over all others.
Considering that opposite sex marraige is engrained in our culture; “k-i-s-s-i-n-g first comes love, then comes marriage then comes …in the baby carriage, the relative newness of SSM, and an overwhelmingly heterosexual population, I would say that a heterosexual man would not aspire to be in any type of marriage, happy or otherwise, with another man. I don’t think it easily flips either. A gay man can enter into a marriage with a woman, love her, perhaps not as he would like another man, consumate the marriage, and create children with her. That is not unknown. Whereas what you suggest is alien.
Interesting role reversal. Again still seems alien, but I supposse if there was the cultural support behind such a arranged relationship, then the het man might develop a bond witth “his husband”. Would that bond be one of brotherhood, or an actual romantic attatchment? As far as the sex part, stranger things have happened. I think here there could be a prison analogy, and I do not mention it facetiously. Heterosexual men who are deprived of female companionship for long periods of time, have gone over to the other team, so to speak, at least temporarily. Would such a man’s heterosexuality reassert itself after release? In most cases, I would suspect yes.
I do believe that those qualities are necessary, from a psychological emotional perspective, for a successful marriage. In a legal context there is no requirement for it. To put it another way. SSM opponents will state that marriage is about procreation, thus SSCs cannot marry. SSM advocates counter, not only is there no legal requirement to procreate to marry, the law allows couples (elderly for example) who are incapable of physically procreating or even having sexual intercourse, to marry. Marriage then is about love. Well the counter argumnent to that is that love, and sexual fulfillment, is not a legal requirement to marry. As I pointed out previously, people marry for a variety of reason, including love, sex, and procreation, preferably in that order.
I don’t see government as sabotaging romantically and sexually relationships by prohibiting ssm, nor by prohibiting trinary marriage. Each relationship can, and does exist, without government approval. Why should relationship A, and B, be promoted, but not C, or D, for that matter. Relationship A, opposite sex marriage, is promoted, due to large part to the procreational aspect of sex. Is it not better if sex is reserved for marriage, and the natural result of sex, conception, takes place within the marital relationship, so that a child is raised by his biological mother and father? Relationship B, same sex marriage, while it has some of the interpersonal dynamics of opposite sex marriage, by its same sex compostition, cannot naturally conceive a child, and provide such with its own, opposite sex biological parents. Relationship C, trinary marriage, like SSM shares some of, if not more of, the interpersonal dynamics of OSM, can naturally conceive, and provide any children so conceived, with its opposite sex biological parents. Relationship D is anything else. If conception cannot naturally occur, A and C, can at least provide a opposite sex parent, or at least a parental figure.
If you remove children from the equation, why is relationship A and B, worthy of governemnt promotion but not C, or D? Again if some people can only achieve sexual and romantic fulfillment within a trinary relationship, who are we to say that should recieve government recognition?
Hellcat: Its interesting that SSM advocates primarily stress the “love” and “benefits” motivations, over all others.
It’s interesting that people who are anti same-sex marriage decry love in marriage and argue that people ought not to aspire to marry someone they love, isn’t it? It’s fairly consistent, too: someone who opposes same-sex marriage will almost certainly also oppose love in marriage.
(The matchup between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing the 1000+ federal benefits of marriage is not quite so certain – some people do not object to the 1000+ federal benefits of marriage, they just object to same-sex couples having equal access to them – but it does run fairly close.)
You will find, I think, that apart from the opponents of same-sex marriage, there is virtually no one else who thinks that the federal benefits that married couples acquire are a bad thing, or that love in marriage is something to be decried and opposed.
I would say that a heterosexual man would not aspire to be in any type of marriage, happy or otherwise, with another man.
Then why are you arguing for that kind of marriage?
You acknowledge, after all: I do believe that those qualities are necessary, from a psychological emotional perspective, for a successful marriage.
Even if you then argue: I don’t see government as sabotaging romantically and sexually relationships by prohibiting ssm, nor by prohibiting trinary marriage.
But if you see those qualities are necessary for a successful marriage, then by prohibiting marriages with those qualities from taking place, then – if anything – the government is sabotaging, by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
That’s if you’re being consistent. As we have now got on to the endless doublethink that occurs when opponents of same-sex marriage start trying to claim that “the procreational aspect of sex” is why only mixed-sex marriages ought to be allowed, I think this discussion can end.
What they are entering into is a legal redefinition of the word marriage, certainly not the relationship that is, or has been, universally practiced throughout time and place. Accepted common characteristics of this universally practiced relationship called marriage is publicly acknowledging each other as husband and wife, consumating the relationship, maintaining marital relations, and raising any children that may result from such consumation and maintainence.
However, I will acknowledge, that same sex couples entering into marriage can mirror their opposite sex counterparts by , pledging mutual fidelity, in sickness and in health, and to death do them part. In that sense they can marry, as for the rest, marriage requires a man and a woman, because from that we get boys and girls, including some gay ones.
What is constitutionally suspect regarding a definition of marriage which incorporates both sexes into one legally recognized relationship?
It creates a gender-based classification. You cannot marry somebody of your own gender; you can only marry somebody of the opposite gender. That, as you would know if you had a tenth of the legal knowledge you pretend to, is a prima facie classification.
You can insist all you want that there is a Platonic, fixed definition of marriage that no law can change. You will still be incorrect. You will still look dishonest for failing to explain why you are OK with jettisoning millenia of marital tradition in all other areas (e.g. the supremacy of the husband).
Hellcat: certainly not the relationship that is, or has been, universally practiced throughout time and place.
Once again, Hellcat, one man/one woman marriage is not a “universal practice” throughout time and place. Why try to repeat an argument that’s already been shot down?
However, I will acknowledge, that same sex couples entering into marriage can mirror their opposite sex counterparts by , pledging mutual fidelity, in sickness and in health, and to death do them part. In that sense they can marry
…and get all the legal benefits of marriage, of course. Good: I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen an opponent of same-sex marriage give up opposing it and just admit that same-sex couples can (and do) indeed get married. ;-)
as for the rest, marriage requires a man and a woman, because from that we get boys and girls, including some gay ones
Quick, purely scientific note, Hellcat: creating children does not require a marriage certificate. You would be wise not to assert that it does.
Further, now that you’re on our side of the argument, you should realise that trying to make claims that marriage must be restricted to procreative couples means that (a) no woman past the menopause can be allowed either to get or to remain married (she can’t procreate: end of privilege) (b) no man who has had a vasectomy can be allowed to get or to remain married (he can’t procreate: end of privilege) (c) couples proven infertile cannot be allowed to get or to remain married (they can’t procreate: end of privilege) (d) couples who do not intend ever to have children may not be allowed to get or to remain married (if marriage is dependent on procreation….)
And of course, if you allow couples who intend to have children by AID, or to foster, or to adopt, to get married… you will have to permit same-sex couples to do so, too.
Simpler, on the whole, even if you argue that couples only get marital benefits because of the children of the marriage, to just allow all couples who wish to marry to do so without going through this whole rigamarole about proving they either can physically have children or at least intend to do so.
Jesurgislac
Hellcat: Its interesting that SSM advocates primarily stress the “love” and “benefits” motivations, over all others.
It’s interesting that people who are anti same-sex marriage decry love in marriage and argue that people ought not to aspire to marry someone they love, isn’t it? It’s fairly consistent, too: someone who opposes same-sex marriage will almost certainly also oppose love in marriage.
Quick, purely scientific note, Hellcat: creating children does not require a marriage certificate. You would be wise not to assert that it does.
Further, now that you’re on our side of the argument, you should realise that trying to make claims that marriage must be restricted to procreative couples means that (a) no woman past the menopause can be allowed either to get or to remain married (she can’t procreate: end of privilege) (b) no man who has had a vasectomy can be allowed to get or to remain married (he can’t procreate: end of privilege) (c) couples proven infertile cannot be allowed to get or to remain married (they can’t procreate: end of privilege) (d) couples who do not intend ever to have children may not be allowed to get or to remain married (if marriage is dependent on procreation….)
“…love in marriage is something to be decried and opposed.”
Didn’t I acknowledge both love and procreation in a previous post? Oh here it is:
Why do you point out that there is no legal procreational requirement to marry to counter the argument that “marriage is about procreation”, but will not acknowledge that there is no legal love requirement, thus countering the “marriage is about love” argument? You can’t have it both ways. One can argue that both are important parts of marriage from a sociological and/or psychological standpoint, and still acknowledge neither is required by law.
I want to address the historical aspect one more time if you will permit me. I acknowledge that there are historical examples of various cultures acknowledging same sex unions, even to the extent that they are referred to as “marriage”. However I still content that such practice was limited, and not significantly universa, as you contend, to equate same sex unions equal status with opposite sex marriage. If, as you say that argument was “shot down”, it is not unreasonable to assume that such acknowledgement of same sex unions would have naturally developed universally along side opposite sex unions, each receiving both equal cultural and legal status. If they had, there would not be this controversy today, and SSM would be exist. One only look to Europe during the Middle Ages to see this is not the case. I suspect the motivating force behind the lack of wide spread formal recognition of same sex unions and/or homosexuality is the Roman Catholic Church, who as successor to the Roman Empire, who exerted tremendous influence over Western Europe during th middle ages.
If there are other reasons by all means educate me.
Mythago
It creates a gender-based classification. You cannot marry somebody of your own gender; you can only marry somebody of the opposite gender. That, as you would know if you had a tenth of the legal knowledge you pretend to, is a prima facie classification.
Of course its a gender based classification. Its based on the logical incorporatiion of both sexes, each of whom offers complimentary emotional, physical, and sexual, characteristics, to the other. In this sense marriage stands alone among legally recognized human relationships. If there are others which acknowledge the participation of both sexes, please provide an example. We agree that marriage is a gender based classification but disagree on the rationale for such classification.
You can insist all you want that there is a Platonic, fixed definition of marriage that no law can change. You will still be incorrect. You will still look dishonest for failing to explain why you are OK with jettisoning millenia of marital tradition in all other areas (e.g. the supremacy of the husband).
The basic concept of marriage as a male female ,sexual, potentionally conceptional, union is as old as the republic. While the laws have changed the status of the wife in relation to her husband, putting her on equal legal footing, it has not altered the male female compostion of the relationship. The idea of same sex marriage is relatively new in this country dating back only with the past twenty five year s or so. You know that, and I know that. There was a time when certain sexual practices were illegal even for married couples. Our common collective body of marital law contains a presumption that marriage is a sexual union, thus the expection of consumation of the marital relationship, engaging in “marital relations” (sexual intercourse), and yes conception, a natural logical result of both conusmation, and marital relations, physcial obstacles to the contrary not withstanding.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I will agree with you that marriage laws are not set in stone. It’s what the people want. Hey if in ten years there’s a groundswell of support for trinary marriage, I’m sure state legislators will be tripping over themselves to enact trinary marriage legislation. No different than SSM. If the support is there the people will demand the laws change to reflect that desire. If you’re going to use the “not set in stone” argument for SSM, then you can’t argue against its use for trinary marriage, or any other marital change the people, or courts, so desire. Capisce?
That’s fine with me.
If there’s a real and legitimate reason to oppose legal polygamy, then let that be the compelling government interest preventing it from becoming legal. If, on the other hand, there are no real and legitimate reasons, then why shouldn’t polygamy be legal?
However, this is logically a separate issue from SSM. Both SSM and polygamy should rise or fall on their own separate merits and flaws.
And until we changed them, laws saying that husbands could not be charged with rape for raping their wives were as old as the Republic. Until we changed them, coverture laws were as old as the Republic.
The fact that something is “as old as the republic” doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is just or not.
Hellcat: Didn’t I acknowledge both love and procreation in a previous post?
Possibly you thought you had, but you see, by persistently asserting that love is unimportant and irrelevant, and decrying it as a basis for marriage, you undermine any acknowledgement of love in marriage that you make in passing.
I want to address the historical aspect one more time if you will permit me.
No, because we’ve dealt with it pretty thoroughly, and as I’ve consistently said (and Mythago has pointed out) it’s irrelevant. Slavery was as old as the Republic, and was far more universal in the world’s history than cultures that had abolished slavery: that was used as an argument for retaining slavery in the US, and it was a bad argument. So is this.
One can argue that both are important parts of marriage from a sociological and/or psychological standpoint, and still acknowledge neither is required by law.
So why are you trying to have it both ways? If procreation cannot be required by law, then the legal right to marry cannot be dependent on being a procreative couple. Therefore, bringing up “same-sex couples can’t procreate” as a reason against same-sex marriage is tedious and irrelevant. Why bother?
If there’s a real and legitimate reason to oppose legal polygamy, then let that be the compelling government interest preventing it from becoming legal.
Uh, Amp, “number of people” is not a protected class; the government only need meet a rational-basis test to prevent polygamy.
Of course its a gender based classification.
And therefore, a state needs to demonstrate a very strong justification for maintaining gender-discriminatory marriage. At a minimum, that means heightened scrutiny; in many states, gender-based classifications require a compelling interest. “Tradition” is not, by itself, a compelling interest.
The basic concept of marriage as a male female ,sexual, potentionally conceptional, union is as old as the republic
Please note that many states have removed the issue of “conceptional” from their laws. Also, that marriage as an entity where the wife is subordinate to the husband is older than the Republic.
You have been provided with examples of societies that did allow SSM. Can you give me an example of one society that mandated equality between husband and wife?
Point well taken. Thanks for the correction.
Amp
Why is trianary marraige a seperate issue from same sex binary marriage? Both are a significant change from our prevailing legal and cultural view of marriage as one male one female sexual union. Arguments for one can be used for the other. There’s no question that both are practiced without legal recognition, except in Mass, for ssm. Both relationships can, and do, consist of adults raising children. Both are subjected to societal discrimination. Etc. Certainly if laws can be crafted to recognize same sex relationships, surely the same can be done for trianary relationships. Are same sex relationships superior to the trinary relationships?
Jesurgislac
Hellcat: Didn’t I acknowledge both love and procreation in a previous post?
Possibly you thought you had, but you see, by persistently asserting that love is unimportant and irrelevant, and decrying it as a basis for marriage, you undermine any acknowledgement of love in marriage that you make in passing.
Waitamint here. I am merely pointing out that this “love” you state is so vital for marriage, is not is not legally required. I didn’t say it was unimportant from a emotional psychological perspective, but rather like procreation, which you are so fond of pointing out, IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE. All I ask is acknowledge of such. Is there anything else, while vital to marriage from an emotional psychological perspective, that is not legally required? Cohabitation?
Is it beneficial to society in general, and marriage in particular, if people are in love before they get married?
Is also beneficial to society that if people are going to engage in sexual intercourse they do so within the marital relationship?
Is it also beneficial to society that men and women who choose to procreate do so as a married couple? Do children benefit when conceived, and raised by, their own biological married mother and father, in a low conflict marriage?
I find the marriage- slavery comparison interesting. I’m sure there was at one time, and perhaps even today, some married women who commented that marriage was a form of institutionalized slavery. From an historical perspective, do you think that the founding fathers debated same sex marriage during the constitutional debates? I know slavery was debated, and even incorporated into the constitution, but I’m not sure if George Washington ever said, “you know I think Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock should be able to marry”? Slavery has been debated since the birth of the republic, and was only ended after a bloody civil war. Even the issue of women’s rights dates back to at least the 19th century. Wives gained greater marital legal rights as women in general gained greater rights within society. Even bans on interracial marriage did not exist in every state. The concept of marriage as a sexual union of a man and a woman was common in every state in the union, from the original thirteen, to the final fifty, until 2004, of course. Why?
Hellcat: The concept of marriage as a sexual union of a man and a woman was common in every state in the union
(getting this out of the way first) And, older than the union, the concept of same-sex or berdache marriage was common over large parts of what is now the US. So, historically, same-sex marriage wins. :-) Not that this is relevant to the issue of whether there should be same-sex marriage now, as has been explained to you many times already using the analogies of slavery and wife-beating.
this “love” you state is so vital for marriage
and which you think is unimportant and irrelevant. Yeah, got it.
I think it beneficial to children, and so to society, that children should be brought up by a caring, stable couple who love each other and who love their children. I think this is sufficiently beneficial to society that it is certainly appropriate that any couple who want to marry should be allowed to do so: it would be impossibly intrusive in most cases for the government to get to decide which couples will have children and which won’t. (Even in cases where it looks absolutely certain that they won’t, as when a woman in her seventies marries a man in his eighties: you might argue that since this couple can’t procreate and will never be able to foster or to adopt, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, but I think that if they love each other, why not? And the government agrees with me on this one, not you.)
Your arguments make sense if applied to all couples who have children. The argument that same-sex couples who have children or who want to have children should not be allowed to marry is effectively an argument that the children of same-sex couples deserve to be discriminated against. This is not beneficial to society.
Jesurgislac
And, older than the union, the concept of same-sex or berdache marriage was common over large parts of what is now the US. So, historically, same-sex marriage wins. :-)
So the concept of various North American indigineous peoples incorporating androgynous males into marital relationships prior to a sustained European presense on the continent is the basis for your assertion that same sex marriage pre dates the union. Okay. However despite that technicality, such a practice was not prevalent among Europeans who would eventually form colonies in the New World, including among those who would later break from Mother England, and form a republic.
Was polygamy also practiced by the same indigineous peoples?
[Hellcat]”this “love” you state is so vital for marriage”
and which you think is unimportant and irrelevant. Yeah, got it.
Now you’re taking my words out of context, which we both know is intellectually dishonest. Never said it wasn’t important, simply that we do not require a declaration of “love” as a legal requirement for marriage. Similar to the lack of a procreational requirement that SSM advocates like to point out.
I think it beneficial to children, and so to society, that children should be brought up by a caring, stable couple who love each other and who love their children.
Absolutely! That couple should be, absent abuse, their biological mother and father. Would you agree with that? Absent that nuclear family structure any number of alternative including polygamous, equally loving, family forms can, and do provide, children with a stable home enviroment. We wouldn’t want to discriminate against alternative families, simply because they don’t fit the norm, now would we?
I think this is sufficiently beneficial to society that it is certainly appropriate that any couple who want to marry should be allowed to do so:
Why limit it to couples? Would that also include couples comprised of first cousins, or brother& sister, two brothers/sisters, etc.?
it would be impossibly intrusive in most cases for the government to get to decide which couples will have children and which won’t. (Even in cases where it looks absolutely certain that they won’t, as when a woman in her seventies marries a man in his eighties: you might argue that since this couple can’t procreate and will never be able to foster or to adopt, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, but I think that if they love each other, why not? And the government agrees with me on this one, not you.)
And if they wish to marry based on economic factors, companionship, or perhaps even immigration reasons, would you also agree with the government that they be allowed to marry for those reasons as well, or instead of, love?
Your arguments make sense if applied to all couples who have children. The argument that same-sex couples who have children or who want to have children should not be allowed to marry is effectively an argument that the children of same-sex couples deserve to be discriminated against. This is not beneficial to society.
Is it not also beneificial to society not to discriminate against those who wish to form a family based on a trinary adult relationship? If same sex couples who have children are deserving of recognition free of discrimination, then surely those involved in trinary relationships with children, deserve the same recognition free of discrimination? Agree or disagree?
Mythago
And therefore, a state needs to demonstrate a very strong justification for maintaining gender-discriminatory marriage.
And what is the justification for a state to introduce and maintain gender exclusionary marriage?
At a minimum, that means heightened scrutiny; in many states, gender-based classifications require a compelling interest. “Tradition” is not, by itself, a compelling interest.
True, but what is the compelling state interest in promoting gender exclusionary marriage ?
Please note that many states have removed the issue of “conceptional” from their laws.
Have these same states removed the issue of “consumation” from their laws as well?
Also, that marriage as an entity where the wife is subordinate to the husband is older than the Republic.
You are correct, and your point is?
You have been provided with examples of societies that did allow SSM. Can you give me an example of one society that mandated equality between husband and wife?
Did not those same indigeounous North American tribal societies provided for me, not have equality between husband and wife? As for other societies, I confess I am unclear as to your use of the word “equality”? Are you asking if there were societies that felt one gender was irrelevant to the marital relationship? Or that husband and wife were of equal worth to the marital relationship?
I was going to link this as a seperate post. I thought it was interesting, particularly the mention of a 1878 USSC case Reynolds v. United States, a case that dealt with polygamy. It also noted that polygamy is present in 78% of the world’s cultures, including some Native American Tribes. Interesting, is the presence of ssm among the worlds cultures equally as high?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm
Hellcat: Okay. However despite that technicality, such a practice was not prevalent among Europeans who would eventually form colonies in the New World, including among those who would later break from Mother England, and form a republic.
No. Nor was equality for black people, or for women, or indeed for Native Americans. Nor were any of a thousand other concepts. Your expectation that “the white settlers didn’t do it in the 17th century” means “we shouldn’t do it now” is… well, we’ve already gone through what it is, many times over.
Never said it wasn’t important
Oh, I’ll concede you keep right on trying to claim that. But far more persistently and consistently you argue that people ought not to marry for love: you’ve been arguing, all along on this thread, that marriage in the US ought to be set up so that legally people cannot marry the person they are in love with. Little backtrackings don’t mean much when your whole argument is that loving the person you marry ought to be forbidden by law.
That couple should be, absent abuse, their biological mother and father. Would you agree with that?
I think it far more important that the people who raise a child should be loving and caring towards the child and towards each other, than to emphasise the biological connection. There is certainly a strong case for arguing that, if at all possible, an infant ought to be primarily cared for by the mother who gave birth to her: but it has also been shown that for father, aunt, uncle, grandparent, or unrelated friend of the family, bonding with the child takes place after birth, not before, and isn’t dependent on degree of biological kinship to the child. A man who is not the biological father of his wife’s child can (and has – blood tests show this happens maybe 1 in 6) can and does develop the parental fondness that a baby needs, ideally from more than one adult (babies are exhausting, toddlers hardly less so). As can a woman partnered with the biological mother. As can adoptive parents with no biological connection.
You decry love as a reason to get married, and it shouldn’t surprise me that you think love is less important for children than the biological connection. You are quite, quite wrong about this.
We wouldn’t want to discriminate against alternative families, simply because they don’t fit the norm, now would we?
Well, you evidently do, don’t you? The argument about polygamous marriage is a separate one from same-sex marriage, and not one I choose to get into.
Would that also include couples comprised of first cousins, or brother& sister, two brothers/sisters, etc.?
If you want to argue for or against incestuous marriage, please do: again, this is separate from same-sex marriage, and not one I choose to get into.
And if they wish to marry based on economic factors, companionship, or perhaps even immigration reasons, would you also agree with the government that they be allowed to marry for those reasons as well, or instead of, love?
You are the one who is arguing that, whatever else, couples should not be allowed to marry the person they love. (The government, by the way, as Edward from Obsidian Wings points out, wishes to make sure that a couple – one of whom is immigrating – did in fact marry for love, and not purely for immigration reasons.)
then surely those involved in trinary relationships with children, deserve the same recognition free of discrimination? Agree or disagree?
Separate argument from same-sex marriage, and one I choose not to have.
You really don’t want to defend your certainty that loving the person you marry is just wrong and ought to be forbidden by law, do you? Instead you raise extraneous arguments about multiplying the number of people in marriage (to three, or above), you raise the issue of incestuous marriage, you harp back to the 17th century and say “if the white settlers didn’t do it then, we ought not to do it now” – you do anything other than sit down and try to defend your argument that it’s wrong for the government to allow two people who love each other to get married.
Why’s that?
No. Nor was equality for black people, or for women, or indeed for Native Americans. Nor were any of a thousand other concepts. Your expectation that “the white settlers didn’t do it in the 17th century” means “we shouldn’t do it now” is… well, we’ve already gone through what it is, many times over.
Okay, valid point.
….you argue that people ought not to marry for love:
No, not at all. I did not say they ought not to marry for love. People marry for a variety of reasons, and yes I grant you that love is leading significant motivator, however from the state’s standpoint, romantic love, is not required.
you’ve been arguing, all along on this thread, that marriage in the US ought to be set up so that legally people cannot marry the person they are in love with.
Millions of people every year marry the person they are in love with. Some also marry for other reasons, or in addition to love. What is it about those marriages that is of interest to the state?
Little backtrackings don’t mean much when your whole argument is that loving the person you marry ought to be forbidden by law.
Never it said it should be forbidden by law. What you are arguing for is romantic love based, governemnt sanctioned, relationship, regardless of it’s role or function to society. Marriage is a sexual union, as I mentioned in a previous post (149). It is the potentionally conceptional nature of sexual intercourse that the government has an interest in. So in a sense, Jes, love, or to be precise, makin’ love, is what marriage is all about. Perhaps it should be don’t marry the one you love, marry the one you’re making love with. Now, I know, if that’s the case then why do we let Grandma, and Grandpa marry, when there’s no way they’ll ever make a baby again, or even make love for that matter. It would seem, to take a trip down memory lane say thirty to forty years ago, no one seriously thought that because we allow elder marriage, that somehow marriage is not about makin’ love and babies. No one ever really felt the need to delink marriage and procreation, at least from a legal recognition standpoint, until SSM came along. In order to argue for ssm, one must do just that. Marriage then must be nothing more than means by which the participants live what they perceive to be an emotionally satisfying life complete with government benefits. Gee is it any wonder that the divorce rate is so high.
Hellcat: No, not at all. I did not say they ought not to marry for love.
Yes, you did. Ten days ago you asserted: There’s no denial of “equal civil rights”. A gay man has as much civil right to marry a woman, gay or straight, as straight man does. Same with women. And you have said nothing since to indicate that you’ve changed your mind on this blanket assertion that people ought not to marry for love.
Hellcat: So in a sense, Jes, love, or to be precise, makin’ love, is what marriage is all about. Perhaps it should be don’t marry the one you love, marry the one you’re making love with.
Right: and in that case, there’s no reason whatsoever to deny same-sex couples marriage. Got it now?
Never it said it should be forbidden by law.
Oh, do quit backtracking on this: you’ve said all along that it ought to be forbidden by law. It’s been the backbone of your argument, beginning ten days ago and not changing since, that people ought not to marry either the person they love, or the person they’re making love with – that the government needs to forbid it by law.