The decision of the SJC will go into effect Monday, May 17, 2004, at which time marriage as universally understood for millenia of human history will be forever changed. Chaos will ensue. Marriage has always been between opposite-sex couples, and for good reason. The incredible upheaval in Massachusetts is inevitable. - Appellant's Memo in Largess v. Massachusetts.
I thought I would write a wonderful post in honor of the one year anniversary of marriage equality in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, I'm a little short on time, so instead I provide links. From today's Boston Globe editorial:
Another opportunity to measure the effects of gay marriage in Massachusetts will come this fall, when legislators again take up the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- but allowing parallel civil unions -- that they initially approved in March 2004. We are optimistic that the state's elected representatives will accept the thousands of individual commitments made in the past year and vote down the proposal. The legislators need not fear constituent anger: Every one of the legislators who voted against the ban last year was reelected; and three additional supporters of gay marriage won special House elections this spring.
It strains the imagination to see how a year of gay marriage has caused the state any discernible harm. Supporters even point to a modest economic boost due to tourism and other local spending on gay weddings. But the reason to toast today's wedding anniversaries has little to do with tax revenues and everything to do with the riches that come from extending civil rights to every citizen.
For more on the prospects of that amendment see this Globe article:
The erosion of support for the amendment, which won preliminary approval by four votes in March 2004, is caused by several factors, including the considerable clout of new House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, a supporter of gay marriage; a net gain of four gay-marriage supporters in recent legislative elections; and increasing acceptance of gay marriage among the public....
A Boston Globe poll in March indicated that 56 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage, 37 percent were opposed, and 7 percent were unsure. By comparison, a Globe poll conducted in spring 2004 indicated that 40 percent of those surveyed supported gay marriage. Those who either wanted to ban gay marriage and replace it with civil unions, or who wanted neither, represented 45 percent of those queried.
Like the majority of those surveyed, Lees, the state Senate's ranking Republican, said the relative lack of apparent societal damage caused by the onset of same-sex marriage has given him pause -- even though he was a coauthor of the amendment before the Legislature.
An even more recent poll (pdf) was comissioned by MassEquality and the results are great:
By a margin of 62% to 35%, voters say that gay or lesbian couples should have the right to enter into a legal marriage...fully 61% approve, and only 37% disapprove of the court’s decision to permit same-sex couples to marry...Fully 36% say legalized “gay marriage” has had a positive impact on Massachusetts, while compared to only 13% who say it has had a negative impact...with 68% saying that gay marriage has had a positive impact on gays and lesbians in Massachusetts (10% say it has had a negative impact), and 53% say it has had a positive impact on children being raised by gay and lesbian couples, compared to 17% who say it has had a negative impact...When asked about whether it is better for marriage or civil unions to be available to gay or lesbian couples, a majority of voters opt for marriage over civil unions by a margin of 50% to 32%, with 12% saying neither. This is substantial increase in support for marriage from the 38% to 23% margin (with 32% saying neither) in 2003.
The best thing I can leave you with today is a must read op-ed in the Globe by Anne and Chad Gifford who finally had the great joy of seeing their son marry the man he loves. Please read it, but I will leave you with this brief excerpt:
Our initial period of concern and confusion and the subsequent learning has, at times, been tumultuous. But how could we as parents not do all we could to embrace our child? How could we not do all we could to strengthen our family? Many object to equal marriage because it represents an attack on family. This is tragic and wrong. Family means love and support for all, not the marginalization of one member of the family.
We have now had one year of legal same-sex marriage in our state. Despite predictions, we have not witnessed any threat to so-called ''traditional marriage." There has not been an attack on family, and almost all would admit that very little has changed. In fact, however, something has changed. Many of our citizens have experienced the joy of marriage for the first time where the laws of our state have said, ''You are equal." We have seen that joy in our son. To take that away would be an injustice. It would be devastating for our family and the real values we believe family should represent.
After reading the increasingly desperate arguments of those on the religious (and/or social) right opposing marriage equality, there are two things it seems they fear most:
1. Marriage equality in Massachusetts (and possibly other states) will soften the populace the idea of same-sex relationships and marriage as they realize it impacts them little if any, and impacts those couples tremendously for the good.
2. Marriage equality in Massachusetts (and possibly other states) will begin to show that there is little if any detrimental effect on the institution of marriage, and in fact might have a beneficial effect.
Two things that I think the first year of marriage equality in MA is indicating. If those trends continue (and I believe they will) it will start to separate the opposition between those who had sincere doubts about the affects of same-sex marriage but were proven wrong and those who held just plain old bigotted views.
Posted by: Trey | May 18, 2005 at 03:21 AM
1. Marriage equality in Massachusetts (and possibly other states) will soften the populace the idea of same-sex relationships and marriage as they realize it impacts them little if any, and impacts those couples tremendously for the good.
The problem as I see it is that we will not know for quite some time what the effect of same sex marriage will be on society. One year tells us nothing.
2. Marriage equality in Massachusetts (and possibly other states) will begin to show that there is little if any detrimental effect on the institution of marriage, and in fact might have a beneficial effect.
Again, we have no way of knowing this now. 20 years from now we will know the effects much better. What we do know is that if SSM is legalized, then there will be no legal distinction between traditional marriage and family and SSM and family. Schools will teach children that there is no difference. Marriage will be completely divorced from procreation. The message that a child needs both a mother and a father will be lost. Marriage itself will no longer be seen as the coming together of a man and a woman to produce a family. Marriage will at its essence be nothing more than a committed relationship between two people based on -- Love, I guess. These are serious changes to marriage as we know it and I can only imagine what effect they will have on marriage itself 20 years down the road.
We will also see other states being forced to recognized SSM through the full faith and credit clause. Society does not do well when fundamental changes like this come from the courts. You need only look at the havoc that Roe v. Wade has wreaked on the political process to understand this.
"Two things that I think the first year of marriage equality in MA is indicating. If those trends continue (and I believe they will) it will start to separate the opposition between those who had sincere doubts about the affects of same-sex marriage but were proven wrong and those who held just plain old bigotted views."
First off, Trey, people who support the traditional family and traditional marriage get very defensive when they are told they have bigotted views. I do not support same sex marriage and I am not a bigot. I will never support same sex marriage because I believe that marriage at its root, is about the union of a man and a woman and the children that are produced. My view has nothing to do with any views I have on gay couples. Gay couples can do whatever they like. If protections are necessary for those couples who do have children-- I am all for making sure that they get those protections. But I am not ok with forcing a change like this through the courts and I am not ok with redefining marriage based on the exception to the rule (childless couples).
Posted by: | May 18, 2005 at 09:33 AM
FYI: I wrote the post above (with no name). For some reason the post did not record my name.
Hayleyanne
Posted by: Hayleyanne | May 18, 2005 at 10:48 AM
First off, Trey, people who support the traditional family and traditional marriage get very defensive when they are told they have bigotted views. I do not support same sex marriage and I am not a bigot
First, I didn't say you had bigoted views because you don't support same-sex marriage. What I did say is fhat if the evidence ends up not supporting the sincere worries of some opponents then I would assume they would change their minds eventually because the evidence showed their worries to be without foundation. If the minds don't change, then the basis of their opposition (for most) comes down to a bigotry against gay and lesbian couples. If that is offensive, then I am not particuarly sorry.
If protections are necessary for those couples who do have children-- I am all for making sure that they get those protections.
Good, then help me fight for a federally recognized Civil Union law that is also recognized in all states. Because that is the ONLY way the necessary protections can be given to my family. Somehow i suspect, given that the overwhelming majority of anti-ssm amendments not only include marriage but ANY form of civil union or domesstic partnership, that most of the religious right won't go for that at all.. much less help us get it.
Marriage itself will no longer be seen as the coming together of a man and a woman to produce a family. Marriage will at its essence be nothing more than a committed relationship between two people based on -- Love, I guess. These are serious changes to marriage as we know it
This argument still holds no water no matter how many times it is made. If inherently childless couples like the elderly and infertile have been allowed to be married for decades (centuries?) and that hasn't destroyed the 'meaning of marriage' even though they make up a good 10-20% of marriages, why in the world would adding 1% (to quote the oft-used percentages the religious right likes to use) more of same-sex marriages can't make much of an impact, especially given that a 1/3 of those same-sex marriages in MA actually do have children.
One year tells us nothing.
On the first point is about public opinion, not effects, one year is telling us a lot in one year... that the reality of same-sex marriage changes opinions of the populace. That has changed in a year, dramatically.
Posted by: trey | May 18, 2005 at 02:18 PM
"On the first point is about public opinion, not effects, one year is telling us a lot in one year... that the reality of same-sex marriage changes opinions of the populace. That has changed in a year, dramatically"
Trey-- my sense on public opinion is that it hasn't changed really in a favorable way. I really think that Goodridge did alot more harm than good. I live in one of the states that passed a constitutional amendment that is very broad like Nebraska's. I know that these amendments would not have been passed but for the Goodridge court. Many people really got put on the defensive and perceived it as a court trying to dictate to the whole country about marriage. I also think some groups took advantage of this sentiment and crafted their amendments to include everything pertaining to gay relationships (like civil unions etc). I do believe that most people would support civil unions. But unfortunately the climate has become very contentious. Gay marriage / civil union advocates need to make their cases to the legislatures and get laws on the books that way. I really believe this is the only way to make true change. The perception is now that the only place for this cause is in the courts and I think this is destructive for those on both sides of the issue. Do you see what I am saying?
Posted by: hayleyanne | May 18, 2005 at 04:45 PM
"Good, then help me fight for a federally recognized Civil Union law that is also recognized in all states."
I can promise you that if a law like this were put forward I would fully support it. What I cannot support is a court dictating this result.
Posted by: Hayleyanne | May 18, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Hayleyanne-
But until same-sex couples started making their case in court, nobody was listening. There are now civil unions in VT, CT, CA, a more limited version in NJ, some protections in some other states like MD and HA, and marriage in MA all of which have popular support. None of this would have happened if same-sex couples had not asserted their rights in the courts. The courts have an obligation to protect the rights of unpopular minorities. I don't like the idea that same-sex couples should not be allowed to assert their rights in court. Hopefully in the future it won't be necessary to go to court. In the meantime, I am not about to blame anybody for trying to protect their family.
If you would like to support federal legislation that would at least add some protections to same-sex families you should write your representative and ask him or her to support HR 475 which would extend the Family Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples who are united in marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.
Posted by: Galois | May 18, 2005 at 06:09 PM
Trey-- my sense on public opinion is that it hasn't changed really in a favorable way. I really think that Goodridge did alot more harm than good.
I was speaking (as was this entry) of the change of opinion within the state that ssm has been allowed. I understand that other (mostly 'reddish' states) have passed anti-ssm amendments, but we are speaking of the opinions of people who are witnessing it first hand. Those have changed dramatically and demonstratibly. The polls a year or two ago were only around 35-40% in favor, today in Massachussets they are 55-60% in favor. The reality of ssm in that state is changing opinions in that state.
The perception is now that the only place for this cause is in the courts and I think this is destructive for those on both sides of the issue. Do you see what I am saying? I do see what you are saying. I too would prefer that it work through the legislatures. I think galois answered that pretty well though as to why minorities sometimes (often) have to seek remedies in the courts.
The perception isn't now matching developing reality. Connecticut and California have passed civil union laws without any court demand to do so. Both California and Rhode Island now have SSM bills in the legislature that have some possibility of passing (California's is out of committee) and again without court direction or demand. Galois pointed to a few more that have started granting right without court mandate (NJ, ME, etc).
And I agree with Galois, none of this would have happened without the first push (and making people listen.. which they haven't for a few centuries) in the courts.
But now its moving to the legislatures.
Posted by: Trey | May 18, 2005 at 06:39 PM
Funny (well, not really funny at all),
Trust me, Mrs. Gifford. If your son and his husband ever decide to make you a grandma, there will be at least ONE member of the family who has been "marginalized"... one can only wonder at the sense of loyalty that child will show towards his grandparents who may or may not be his kin at all.
Then trey falls back on that tired old argument with this:
If inherently childless couples like the elderly and infertile have been allowed to be married for decades (centuries?) and that hasn't destroyed the 'meaning of marriage' even though they make up a good 10-20% of marriages, why in the world would adding 1% more of same-sex marriages can't make much of an impact...
First, If marriage is about procreation, then the inferile or elderly couple do not break that model. As a point of equality, it would be wrong not to let them marry, even though society has nothign at stake (unlike the marriages of fertile couples, where MUCH is at stake). It's a point of fairness.
There we have it again, a gay activist interpreting the exception that proves the rule to mean that there is no rule at all.
Just curious trey, how did you get your name? I can't help but wonder how many adopted or invitro kids share that very particular nickname...
Posted by: Marty | May 18, 2005 at 07:10 PM
Oh –hey, I’m against divorce, really truly against it. Always have been.
I’m also against Illegitimacy, fornication, co-habitation and so-on.
Me and my political side have a hard time getting are case heard – the entire family values agenda is hard to legislate. (because you cant just come in and tell people how to live their lives) This requires social consensus. You need cultural institutions like Church’s, universities, and the popular press to foster your agenda. With the exception of the first we have little support in the others. (unlike some groups)
I have an idea though – I will get one State Court to declare divorce unconstitutional.
I know this sounds ridiculous but (I have some clever law school professors) and lot of these things sounded ridiculous until you acclimate people to the idea. (it helps to have friends in the press at this point who paint it as a terrific, progressive idea)
So, we outlaw divorce – BAAM- it explodes on the national scene. People know me and my activist {socially conservative} judges are capable of foisting this on the entire nation. So people get really excited and adopt laws that keep it the way it is. However, I have now started a huge national conversation on the subject. The few states were I have influence in the Legislature cut deals with me and my lobby groups. Basically they are not interested in banning divorce outright – but –my plight looks so sympathetic (lonely children and spurred fathers kept from any sense of intimacy with their children ect. Dominate the emotional side of the debate) So these legislatures agree to tighten divorce law significantly. At the same time they also reassert explicitly that divorce is still legal in the writing of these laws. (its like extortion…see)
So basically I cant loose at this point…
I move my ball down my court…
In the meantime.. The one State were I made divorce illegal, well I poor all my resources into it. (I’ve been doing this for years…setting it up,) Now I’m not sure If I should let the people vote in that State or not. If I put enough pressure on the legislature –its already pretty sympathetic – and we have lots of disposable income for PAC money.
If I let the people vote on the issue – they may vote my proposal down.
I have lots of fancy poll’s that show the won’t – but hell, you can get a poll to show anything.
So maybe I should just sit on it…and not let a vote take place.
See I have picked this State expressly because it has an amendment process that takes years. You have to jump through a lot of hoops just to undue what I got the Courts to do. People will acclimate themselves to a situation even if they don’t like it.
But don’t you see the genius of the plan….
No matter what, I move my ball down my field.
Even if I loose, I just paint my self and my group (divorcee’s & children of divorce) as the victims of an ugly mob.
It ingenious really.
The court is a pretty “conservative” court but I’m still having a hard time getting five of
them to go along..
{I already tried it in two other states – but the people rose up and overturned it)
But if I can pull it off – it will be a HUGE coup for my cause.
It’s a great plan, I mean what a P.R. blitz for my formerly tiny and little known agenda..
I call the plan ….SUPTERFUGE..
only problem is…my Judges wont break the law to help me get my ball rolling..
See….they are decent law abiding people and reasonable men.
Even with the sympathy I have with some of them…they just won’t call a eminently rational argument….irrational…
They just aren’t that radical for a cause.
I guess they respect the proper workings of democracy to much.
Posted by: Fitz | May 18, 2005 at 08:29 PM
Heheh that's very good Fitz. But while we're on the subject of morality and choice, i should ask "IS divorce legal? IS it constitutional?".
Maybe some of the legal scholars/mathmaticians could answer for me, if competent adults vow before God and/or Man to commit to each other "until death do they part", then by what means shall society let them renege? Are competent adults not competent enough to be held to their word? Is there any higher vow that can be taken by an adult? How can a just society so casually allow us to break our most treasured promises?
Posted by: Marty | May 18, 2005 at 09:51 PM
Galois and Trey: Where we differ, is that I don't see marriage as a "right". If you recall Galois, we touched on this in another thread. I understand that the Supreme Court in certain contexts, has called it a "right" under the substantive due process clause. But I am no fan of the substantive due process clause to begin with. I am very much a supporter of Scalia and his judicial philosophy and I am very opposed to judicial activism. Unfortunately, that term has been hijacked by the extreme right and is not a very useful term when debating these issues for that reason.
As I hope I have made clear-- my opposition to same sex marriage, is pretty much attributable to my opposition to judicial activism. As you and Trey have pointed out, changes are being made through legislation -- and that is exactly as it should be.
I firmly believe that if the case is made directly to most americans that gay people raising families need the protection of marriage- most people will be supportive. When the case is made in the courts-- that is a problem. And where I disagree with both of you on this whole issue -- is whether these cases (like Goodridge) actually benefit the cause of civil unions and gay marriage. I think the 11 state amendments speak volumes as to the effect that Goodridge had across the country. And Trey, I know you cite to how views are changing in Massachusetts following Goodridge. And that may be the case. I don't know. I am skeptical though. Personally, I now identify this issue with judicial activism and it makes me anti-gay marriage. I am just being honest with you guys.
Posted by: | May 19, 2005 at 12:25 PM
Hayleyanne: It looks like you've been able to identify some areas where we disagree (the impact of the Goodridge ruling in MA and across the country), and you also identified an area where we had differing reactions. (The Goodridge ruling made you anti-gay marriage). That is not something to agree or disgaree about, we each react however we react. I would ask you to please consider some things. Even though you disagreed with the court's reasoning--and I'm not a big fan of basing decisions on substantitve due process either, and would have preferred the decision be based entirely on equal protection grounds--please don't hold take your anger against the judges and direct it toward gay and lesbian couples. They didn't write the decision and most of them played no part in the suit. Even those that initiated the suit were presenting reasonable arguments in an effort to protect their families (although you may disagree that there is a right to marriage, many courts have claimed there is such a right, and you can't blame the couples for using that fact). Before Goodridge courts had used the right to marriage to overturn laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Hopefully those decisions do not make you anti-interracial marriage. Courts have thrown out many laws. One can strongly disagree with such decisions without necessarily taking a view one way or the other on the underlying law.
As for the impact of Goodridge. This post presented a nice array of evidence for the positive impact the decision has had on the views in Massachusetts. While there may be some like you who became opposed to gay marriage because of the decision, many more became pro-gay marriage when they saw friends, relative, and even strangers taking on the obligations of marriage for the first time. In terms of the impact across the rest of the country, amendments were passed mostly in places that never would have recognized same-sex marriage in the near future. Against this you have a number of states passing protections for same-sex couples and families, and I do not think that would have been likely had not Vermont taken the lead following a court decision. Even if I thought the decisions had a negative impact, I couldn't do anything about it. I can't stop someone from going to court to assert their right.
Posted by: Galois | May 19, 2005 at 02:22 PM
Oh -you cant stop them from going to Court.
But a Judge can.
He can throw them out for failure to state a claim.
Thats what I would do If someone came in and demanded a Dog liceance....for a CAT.
Posted by: Fitz | May 19, 2005 at 03:23 PM
I have a few questions.
Does the right to SSM in Mass extend into the prison system? Does an inmate forfeit his/her right to marry upon conviction? Does s/he have the right to marry another inmate?
Is adultery criminalized in Mass? If so, should the state enforce such laws? Can a married person file a criminal complaint alledging adultery? Would the definition of adultery change now that ssm is legal?
Does it matter that far more female SSCs have married than male ones? Should the state encourage male couples to marry?
Posted by: Pietro Armando | May 20, 2005 at 01:34 PM
Does the right to SSM in Mass extend into the prison system? Does an inmate forfeit his/her right to marry upon conviction? Does s/he have the right to marry another inmate?
The answer to all of these is that an inmate does generally maintain a constitutional right to marry, but that right may be restricted for security/penological reasons. (See Turner). In Massachusetts the policy (pdf) is as follows:
Permission to marry may be denied, but reasons for the denial must be given and it must be justified.
Is adultery criminalized in Mass? If so, should the state enforce such laws? Can a married person file a criminal complaint alledging adultery? Would the definition of adultery change now that ssm is legal?
Yes, adultery is criminal in Massachusetts. In principle I believe the state should enforce such laws, but it must be rather difficult to enforce in practice. I do not see how the definition of adultery would change now that same-sex couples may marry.
Does it matter that far more female SSCs have married than male ones? Should the state encourage male couples to marry?
It doesn't matter to me. I'm not sure what you mean by "encouraging" couples to marry.
Posted by: Galois | May 20, 2005 at 03:39 PM
I thought I would write a wonderful post in honor of the one year anniversary of marriage equality in Massachusetts.
Much like ol' Sharkey's program of sharing meant the shire was shafted in the last part of "Lord of the Rings", so does this notion of equality smack of cover-smoke for nefarious goals. Rhetoric turned up just a little to hot there? Maybe, but I've been looking into this issue for a while and find the cover-screen of equality to have echoes in the past as well as litterature.
It strains the imagination to see how a year of gay marriage has caused the state any discernible harm. Supporters even point to a modest economic boost due to tourism and other local spending on gay weddings.
I'm not sure what "harm" one would expect to see in a year, familial degredation that one can expect to see would take a generation to show up socially. I'm unsure of what tourism they expect if same-sex marriage was more fully adopted either. The editorialist is clearly suffering from cognitive bias.
The question of public support is much like trying to herd the cattle after they've left the barn, no? History shows that society can take cues from the government. Kings senates and judges have accepted this responsibility through the ages, and some have worked good and some have worked great social harm with it. But the issue is that has been the plan all along, no?
One thing is for sure, across the US and other nations the trend has been that in the areas where the debate is allowed to flourish amongh the populace the self-evident truths of marriage have become manifest. The danger of supreme court rulings is that they can quelch debate, remove power from the people and lead to tyranny. That you celebrate such a move because it furthers your own agenda is, well, deplorable. Much like how the court ruled that blacks and white relationships were infertile, or the Supreme court ruled that a tomato is a vegetable. Well, once that happens what are you going to do about it? In your surveys, the answer seems to be to just acknowledge and move on.
Many object to equal marriage because it represents an attack on family. This is tragic and wrong. Family means love and support for all, not the marginalization of one member of the family.
And here is another area where it dangerously impairs democracy. To proclaim marriage unequal because it requires equal representation between two sexes is like declaring the constitution unequal because it requires representatives from every state of the union. How does the establishment of a gender-discriminatory marriage make marriage more equal? Indeed the fallacy in the argument is that "equal marriage" somehow is to tolerate gender discrimination where we don't margionalize one sex away from the family governance.
Diverse representation produces more fairness over time. Look at our democracy that abolished slavery, brought the vote to women, among other establishments of civil liberty, all from the diversity of representation. Blacks represented in the north helped position freedom for their brothers and sisters in the south. Husbands voted for their wives to be granted a vote also. In a family, encouraging the male and female to work together in the raising of their children produces a fair guardianship of those children.
Posted by: On Lawn | May 20, 2005 at 05:13 PM
one can only wonder at the sense of loyalty that child will show towards his grandparents who may or may not be his kin at all.
You know Marty, you are a piece of work. Your objections seem more anti-adoption than anything. What is it you have against adoption?
As to the origin of my nickname, well.. you'll have to go to my web sit and find it there. I figure from you comment you already know, but it shows again a bias against adoption.
Posted by: Trey | May 20, 2005 at 05:28 PM
That you celebrate such a move because it furthers your own agenda is, well, deplorable.
What exactly is my agenda? I'm sure it must be deplorable, but I'm unclear on what this agenda is or why I'm pursuing it.
How does the establishment of a gender-discriminatory marriage make marriage more equal?
It doesn't. I oppose gender discrimination in marriage, which is why I support gender neutral marriage laws. Of course I have no problem with an individual discriminating in whom they select for a spouse. If someone wants to marry someone of the same race, that's fine. I would not marry someone outside my faith, and my wife would not perform such a marriage. Still, I would want the government to recognize both interfaith and intrafaith marriages. I certainly would not want the government to mandate that all marriages must be interracial, interfaith, interclass, and intergendered.
Husbands voted for their wives to be granted a vote also.
Well how sweet of them, after denying them the right to vote or own property for years they suddenly decided to bestow such a gift. I'm sure the women themselves had nothing to do with securing their right to vote.
In a family, encouraging the male and female to work together in the raising of their children produces a fair guardianship of those children.
Agreed. It helps then to have the couple decide for themselves how to divide the work evenly. We don't need to maintain legal distinctions between the husband and the wife. We should read the marriage laws gender neutrally.
Posted by: Galois | May 20, 2005 at 06:12 PM
trey: You know Marty, you are a piece of work. Your objections seem more anti-adoption than anything. What is it you have against adoption?
Taking things kinda personally aren't you? I'm sure if you'd used a surrogate mother instead, you'd say that that was my beef.
Nevermind, i'm going fishing. See you girls in June.
Posted by: Marty | May 20, 2005 at 07:00 PM
What exactly is my agenda?
Hmm, why exactly is it that you are the only one hear unclear of your agenda?
Not that I don't appreciate the bait ;) You seem to be overlooking the problematic nature of the decision as pointed out. You even overlooked it again in choosing to not respond to them. Why? I posit, and do not shy away from it, that you ignore its overtones because it furthers causes you like. They could be any of a million different causes and still be a blindfold.
I oppose gender discrimination in marriage
Same-sex marriage is based on gender preference, synonomous with gender discrimination where someone prefers their own gender above the other. It produces a marriage exclusively of one gender and that is discriminatory and slighting as it removes diversity. You don't support gender discrimination in marriage, and support same-sex marriage -- this is a contradiction.
One could argue that I personally suffer from gender discrimination in that I married a woman. But as a marriage it is not gender discriminatory as it includes *both* genders. And as I choose the other gender above my own, that makes it more magnanimous than discriminatory, no? Whether or not you wish to continue in your contradiction is up to you, I suppose. Another egregious error to be overlooked for some purpose that you seem to not be aware of?
I support gender neutral marriage law
Gender neutral marriage is wishful thinking as there are no gender neutral people. Are you gender neutral or are you man or woman? Gender ambigiuous does happen, but that isn't even gender neutral. Perhaps a senate that is "state neutral", or a president that is "nation neutral" can somehow exist in that surreal thinking that produces a concept like "gender neutral marriage".
Well how sweet of them
Yes it was miraculous. Can you think of other examples where people decided to share their power? The fact that marriage played such a crucial role in that magnanimous decision shows its health as a social structure and as a liberalizing force. It is not only already equal, it increases the equity in the institutions around it.
Yet you seem wish to subvert the very equity that brought woman's sufferage with gender-discrimination. Just how aware are you of the agenda you seem to be working for?
We don't need to maintain legal distinctions between the husband and the wife. We should read the marriage laws gender neutrally.
Either you haven't read "Return of the King" and have unwittingly helped to solidify the analogy with ol' Sharkey, or it is another egregious error you are overlooking. As pointed out previously, the notion of fairness you are referring to is anything but. This is an argument that you seem to be ignoring. I see nowhere that you have dealt with the points raised in support of how onimous and wrong your self proclaimed equity is. No posts on that article either. While I don't suppose one has to answer every charge to be found innocent of the charges, I can't accept self-proclaimed innocence as the sole defense.
I do see you closing off with a mantra of your own, perhaps hoping to wear us out with the repetition of just how fair you think you are?
Posted by: On Lawn | May 20, 2005 at 07:13 PM
I did respond to your points. Marriage did not bring about gender equity. People fought against gender equity because they thought it would destroy marriage. It hasn't though. Marriage does not require us to draw gender classifications. Do you support allowing two people of the same race to marry? Does that make it racial discrimination? Of course not. Do you support allowing two people of the same religion to marry? Does that discriminate based on faith? Of course not. It would be racial discrimination if the government required interracial marriages. It would be faith based discrimination if the government required interfaith marriages. It is not discrimination for the government to remain neutral and accept the marriage regardless of the race or faith involved. Likewise gender neutral is simply asking the government to be neutral with regards to gender. It doesn't mean the individuals are genderless, just as the government being neutral with regards to faith doesn't mean people have no faith. Your arguments are ludicrous. Gender is not the only way people differ. All married couples differ from each other in some ways, and are same in others. It is this overriding focus on gender to the exclusion of the individual that led to women being barred from so many aspects of public life.
The Sabbath is beginning shortly so I won't be able to pick up this discussion until probably Sunday. In the meantime you should read
this post and others in the category of SSM and discrimination.
Posted by: Galois | May 20, 2005 at 07:36 PM
I did respond to your points. Marriage did not bring about gender equity.
Then perhaps you can show me where you argued an alternative theory. Here is what you said, "I'm sure the women themselves had nothing to do with securing their right to vote." I see what you are in opposition to here, the notion that men did it on their own. But for the life of me I can't see where I said anything of the sort.
Here is what I did say,
-- Diverse representation produces more fairness over time. Look at our democracy that ... brought the vote to women ... all from the diversity of representation. --
It seems clear that I said that bringing them both together in marriage produced the increase in equity in government. And that is a point (among others) you did not address, though I can assume your insistance on the inclusion of women in credit for woman's sufferage is a sort of agreement.
People fought against gender equity because they thought it would destroy marriage. It hasn't though.
Bringing further credit to the notion that equal representation increases fairness. While I thank you for the support, I can't help but shake my head at your animosity.
Marriage does not require us to draw gender classifications.
Hear hear! In fact it works against gender classification. A classification is a grouping where each item has a simular charachteristic, much like a same-sex marriage.
Do you support allowing two people of the same race to marry? Does that make it racial discrimination?
I'll answer the questions and hit their problematic application afterward.
Yes! Why I suppose it does.
Now for the problems. Most immediately I can say that it does not contradict my stated positions, which is different than you. But that is only a contravance of the discussion so for, no?
Other problems include; Race is a poor analog -- it is not a discrete attribute as someone can be 50% of two races or any mix theirof, also it is a benign trait in a marriage that has nothing to do with the ability to perform under the compelling interest society and government has in marriage.
A simular tack with faith based discrimination has all the same problens and includes the problem that somene can truely be faith-neutral. They can also switch faiths at any time.
That might have been premature to include, I feel. Lacking in your arguent is just where your drumming of racial and religious discrimination should lead? As you try to create an adequate bridge between gender discrimination and the two forms of discrimination you describe will the problems I point out fit into place better.
For instance...
It would be racial discrimination if the government required interracial marriages. It would be faith based discrimination if the government required interfaith marriages.
Then answer me this, how can someone make a marriage that represents all faiths? How can they represent all races? If they required a particular two faiths to be represented or only two races, then that would be discriminatory as it excludes the others. If you feel otherwise please reference my previous post where I describe how my requirement to marry someone of another gender does not create a discriminatory relationship.
gender neutral is simply asking the government to be neutral with regards to gender.
Which is a fallacy as described in my previous post.
the government being neutral with regards to faith doesn't mean people have no faith.
Right now in San Diego there is an embroiled battle over a cross on a hill. Many feel the state should tear it down. That is not faith neutral, yet you'd may be suprised just how popular that interpretation of "faith neutral" is. Ten commandment monuments are torn down, it seems that people interpret that government must be faith neutral to mean it must steralize itself of any faith.
Ahh, but I agree such an argument is ludicrous. Common, but ludicrous. However your application here is ludicrous as you try to apply it to marriage by stating same-sex marriage is simply gender-neutral. Just as my previous examples of a nation neutral president or state neutral senator shows. A president must be from a nation, is that discriminatory? Ahhh, yes it is. Perhaps "handicapped neutral" is more fair also as handicapped parking is discriminatory? Ahh yes.
Now remember the pains I went to to distinguish discriminatory as a bad thing,
-- Same-sex marriage is based on gender preference, synonomous with gender discrimination where someone prefers their own gender above the other. It produces a marriage exclusively of one gender and that is discriminatory and slighting as it removes diversity. You don't support gender discrimination in marriage, and support same-sex marriage -- this is a contradiction. --
Just how your gender neutrality brings contradiction is not an artifact of your argument so much as it is a predominant disposition to say "discrimination" in the pejorative. Not all discrimination is bad, it is useful. But that is a different argument. For saying marriage is gender discrimination (pejorative or not) is ludicrous when it demands equal representation from both. And not seeing the gender discrimination of same-sex marriages is simply egregious. And no one can fault that argument placed to you, which is why I presume you created the race and faith based strawmen.
Yep, not to much further down you say...
Gender is not the only way people differ.
But when you call it gender discrimination, you provide the scope sufficient to show contradiction. You moved out of that scope yourself for the strawmen. I've watched you do it now in two subsiquent posts. It is the focus you provided to the debate, and I won't let you to use it as fodder for subtrifuge without notice.
I'll kindly await your response to my article as well as perhaps more mantra chanting from you then on Monday as Sunday is my sabbath.
Posted by: On Lawn | May 20, 2005 at 08:22 PM
I'm not taking -your- comments personally, I've learned early on they are pretty absurd.
I just find it quite interesting that your comments (do you ever actually make an argument any more?) are tellingly anti-adoption as opposed to anti-gay parenting. I really would love to know what you have against adoption since you have such a low view of it
I really should give your comments their due and ignore them, but i really find it fascinating that you abhor adoption so much even though you claim to have an adopted sister. Why is that?
Posted by: trey | May 20, 2005 at 08:29 PM
Galois :
Hope you had a peaceful sabbath.
Whatever definition of "gender discriminatory" you are using to claim marriage is "gender discriminatory" applies equally to same-sex marriage as both are defined in terms of their gender content. Thus if your goal is to remove all forms of gender discrimination from the law, SSM is an inconsistent answer. While you are free to wallow in your own inconsistencies, trying to pass them off as reasoned position won't fly. Not that you've ever mentioned what goal is served by your simple-minded forced equality of the sexes to begin with.
Not to belabor your inconsistencies further, but for that matter you have yet to explain why "gender discrimination" is bad, but number discimination (your devotion to the number two) is good, or for that matter why species discrimination is good.
In general, your position that judicial activism, or any other form of government influence, should be involved in dictating social attitudes is putting the cart before the horse. Government is of, not at, the people.
Finally, stick this ruling in your "nothing bad has happened yet" pipe and smoke it. Really, one would expect someone who touts their math abilities not to be so easily swayed by the argument from ignorance fallacy anyway.
Trey :
Feigning an inability to understand Marty's argument makes you look foolish, not Marty. Marty is not talking about adoption, but he does point out an inconsistency in your own position. "Hey look over there!" may work on your peers, but as a rational defense it is quite lacking.
Posted by: op-ed | May 21, 2005 at 02:41 PM