Really people, this is sooooo 2004:
Setting the stage for a political showdown, the California secretary of state today said an initiative barring gay marriage had enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.
The proposal would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union “between a man and a woman” and undo last month’s historic California Supreme Court ruling, which found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was unconstitutional.
A coalition of religious and conservative activists submitted 1.1 million signatures for the ballot measure. Random sampling by Secretary of State Debra Bowen found that enough legitimate signatures had been collected.
Even though this is silly (in my gay-assed opinion) have you noticed that the California and New York decisions haven’t caused nearly the uproar they did a little over 3 years ago? No matter what the final outcome is, I think that’s progress. Still, the process is flawed. The California legislature has thought this through – twice – and has decided that allowing gays to marry is not going to be the downfall of civilization. Putting it to a popular vote is a process that the Founders of this country would likely balk at. To quote Al Gore from his terrific book, The Assault on Reason:
When reason and logic are removed fromt he process of democracy – when there is no longer any purpose in debating or discussing the choices we have to make – then all questions before us are reduced to a simple equation: Who can exercise the most raw power? (p. 244)
And that’s the question in California. Or, at least it’s a question the right-wing sponsors of this measure are hoping to answer.
Herb
The Supreme Court finds that gays have a constitutional right to marry, so the next step is….
Change the Constitution!
And I used to think it was activist judges who were the problem. Turns out it’s the law itself. Doh!
AlphaFactor
The reason the Democrats lost in 2004 was that they mistakenly believed that the country’s top priorities dealt with national bankruptcy and a war with no end in sight.
The reason the Republicans won in 2004 was that they correctly believed that the country’s top priorities dealt with homosexuals having abortions.
Go figure.
jake
And if that doesn’t work … uh … claim the majority of voters were brainwashed by the Evile Forces of Un-Holywood and only Certified Christians should be allowed to vote!!
We’re in the midst of an economic meltdown and a presidential election. Assume many of the people who bring us our regularly scheduled uproars can’t afford to drive to the homophobe hoedown and La Media can’t be bothered to cover some little rally in Skunkhole, CA.
Linda
Yes, the legislature has thought this through twice, and it has been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. And I think that it is right and good to allow gay marriage. The thing is we live in a democracy, and that means that like it or not, big sweeping social changes can only be made if you convince a majority that they are needed. Sometimes this is good ( women’s suffrage) sometimes this isn’t so good (Prohibition) sometimes the bad can be changed again (Prohibition revoked). I hope that California is progressive enough and aware enough that they don’t pass this amendment. Lord knows, my state of Ohio thought it was a grand idea 4 years ago. Whatever happens that is the breaks of being in a democracy. The laws can not get too far ahead of the beliefs of the majority of the citizens.
cleek
what Linda said.
even if it gets knocked down this time, public opinion keeps getting more and more favorable. might be this time, might be the next, but one of these times, it’s not going to be an issue to anyone but the 23%ers.
Stephen1947
Linda – I don’t know how old you are, but do you remember any referenda about civil rights for people who didn’t look totally European back in the 1960s? You don’t because there weren’t any. And it’s a good thing too!
We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic. If you want to know why we aren’t a pure democracy, read a little ancient Greek history, esp. about Athens. The “excesses” of democracy recorded there – like forcing Socrates to commit suicide – were enough to convince the framers of our system to build in some checks and balances. Popular vote, which isn’t invariably cast with wisdom, must be counterbalanced by other parts of the governmental structure. It is not usually a good idea to give the majority a chance to decide if the rights of a minority should be limited.
Incertus
Rarely is this the case, actually. It’s been more often the case in recent years that the courts have been ahead of public opinion on civil rights issues, and this situation is no different.
In this particular case, there’s been some talk that the Attorney General might be able to write an opinion that states this referendum would be an attempt to revise instead of amend the state constitution, and while the latter is allowable, the former is not. A number of legal experts are suggesting that the California Supreme Court wrote a fairly loophole-less opinion, which is good, considering how insane some people get on this issue.
TheFountainHead
I’m from California, and frankly, I could give a damn what they think of marriage or who should be involved. Let dogs marry cats or something, why the fuck do I care? I will point out though that the very same “popular” vote initiatives that are infamous to California law are the ones that have given California such a historically progressive record. Legalized medical marijuana and the initial crackdowns on cigarettes were initiatives put to a popular vote in California, so it’s a double edged sword.
Punchy
Can anyone not quite as lazy as me explain what it takes to change a state Consty? I know what it takes to amend the federal one….
For the state, is it 2/3 of their Senate and….? Please tell me it’s not just a majority vote of the citizens….Please God no….
Cassidy
This is begging for a joke….
cleek
it will vary from state to state.
in NC you need 3/5 in each House plus a majority in a popular vote.
Dennis - SGMM
Depends on the mechanism provided by the state’s constitution. Here in California, either the people or the legislature can propose an amendment but it must be approved by a vote of the people in order to become part of the state constitution. The legislature can’t directly amend it.
This is a direct result of the work of Progressive (With a capital “P”) politicians’ work at the beginning of the 20th century. The Progressives were swept into office as a result of popular disgust with the railroads’ corrupt and corrupting influence over both politics and the population here.
Smudgemo
Fixed
Zifnab
Why amend the Constitution to make marriage one-man one-woman? Let’s go the extra mile and pass a state amendment decreeing that gays are icky and contain cooties. Perhaps we can force gays to wear a special pink triangle as an identifying mark so that no one will be forced to unwittingly associate with one.
Fucking fascists.
Don
I really do not understand why we don’t hear more people making hay with the fact that if we’d put the Loving decision up to a popular vote fifty years ago we’d have a very different – and worse – world. Why should civil rights EVER be up to a popular vote?
kid bitzer
it’s hard to handicap this move.
sure, in recent elections it has been smart for wingnuts to put socially repressive measures up for vote, because then the religious right comes out to vote for hate, and stays to vote republican.
in this case, however, there may be a reverse synergy: both obama and toleration of ssm appeal to the young. so the kids may come out to vote against the initiative and stay to vote for obama, or come out to vote for obama and stay to vote against the initiative.
i just don’t know which combination of candidate and issue will be more motivating. true, the fundie true believers may not like mccain, and may stay home therefore. but the damn kids have a pretty good record of staying home no matter what’s on the ballot. let’s hope the big o can fire them up.
srv
Our democracy is so weak and ineffective that the Legislature would rather have the Courts make decisions for them and then they can complain about it afterwards. Anything the court doesn’t want to touch defines the range of power of the Executive, since the Legislature is just a tool for moneyed interests.
For you “Balance of Powers” theorists, call me the next time Congress takes back a power.
T. Scheisskopf
I dream of a new day in the US, one where armies of people do not spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about what consenting adults do with their genitalia. Where whom they love is not important but that they love is celebrated.
Because right now, hate is the coin of the realm. Lots and lots of twisted hateful folks, most of whom loves them some Dear Leader, out there. In fact, when you drill down below the very thin veneer of the frothing right, it is impressive how much of it is built on their hate.
Shouldn’t be a surprise, however. Dave Neiwert has been warning us about that for a long time.
Dennis - SGMM
None of this would even be much of an issue if Bill Clinton hadn’t signed The Defense of Marriage Act into law back in 1996. That little Republican dandy (“States’ Rights – when it’s convenient for us!”) abrogated Article IV, Section 1, known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, in the matter of marriage.
Had DOMA not passed into law then states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Passing a law in my state or yours wouldn’t have been such a big deal because gay couples wishing to be married could simply have been married in a state that allowed it then returned home. Not the solution to bigotry to be sure but a way of rendering the issue moot.
PK
Right now what concerns me is the price of gas. I hear its going to be $5/ga by the end of the month. Dow chemicals is increasing plastics by 20% so expect the price of most things to go up. My grocery bill is outrageous.
If a republican so much as talks gay marriage to me I swear I will smack them on the side of the head!
libarbarian
Combine the cultural and economic stereotypes: Its all the fault of gay Jews.
Apsaras
How big of an asshole do you have to be to tell two gay dudes they can’t get married? Honestly.
jake
No, no PK you don’t need to worry about that stuff. You need to fret because complete strangers (or friends or relatives) aren’t exactly like you! Here’s a pitchfork.
I’m hoping the TheoCons insist that the GOP pukes out a lot of ‘phobic crap this cycle. When gas is $5/gal someone quacking about the threat of two men getting hitched will look extra amounts of insane.
Dennis - SGMM
I think that CA is the only place where this will be a big deal. I’m guessing that McCain’s campaign will start pushing the idea that if we blow up enough of the ME to “stabilize” it then gas prices will drop and so will the prices of everything else. This has that inverse post hoc fallaciousness that Republicans love and it also relieves McCain of the burden of producing any substantive remedies for the economy.
Zifnab
That is the unfortunate dark nature of a democracy. Tyranny of the masses and whatnot. Civil rights have been up for popular votes since the nation was founded. The Bill of Rights was up for a vote. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments got voted on. The voter ID law that was passed in Illinois was voted on.
Civil rights are a subset of our legal system and our legal system is created and maintained via the voting process. I don’t know how else we SHOULD pick our civil rights. Perhaps we can take a page from the theo-cons and just pull all our laws from the Bible.
Bob In Pacifica
I’m not sure that the amendment is such a big deal in Cali except its existence is pissing a lot of people off.
As I see it, you’ve got the core constituency who tries to justify or condemn the world around them by reading Bible verses. These people are hopeless.
Then you have the bigots. The size of their camp is variable, and they can be increased or decreased by how well-organized a campaign of hate and fear is. Right now, by the latest poll, the majority of Californians support same-sex marriage. Irrational fears have taken a backseat to other problems. Eventually people grow up. No one’s burning witches anyone, at least not in the lower 48.
jake
The Supreme Court has been known to step in from time to time. You could argue that people elect the executive and legislative members who pick the judges but that’s a bit of a stretch.
slag
Just out of curiosity, why is it that these decisions are always made in a presidential election year?
Is anyone seriously worried about California going to McCain? Seriously?
Notorious P.A.T.
There you reality-based people go again! Only one thing matters, and it’s not whether people can find jobs or afford to buy food or will be killed by endless wars. All that matters is whether or not our souls, as they float up to the clouds after our death, will be judged wanting by the Invisible Sky-King.
Bob In Pacifica
Oh, Punchy, in California you can amend the State Constitution by a simple majority.
The problem is that the state supreme court ruling said that homosexuality is a suspect class. That is, you can say that children can’t marry because as a class of people they are too young to get married. But there is no logical reason for denial of rights to a group of people because they are gay. You run into problems if your constitution says we are all equal except that those people over there aren’t equal. You would have to use a kind of legal logic that would put any identifiable class of people (blacks, Jews, women, immigrants, people who wear sharkskin suits) as potentially being “less equal.” And that doesn’t fly.
So even if the constitutional amendment is passed by the voters it may still be ruled unconstitutional. The religious zealots would then have to pass a constitutional amendment making equality null and void. I don’t think that they can get fifty percent on that one.
It will be interesting.
South of I-10
Despite all warnings to the contrary, my marriage did not instantly implode when the California ruling came down. Of course, Louisiana was one of the first to ban gay marriage. It seems to distract people from the disappearing coastline, horrible schools and corrupt politicians. Our legislature is currently debating many important things, like their own 200% payraise, cuts to Medicaid and education and whether the state drink should be the Sazerac.
The Grand Panjandrum
The Marry-A-Wealthy-Heiress-To-Hedge-Against-Inflation-Plan just doesn’t work for everyone. I guess we should just get off our lazy asses and find us one and all over our financial woes will over! Combine that with permanent tax cuts for the heiresses and … VOILA! Problem solved.
Marriage equality for all! THAT is a family value of the highest order.
Andrew
Keep those gay wedding planners away from my guns!
ThymeZone
The great document currently says nothing about who can marry, does it? Nor should it, since marriage is a creature of the church, and government has no business trying to define it.
Since lazy citizens let the law drift into the area of regulation of marriage, and let the practical aspects of taxation and other issues relevant to family law get tangled up with the church and religion parts, now we have a situation where the church interests have control over what government will allow in marriage. It’s an ugly and dysfunctional situation.
When we do the sensible thing and try to pry the marriage paradigm away from the legal rights paradigm, and call the latter “things that belong to Civil Unions”, the LG crowd complains that they are being cheated out of their right to have “marriage” and they won’t settle for the Civil Unions.
Thus does the LG crowd join the vast dysfunction, trying to have government put an imprimatur of approval onto their sentimental imperatives, just like the DOMA crowd is trying to do.
Result: The rights associated with Civil Unions are less important than the emotional and superstitious brainfarts of intellectually lazy people on both sides, none of whom want to confront the root problem: Government should be in the Civil Union business, and churches should be in the Marriage business, and never the twain should meet.
Had LGs adopted this sensible approach years ago they’d probably already have all the rights they should have, we would not have this idiotic DOMA “issue” clogging up the airwaves, and maybe the GOP would have been minus a phony “values” issue all these years and would have had to find another dog whistle for its zeal to harness bigotry.
But, no, and here we are. Fuck it. I don’t care any more. I’m straight, I’m a Democrat, and I just don’t give a shit about this issue any more. The people most affected by it don’t want to tackle the real problem, they just want Government Jesus to make them all happy. Okay, good luck with that, I don’t care. All we’ve managed to do is create yet another Less Filling Tastes Great debate that never ends and never solves anything, and gives shitheads political power they would not otherwise have. Great job, everyone.
The Other Steve
Interesting bit on CNN last night. They showed the crazy screaming Clinton supporter at the rules committee. Then they said, “But that’s not the full story, we went to talk to some Clinton supporters down in Florida” and they had a bit from this very calm lady who said “I understand what they did, and I thought it was the best solution. Obviously I still like Hillary, but I’ll vote for Obama in November.”
At least the media get’s it.
4tehlulz
That’s actually not true. SCOTUS already ruled that states don’t have to recognize marriages from other states if they don’t feel like it.
DOMA was still bullshit for a lot of other reasons.
croatoan
According to a recent Field Poll, a majority of Californians back gay marriage 51%-42%, but a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll says 54% oppose it.
The price of gas is a pain in the ass, but I hope Obama doesn’t promise to significantly lower it because I don’t think that’s realistic. We need to get off oil for environmental and national security reasons, and the high price is the only thing getting people’s attention.
PaulB
That’s not entirely accurate. No state, as far as I know, mentions any kind of religious requirement of any kind. The civil institution of marriage is indeed separate and distinct from the religious institution of marriage and nobody is required to obtain a religious sanction or religious ceremony of any kind.
What you are talking about is purely semantics and public perception, not law. That doesn’t mean it’s not a powerful force but it’s not a legal one.
As for the statement that “lazy citizens let the law drift into the area of regulation of marriage,” that wasn’t laziness; it was practicality. A society needs to have such issues as inheritance, power of attorney (both financial and medical), child care, and so on, as well-defined as possible.
They’re complaining because a) civil unions do not, in fact, offer the full set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities that marriage does, and b) “separate but equal” has been tried before and it has consistently and repeatedly failed. The back of the bus gets to its destination at the same time as the front of the bus but do you really want to be forced to sit there?
Um, no. This is completely false.
And, again, no. This, too, is false.
That’s your privilege. You’re entitled to your own opinion; you’re not entitled to your own facts. I suggest you re-read your post because what you are saying is both sloppy and factually incorrect.
ThymeZone
Ah, the sweet song of the pissing contest. Great.
While we’re at it, can’t we get Government Jesus to insist that churches ordain women as priests? If Government Jesus is our desired paradigm, then let’s let Him do all of his mighty work, and cast aside that silly idea of separation of church and state. Obviously, the Founders just fucked that one up.
I think we also need an amendment that prohibits people from marrying their pets. According to the Values Police, if we let men marry men then we might as well let them marry animals. Can’t have that.
Come on people, do you want Government Jesus to be your values police, or not? Don’t try to hedge the bet.
Xenos
I wonder what sort of support a referendum that would change the California Constitution to abolish referendums would receive. The rest of the country is disgusted with the constitution-by-popular-vote system that CA has – aren’t you all sick of it, too?
Grand Moff Texan
That’s not a democracy, that’s an ochlocracy: mob rule.
Inter-racial marriages were not supported by a majority of Americans until 1991.
1991.
Loving v. Virginia was 1967.
The courts can and do determine when popular laws conflict with our statements of state values, i.e., “constitutions.” This is the break on mob rule.
.
passerby
TZ said:
Yes!!
Without giving the issue any serious thought, society has adopted a willingness (viewing it even as a necessity) to jump thru GOVERNMENT/RELIGION-created hoops in order to gain…what?…acceptance? security? tax breaks? a sense of belonging?…what?
I made my attempt at marriage back in the 80’s and it’s just not for me.
Q: Why would fellow citizens be entitled to different taxation and economic and social advantages just because they have a license and some of us don’t???
Don’t wait for the US Govt. to give you permission to wake up along with giving you all the truth that you’re gonna need in order to do so.
T
ThymeZone
You can’t be serious. What else is law but the codification of opinion and semantics? We MAKE the law, out of semantics, and opinion.
So make it correctly. Keep the government out of bedrooms, and out of churches, and keep the churches out of the statehouses and the Capitol. Any attempt to have Government Jesus police these values issues is a mistake, has always been a mistake, and will always be a mistake.
That’s why the Founders drew a line. We should respect that line.
You are wrong.
PaulB
Unlikely. The various states, even without DOMA, were not, and are not, required to recognize marriages by other states when those marriages would be illegal in the state in question.
Teak111
Got two words for you as to why this proposition will pass in November:
Inland Empire
You may think Cali is a liberal state with Hollywood, SF, LA, and other elite coastal enclaves, but the Inland Empire is your basic White and Hispanic xtain and Catholic demographic who don’t care for the gay life style and are the majority in this fair state.
The only chance to defeat this proposition is that it is an amendment to the Cali Constitution and some may hesitate to go that far.
It will be close though.
Grand Moff Texan
Some people disagree, because they can’t handle the simple fact that, in the Great Puppet-Show of Life, it’s their hand that’s up the puppet’s ass.
So, they have to make up a Big Daddy in the Sky so they can blame all their stupid ideas on Him. Just can’t handle responsibility, I guess.
.
Wilfred
Ding dong the witch is dead:
PaulB
I not only can be, I am.
There is a difference between “semantics and opinion” and law. The law, in this case, is precisely what you claim you want — a civil recognition of a relationship between a couple that is completely free from any religious overtone or requirement.
With respect to marriage, that is precisely the situation we have today.
I have no argument with the sentiment but that’s not an accurate representation of the current legal state of affairs.
No, in fact, I’m not. I’m afraid that the errors are in your original post, not in my response.
PaulB
There are over one thousand rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with civil marriage. Without such a government institution and recognition, these same rights, privileges, and responsibilities would have to be regulated and adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, clogging the courts well beyond their capacity. In this case, what you are decrying is simple practicality.
cleek
Re: Clinton out.
believe it when i see it
Martin
Ed Helms covers gay marriage.
Jinxi
cleek,
I agree. Until then we can still hope this story is right .
passerby
PaulB said:
Dude, I’m inviting you to see the forest not the trees.
“there are over one thousand rights, prive…blah, blah, blah.”
Q to you: Why do you believe that life has to be this damn complicated?
T
zzyzx
Clinton’s camp is denying the concession but check out this quote from Ickles of all people:
That’s from First Read
Martin
CA has 33 million people. I’ll ballpark that 10% are gay. I’ll further ballpark that half of them are in long-term relationships that marriage is either a decision they have made or are on the verge of making. That’s 1.6 million weddings all about to hit in a short period of time. 1.6 million weddings planned by gay people. 1.6 million *historic* weddings planned by gay people. Do you have any idea how many hors d’oeuvres are about to be served? You don’t think this will affect your grocery bill?
PaulB
And I’m telling you that you cannot ignore the trees.
Actually, civil marriage simplifies things enormously, so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making. A simple signature on a license replaces quite a few documents requiring hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in attorney’s fees to prepare. In some cases, you can obtain or affect these things only through a marriage license (e.g., the immigration status of someone from another country).
passerby
Dude, I’m inviting you to see the forest not the trees.
And I’m telling you that I ignore the trees everyday.
As I am not involved in the morass of bureaucratic requirements and religious dicta that been woven into marriage over the ages.
I’m not asking you to adopt my view, I’m asking you to SEE my view.
T
BH-Buck
What are the differences between a marriage and a civil union?
Am I wrong in thinking it’s just a difference in “where” they are taking place?
wasabi gasp
If the ballot was expanded beyond banning marriage to also include the use of gay folks as projectiles to be dropped from aircraft on top of incoming Mexicans, how would that affect support? I think it would lose traction, but I can be a bit of a hopehomo.
Punchy
It’s being solved. Started in Mass, now in Cali, and soon to be in probably 20 of the 50 states within a decade (just my opinion).
Wonder if people made this type of comment in the 50s w/ respect to civil rights. Separate by equal! What could possibly be so wrong about that?!
PaulB
That’s your choice. It’s also a choice that may come back to bite you in the ass if you should ever become incapacitated. It’s also a choice that, if everyone made it, would clog the courts well beyond their capacity to handle, dealing with such issues as medical power of attorney, financial power of attorney, inheritance, and the like, all of which are currently handled by a simple signature on a license.
Since there is no “religious dicta” woven into a civil marriage, that’s a moot point. As for the “morass of bureaucratic requirements,” you have yet to demonstrate that such a morass exists.
I do. Where I draw the line is your assumption that your personal choice is the best choice for a society. It’s not. There are very good reasons for the existence of the civil institution of marriage.
BH-Buck
BTW, ThymeZone has it right (as usual)… this whole marriage business should have never been woven into the political process.
If top leaders keep pushing the idea that the word “marriage” has divine roots, then isn’t it about time marriage got the hell out of government?
One would think this is an area where the Church would actually try to back away from politics. (But I doubt they’d do anything to give up any power over the state they have)
passerby
BHBuck said:
The differences? I assert that they are purely semantic. Witnesses and signatures and governmental permission are NOT prerequisite to stable relationships.
Wasabi said:
LOL! I got a great mental image outta that.
T
ThymeZone
You guys are missing the point.
Once you give Government Jesus the power to police your “values” and your “lifestyle” you have already lost the game.
This entire issue is about one thing and one thing only: Power, and control. Who gets it, who can leverage it politically, and who wins and who loses.
Once you open the door to this, by (a) ignoring the line between church and state, and (b) asking Government Jesus to put his blessing upon your opinions and prejudices (you know, at the expense of someone else’s) you have created the scenario you have now.
When you hear people talking about judges “legislating from the bench” you are not hearing an intellectual dissection of the balance of power in government, you are hearing a pissing contest over who gets to control whom. Shift the behavior of the judges, and watch the support for judicial action shift right along with it, from right to left, or wherever. The desire for power and control will always trump intellectual integrity, and rightful application of government’s power.
The reason you have this phony “contest” over “values” and who shall marry whom is because the scolds, the Dobsonites (currently) have calculated that even though most people really dont care much if gays marry each other, there is just enough political capital out there to leverage votes by insisting that Government Jesus decide these things for you. If you take away Government Jesus’ power to do that, this contest goes away, and what’s left is the practical aspect of giving out tax and other legal incentives to people who want to form families. That works perfectly WITHOUT having the government decide who is godly enough to form a proper family.
But if you prefer the present state of affairs, then keep praying to Government Jesus. He will confer His blessings upon you, just have faith.
Xenos
All the difference in the world. This is the subject of a long argument among this blog’s commentariat, but at risk of starting it all up again I would say that marriage is a state institution with important rights and priveleges under federal law. Civil unions are second-class without a federal law giving civil unions the same status as marriages.
I can be a godawful bore on the issue, so I will leave it at that.
PaulB
You’re wrong on two counts. A civil union can take place in a church just as a marriage can, so there really isn’t any difference in where they take place.
The biggest difference, currently, is that those 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage I noted above are mostly federal rights (e.g., immigration, Social Security benefits, and the like). In addition to those, the civil institution of marriage has fairly substantial impacts outside local, state, and federal governments, as it affects the definition of “family” and thereby impacts such things as various employer benefits, memberships, and the like.
passerby
Your comment here, Paul, suggests to me that you live your life in the shadow of fear.
I have not assumed that my choice is the best for a society. I ask the QUESTION why. Why do people engage in all the hand wringing about who can do what and with whom?
While I believe there is far too much unconscious living going on, I do not intend to superimpose my way of life on others. If I influence opinion along the way? what harm.
T
ThymeZone
But, it should not be. That’s the point. Making it one creates the current situation, and accomplishes exactly nothing. If you can find a worse outcome for a set of laws than that, I’d like to see it. The screwing over of citizens for no other reason than that the majority can get away with it. And with the imprimatur of church and “religious” tradtion to go with it.
Absolutely absurd idea. Get rid of it.
Or, go all the way. Put the government squarely into the lifestyle and values business. Legislate all aspects of human behavior. Make the US a true theocracy. Don’t try to have it halfway and fight about it all the time.
Maybe the Taliban have the right idea after all? They can behead people for bad values behavior. At least they are totally upfront about their foolish use of government power.
w vincentz
TZ,
Well said!
Seems to me that the “righteous ones” always trot this out if they’re not focused on flag burning, or stem cell research, or what a woman can do with her own body.
Those issues are so far passed.
Duh, is there an illegal war going on? War criminals that need to go to trial? An economy in shambles?
Oh the diversions.
Let’s not talk about important issues, lets talk about the bullshit that allows the righteous to continue to set an irrelavant agenda and continue their deluded self-righteousness.
PaulB
No, I don’t think we are. You sure are missing my point, though.
Oh, please. First of all, can you drop the “Government Jesus” schtick? It’s wildly inaccurate and it’s annoying. Government recognition of a relationship, the civil institution of marriage, is not even remotely allowing the state to “police my ‘values’ and my ‘lifestyle’.” This is just silly.
It’s not even remotely that simple. I’m sorry you’re having so much trouble seeing that.
Except that this doesn’t even remotely describe “the scenario we have now,” particularly since the civil institution of marriage in no way “ignores the line between church and state,” nor does it put a “blessing upon our opinions and prejudices.” Again, this is a nonsensical appeal to emotion rather than looking at the actual facts.
Sigh…. Go ahead — tell me how the government is going to give out “tax and other legal incentives to people who want to form families” without actually defining what a “family” is, won’t you? Sorry, but you’re just not thinking this through.
Actually, I fully anticipate government recognition of same-sex marriage in quite a few states in my lifetime and in all states in my children’s lifetime.
BH-Buck
I read somewhere something about if politics were an automobile, Progressives would be the headlights and Conservatives the taillights.
That being the case, then the Church would be the parking break I suppose.
Or, more fitting, the reverse-only transmission?
passerby
TZ said:
To you I say Bingo! I share your view.
And, my question remains: Why have we fallen for this way of life and continue to discuss it as though there is no other way to exist as a society?
T
PaulB
Yes, actually, it should. In focusing on your own pet peeves, you’re ignoring the practical reasons for the existence of state recognition of relationships and the impact on society of removing such recognition.
Actually, it accomplishes one hell of a lot. Are you really having trouble understanding the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come with this relationship? And what would happen if the state did not recognize it?
Actually, I see a hell of a lot of positives associated with this and virtually no negatives, nor have you been able to provide any, other than these silly rants about “Government Jesus.”
Over and above the practicality argument, there’s another response you’re failing to consider: it’s not going to happen. Now, given that, what next?
Oh, please. I’m not even going to bother treating this seriously, nor that silliness about the Taliban. Come on; you can do better than this.
BH-Buck
And in the meantime?
When they wrote “all men are created equal”, they really should have added the “AND THAT MEANS TODAY, DAMNIT!” qualifier, or else many folk would think equality comes to some only in good time.
ThymeZone
Why? Can someone explain what the benefit is to society for having the government decide whether a man can marry a man, or can only marry a woman?
Unless you can show that benefit (oh, and superstitious and maudlin references to God and Bibles and things like that? Not allowed) …. then the codification of such things is undesirable, and should be eliminated forthwith.
Oh, you WANT the references to God and Bibles to be allowed? Well then, Katie bar the door, you have just thrown your entire American Experiment to the Dobsonites and the 700 Club.
So then don’t piss an moan about those “rights” you think you want, you already gave them away.
PaulB
ROFL…. I’m sorry, but that is so off-base that I can’t even remotely take that seriously. Do you consider anyone who saves for retirement as “living their lives in the shadow of fear?” Anyone who buys insurance as “living their lives in the shadow of fear?” Give me a break.
And we’ve been giving you the answers. You just don’t like them. The fact that you didn’t even know that there is more than a semantic difference between civil unions and marriages tells me that you have done no research, and no thinking, on this topic. Might I suggest you do so before you post next?
passerby
PaulB Said:
You possess an extraordinary amount of legal knowlwedge. Congratulations. But, it seems your rely too heavily on it in your discourse with others.
TZ does not “ignore the practical reasons for the existence of state recognition”, but goes right to its essence:
CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES.
C,mon Paul.
T
PaulB
Sigh…. We already have. Because it provides a mechanism for society to deal with such issues as medical power of attorney, financial power of attorny, inheritance, and the over one thousand other rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come with that license. What do you propose to replace that with?
See above.
Sigh…. Talk about your strawman arguments. Can you find anyone on this thread talking about “references to God and Bibles?” More important, can you find a single reference to “God and Bibles” anywhere on any license in any state or in any federal statute referencing the civil institution of marriage? Sheesh….
PaulB
Actually, I don’t. What I possess is some degree of common sense and a little time spent looking into these matters and thinking about them.
Not really, which is why I’m not providing specific statutes, definitions, and the like, focusing instead on simple, practical matters.
Yes, actually he does, since he continues to assert that there are no such practical reasons.
Oh, please. If there is such “CONTROL OVER OUR LIVES” granted by the civil institution of marriage, how have you managed to evade it? Just as is true with such things as insurance and the like, if you don’t want it, don’t get it, but please don’t pretend that it’s not there for a very good reason and that it doesn’t benefit a hell of a lot of people and society as a whole.
PaulB
And in the meantime, we do what we’re doing today — fighting for these civil rights just as other groups have done in the past. If the alternative is to live in a fantasy world where the government gets out of the marriage business, count me out, particularly when so much is tied to that institution.
No argument here.
Brachiator
It only adds to the irony here that Senator Clinton is arguing that her interpretation of popular will (her new math calculation that she has won the popular vote) should make her the presidential nominee.
But we are the founders of the country, dammit; that’s the whole point of a living Constitution that begins, “We the people.” The founders are not just the people who wrote it, but those who sold its merits in the Federalist papers, the citizens who ratified it, and those who continue to embrace its values.
And even though a later court ruling might reasonably conclude that the people cannot adopt an unconstitutional amendment, it would be better if the people of California reject this proposed amendment, which may very well be what happens.
Actually, sometimes it is precisely necessary for the legislature or the courts to get ahead of the beliefs of the majority of the citizens. That’s the whole point of Madison’s warning about the tyranny of the majority.
When laws against interracial marriage were struck down, for example, polls indicated that the majority of the people were for the status quo. And conservatives have been whining about activist courts ever since.
Huh?
By my reading, the court reached back to the beautiful logic of the 1948 case, Perez v Sharp, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. There the court did not try to define classes of persons, but simply said that all (adult) citizens have an inherent right to marry, and that it is up to the legislature or other body to come up with a compelling state interest to restrict that right.
So even if this proposed constitutional amendment gets a ton of votes, it will can easily be challenged on the ground that attempting to define marriage as only being between a man and a woman is in itself unconstitutional.
passerby
PaulB said:
To answer: yes, it’s so subtle as to go un noticed, but fear is what drives us to buy insurance, squirrel away money or food, get married…
Fear drives us to do a lot of things.
Become aware of what drives you.
T
Xenos
Arrghhh. Saying marriage is religious because a pope in Rome decided that Jesus providing the drinks at a wedding makes it a sacrament is like saying childbirth is religious because of christening ceremonies. I get your point, which is really more of an anti-marriage doctrine than anything else. Still, since the days of the the Puritan settlers churches have taken a back seat to the state when it comes to defining and regulating marriage.
And the Puritans were not doing anything novel, they were just reasserting the status quo ante before a totalitarian form of Anglicanism meshed with state authority under James I/VI.
Don’t give an inch to fundamentalist revisionist history. Not a goddam inch!
ThymeZone
Welcome to the good old Bj Cake and Eat it Too Club.
Here, you can get up on your little cardboard law degree or whatever, and preach about how marriage is a “state institution,” whatever the hell that means, and pretend as though you have not just given your store of rights and freedoms away to the scolds.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to have basic liberties in one corner of the square, and surrender similar liberties over in the other corner, and then sit here and tell me that this is right and proper.
Once you argue that Government Jesus dictates what a family is, or dicates that only Godly Behavior shall be allowed among citizens, or that a superstitious ritual like marriage is the officially recognized vehicle for government approval (you know, despite something like a 60% or greater failure rate among participants), then the game is over.
Apparently you like the game, more than you like proper outcomes. If you want a proper outcome, then you have to have proper rules for the game.
My idea of a proper rule is, leave people the fuck alone. If your law doesn’t do that and do it for some clearly urgent and compelling reason, then get rid of it. Get rid of all such laws.
I used to wonder why Libertarians went around pimpimg what appears to be a crazy view of government and law. Well, the reason is simple: The government goes around pimping a crazy view of government and law, and Libertarianism is simply a rational response to that. I don’t happen to be a Libertarian, but I can certainly understand why some people are. If marriage law is an example of what the American Experiment can produce, then in my opinion, the experiment might just be on the road to failure.
Asking government to regulate marriage is like asking government to regulate the balance between the races. If government can say that you can only marry certain people, then who decides what the basis is for the rule? Can blacks marry whites? Some people would say no. If those people gain political power, then it will be okay to proscribe interracial marriage? Such laws once existed in this country. If it was wrong to regulate that aspect of marriage, then what aspects of marriage is it right to regulate? Why?
Should felons be allowed to marry? How about illegal aliens? Or aliens in general? Should blondes be allowed to marry redheads? Who decides these things?
The only reason “gay marriage” is even an item for discussion is because we have bad law that tries to regulate marriage in the first place. It’s that simple.
What is a marriage, or a family? Why should the benefits of famlihood even be limited to just two people? Why wouldn’t a family core of three or more people be allowable? Who gave Government Jesus the power to carve peoples’ life units up into pairs?
PaulB
For two reasons:
1. You’re ignoring the very real benefits and practical reasons for the current state of affairs.
2. Your “other way to exist as a society” is just not going to happen, at least not in the next 100 years or so.
Look, if you want to do a thought experiment on what would happen if the government stopped supporting the civil institution of marriage and got rid of all of the laws that reference it, go for it. Tell me what you’re going to replace it with and talk about the costs and benefits to individuals and to society. It might actually be an entertaining and enlightening discussion. Just don’t make the mistake of taking the discussion too seriously, since your utopia is just not going to happen.
PaulB
LOL….. I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to take you seriously when you write nonsense like this.
passerby
Hey Paul, next time someone offers you a choice, you might want to try the red pill.
Since you find it impossible to understand me I’ll say buhbye for now.
Later.
T
w vincentz
TZ,
I agree with you.
I remember that until recently, oral sex was prohibited by law in some states.
The government has no business in a bedroom, nor in “victimless” crimes.
All the bullshit is a vainglorious attempt to justify.
Punchy
Wow. When TZ hits on what he thinks is some novel, catchy buzzword, he’s not afraid to use it. And use it. And use it. And use it. And never explain what the hell it means. But uses it again. And again.
Blue Raven
Bingo. And there’s a chance it’d also be simply illegal on the face of it. While the state of California allows its citizens to amend the state Constitution by the initiative process, we as a group are not permitted to revise it that way. A right guaranteed in the state Constitution being modified to say, “not yours” could be seen as a revision. Now that it’s qualified for the ballot, there may be an argument launched that it’s now in violation of state law. I don’t know if it’s possible to challenge an initiative in court before an election, but that will certainly figure in any court challenge filed against it if it passes.
Xenos
TZ-
You are arguing right past me here. Your point, as far as I can see it, is that the state should not be regulating personal relationships and establishing social norms. That is a pretty radical position, and an attractive one, although I can’t say that I am up for figuring out all ramifications of it.
The ‘Government Jesus’ has me completely confused. My point is that Jesus does not come into it, because marriage is a pagan institution, and that during the majority of Eutopean history it remained a pagan institution. Most of what is most valuable about our legal history is pagan – in fact our country is based on explicitly counter-Christian principles.
In arguing against ‘Gover
Xenos
(goddamm wordpress messing up my shit)
ooops…
The who’e ‘Government Jesus’ argument buys into the bullshite frame the Christianists use that critical social institutions are christian in origin. This has as much credibility as Creation ‘Science’.
OK, I get it, free love and all that. Be a hippy if you want. But don’t cede the structure of the debate to the dishonest shitheel authoritarians, becuase you will then lose that debate every time.
Chuck Butcher
jStates with the Initiative Process have varying rules about how they are done and what they can contain. OR has two classes, Legislative and Constitutional and each has rules. Some good things have come out of the process and some bad ones. One bad result is that we’ve turned into the wingnut test bed.
A Constitutional Initiative limited marriage to man and woman. Then a Constitutional Initiative created Civil Unions. They are not equal. In the man/woman fight the wingnuts claimed to have no problem with Civil Unions, now they do.
Marriage moved into government due to a governmental interest in the stability of inheritance, legitimacy, etc. The church never wanted to give up any of its authority in the matter. Today it still does not wish to. TZ is accurate in this respect. Changing the name of marriage won’t make spit difference, the church doesn’t want to let loose. (churchly interests) The marriage license and signatures are state interests and sufficient to make the marriage a fact. The church stuff is about some god recognizing the fact. No church was in any way involved in my marriage so I suppose some god disapproves, I’m entirely unconcerned. The churchly won’t mess with me, they will mess with the gay.
If you find yourself looking at laws that have something to do with morality rather than civil order you’ve just seen a red flag raised. Government by the very nature of its functions can’t be moral, not with out accepting as moral the use of force to implement general ends. TZ overstates the Taliban analogy, but the thrust is exactly correct and the nature of the power struggle cannot be ignored.
ThymeZone
Probably. I’m out to make a point, and I am probably staying on message like one of those goddam politicans we love to hate.
I will soon announce my candidacy for President of the Untied States.
My website is still under construction.
Meanwhile, I urge you to Pray to Government Jesus. Everybody is doing it, even the LGs. They want Govt Jesus to bless them. And they might eventually get there, but we’d be a lot better off without Govt Jesus at all.
We really need Govt Barney the Dinosaur. Govt Jesus should go fuck himself.
With that, I am done with this thread. I’ve been making this point here for years and I dont get paid enough for the work.
Tell all claimaints to step away from the Govt Jesus window before the ghost of James Madison comes in and rips them to shreds.
Meh, not that much. The Taliban is just an example of what you get when the values mongers and the scolds get total power. When Govt Jesus gets his rage on.
PaulB
And this differs from other discussions here how, exactly?
In order:
I don’t have a law degree and never claimed I did.
I’m not sure why you put “state institution” in quotes since civil marriage is, in fact, a state institution.
As to what it means, that’s not exactly a secret. Is there some confusion on your part?
In choosing to get married, I have given neither my rights nor my freedoms away to anyone, much less “to the scolds.” To the contrary, I have gained a considerable number of rights and privileges, as well as responsibilities, many of which I cannot get any other way.
Nor am I trying to. I’m simply telling you the way things are.
You have yet to tell me what “similar liberties” I have surrendered, much less explained how you propose to handle the more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities currently associated with a civil marriage.
Sigh…. More “Government Jesus” bullshit. It’s impossible to take you seriously when you resort to such empty rhetoric.
It doesn’t, so the point is moot.
LOL…. You still cannot deal with, much less accept, the fact that there are very practical reasons for the institution of civil marriage, can you?
And, again, complete nonsense. As I’ve noted above, the “outcome” in this case is very definitely “proper” – that there is an orderly and well-understood mechanism for dealing with the more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are associated with this institution. If you want to drop this, what are you going to replace it with?
We do. That does not mean that those rules are fixed and immutable.
The last time I checked, there is no law forcing you to get married, which means this bit of rhetoric is moot for this discussion.
As I said, that’s moot for this discussion.
Oh, please…. Thus far, you haven’t even been able to deal rationally with the issue of marriage, much less the broader notion of government support for such things as schools, roads, and the like.
Um, since “marriage law” is not even remotely an “American Experiment,” forgive me if I take this for the empty rhetoric that it is.
Um, no. That analogy is so bad that I’m not even going to bother responding to it.
And, again, no, it’s not. It’s not even remotely that simple. Official recognition of relationships is not only emphatically not “bad law,” it’s critical that it exist, something that you still seem to have trouble wrapping your head around.
ThymeZone
Bite it, you jealous little cockroach.
PaulB
ROFL…. Um, I’m not the one denying reality here.
Unfortunately for you, I understand you all too well. I will simply note that you have completely avoided all the points I made and have done absolutely nothing to support your views with anything resembling logic, reason, or data.
ThymeZone
Nope. Sorry, but no church-designed, church-approved, church-enforced construct is necessary to achieve that end. Nor is any set of artificial constraints on the gender, religion, sexual preferences, race, color or creed or any other attirubute, necessary in order to achieve it.
It’s just the way it HAS been done. It doesn’t have to be done that way, and should not be done that way. Government should not be in the marriage business, period.
Eventually, it won’t be. But thanks to fools like you, that will take a long damn time.
ThymeZone
I’d allow that it’s desirable, not that it’s critical.
However, that misses the point. What’s not critical is that the recognition be encased in the amber of traditional church marriage models, or any external or artifical models of approved behavior which have NO bearing on the imperatives that drive the very requirement you are defending. You can remove the man-woman imperative today and have NO EFFECT on the desirability of the recognition in any real sense.
That’s my point. Thanks for doing everything in your limited power to avoid getting it. Recognition? Sure, civil unions take care of that. Approval? That’s where marriage comes in. “Marriage” is about approval. Not about organizing rights and legal structures.
ThymeZone
Actually, it is exactly the right analogy, completely apt, and it puts the subject in exactly the right light.
Asking people to behave in a particular way WRT their gender is about as wrong for a government to be doing as you can imagine. Unless the issue is childbirth, which is not the case here, gender constraints should be just about nonexistent in this area of the law.
Look at it this way? If not for the desire to be sex police, and gender police, what purpose does “marriage” serve in law that cannot be served by “civil union?”
I’ve seen it said here that this marriage involvement is “critical.” Okay, prove it. What’s critical about it? Why does organization of rights need to be arranged around it? Why does a particular pagan ceremony need to be performed over the couple in order to make the law work?
PaulB
Sorry, but he’s right. It’s a meaningless, nonsensical phrase that has no bearing on this discussion. It adds heat, not light.
We get it, TZ, you don’t want the government to define relationships. Fine. Then what are you going to replace it with? Until you can answer that question, and thus far you have completely evaded it, we cannot have a serious discussion.
There are multiple practical reasons why governments everywhere and every time have officially recognized relationships, reasons that have not one damn thing to do with religion or with an idiotic “Government Jesus,” whatever the hell that is. If you want to get rid of the institution, then how you are you going to deal with the literally hundreds of thousands of issues that will arise on a daily basis across the entire country, issues that are currently handled by that official institution?
ThymeZone
Heh. If you mean not agreeing with you that something completely articial and unnecessary is somehow necessary, mainly because you say so, and then building a whole worldview on that premise, then, you are right. We do not agree on what the reality is here.
Fine with me, I stand on what I have said.
“The law is this, therefore the law must be this.”
Okay, got it. Thanks, you’ve given me a lot to think about. Meanwhile, I have to go take a big Cheney.
Xenos
Captain Pedant swings in, unbidden, to the rescue. The historical sequence is more like this (English history version):
traditional/customary/’common law’ pagan marriage –> state marriage (codification of common law marriage by pagan states and early christian states) –> religious marriage instituted in parallel with state marriage, regulated by Catholic Canon Law –> rejection of legal effect of religious marriage (Henry VIII and all that).
In each country the sequence varies a bit. In France it was Napoleon who reintrocuced the supremacy of the Civil Code, in Mexico it was the revolutionary government, and so on. There may be some western countries where religious authorities maintain religious control over marriage, aside from The Vatican, but such a state of affairs has never existed in the US or in the colonies (Maryland may be an exception there, don’t know about that).
Our situation is not at all analogous to the Taliban, which was a theocracy. Our only theocracy, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was run by theocrats that rejected the sacrament of marriage.
ThymeZone
Uh, as stated a gazillion times here over the last 3.5 years, by recognition — the thing you hold dear — of the unit of family, whatever we, the people, at our discretion, decide a family to be as we see fit. If the unit must meet certain conditions that are directly and immutably relevant to the purpose of recognition, fine, as long as those conditions are not based on religious, superstitious, emotional, or judgmental grounds of required approval by some external authority.
In other words, (very large sigh), the civil union, as redefined in the brave new world where the law needn’t cling to religious approval for its power.
PaulB
Oh, nonsense.
And if the civil institution of marriage were doing that, you might have a point. Since it doesn’t, you don’t.
And you regard this as sufficient reason to discard the institution altogether, rather than simply modifying it as was done in California and Massachusetts? Wow….
The civil institution of marriage is, essentially, what you are asking for — a civil union. Religion does not enter into it.
For the record, what, precisely, is it that you’re arguing? That every state should simply call their civil marriages civil unions? Even assuming that this was not pure fantasy, what purpose would that serve?
Sigh…. You’ve already got your answer, several times, in fact, you just don’t want to deal with it. There has to be some mechanism for dealing with the more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are currently associated with that civil contract. If not civil marriage, what do you propose we use instead?
You do realize that no ceremony, pagan or otherwise, is required for the civil institution of marriage, don’t you? Do you really not understand this?
Again, if not the civil institution of marriage, then what?
ThymeZone
Oh dear, the “We’ve always done it that way” argument.
I didnt see that coming. Okay, you win.
PaulB
So you would require each person and family to individually set up those more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that are today provided by the institution of civil marriage? Have you lost your mind?
LOL…. In other words, you want what we currently have today.
In other words, (very large sigh), precisely what we have today, since the civil institution of marriage does not need to “cling to religious approval for its power.” You still cannot get your head wrapped around the fact that these are two separate, and entirely distinct matters, can you?
PaulB
ROFL…. Since that’s not even remotely what I said, forgive me if I don’t take this strawman argument any more seriously than the rest of your ill-informed rants.
You want to abolish the civil institution of marriage. I’m willing to concede that. Now what are you going to replace it with? That’s not a “we’ve always done it that way” argument; it’s a “put up or shut up” argument.
Yup, but not for the reasons you think.
ThymeZone
Oh Jesus NMYM. It’s the symbolic value. If nobody care what a marriage is, then why are the Dobsonites asking for DOMA? The M they are trying to D is the official “godly” version. Not the “sign here, you are married” version.
Sure, if you can turn legal “marriage” into totally non-religious, non-sexpoliced union by fiat, of course problem solved, and you get national gay marriage the next day.
But you can’t precisely because the Dobsonites insist on a legal view of marriage bound to a religious one. Their entire model of this is based on that.
ThymeZone
But that’s exactly what I am taking you to say.
The entire reason this “controversy” exists is because the laws of marriage are bound to church marriage. That “this is the way it has always been” argument is the cornerstone of the DOMA argument.
Therefore, I argue, throw that out. Take away the binding between religous and marriage. Make it nothing more than a legal arrangement, entirely and completely.
The reason you want to take the label “marriage” off it is because that label is part of the scheme that is used to bind the thing to religion. Remove the link. Take away that symbolism. Make the union truly a thing only of civil law and nothing more. If we had that, we’d be done.
Xenos
And PaulB, some of the TZ comments, in particular those about cardboard law degrees were directed to me, not you. As part of my cardboard law degree I did an internship with the AG office that defended (and lost) the Massachusetts gay marriage case. Thus did I become a certified internet expert on the history of marriage law.
TZ’s radical position regarding personal relationshiops has a long history too, but I will let him expound on that as he sees necessary. He seems to prefer to rant at me than to admit historical fact, however. In case, I’ve got an ambulence to chase.
PaulB
Of course there’s symbolism and emotional baggage associated with the word “marriage.” Nobody, least of all me, is denying that. It’s precisely that baggage, though, that renders your proposed solution, whatever the hell it is, moot.
And another strawman. I never said that nobody cared what a marriage is. What I said was the religious and civil institutions are separate, that you do not need a religious ceremony or approval from any religious figure to obtain the civil institution, that the civil institution doesn’t even mention the religious institution or religion. Are you prepared to quarrel with any of these assertions?
That is precisely what is happening, one state at a time, and the final outcome is not really in doubt. My opinion is that this process, slow and painful as it is, is at least doable. Replacing the civil institution of marriage with the civil institution of “foo” is not. Nor does the civil institution of “foo” solve the problems you claim you’re bothered by, because the civil institution of “foo” will still need to define precisely what relationships are eligible for “foo,” which puts you right back where you started.
Why should I care what the Dobsonites think? They are dinosaurs who are gradually being replaced by people who fundamentally disagree with them and are perfectly happy to add same-sex couples to the list of relationships recognized by the civil institution of marriage.
ThymeZone
I am talking about making marriage entirely secular. And I am also saying, you have to call it something else in order to make that work, because we are dealing with people who have been described on these pages as believing that God hid dinosaur bones in the ground to test their faith. That’s why you have to rename the thing. If you call it marriage, they think it’s blessed by Jesus.
If you play the game with their words, they have the game rigged in their favor.
PaulB
Your failure to comprehend plain English is now my problem?
Nope, sorry. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
So? I’m not arguing for or against DOMA and I haven’t even remotely made a “this is the way it has always been” argument. Had I done so, I’d have written something like: “We should keep the civil institution of marriage because this is the way we have always done it.” Instead, I wrote: “You want to abolish the civil institution of marriage. I’m willing to concede that. Now what are you going to replace it with?”
So far, you seem to be having trouble dealing with that question. I guess it’s a lot easer to knock down strawmen.
As I noted above, repeatedly:
1. It already is.
2. Calling it “foo” wouldn’t solve a damn thing.
3. Calling it something other than marriage isn’t going to happen.
PaulB
Ah, I had missed that. Thanks for the clarification.
Xenos
FWIW, the words “wife’ and ‘husband’ are Anglo-Saxon in origin, and without religious significance. Do you object to them?
ThymeZone
Because they and their friends are the ones fighting this, and because the Republican party has leveraged that into a powerful political coalition in their favor.
Your argument seems to be that none of this matters, and that the battle has already been won.
Mine is that the entire battle has been a waste of time, it’s been over semantics, not the realities of law, and it has clouded the real issues facing families. People with narrow views still dictate what the law can recognize as a family. If that’s not the case, then can you point me to where three people can form a union and be legally recognized? There isn’t one? Why not? Why should a family core unit be limited to two people? What’s the different between that stupid limitation, and the one that basically says that a legal family exists only when the two parties can copulate and make babies, because that’s what God intended?
ThymeZone
Sorry, I should have said Parchment.
My bad.
Xenos
A quick check of an online Anglos-Saxon dictionary indicates all the words relating to marriage and weddings use the root term ‘bryd’ (bride), which itself indicates and owned and enslaved woman. So maybe this is not such a fruitful line of inquiry after all.
ThymeZone
I am. I am arguing strongly against it. In every possible permutation of it, for any reason.
1. I don’t agree. Where are the gay marriages?
2. Calling it what it is, instead of something phony, is good sense and good law and good politics. The family unit is not some gadget invented by Popes. It’s whatever ordinary people can agree that it is.
3. Then you are stuck with the present situation indefinitely. A patchwork of laws and rules not unlike what you had with abortion before Roe v Wade. But this time, SCOTUS is not coming to the rescue.
ThymeZone
Well, I don’t know. You could create a whole new industry.
ThymeZone
Asked and answered, my 3:08 post.
Others can judge whether my answer is dispositive. You, meh. You will just keep recycling the same talking points.
“Ain’t gonna happen.” Got it. Really, I have your meaning.
ThymeZone
Yes. They imply a single model of a family unit. They are control words.
This whole question is about control. Remove the control words, call things what they are, make the law represent the bare truth of it. The legal union is about recognition, it should not be about control.
Ignore the words at your peril.
Rome Again
TZ, you’re doing a good thing here, but, few others will see things as we do. I am so glad you do see it, but, we are a man and a woman “before our time”.
I can only hope people will figure this out in a future someday down the road. I have little faith that the idea will catch on anytime soon. Probably not in my lifetime.
ThymeZone
Did I forget to set my clock ahead?
:)
PaulB
So? They were just as adamantly opposed to civil unions as they are to same-sex marriage and would be just as adamantly opposed to the creation of the new civil “foo” institution. They are irrelevant to this discussion because they will object to everything.
Not quite. My arguments are:
– that getting rid of a state-recognized institution is not practical
– that renaming that state-recognized institution to something else is just not going to happen
– that if it did happen, it still wouldn’t solve the problem since the state would still have to decide which relationships could and could not be recognized as “foo”
– that the battle is being won, slowly but surely.
I’m afraid that what you’ve been arguing is kind of all over the map since you don’t really have any concrete proposals as to what to replace the civil institution of marriage with, nor any evidence that anyone would accept changing the name of the civil institution to something else.
Not really. Nobody is pushing for the civil institution of “foo” for the simple reason that it would never be accepted, at least not any sooner than same-sex marriage would be. And abolishing any state-recognized relationship is just not practical, given the more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with that recognition.
So? Why would you expect that to change when we rename it to “foo?” There will still be the same people and they will still have the same narrow views. Renaming this doesn’t change that at all.
Xenos
TZ – read Samuel Delany much? I would recommend ‘Stars in my Pockets Like Grains of Sand’. The use of language gets a bit odd, but it works. It took me half the book to figure out that ‘woman’ designates the beloved person, and both sexes take the male gender when in the active voice, and the group marriages are mainly economic syndicates.
PaulB
So? What does that have to do whether I am making an “it’s always been this way” argument, which is the context of my remark?
In Massachusetts and California. But what does have to do with whether the civil institution of marriage is directly tied to the religious institution?
The last time I checked, calling it a civil marriage is not only not “phony,” it rather pithily describes precisely what it is.
Guess what? It already is. “Ordinary people” have agreed to call it “marriage.” By all means, feel free to take up the cause of calling it something else. It won’t get anywhere but maybe tilting at windmills is your thing.
Really? The last time I checked, Massachusetts and California both recognized same-sex marriage. And New York does, as well, albeit only marriages performed in other states.
That would be the case for your proposed solution, as well, so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making. As I said, this is happening, slowly but surely, and the outcome is not in doubt. I’m just not seeing any groundswell of opinion, anywhere, to rename the civil institution of marriage to “foo.”
ThymeZone
I got your gay marriage right here.
And here.
But really, words don’t matter. If you don’t believe me, just read the thread.
PaulB
In other words, precisely what we have now. Got it.
ThymeZone
Of this, I am thoroughly convinced.
Another spear into my heart.
PaulB
And your point is, what, exactly? Do you really believe that those opposed to same-sex marriage would not be just as opposed to the civil institution of “foo?” That they would blithely let you “redefine” their “marriage” and not raise a massive protest?
Currently, we have two states that recognize same-sex marriages, with an almost certain more on the way in the next ten years. How many states recognize your preferred choice?
PaulB
ROFL…. Whatever….
ThymeZone
Precisely what I said two years ago. And will say two years from now.
By tangling the issue up in coded, hot button words and symbolism, advocates for change empower the defenders of the status quo and turn a really basic matter of civil law and citizen rights into a “values” and “morals” battle that calls upon ignorance, superstition and bigotry to provide the fuel for the contest.
Pointing to Mass and CA as examples of the future is a bit of wishful thinking. I’m afraid that our friends in most of the other states are screwed as a result.
But hey, this is America, where symbolism always triumphs over practicality.
Rome Again
Unfortunately. This, as I see it, is the cause of so many problems in this country.
ThymeZone
Noo, I believe that when we call things what they are and take away the handy symbolism and religous overtones of the opposition’s chosen nomenclature, they lose, their power is drained away and the truth is revealed. The truth is that “marriage” is just a label, and if it is being used by demagogues to hold onto an old and bigoted view of the world and law, then just take it away. It serves no purpose whatever.
Your argument sounds to me like suggesting that we lose the ice cubes if we stop called our thing in the kitchen an “icebox” and start calling it a “refrigerator.” America is all about change, that’s the whole point of America. Clinging to old labels and old paradigms is dumb.
Toss this one out. It has outlived its usefulness. Let the bigots have their “marriage between one man and one woman.” Let the law reflect what people want to do. You can have both. It ain’t rocket science.
PaulB
Had I said that, you might have a point. Since I didn’t, this is just another of your eternal strawmen, without which you cannot seem to have a discussion. We’d get a lot further if you would actually read what I write instead of filtering it and modifying it first.
As for “reality,” I wasn’t the one who asserted that there was no difference between civil unions and marriage or that it would be easy to change the definition of “marriage” to something else.
No shit, Sherlock. I love how you seem to believe that Dobsonites who are so adamantly opposed to allowing same-sex marriage would stand by while you blithely rename the civil institution of “marriage” to something else.
ROFL…. See above about strawmen.
Unfortunately, I fear that I have not, through no fault of my own. C’est la vie. I imagine I’ll get over the disappointment.
ThymeZone
That one, right on the top of your little head?
PaulB
And your point is, what, precisely? That the rest of America isn’t jumping on your bandwagon and will not jump on your bandwagon in your lifetime? Why would this come as a surprise to you?
Sigh…. Man, you have issues, you know that? This statement of events is just absurd, not to mention completely disconnected from reality. The advocates for change, in this case, are getting precisely what they have asked for, albeit at a far slower pace than they would wish. And they are not even remotely using “values,” “morals,” “ignorance,” “superstition,” or “bigotry” in the fight, which is why you cannot support this silliness.
Not even remotely. Twenty, even ten, years ago, neither of us would have envisioned that we would have state-recognized same-sex relationships at this time. Now we have a dozen states that officially recognize these relationships, two of which have granted the full rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage, to the extent that they are able.
The trend is continuing, as poll after poll indicates that the younger generation isn’t even remotely as hung up on this issue as is the older generation. Pretending that this will not eventually happen nationwide is the real “wishful thinking.”
Until their states grant the same recognition or are forced to by the Supreme Court.
The only problem is that you keep bringing up the Dobsonites, as though that’s a point in your favor. Since you have just conceded that they would be just as adamantly opposed to your solution, they are irrelevant to this discussion.
As I’ve noted above, it would be a lot easier if you would actually read what I write instead of simply making shit up. I’ve stated my arguments above and none of them even remotely resemble this shit.
Unless those “old labels and paradigms” serve a useful purpose.
Is it really so hard for you to grasp that it already does?
Nor is it rocket science to find quite a few objections to this approach, objections you have yet to deal with.
PaulB
Thank you for conceding.
Rome Again
TZ, you’re arguing with someone who will never get it. Quit taxing your brain. You’ve made your points, changing his mind is impossible.
PaulB
ROFLMAO…. Oh, the irony….
PaulB
For the record, I do indeed “get it.” TZ is arguing that we should completely and irrevocably sever any ties between the religious institution of marriage and the civil institution of marriage. And the most effective way to do this is to not only change the name but to also change at least some of the hidebound traditions associated with the institution, most notably whose relationships can be recognized, the subject of this thread.
TZ further argues that taking this step offers multiple benefits, including removing a bunch of emotional baggage, allowing for “non-standard” relationships, and taking away the power of the institution from those religious Neanderthals who currently guard it so jealously and zealously.
For the record, I do not disagree with any of that.
Darkrose
It’s possible, but unlikely. It all depends on how it’s framed–and on whether or not the court grants the stay.
If they don’t, then by November, same-sex marriage will have been a reality for six months. Those of us against the measure can point at the amount of state money that will be needed to untangle all of that. There’s also the money that’s going to be coming in to the state, for the florists, wedding planners, caterers, jewelers….
In the end, given the serious issues that the state is facing, I think there’s a good shot to convince people that amending the state constitution so that my girlfriend and I can’t get married is a huge waste of time and energy.
Rome Again
Thanks for conceding.
ThymeZone
Im sorry, the one we have now? Or some imaginary one in the future?
I am arguing that a hostile SCOTUS is one of the biggest obstacles here. The trend in the states appears to be towards DOMA shutdowns.
New York, not exactly a bastion of rightwing conservatism.
Good luck with your viewpoint. I think you are wrong, but the bottom line on that is, as I said in my first post to this thread, I dont care any more, really. Fuck it, fuck the whole contest. If we sit by and let the framers of laws call things by names that emopower them to craft unfair and unreasonable laws, and pretend that it doesnt matter, and then spend the next 25 years arguing over it, then we aren’t doing a very good job.
A better job can be done by starting with the premise that we can take a clean sheet of paper, and draw laws from scratch the represent the present reality using words that frame the present reality.
Or, you can have a decades-long pissing contest over whether gay people should get “marriages” or not, when they could have had the rights and benefits without using that word. In fact, the whole issue could have been an opportunity to liberate all of us, not just gays, from anachronistic models of marriage and families, but instead we are apparently descending even deeper into the anachronisms as we speak. My hunch is that gays dont care about real reform, they just want to win a symbolic contest, which is, sadly, exactly what their opponents want too. Each side thinks it is getting what it wants from a useless fight that was really never necessary.
Darkrose
I absolutely agree that everyone should have civil unions, and if you want a marriage, that’s between you and your religious authorities. The problem is that it’s not the “marriage” label that’s the issue for the most rabid fanatics. Their problem is with the whole idea of societal acceptance of homosexuality. They’ll fight anything that advances the notion that GLBT people are just like everyone else and aren’t horrific deviants and gender traitors.
Several of the state DOMA’s include language barring not only same-sex marriage, but “any relationship designed to approximate marriage”. In Michigan, the fanatics went to court to make sure that the state couldn’t offer domestic partner benefits. Think about that for a minute: these people don’t even want a gay professor at U of M to be allowed to get health benefits for his partner. At that point, it’s not about the terminology, and no matter what you call it, the people fighting equality so strongly won’t be happy until all the queers are back in the closet where we belong.
ThymeZone
Well, but it is when they own the terminology.
The terminology is rigged to underpin their power in this contest.
By calling it marriage, they can beat their chests about “the sanctity of marriage” as a basis for their claims.
But if you call it something else, and marriage is stripped of its Govt Jesus Stamp of Approval, and becomes just a church ceremony which you are welcome to have, and enjoy fully, but has no legal authority other than the fact that it gets your license signed and you agree that you are a legal family unit, then their power to beat you down with their phony argument is gone, just like that.
Let them call it whatever they want in their community. But make the law call it what is best for society as a whole, which is something else. The law belongs to us, so let us write it as we see fit. Change the legal marriage certificate to say Legal Union Certificate and let the church provide the fancy Marriage Certificate. Let the Dobsonites call all of this whatever the like, who cares?
Once the legal foundation for the bigoted version is removed, the problem starts to go away. The people who want “marriage” can have one, and the people who just want to live together and have a legally recognized union can have that, and everyone is fine.
What’s tragic here is that the LGs seem to want the “marriage” word as much as the idiots don’t want them to have it. All this wrangling, over a word.
For more on that, talk to PaulB. It’s his battlegroud, and he thinks it’s all just fine.
I don’t. But hey, that’s just me.
PaulB
LOL…. Um, did you, perchance, actually read any of what I’ve written above? My objections to TZ’s arguments are practical, not philosophical. I didn’t concede anything because I wasn’t arguing about the philosophy.
Rome Again
Why does marriage have to be about religion? Marriage is about two people who love each other wanting to make an official statement that they intend to live together and love each other and face the struggles of the world together. What is religious about that?
So if two atheists (a man and a woman) marry, does this mean they are not truly married because they are not religious?
Rome Again
Call a dog a goat, it’s still a dog.
You said:
For the record, I do indeed “get it.” TZ is arguing that we should completely and irrevocably sever any ties between the religious institution of marriage and the civil institution of marriage. And the most effective way to do this is to not only change the name but to also change at least some of the hidebound traditions associated with the institution, most notably whose relationships can be recognized, the subject of this thread.
TZ further argues that taking this step offers multiple benefits, including removing a bunch of emotional baggage, allowing for “non-standard” relationships, and taking away the power of the institution from those religious Neanderthals who currently guard it so jealously and zealously.
For the record, I do not disagree with any of that.
TZ argued practicality as well, and you’re calling it philosphical doesn’t change it one iota. You agreed, and you stated so. You also stated you believe it to be practical, which it is. You conceded.
Rome Again
Sorry I didn’t close the blockquote. The last paragraph is of course mine.
PaulB
The one we have in the future, of course, just as did the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. I strongly doubt that the current Supreme Court would be willing to take that step.
That trend has basically ended and the pendulum has started swinging back, or haven’t you been paying attention?
Given your comments thus far, I doubt you have the foggiest idea what my viewpoint actually is. Certainly, you have not been able to even come close to summing up my arguments, much less responding to them.
Uh-huh…. that’s why you’ve spent so much time and written so much crap here. Because you “don’t care any more, really.”
And in an ideal world, you might have a point. This isn’t an ideal world and your “better job” has no chance of happening.
Complete bullshit. Not only do civil unions not even come close to the full set of “rights and benefits,” but they have been opposed almost as strenuously as same-sex marriage. It’s just foolish to pretend that we can magically create a new “foo” relationship overnight, that all states will recognize it, and that nobody will protest when you add same-sex “foo” relationships.
Oh, garbage. The very act of opening up “marriage” to same-sex couples is forcing people to think about the fundamental definition of a “family.” It isn’t anywhere close to the utopia you apparently envision but it’s foolish to pretend that we are “descending even deeper.”
Wow…. Just, wow…. If you mean, by not caring about “real reform” that they don’t agree with you, then hell yes, they don’t care about “real reform,” nor have you given them any reason to do so. Instead, they are slowly but sure achieving precisely what it is they actually do want, and it sure the hell isn’t “symbolic.”
More bullshit. What they have been achieving in quite a few states now is far more than just symbolic.
And, again, bullshit. There is no way in hell that you would be able to redefine the civil institution of marriage without an even worse fight than is taking place now. The fight was necessary either way, nor have you provided even one shred of evidence that it is not.
PaulB
No, actually he didn’t. He simply asserted, without any supporting evidence of any kind, that we could redefine “marriage” and that everything would be sweetness and light and that same-sex couples would already have everything they want. It was a silly assertion, wholly unsupported by anything resembling logic, reason, or evidence. My statement of agreement with TZ is that, given an ideal world, I’m in favor of his approach. The last time I checked, we don’t live in an ideal world.
ROFL…. Really? Do tell. I have a feeling that, like TZ, you are having trouble reading what I write. Nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else, for that matter, would I ever say that what TZ proposes is “practical,” for the simple reason that it is not. There is simply no way that the U.S. voters will accept the redefinition of the civil institution of “marriage” at this time.
And, even if they were prepared to do that, they’d fight just as hard as they are today to prevent same-sex couples from enjoying the recognition of that newly-defined whatever-it-is, just as they would fight against other non-traditional relationships. We don’t live in an ideal world and what TZ proposes is a non-starter. I would vote for it; damn near everyone else would vote against it.
The utopia that TZ envisions is not only not “practical,” given today’s environment, it’s stupid.
Only in your fantasies.
PaulB
Yup. Just as polygamy and other non-traditional relationships would be just as problematic to them, not to mention that they would fight tooth and nail to continue calling the civil institution “marriage,” since that really would be “redefining marriage.”
I have no idea why TZ seems to think that it would be easier to take that rather dramatic step than the current approach of fighting for civil rights one state at a time, particularly given the complete absence of any evidence to support that opinion. Every statement he’s made about the difficulties in obtaining same-sex marriage applies doubly to his approach.
PaulB
Sorry, but you’re not going to be able to take it away from them.
That’s reality; deal with it.
And slowly but surely, as we’ve seen with respect to same-sex marriage, they are losing.
Except that it’s not, of course. They would use exactly the same arguments they are using today. And it doesn’t make one whit of a difference that the arguments would be just as phony then as they are now.
Not going to happen.
It already written as “we” see fit. You just don’t like that definition. For that matter, I don’t either, which is why I’m working to change it.
Again, not going to happen.
It’s the only game in town. Your approach would gather even more resistance and would be even tougher to pass which is why nobody is seriously pushing for it. If the LG community wants the real benefits, as compared to empty symbolism, and losing symbolism at that, they have no choice. It’s rather foolish to pretend otherwise.
I think that given the reality out here in the real world, as compared to that fantasy utopia of yours, we’re doing okay — certainly better than I would have expected ten years ago. Your little fantasies are just that — fantasies.
Brachiator
Meanwhile, the Greeks are sneaking gay marriage in through the back door (First Greek gay marriages spark judicial battle).
PaulB
I was mulling this over last night, a bit curious as to why I was reacting so strongly to TZ’s posts. The conclusion I reached was that not only did I believe his viewpoint to be borderline delusional but that his statements on this thread are insulting and offensive to the members of the gay community who have fought so long and so hard on this issue.
Case in point:
Think about that statement. If the gay community had just adopted TZ’s approach of completely redefining the civil institution, they would “already have all the rights they should have.” This is the “delusional” part I mentioned above. More on that below.
But that isn’t the worst of it, since TZ goes on to say:
and:
Since the gay community doesn’t “care about real reform” and they “don’t want to tackle the real problem,” and they are more concerned with “symbolism” than they are with real civil rights, TZ is refusing to support them and he’s going to take his ball and go home. It’s *their* fault that they don’t yet have the full set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with the civil institution of marriage, so fuck ’em. I wonder if TZ really doesn’t understand just how ignorant and offensive that viewpoint is? It certainly irritated me.
PaulB
Regarding the “delusional” aspect I noted above, there are a few points worth considering. The first is the TZ’s assertion that all it takes to defeat the rightwing ideologues is to rename the civil institution to something else, that when we do so:
That’s just delusional thinking, to pretend that those who currently oppose same-sex marriage are just going to stand by and let you redefine the civil institution state by state without a protest. Even if you could find a single state legislator, anywhere, willing to submit a bill doing this, it would be shot down in a heartbeat. And even if it weren’t, the very next step would be the submission of a DOMA equivalent referendum overturning the legislation.
The arguments of the “Dobsonites” are completely bogus *today* and yet they’ve ridden those arguments to victory in quite a few states, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those bogus arguments would not equally apply and be equally powerful to TZ’s preferred solution.
Hence, TZ’s proposed “solution” is nothing of the sort. It’s a non-starter anywhere in this country, which is why nobody is getting behind it and why the gay community has not adopted this approach. Even worse, the arguments that TZ has made about the current state of affairs apply equally to his own preferred solution:
Patchwork of inconsistent laws? Check. You’d have to do this state by state, just as is being done with same-sex marriage.
Overwhelming resistance to this change? Hell, yes! Even worse, you’d have to basically get two changes through in one go: redefining the civil institution *and* expanding it to include “non-traditional” relationships.
Government definition of, and support for, various relationships? Check. It doesn’t matter whether you call it “foo” or “marriage.” The statute would still have to define precisely which relationships can and cannot be given “foo” status.
A “decades-long pissing contest?” Check. There is just no way that you’re going to get every state legislature and the federal government to redefine the civil institution without it.
Given all of this, none of which TZ has even tried to refute, why on earth should the gay community, or anyone else, for that matter, adopt TZ’s approach?