This is certainly good news:
Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.
Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.
I’m sure we’ll be subjected to outrage from the right. Why does this stuff always happen during election cycles? Oh, right, because we’re always in an election cycle.
Feel free to post silly right-wing overreactions to this in the comments.
rachel
Heh. Maybe my cousin can finally marry his lover. They’ve been engaged long enough.
rob!
with teh gays taking over both coasts, that means normal, hard-workin’, gun-lovin’, bush-votin’ heteros in the center of the country–Nebraska, Kansas, etc–have the longest time left to cherish their lifestyle.
enjoy it, fellas, because as well all know once you have gay marriage, regular marriages just stop working.
r€nato
Gay marriage is the Nazi slave labor camp of the Right.
But don’t you dare call it, “the Nazi death camp of the Right”, because that would be really over-the-top.
The Other Steve
Damn gays forcing their gay marriages on us hard working white folks!
dr. bloor
You bet. I can’t wait til teh gayz get hitched, so I can start screwing my secretary.
Bob In Pacifica
A poll came out in the last couple of days that says that Californians now support same-sex marriage (as opposed to a poll release at the same time as the decision).
Plus, there is discussion that the anti-same sex state constitutional amendment is on its face unconstitutional. The Cal Supreme ruling said that sexual preference is a “suspect” category. That is, an argument against same-sex marriages is akin to an argument against interracial marriages and thus unconstitutional.
The irony is that for all the dustups by the reactionaries about this over the years there will be so little impact on the face of our state, except that we will have some more people with equal rights. How could anyone ever think that that was bad?
yet another jeff
Only on days that end in “Y”.
joe
The right-wingers are going to be a lot quieter than you might expect, because they can read polls, too.
The Moar You Know
Bob, you know better. “Equal rights” for anyone who isn’t rich, white, Christian and belonging to the right social club is anathema to our cadre of Central Valley knuckle-draggers who are trying to pimp their “bigotry forever” initiative.
Tom Hilton
Latest poll in California: 51% support marriage equality, 42% opposed. This is the first time support has ever outpolled opposition, and (obviously) the first time support has hit the majority threshhold. The homobigots are like those 70-year-old Japanese soldiers on some remote Pacific Island, fighting a war they don’t realize ended a long time ago.
greg
Actually, Patterson’s direction came before the CA decision was announced. It’s a happy coincidence for New York, of course.
jibeaux
The thing is, a state constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional as to the state constitution. When you amend the constitution, you have changed the constitution, and by definition the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. A state constitutional amendment can be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, though.
Gay marriage is going to change just as opinions about homosexuality have changed, old people against it die off and young people who don’t give a damn are born, and the kicking and screaming from the right will go on but the inevitable march into the 21st century will also continue unabated. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.
Plus the economy sucks right now. We need people with disposable income spending money on unnecessary goods and services. I cannot think of a more ideal way to do that, ’cause you know those weddings would be faaaaaaaabulous!
jake
Paterson gets a gold medal for creative thinking. He’s created marriage equality in NY before NY has laws that allow for marriages in state. Plus it prevents any population drain caused by people flocking to Mass.
Hmmm. Maybe someone will sue the State of NY [ahem] because it isn’t fair to allow people who move to NY from other jurisdictions to have benefits [ahem] that residents of the state are denied [ahem!]
I haven’t heard any screaming from the fRighties yet. I think they’re still standing around, wondering what the Hell just happened. Bwaaha!
Dave
It’s the concept of federalism that allows this sort of thing! Haven’t Republicans always been against the states being “the laboratory of democracy”…
Time and public opinion are against them. This will be a non-issue in 20 years at the most. It should be a non-issue now.
b. hussein canuckistani
I never heard the screams of outrage over the California thing either. Well, not as much as I used to hear. Don’t the wingnuts care about marriage any more?
Zuzu's Petals
Right. As it is now, the California “marriage is between a man and a woman” provision is statutory only. Because it was enacted by an initiative measure, it could only be amended or repealed by the voters (not the Legislature). But it could be, and was, found to be unconstitutional under the state constitution and jurisprudence.
Look for a “man-woman=marriage” amendment to the state constitution on the ballot next fall. The signed petitions were submitted some time before the decision came down.
jcricket
Great, I was all “OK” with the idea of being forced to get gay married when I figured I could just move out of California and not be gay married anymore. And now this!
But seriously, If we always avoid pushing the progressive envelope because someone on the right will be outraged and possibly mobilized, we’ll never get anything done. Fear of right-wing backlash shouldn’t stop us, just like fear Republicans will use our opposition or support for a particular piece of legislation against us in a campaign.
Democrats – get these two things through your head: One, the American people support your position on everything, now more than ever. Two, Americans respect politicians and political parties that stand up for what they believe in.
Republicans have managed to use fear to get Democrats to avoid seeing the truth on both issues above. If Democrats ever seize the advantages that are already theirs Republicans are in for an electoral loss shit-storm the likes of which they have never seen.
Paul L.
Here are two future results of the “moving” definition of marriage
I am guessing the rebuttal will be just because marriage get redefined once does not mean it get redefined again using the argument that consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry.
The homogamy diktat
Couple in love persecuted [Darleen Click]
When will we stop this hating? This prudish bigotry?
Tom Hilton
The complicating factor here is that the CA Supreme Court found sexual orientation a ‘suspect classification’ under the state constitution, meaning any discrimination based on such a classification is unconstitutional unless the state has a compelling interest in maintaining it. The anti-gay-marriage initiative on the ballot doesn’t change that. If the initiative wins (which I think it probably won’t), the state constitution will be internally inconsistent–setting up the potential for a whole bunch more litigation.
Kevin
The initiave they’re trying to circulate, apparently, is a “revision” of the state constitution, not an “amendment”. I’m not a lawyer, and don’t really get the difference; supposedly “revisions” can’t be done through the initiave process.
Tom Hilton
And another bigoted blowhard who hasn’t read the decision thinks he’s terribly clever to bring up a point that the decision directly addresses and disposes of.
The Moar You Know
Awesome post, Paul L. Please go eat some more lead paint chips.
Dreggas
Quite frankly as this becomes legalized on the coasts, if the mouth breathers want to move to the middle of the country (as they have done) to “preserve their way of life”, I say let them. After all thanks to their support of the party most responsible for doing damn near nothing about climate change they can enjoy the record tornadoes currently plaguing the midwest and enjoy their new under water properties as the sea levels rise.
The Grand Panjandrum
Little by little the march toward equality inches forward. Acknowledging and supporting the families built by all consenting adults is a Family Value of the highest order.
Liberty and Justice for all means something.
Michael, I don’t know your relationship status, but I do hope that you will soon be able to rest easy with the knowledge that your family is protected in the same way my family is protected by the law of the land.
Luke
Ohio (the state I live in) is a long distance between California and New York, not only in miles, but in acceptance from the Right-Wing Gasbags as well.
My partner and I have been together for 19 years and have raised a well adjusted 17 year old son, which we are getting ready to send off to college, OMG I’m getting old. We encompass all the joys and difficulties of any upper middle income “Family”. However, there is the fact that we do not share the same “rights” as our married neighbors. California and New York has the understanding and compassion that a family is a family. As for you “Buckeyes” we promise not to harm your family – therefore, please don’t harm ours and allow us to have the same rights that you enjoy each day.
Oh, just for the record, I am still supporting Hillary — LOL
Dreggas
Linky goodness.
They lost O’Reilly
Colbert Takes On Tony Perkins
Paul L.
It weakly addresses it using the same argument that those apposed to gay marriage used.
Zifnab
Once the Duke Lacrosse fake rape case is settled?
Zifnab
Ultimately, people are going to come to the conclusion that the only reasonable limits placed on marriage should be economic ones. If, for instance, bigomy was legal and it resulted in massive insurance fraud. Or if, for instance, men or women were engaging in same-sex marriage strictly for marriage benefits or citizenship rights.
Of course this raises the question of how you deal with these same issues when its just a one man one woman relationship. But actually dealing with intricacies of law and politics is hard. Crucifying variant cultures for being FREAKS!! is easy.
jibeaux
Paul L. couldn’t blow…
Well, let’s just keep it a family blog and say he couldn’t blow out a birthday candle if you spotted him a fan and a whoopie cushion.
And I could certainly see how the state constitution could be made to be internally inconsistent, sure, just not “unconstitutional on its face”. A revision as being distinct from an amendment, I have never heard of. I think that’s the same thing as an amendment.
jibeaux
Will your son be turning 18 before November, by any chance?
Gay Veteran
Paul L, just another boot licking authoritarian.
Sorry, but people should be FREE to order their lives the way THEY want to, not according to the religious whims of others.
Polygamy/polyandry? So what? So long as they are consenting adults I don’t have a problem with it.
Incest? The problem is genetics and consent. But then you’re too much of an idiot to figure that oue out.
jake
Paul L defends incest, world’s joke surplus rises 600%.
Kirk
If you take out the mystic overtones of marriage, allowing same-sex while disallowing multiple-partner marriages is quite defensible.
Marriage grants a host of practical, default rights of each member of the partnership in regard to the rights and properties held both mutually and individually. There is no conflicting power of attorney when one member of a duality is incapable of acting in his or her own interest. Or in clumsy and narrow example, if one member is comatose in a hospital bed, the other may decide what to do with property and make medical decisions up to and including deciding to pull the plug, all pretty much without challenge.
With a third member of the partnership, this is no longer so. A decision is no longer automatically approved by the majority of the partnership, but requires the voice of both –no, the MAJORITY OF — those available unless there’s some sort of written law or agreement otherwise. Which is basically the antithesis of “default”.
Will polygany be allowed someday? Maybe. But not, I think, unless or until cultural rules regarding these defaults are constructed and accepted. Regardless, anybody arguing the acceptance of homosexual marriage is the same as accepting polygany (or joining with animals, or approving marriage and sex with children) is being either ignorant or willfully obtuse.
Karmakin
There’s a reason why polygamy is illegal. And it doesn’t have to do with moral reasons, but strictly legal.
One of the things about marriage, is that the rights and responsibilities (at least most of them) are not transferable to a 3rd-party. They are exclusive. 1-to-1. Whatever.
At the same time, I’m not in favor of breaking into homes where everybody is consenting, and arresting them.
But on a legal basis, fraud is fraud, and multiple marriages IS fraud.
Luke
“JIBEAUX”
Our son will be 18 in August – I “try” not to influence him in this area. However, it is not an easy job not to “influence”.
Decided FenceSitter
You know, as someone who practices polyamory I’m amused. (Polyamory: Having multiple lovers; doesn’t require marriage, though I married, at least by desire and inclination if not legally to both my partners)
I find it amusing being the slippery slope; that somehow, my having two wives and my wives having lovers of their own (which is why those of us tend to separate it from polygamy/polyandry as well as getting away from the loaded terms.)
And guess what you can transfer the rights to a third party; it just required a metric fuck-ton of paperwork. And isn’t legal in all states thanks to them removing the powers of attorney. So yeah, my family has shelled out well over $3K to give each other the same rights that someone else can get for 50 bucks at the local courthouse. I could go into all the rights that are assume with that 50 dollars, but I won’t bother. That isn’t the point.
But hey, as I’ve vented at this site (back when Darrell was still around) feel free to wail and moan. I’ll wait patiently, quietly for the older, voting folks to die off, and then start working on the next generation.
Marriage law is contract law that has been highly codified. Which is why we get posts such as Karmakin and Kirk’s. There’s nothing preventing the contract law to state what happens if two partners disagree when the third is disabled; it just isn’t done at the moment. I know that my family’s paperwork covers that occurance.
So really, why does it matter to anyone who I give contractual rights and obligations to?
Nazgul35
Jake,
The same argument could be made with regards states that don’t allow felons to vote. A convicted felon of another state that allows felons to vote moves to said state and has their rights stripped from them…
[cough, cough]
jibeaux
Kirk, speaking to Paul in such a way is a bit like giving a lecture on subatomic particles to a cocker spaniel, but it’s appreciated by others, anyway.
At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner with Hill and Obama I went to, there were a lot of “out for Hillary” buttons. I have to say I just completely do not get this. We have DOMA, we have DADT, we have her profound unfashionable-ness. WTF *is* it? Does she have some sort of drag icon appeal? Do you just really want to take her shopping and get her some cute shoes and a decent suit for heaven’s sakes?
lethargytartare
nice nutpicking, Paul, but if we follow your link, surprise surprise, we discover not one, but five compelling arguments against your silly slippery slope.
So, did you intentionally and dishonestly leave out that bit, or did all the big words just make your brain hurt?
In fact, the argument you cite out-of-context is flawed anyway, as the frightie’s argument isn’t solely that same-sex marriages are somehow fraught with hurdles from which hetero- marriages are exempt, but instead that allowing homosexuals to marry will somehow demean the institution itself.
I’d really suggest you read the rest of the article you so kindly linked for us and address the points that follow your cherry-picking. Take them one at a time if the reading is too difficult for you.
I’ll help you out by quoting the author’s actual opinion:
El Doh
In California they’re not the same:
Source. [PDF]
Scrutinizer
There’s no reason why a polyandrous/polygamous marriage contract, or for that matter, a group marriage contract, could not be constructed to provide property rights protections for all members of the group, to ensure that children of the marriage would be provided for, etc. It would require that the definition of marriage be extended beyond the current one man/one woman model, and the soon to be one person/one person model, but that could be done with some creative thinking. The traditional model of marriage (one man, one woman, their kids, for life) has been dying for almost half an century. Stable menage a’ trois arrangements already exist, as do groups; they aren’t numerous, and they aren’t “legal”, but they are there. Seems to me that arguments against these types of relationships make as much sense as arguments against same-sex relationships, and come down to the same thing: they go against social convention, and make some people go “squee!”.
Zifnab
The problem is when you start using marriage law as a vehicle to circumvent other laws in a way that is not consistent with the purpose of states issuing marriage contracts. If, for instance, everyone in my office got “married” to reap some sort of tax break or exploit a loop hole in a health care plan.
If you stack up the benefits and drawbacks of a marriage and discover that it is technically better than a business partnership (another highly codified legal construct), why would anyone put money out as a venture capitalist or open a business together without “marrying” all the major stakeholders?
This is a bit of an extreme example, but don’t think for a second that people won’t line up in droves to exploit it. If same-sex marriage became legal in my state, I’d seriously consider marrying my room mate. That’s a good 10% tax reduction bare minimum if we file jointly. And that’s before we start polling our deductions and loses and whatnot. They don’t call it a “marriage of convenience” for no good reason.
thefncrow
jibaeux:
Actually, there is a distinction, but it’s an odd complication of California’s system.
In California, not all changes to the Constitution are considered Amendments. Some are amendments, and others are revisions, with the difference being that revisions are more substantial than amendments.
There’s an outstanding question about whether, given that marriage is recognized as a fundamental right, a change to the constitution about marriage would be counted as an amendment or a revision.
Why is this important?
An amendment may be ratified by the initiative process, with it being voted on by the people after being placed on the ballot, with no other steps required. This is how the current Anti-Gay Marriage amendment that will be up in the Fall has come up.
Revisions, however, may only be passed in one of two ways. The first is a Constitutional Convention. The second is for the revision to pass the Legislature, and then go through the initiative process to be accepted or rejected by the voters.
If the “amendment” is actually a “revision”, then it will have failed to follow the proper procedure, and thus was not properly ratified. The CA legislature passed bills on multiple occasions allowing for same-sex marriage, so you probably wouldn’t be able to push this revision through there without some significant change.
The only remaining option would then be to attempt to call a Constitutional Convention over same-sex marriage, and if the simple amendment can’t pass by significant margins, you’d probably have serious problems trying to do this.
The basics of all this is true, the question is really just, where’s the line on what’s a revision, and does this cross it? I have no idea if it is or isn’t an amendment or a revision, and whether this would kick in, but the whole revision vs amendment thing is real.
b-psycho
How come none of those bible-thumping nimrods ever ask themselves why marriage is seen as a government thing at all?
The definition of “marriage” has been gradually shifting for the past couple centuries. Anyone that can accept a role for the State as providing any kind of approval or licensing for relationships yet stop short at Teh Gay is not only a bigot, but a fucking hypocrite. If you see marriage as implicit gov’t approval of a lifestyle you personally disagree with, then clearly the problem is the government, not the gays, they need to realize this or politely taking a flying fuck off the nearest cliff.
El Doh
Because they’re the same nimrods who want the government to enforce a whole variety of aspects of their religion on everyone.
It is rather odd they share a party with people who scream about “government interference in their lives”, but politics always has made strange bedfellows.
bootlegger
Yes, we could define rights and responsibilities for contracts of three or more people but we’re talking about contracts between two people and there are fundamental differences simply in the facts about the size of the networks. A dyad has certain characteristics which a triad (and larger) does not. This is a fact of the network size, not about law or people’s opinions.
Here’s a link from Wikipedia but it is woefully incomplete:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_%28sociology%29
Any introductory sociology book outlines the differences well.
r€nato
We warned you this would happen if you started letting blacks and whites intermarry.
/wingnut
Dreggas
Having been in a poly relationship myself it was never about the paper, but about the feelings we all had for each other.
Decided FenceSitter
Hypothetically, and perhaps someone knows the case law on this, what happens when two parents disagree over the medical treatment of a child?
Decided FenceSitter
So only different-gender roommates should be allowed to take advantage of the tax breaks offered?
You seem to be arguing “If same-sex couples have the same rights as different-sex couples, they’ll have the same opportunities to abuse the system.”
b-psycho
This is why, oddly enough, despite being an anarchist I find myself directing my rage way more at the right-wingers. Both sides want to meddle in my life, but at least the mainstream Left has a less batshit-crazy motive. Economics can be argued, superstition can only be mercilessly mocked.
Decided FenceSitter
Never is; but this was the same of signaling our commitment to each other; and binding ourselves to each other. And really, is any good marriage about the damn piece of paper you paid 50 bucks at the courthouse?
Not in my opinion, but does provide many useful benefits.
Paul L.
The link was not to support my slippery slope argument but to refute that the California Supreme Court decision directly addresses and disposes a constitutional right to polygamy.
It also looks like I was correct about the rebuttal.
Zifnab
Well, no and yes. I’m simply making the observation that perhaps the institution of marriage – as it pertains to codified law – is in-and-of-itself flawed. I don’t know why any two people, regardless of sex or faith or skin color or what have you, should be able to just up and grab a marriage license for $50.
Should marriage applicants be required to co-habitat for a certain number of months or years beforehand? Should they be required to have children – natural, adopted, or otherwise? Should we recognize marriage between a citizen and a non-citizen? Between public servants and lobbyists? Between active military personal and people on terrorist watch lists?
Yeah, some of these questions seem silly or obvious, but they wouldn’t be if we were talking about setting up an LLC or acquiring a license to own firearms. Hell, prenups come with more legal wrangling than marriage. Both of these have waiting periods and citizenship restrictions and conflict-of-interest provisions.
I’m just saying, we’ve erected a very powerful institution with virtually no limit to entry. As we broaden the definition of marriage, the flaws in the institution are going to become increasingly more pronounced. Perhaps someone should look into fixing them.
Zifnab
Blah, blah… hot sex… multiple women. I hate you guys.
Observer
Man-Woman couples have been abusing marriage, AND divorce, for a very long time. They marry for reasons having nothing to do with personal attraction or children. They divorce to qualify for medical help to avoid bankruptcy. The reasons go on.
I suspect the only fair answer is to completely separate marriage and divorce from church and state. Instead of this bastardized hybrid we have now.
The Moar You Know
Way to follow instructions, Paul L.
Scrutinizer
Some of us have one woman and multiple men. No box turtle, yet, though.
jake
Works for me, that’s another stinking stupid rule society doesn’t need.
Yeppers. Just like all of those people who currently exploit the laws that allow people of opposite genders to marry. They just did it for the tax breaks.
Some suggestions should this ever become an option: Make sure your room mate really, really likes you because he’ll be the one who decides what happens if you wind up on life support. And make sure you have a will unless you want him to get all of your stuff if you die. And think of the fun and hijinks that will ensue if he files for divorce. And of course, if either of you meet anyone else you want to marry for more than the tax breaks you’ll have to get a divorce. I can see potential spouse # 2 being real impressed with that. Yeah. Go for it.
patrick
I’m a Catholic, and I agree with some that why should the right even care? because personally, it’s a matter or semantics. unfortunately government stole a religous term for their uses. My belief, as is the Catholic church’s teaching is Marriage (capital M) is an unbreakable covenant between a man, a woman, and God. It cannot be dissolved. it can be judged as never actually being created (an annulment in the Church). marriage (small m) is a government recognized contract between two consenting adults, offering them certain rights and priveledges, which can be dissolved at any time (divorce). you get married in the Church, but don’t go to the courthouse to get your license to be signed by two witnesses? guess what, in the eyes of the Church, you’re Married, but not married according to the government. go to a Justice of the Peace or a Elvis impersonator in Vegas with a license, you’re married in the eyes of the government, but not Married in the Church, until the union is blessed by the congregation.
if the government struck “marriage” from it’s vocabulary and used “civil union” for both same and opposite sex unions, then there would be no argument. Churches, under the protection of the First Amendment would not be forced to Marry homosexuals if it is against their religious beliefs. I actually think this ruling opens the door for all of the same sex marriage amendments in state constitutions to be challenged in federal court, probably under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US constitution; if one state recognizes the contract, they all have to would be the argument.
bootlegger
What we’re really talking about is a particular set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities granted by the state to particular dyadic couples. I think most of us agree that there is no reason why the sex of the couple should matter. I also think the sexual intimacy of the couple shouldn’t matter either. If any dyad, roommates, two sisters living together, two elderly friends, whatever, want to commit to all the legal responsibilities of a dyadic contract they should be allowed. to.
Also, I’m not opposed in principal to trying to work out extra-dyadic contracts though as I say above these present far more problems because of the size of the network.
Dreggas
I’ve been in both circumstances, multiple women and men but I am, as george carlin said, greedy
Paul Weimer
I was listening to Minnesota Public Radio yesterday, listening to a guest who was decrying this decision as being against the “will of the majority” and that it hurts “religious freedom.”
I could hear Keri Miller roll her eyes at these arguments trotted out against gay marriage.
Original Lee
On another blog a couple of years ago, I argued for using the term “mergerage” instead of “marriage” or “civil union” for this specific type of social contract. Sometimes I still think this might be a good idea.
PaulB
Actually, there are several rebuttals but none that someone like you will accept. In no particular order:
1. Marriage has been “redefined” quite a few times over the years. The argument you make could have been made, and in fact was made, each time marriage was “redefined,” most recently in Loving v. Virginia. So far, the legislatures and courts seem to have resisted the “slippery slope” that you profess to fear. I see no reason, or evidence, that this will change as a result of this ruling.
2. You don’t need a “redefinition” to raise any of these issues. The very existence of a state-sanctioned relationship raises the question of how far that sanction extends. The “slippery slope” existed from the time that the institution of state-supported and state-defined civil marriage was first created.
3. Marriage between a committed couple is a fundamental civil right. If you want to deny it to a particular committed couple, you have to demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. Thus far, nobody has ever demonstrated a compelling interest in denying this right to same-sex couples.
4. As was the case with mixed-race relationships and with same-sex relationships, incestuous and polygamous or polyamorous relationships will be evaluated on their own merits. If the merits prove compelling, they will eventually be added to the list of state-supported relationships. If they do not, they will not.
This isn’t exactly rocket science. So far, all you have is a fatally flawed appeal to emotion, and a rather silly one at that, rather than a valid legal or rational argument.
Hillary Obsessives
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!
FOR HILLARY!
Grand Moff Texan
Prison rape is the only gay sex a conservative can support. Since gays are attacking the family, in their “mind,” gays should be kept from forming families.
OK, I give up. I can’t figure out how fucked up these people are.
.
DecidedFenceSitter
*Whistles innocently*
Dennis - SGMM
They’re okay with a quick rogering in the men’s room too.
Ninerdave
I don’t expect your narrow brain to understand this, especially since it has nothing to do with the Duke Lacrosse team, but marriage has been redefined consistently through out history.
It originally was a method to pass property and title between generations (arranged marriages). In fact that fuction still exists, as a lesser focus, in Western marriages today.
Rick Taylor
This is off topic, but I don’t see a recent open thread. In Iraq, a marine was passing out bible verses on coins to Sunni Muslims. Together with the previous story of the marine shooting the koran, this should go over well. Juan Cole argues
Dennis - SGMM
Next up: Paul L references the great thinking of Rick Santorum to explain how this will lead to men marryng sheep.
Paul L.
So how to you explain the change from marriage is between a man and a woman to marriage is between two adults.
What you are overlooking is that the “fatally flawed appeal to emotion” is the same argument your side is using to justify gay marriage (adults who love each other should be allowed to marry./Marriage between
acommittedcouple[adult(s)] is a fundamental civil right.)You forgot about encouraging the next generation to have and raise children.
jake
Blue Raven
Whistles innocently
Oh, for pity’s sake, is this the “all the polyfolk who read BJ step up and sign in, please” thread?
Understand, I currently am involved with two members of each primary gender, so I’m just adding my name to the list.
And I would like to thank those of you who think polygamy is easily argued against for not raising the specter of reactionary pseudo-Mormons in this discussion. That happened over at Greenwald’s blog, and it was not pretty.
The Moar You Know
Paul L. – like the people 50 years ago screaming about how interracial marriage was going to destroy us all – you lost. Deal with it. Find something else to be outraged about, like shitty drivers.
PaulB
Dear heart, you brought up the fatally flawed argument of a slippery slope toward incest and polygamy, neither of which the courts nor the legislatures have fallen victim to. Do try to keep up, won’t you?
“What you are overlooking is that the ‘fatally flawed appeal to emotion’ is the same argument your side is using to justify gay marriage (adults who love each other should be allowed to marry./Marriage between a committed couple [adult(s)] is a fundamental civil right.)”
Wrong on both counts. Regarding the second point, marriage is, in fact, a fundamental civil right, judged so by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not an “appeal to emotion” but an acknowledgement of a recognized legal precedent, a precedent that has been reaffirmed more than once.
Regarding the first point, it’s not an appeal to emotion that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry unless you can find a compelling reason to deny them this right — it’s a statement of Constitutional principles.
It originally was a lot of things, including a vehicle for passing the female from one male to another, a vehicle for the legal status of children, and quite a few others over the years. According to one source, for example, there are eight different marriage relationships described in the Bible. Since this just proves my point that marriage has been frequently redefined, I’m not sure what point you think you’re making.
Well, mostly because that’s irrelevant. Having children is not a requirement for either the civil or the religious ceremony. Couples are not required to demonstrate that they wish to have children, that they intend to have children, even that they can have children. Children are not mentioned in the standard wedding vows and are usually not mentioned in the standard civil marriage license. Children are not, and never have been, a requirement for marriage.
PaulB
Oops… I missed that Paul L. was quoting Ninerdave. My apologies to both.
DecidedFenceSitter
Blue Raven,
Dreggas and I have been “out” for a while now, I don’t post about it that often cause the whole gay marriage -> polygamy & sheep marrying doesn’t get brought out that often. :)
At least there’s less titillation this time, I remember Darrell was FAR too interested in what my wives did.
Paul L.
I suspect that in the future once gay marriage law gets settled we will see a court case to legalize Polygamy that will use the same arguments used for gay marriage.
Can you name the case? Is there a definition of marriage in the opinion?
I can say the U.S. Supreme Court cases Ro v. Wade and LAWRENCE V. TEXAS state that I have the civil right to privacy. That does not prevent the state from prosecuting me for having sex with a hooker in my own home.
PaulB
And, as I noted above, that case will rise or fall on its own merits, just as did interracial marriages and same-sex marriages. So much for “slippery slopes.”
Loving v. Virginia was the most recent example. There were a couple of prior precedents, I believe.
Way to move those goalposts. We were talking about whether I was using an “appeal to emotion,” remember? Face it, you got nothing.
GoMS
FUCK! I hope I don’t have to marry no queers…
PaulB
Sorry, but I’m afraid you have no choice. Please register at the nearest gay bar or community center and a partner will be chosen for you if you are unable to find one on your own.
jake
Thanks man. Really. Causing me to think about a sexually aroused Darrell is going to cost you. Please pay my therapist promptly when you receive the bills.
gex
“Or if, for instance, men or women were engaging in same-sex marriage strictly for marriage benefits or citizenship rights.”
Because, as we all know, opposite sex marriages have never been used for these reasons. ;)
b-psycho
It damn sure should, tho’…
It’s kinda a reverse slippery slope in a way. If it was ever realized what these kind of arguments really refer to, then the effect would amount to an auto-repeal of every single layer of “victimless crime”/culture war bullshit, all at once. Dunno about you, but I’d see such an outcome as a win.
gex
Is there something going around on Balloon Juice? Do you guys need a lozenge?
AnneLaurie
As a citizen of the happy Commonwealth that was first past the post on this issue, I can tell you that the non-impact of Gay Marriage on most citizens’ lives is *exactly* what our monotheistically devout have against it. Gay marriage in Massachusetts was achieved via judicial fiat, and the Religious Right immediately started petitioning for a ballot initiative against it. Self-proclaimed representatives of God’s People were not averse to stating on camera that “allowing” same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights as traditional couples would “give people the impression that homosexuality was just another lifestyle choice!!!1!!”
And so it has proven… because the longer the Gay Marriage ruling is on the books, the higher the percentage of Mass citizens who tell pollsters they’re okay with gays getting married. Once Joe Sixpak finds through experience that “legitimizing” his fellow non-heterosexuals doesn’t lead to a tidal wave of divorces, child molestation, or animal abuse, Joe no longer goes in (quite so much) fear that Teh Ghey is a fatal contagion second only to Ebola.
And if Joe Sixpak stops taking his every cue about living a decent life from the professional godbotherers — well, who’s going to support all those fine tax-exempt benefits for the men who profess to have a hotline to God Himself?
Faux News
No matter how hard Paul L. flings his feces at us (like a monkey would), such statements as above eventually make him slink away and crawl under the rock from which he came.
Once again folks: if child bearing was a requirement for marriage then any and all post menopausal women would be denied a marriage license. I guess men over 50 would have to prove they still can impregnate a female.
Darkness
Other countries have solved this the simple, easy way. The took the government out of the marriage business (Germany, for example). It’s the word “married” honestly that is messing with people’s lizard brains anyway. Get rid of it. The government should be doing civil unions, run-of-the-mill civil contracts just like real estate contracts, business partnership contracts, stuff like that. Churches, Synagogues, Wiccan Circles (sorry, whatever the unit of measure is on that…) can do marriages, hand fastings, whatever they choose to call them. Everyone’s happy. Well, everyone capable of being happy. Republicans can’t seem to get happy without screwing someone over, so I guess they’d have to find some other mechanism to do it with. I’m sure they’d think of something.
I’d like to think maybe the uproar is lower this time because red staters finally noticed they were getting economically pwned and that tended to happen just after an issue like this got dangled in front of them. More likely the noise machine just doesn’t like this timing and is waiting for October to re-release the news.
GoMS
If Chuck Norris wasn’t busy having sex with so many women right now, he would roundhouse kick all of you in the face at the same time, instantly curing your gay lifestyle choices!!!
GoMS
The word “marry” is not the problem. The origin of the word is not clear, some say it even goes back to an old sanskrit word, marya, which means suitor. So religious idiots who want to claim the word will have to do a lot better than claiming that Christians created the institution of marriage. They also believe that they invented caring, compassion and love.
Darkrose
I’m totally speaking ex rectum here, but I wonder if one of the reasons poly people aren’t pushing harder on this is because there are more of us doing the hierarchial model than there are doing balanced triads+. I know that even if I could marry both of my girlfriends, I wouldn’t want to: my non-primary lives 3000 miles away and is already married to someone that I like, but don’t especially want to be involved with.
jake
They just have to register? Damn it I bought this tranquilizer gun and – Uh … never mind.
Last man to show up gets a Viagra-primed Rush Limbaugh. Last woman gets Phyllis Schlafly.
Darkrose
You know…I’m generally pretty anti-social, but I’m kind of wondering if there’d be any interest in a CA Balloon Juice meetup…?
Dave_Violence
As long as it makes money and doesn’t scare the horses…
As long as ugly lesbians keep indoors…
…and the HOT ones, well, can we watch?
then again… our support of Israel is one thing, but if ever the Islamomoralists (and their Judeo-Christian cohorts) wanted a “good” reason to terminate the US of A with extreme prejudice, this might be it.
zoe from pittsburgh
Dave–
I hope you’re kidding. Otherwise you’re an idiot.
Dave_Violence
What about not wanting to look at ugly lesbians? Hey, there are guys who will pay to see anything, but I’m not one of them.
…or, do you just not get it?
Decided FenceSitter
Very true DR – which is the problem of trying to define poly versus swinging versus open relationships versus every other non-monogamous variant that has been tried over the years.
I’d just be happy to not have to worry about CPS in a few years when my family starts raising children, the first step in that is leaving a state in which homosexuals are de jure poorer parents than heterosexual parents – something tells me the CPS judge won’t take much kinder just because we protest that the ladies aren’t sleeping with each other.
PaulB
I wish that were true but bigots like our dear little chum are almost never phased by logic, reason, or facts. He’s probably just on a Cheetos run.