California Supreme Court rules for same-sex marriage
Damn right! I foresee a lot of happy marriages by Californians who are finally free to marry anyone they damned well please, without the government (or their bigoted neighbors) being able to stop 'em. The very idea that the government should be in charge of whether consenting adults should or shouldn't be allowed to marry is just bizarre.
the Chief Justice kept going. He explicitly found that discrimination against gays, on the basis of their sexual orientation, was equivalent under the California state constitution to discrimination against racial minorities. To my knowledge, California's is the only state high court to have come to this conclusion (the federal Supreme Court has not weighed in). For gays, this pronouncement is critical because it is portable—that is, gays can now challenge any California state policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. As Marty Lederman points out elsewhere in Slate, this in its own right is a signal advance for gay people.Link (Thanks, Philbert!)The magisterial conviction of Thursday's opinion would be extraordinary no matter what court had delivered it. But its issuance from the high court of California is nothing short of revolutionary. Recent polls show that the California Supreme Court is the most respected state high court in the country. This suggests that other courts may borrow its strict scrutiny standard, under which most bans on same-sex marriage would fall. Even if no other court adopts today's reasoning, the mere fact that millions can marry in the Golden State will have its own effects. California is the most populous state in the nation and one of the top 10 economies in the world (alongside nations like Canada and Italy). Because of its cultural, political, and economic influence, what happens in California does not stay in California.
I'm glad California has finally caught up with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. ;)
At a crossroads on gay unions
By John Lewis, 10/25/2003
FROM TIME to time, America comes to a crossroads. With confusion and controversy, it's hard to spot that moment. We need cool heads, warm hearts, and America's core principles to cleanse away the distractions.
We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples' freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.
This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.
Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.
Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.
Sometimes it takes courts to remind us of these basic principles. In 1948, when I was 8 years old, 30 states had bans on interracial marriage, courts had upheld the bans many times, and 90 percent of the public disapproved of those marriages, saying they were against the definition of marriage, against God's law. But that year, the California Supreme Court became the first court in America to strike down such a ban. Thank goodness some court finally had the courage to say that equal means equal, and others rightly followed, including the US Supreme Court 19 years later.
Some stand on the ground of religion, either demonizing gay people or suggesting that civil marriage is beyond the Constitution. But religious rites and civil rights are two separate entities. What's at stake here is legal marriage, not the freedom of every religion to decide on its own religious views and ceremonies.
I remember the words of John Kennedy when his presidential candidacy was challenged because of his faith: "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Those words ring particularly true today. We hurt our fellow citizens and our community when we deny gay people civil marriage and its protections and responsibilities. Rather than divide and discriminate, let us come together and create one nation. We are all one people. We all live in the American house. We are all the American family. Let us recognize that the gay people living in our house share the same hopes, troubles, and dreams. It's time we treated them as equals, as family.
Between Cali's court ruling and Oscar Pistorius being aloud to run in the Olympics best news week in a long time!
(that and my baby slept a whole night through!!!)
Makes me think there is a twinkling of hope.
Firstly, hurrah for California in following the lead of my home state of Massachusetts and making strides towards equal rights for all.
Secondly, Hear, Hear! I wholeheartedly agree the government has no business determining who I can and cannot marry as long as they're of age. I'm actually all for the government getting completely out of the marriage business and, instead, having either religious unions, or contracts between consenting adults for whatever given term they so desire, be it short-term, long-term, or life-long. Given that this will not fly in the US in the foreseeable future, I'm thrilled same sex couples are being guaranteed the same rights as heterosexual couples.
This is a serious problem. Massachusetts legalized gay marriages a couple years ago, and within a few months, the entire state sank into the Atlantic Ocean.
We're losing our coastline!
...
What?
That the state must sanctify marriages of any sort -- gay or straight -- is a matter that bothers me.
It begs the question: what exactly is "marriage"?
Is it a legal institution? a religious one?
Is it merely a private arrangement between the couple and their friends and family? I would hope.
The judges who voted for this were all republicans. I have to wonder if this isn't a ploy to insert the gay marriage controversy into the election. I think they will not succeed because the country has moved on this issue, most people simply don't care.
Doug117 #6 - Except its not merely a private arrangment between the couple and friends and family. Marriage has legal ramifications, such as taxes, custody of children, visitation and decision making in hospitals, sharing of employer benefits, etc.
Glad to see that Cali has ruled in such a way. However, they do have a consitutional ammendment up for vote in November that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, hopefully that vote won't turn out poorly as it has in so many other states.
Awesome. I'm from Massachusetts, my wife's Canadian, and neither MA nor Canada have managed to sink into the ocean since gay marriage was legalized in either place. I'm pretty sure California's safe on that front unless the San Andreas gets cranky. :-)
Three cheers for the great state of California. This will allow for equalization and validation of homosexual unions. But, the state constitution can be amended to disallow gay marriage, regardless of what the states supreme court has said.
Destroy marriage. It's superfluous. The benefits granted by the state sanctioned union are better handled as a subset of corporate law. Individuals should be free to join into household corporations that allow the pooling and sharing of resources.
The beauty of this is that it is completely non-discriminatory. Two people, six people, any arrangement of genders or even complete asexuals can join into a household corporation. There are no special conditions or requirements, except that the members must be able to enter into legal agreements. Children can be entered into a household corporation by their legal guardians; through adoption law, the corporation could become the legal guardian.
It's more feature rich than marriage, more legally and logically consistent, leverages an existing and powerful legal framework, and removes the state from matters of romance, religion, or social organization.
I am so excited that this is coming up in the news again! This means that we can reliably count on it being one of the central issues for another presidential election along with flag burning, prayer in schools, and whether the president believes in god and goes to church. Throw in teaching evolution in schools for good measure.
I mean, these are the important issues upon which the world turns, and these are the issues we really need to be talking about.
One thing not mentioned - there are already activist groups with enough signatures on petitions to get an item added to the ballot in the next election, that will add a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in California. And the Guvernator has come out against the petitions saying that he supports the court's decision.
SeppTB #8 -- Marriage has legal ramifications, such as taxes, custody of children, visitation and decision making in hospitals, sharing of employer benefits, etc.
All too true.
#11:
I think we have too many artificial persons already.
Commenters who point out that this isn't the end of the road have a point - there's always the possibility of a state constitutional amendment discriminating against same-sex couples in marriage, and married same-sex couples still have no federal rights (you can be married, but you still have to file your federal income taxes as single, for instance - and your social security survivor benefits won't apply to your spouse if your spouse is of the same sex - it goes on and on).
But this ruling seems to me to be something deserving of pure celebration.
A beautiful quotation from Mildred Loving (1939-2008) that I pulled off of Wikipedia:
Good thing California has a 48-hour waiting period on marriage - otherwise I could see various hetero same-sex friend pairs of mine getting drunk and waking up married and very confused!
Noen #7: It's possible that they're pressing the issue now as a way to energize their base for the constitutional amendment in November. That's the cynical view.
On the other hand, judges frequently deviate from the party line, as they're less subject to the whims of election cycles and the public pandering that comes with it. It's also possible to take it at face value: that they decided that separate-but-equal was as ridiculous for blacks then as it is for gays now. (Makes you wonder who'll get picked on next once this fades into history...)
Personally, I'd like to see the whole institution of marriage abolished and replaced with civil unions. Let's leave marriage where it belongs: with the church(s).
This isn't gonna be a very popular opinion, but I'm gonna put it out there anyways since every comment I've seen is in favor of homosexual marriage. I would call the following the "founding fathers" POV on marriage (Antonin Scalia would be proud):
"Authority" meddling in who marries who goes back, I believe, to the very earliest of "civilization", when humans banded together for mutual protection from the lions, wolves, etc, not to mention the other humans. Societies have always had *some* kinds of restrictions on sexuality because how it was practiced affected the kind of society that would emerge in the next generation. (I would point folks who wish to read more about this to Robert Anton WIlson's "Ishtar Rising") Bottom line is that *every* society has some kind of rules about sexuality and making children.
Raising kids is really hard work, yet it is vitally important to the community that it is done "right", so a couple who has made the commitment to raise a child (important to the society as a potential future soldier or worker bee) is afforded some privileges that aren't afforded to those who have not made the same commitment. These privileges could include better housing, more food, respect from the community, etc. Disease and other dangers made it pretty important that breeding happen, and frequently.
This is not to say that a homosexual couple isn't going to raise kids, but as a rule, MM or FF couples don't breed without going outside the dyad for some assistance, but that goes against the control of sexuality that societies seem to need. When making gross generalizations (which is what laws are all about), MF couples breed, MM/FF couples not only don't breed, but also take breeding stock out of the pool, also not good for the survival of a society in which children do not always grow to adulthood.
A man and a woman don't have to plan to have a child, that part usually happens just naturally, so one could usually make an assumption that if a man and a woman decide to marry (before they have kids) then society can pretty safely pre-emptively grant some or all of those privileges on the assumption that those future potential soldiere et al will soon come. Yes, some couples marry with no intention of procreating, but I'd say that is a relatively modern innovation.
These traditions got wrapped up in religion because part of the role of religion is to tell the next generation the proper way to behave as a person in the eyes of "god", which is really an embodiment of The Society. Remember, I'm talking really primitive times, there was no difference between the authorities and god, the authorities referred to god for the source of their power.
Nearly everything above is predicated on "primitive" society. We like to think that we're more advanced than all that, but because all of these are wrapped up in religion, and we're often given our religion before we have any real say over it, many folks just believe "in their gut" that that is how it *is*.
Of course, we dont have to worry so much about lions and tigers and cholera, so it's no longer as important that every dyad produce children. People get married "for love" (because that's the only acceptable circumstance for them to shag on a regular basis) with no intention of procreating. No worries, there are others having kids and with the advances of medicine and whatnot, there isn't so much pressure on everyone since nearly all the kids survive nowadays. Yet the privileges afforded to married couples still remain as a vestige of that previous time.
If one looked at relationships today without any regard for the historical underpinnings of the whole institution, it seems unfair because we've put the carriage before the horse - we think that the most important part of the marriage thing is that the two people love each other, and on that basis homosexual marriage makes just as much sense as heterosexual marriage.
So that's how we got here: we grew out of *needing* to control every marriage because they don't all lead to babies, yet we're in the habit of controlling just this very thing. Now I'm gonna get *really* weird.
Just who made up those mores in the first place? Did some really smart humans sit down and make up some rules early on? were they developed over time? or were those rules handed over to us? huh? handed over from where?
Well some would say "God", but that's stepping into some deep quicksand. I prefer to refer to "alien anthropologists", beings who could have been around at the beginning guiding us. Think "2001, A Space Odyssey", if you will, but I prefer to think in terms of Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson". If we humans are alone, with no advanced guidance, then homosexual marriage will eventually win the day if humans want it. If, on the other hand, these rules were handed down by those who would still consider us "primitive" for whatever reasons they have, then I would expect homosexual marriage to ultimately fail.
I for one am watching with fascination to see how this plays out.
Rcanzlovar, I don't mean to be rude, but I'm guessing you haven't read much anthropology about "primitive" (hunter-gatherer) societies?
@IWood: Too many? I think we have too few. I could do with a few extra fictional identities for various purposes.
I really think the government should get the hell out of peoples private lives. If two people wish to get married, then go to a church that allows it, if two, (what is the word of the week, gay, homosexual?), people wish to get married, go to the Episcopalian church. If two, (what's the word of the week, straight, heterosexual?) people whom happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin can go to the Catholic church.
State Marriage != Religious Marriage.
Rename the state version to 'Civil Union' and require it to be an explicit contract outlining exactly what it covers.
Religious ideas of Marriage should neither be dictated by the state, nor protected by it, and state-recognized unions should be for legal purposes (division of property, taxation, probate, etc) and not be circumscribed by religious ideas of what marriage is.
Simple solution that the Christians will hate, because they think that there is only One True Way. Good thing judges can see beyond that.
codesuidae: The issue is that the State can make non-religious cases for forbidding same sex marriage.
1) Marriage exists to produce, provide for, and raise children.
2) The future of the State rests upon the production and proper training/indoctrination of children.
3) Ergo, the state has the power and responsibility to define marriage as between a man and woman, with the anticipation that most such couples will provide children for the state.
This, of course, offers an Achilles's heel- that definition should allow polygamy. Encourage it, in point of fact. One male can impregnate many women. There is perhaps an argument that they cannot properly rear those children, but group marriage answers that objection.
> 1) Marriage exists to produce, provide for, and raise children.
No way dude.
By the way- I don't agree with any of those above premises. I'm just pointing out that a clever person can do mental gymnastics to prove their premises by their conclusion.
@zebob: Since marriage is a legal construct, laws are defined by the state, then the definition (and purpose) of marriage is free to be defined by the state.
Which is why I oppose any state-sponsored marriage.
Now, I am married, so there is a bit of hypocrisy there. Hey, I'm no sucker. I'll take the carrot, even if I oppose the motivations for handing it out.
t3knomanser:
"1) Marriage exists to produce, provide for, and raise children."
So says one view. It is just as easy to say that Marriage exists as a formalized commitment between adults to share resources, household duties and emotional commitments. Obviously, and as others have already stated, it is clearly not the case that Marriage exists to produce, provide for and raise children, as these things are all done outside of marriage as well as not done within marriage.
"2) The future of the State rests upon the production and proper training/indoctrination of children."
True enough. However, it is not the case that these purposes are dependent on marriage, nor is it true that these things cannot be done by same sex couples, singles or collectives.
"3) Ergo, the state has the power and responsibility to define marriage as between a man and woman, with the anticipation that most such couples will provide children for the state."
This does not follow from the first. It is a simple observation that children will be produced regardless of marital status, and that singles, couples and collectives, regardless of gender, are all capable of successfully raising children.
The state should have the power to ensure that children are not mentally or physically abused (to some degree, obviously 'raised by a single parent', 'born out of wedlock', and 'raised by same-sex couple' could, but ought not be defined as mental abuse), and that they are educated to some standard. The state should not define how these goals must be achieved, though it could make non-binding recommendations (sort of a 'best practices' document) and provide systems citizens could access to accomplish them, should they choose to (public schools, for example).
"This, of course, offers an Achilles's heel- that definition should allow polygamy. "
Only if you think that production of children is a goal. I propose that we call this the "Duggars" model of marriage (go ahead, google it).
I think that we can pretty safely assume, based on available evidence, that the state has absolutely no need to ensure that children will be created, rather it should ensure that those that are created are given a chance to succeed.
@ #18 Maybe instead of veiling your homophobia in talks about history and aliens, you should understand that queer couples are being denied fundamental rights that go beyond breeding.
Go California, I wish I lived in a state that could even consider such things.
#19, if you have a disagreement with #18, on his analysis or underlying facts, why not be explicit in your criticism. Generally impugning his credentials is boring and logically fallacious. What did he get wrong? I'm interested to know if there's some substance to your statement.
t3knomanser, you really should have included a devils advocate disclaimer in your original post. Sorry about pulling the phobia card.
@aimless: How is getting married a fundamental right? I think it's unfair for them to be denied the state sponsorship that others get, but getting married is hardly a fundamental right. That's like saying a driver's license is a fundamental right.
It's unfair and injust to offer privleges to some and deny them to others. But marriage is certainly a privilege, not a right.
@codesuidae: Hey, I'm just devil's advocating. I don't think there is any value in state sanctioned marriage that can't be better managed under corporate or contract law. I think a group of college roommates sharing an apartment are worthy of the same privleges as a married couple sharing an apartment.
Yay! I can get married! Oh, wait. I haven't even had date in this millennium. Never mind.
I totally agree that marriage should be stripped of state recognition in favor of personal contracts. Basically, you sign something that looks like a pre-nup. You would be forced to deal with inheritance, health care directives, etc. Marriage has become something that people fall into unthinkingly because of its special status. Having to deal with all the potential legal ramifications before getting into it would be a wake-up call to how serious it is.
@aimless: I'm not #18. I didn't even read #18 completely, because it rapidly descended into incomprehensibility. My bit of devil's advocating was #23.
BoingBoing- you guys should really look into setting up a link-back reply system like Gawker sites use. Or threaded replies. Or something.
Let me tell you what it's like to be "civilly-unioned" in a world where marriage is the norm. My partner and I became "registered domestic partners" in Oregon when the civil union bill went into effect in February 2008. We have been together as a couple for six years or so. We have a baby on the way. So far so good.
Come tax-time, we had to file separate federal tax returns and pay at the "single" rate. Next year I think we should be able to file our Oregon tax return together, but we'll still need to file federal taxes separately. Even if we were married in Massachusetts or (now) California, we would still need to do this because the feds don't recognize same-sex marriages, period. Thanks President Clinton.
Thanks to Oregon's civil union law (and a helpful Oregon court case), I can get my partner insured by my insurance with no difficulty, and vice versa. In a prior state with a prior employer, we had to jump through a lot of hoops to get dependent insurance. For example, we had to fill out an affidavit describing in detail how long we had lived together, and where. The affidavit asked for supporting documentation, like a will (!) or a lease.
Dependent insurance is great, except that the feds will now tax me for health benefits paid by my employer to cover my partner. If we were married, this employment benefit would not be taxed.
We are about to have a baby girl. I cannot be listed as a parent on her birth certificate until I legally adopt her. With male-female couples who are married, the male partner would be presumed to be the father and would be listed on the birth certificate, even if he was not in fact the biological father.
Thankfully, Oregon's "stepparent" adoption procedure is pretty chill. We don't have to have a home study, and the whole process doesn't take too long. However, there will be several months of my child's life where I will not be her legal parent.
I know people view marriage as a religious institution, but I want everyone to see how many practical day-to-day issues are tied up with marital status. Marriage is very much a state-sponsored institution now.
Sorry for the long post.
-largemarge
T3knomanser 23, 25: They can only PROVE their proposition by those mental gymnastics if they ignore the obvious counterarguments; for example, does that mean people should have to prove they're fertile in order to get married? Does that mean that when the "one woman" goes through menopause, divorce should be automatic?
Of course not. The argument is entirely spurious. That's because all the arguments against same sex marriage fall into three categories:
1. "My religion is right, and the state should support what my religion supports and forbid what it forbids,"
2. "If we let the n****** into the country club, we won't get to eat as much caviar," and
3. Spurious arguments used to cover the ugly sentiments in 1. and 2.
Thank God for this decision. The state should not afford rights to some but not to others based on who they choose to sleep with.
To T3KNOMANSER (post #31):
Marriage is a fundamental right under the federal constitution's 14th Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court. This comes from a case called Loving v. Virginia, where an interracial couple was prosecuted criminally for having a relationship in a state with anti-miscegenation laws. The court said the law was unconstitutional because marriage is a fundamental right.
Another more recent case from the court involved a prisoner who was either not allowed to get married to his out-of-custody fiancee, or was not allowed to have visits with her, I forget which. I can't remember the name of this one, but the court held that the prisoner had a fundamental right to marry and the prison could not interfere with it.
Possessing a driver's license is a privilege, not a right, so the states can regulate licenses as they see fit.
-largemarge
@XOPHER: "They can only PROVE their proposition by those mental gymnastics if they ignore the obvious counterarguments;"
And... your point is? Remember, the state brings us such reasonable things as endless war, the TSA and bottled water bans, the ongoing drug war, "think of the children" motivated campaigns and all that garbage.
The state rarely acts in a reasonable fashion. I don't see why we should expect reason on this one issue, when it isn't applied on many others.
If the state defines marriage, it has the power to define it however it likes. There may be constitutional limitations, but since marriage isn't generally discussed in constitutions that's legally debatable.
In any case, this gives the majority the ability to define marriage however they like. The state is, to a large extent, the majority. In the age of the pander-bears, the majority holds more power than ever. If we remove the power of the state to define marriage, we take that power away from the majority. We remove a major source of pander-bear bamboo, and things work better.
Viva California!
@Largemarge: The supreme court isn't the boss of me. I disagree with man SCOTUS decisions, and this is one of them. I agree with the impact, but not the reasoning.
State-sanctioned marriage is not a fundamental right. It's a wacky contrivance and should not exist. The state should not have that power, regardless of what SCOTUS says.
Er, I disagree with many SCOTUS decisions.
t3knomanser @ 23:
1) Marriage exists to produce, provide for, and raise children.
No, it doesn't, and this was explicitly addressed in the opinion:
From page 76 of the PDF.And t3knomanser @ 31: getting married is hardly a fundamental right.
Wrong again. From pages 5 and 6:
"Fundamental right" is a term of art that has a specific meaning: "a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. These fundamental rights usually encompass those rights considered natural human rights." It doesn't mean "whatever the speaker thinks is most basic and essential" or anything like that.t3knomanser @ #20:
Maybe. But corporations functioning as legal persons with no individual liability has allowed for a lot of bad shenanigans, particularly when the actions of the corporate entities would be considered socio- or psychopathic if performed by an actual person.
We need more human accountability, not further development of legal ways to shield individuals from responsibility for their actions.
The state rarely acts in a reasonable fashion. I don't see why we should expect reason on this one issue, when it isn't applied on many others.
That is the great-grandmother of all spurious arguments.
@Lexica: I see the source of our confusion.
Marriage is a fundamental human right. I'll grant that, in the same way reading a book is a fundamental human right. If that's what you want to do, go ahead and do it!
State-sanctioned marriage is not a fundamental human right. It's a horrible idea and shouldn't exist. The state should have no power to recognize marriage. By granting the state that power, we give the state the power to make it conditional and turn it from a "human right" into a privilege.
Is this more clear?
@IWood: That's better handled via corporate reform thought. That's entirely separate from creating a new specialized class of corporation to replace marriage.
@Antinous: Shall I rephrase?
The state often misuses and abuses its power, therefore, we should be extremely careful and restrictive about which powers we grant the state.
That's why the 9th and 10th Amendments exist. To explicitly limit the government's power and expand that of the citizens.
Wait. . . all the judges that voted for this were Republican?
Damn "activist judges!"
t3knomanser @ #45:
In your original proposal (#11), you wrote that:
Children can be entered into a household corporation by their legal guardians; through adoption law, the corporation could become the legal guardian.
So now we've got corporations as parents instead of human beings.
I just don't see that as a benefit, and it is most certainly related to the problems inherent in the creation of artificial persons.
To T3KNOMANSER (#40)
Do you not see that having a fundamental right to marry under the federal (and now California state) constitution is a GOOD thing? Without this right, Mr. and Mrs. Loving could have been put in jail for having an interracial relationship.
I generally am in favor of having MORE individual rights vis-a-vis the state/federal government.
-largemarge
#35,
re:"people should have to prove they're fertile in order to get married?"
Fertility is traditionally affirmatively presumed, but in much of the world, infertility, or impotence, is often cause for divorce or annulment, and is often initiated by the woman. Similarly, even in the United States, if a partner were to hide fore-knowledge of their infertility, it could later be legal cause for divorce or annulment, although IANAL.
re:"Does that mean that when the "one woman" goes through menopause, divorce should be automatic?"
No, because the presumption is that she has sacrificed her child-bearing years to her husband, and should therefore receive some legal recognition and reward of said sacrifice.
***********
As an aside, I believe if the idea of generally replacing marriage with individualized civil contracts were to become widespread, stipulations like the two you alluded to would become common, and would be, especially in the second case, detestable.
***********
I realize I'm disagreeing with the general sentiment here, and I would appreciate polite disagreement. This is an issue that has a great emotional impact on many people, so please understand that any disagreement is not necessarily a personal attack.
@Largemarge (#49): How is it "more rights" when you're giving more power to the government?
If the state can't sanction marriage, then the citizens have infinite power to explore as individuals and groups what marriage means and the infinity of possible ways of structuring a family.
If you give the state the power to recognize marriages, you're allowing the state to define what kinds of families can exist. Even if we allow same-sex marriages, we now are betraying our bias against group marriage, polygamy, temporary marriage, extended family arrangements, and so on.
Allowing the state to sanction marriage is less freedom for everyone. Marriage belongs to the participants and their community- not the state.
@Iwood (#48): You're still harping on the technical aspects of what constitutes a corporation. I agree with your points. But reforming how corporations are recognized is a different debate. I am a corporation, so I don't have any inherent bias against fictional persons. But their rights and liabilities are improperly managed in our society.
I think every individual should have legal recognition as at least ten different fictional persons. We have to get past this idea that an individual is a single functional unit- that a person is an atom. Individuals aren't- they are entirely "dividual".
@T3knomanser:
I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. State-sanctioned marriage is a fundamental right, in the sense that any competent individual may enter into a contract with another competent individual for any purpose, so long as the purpose is legal. If the parties then want to call it "marriage" or "merger" or whatever, that's purely semantics, and the state has no call to interfere.
@The discussion at large:
What I'm most concerned about with gay marriage is the thin end of a wedge. What guarantee do we have that years from now, they will not make performing gay marriages a requirement for any church or group that wants a license to perform weddings? We must protect the rights of homosexuals, but we must also protect the rights of people who hate homosexuals.
#29, a valid criticism but I just didn't know where to start.
It seems like he's saying we should maintain customs of hunter-gatherer societies in order to survive as a society, and that a ban on gay marriage is one. But (a) a ban on same-sex marriage is not exactly a common hunter-gatherer phenomenon that I've heard of (treatment of gay folks really varies, and while "female has consort during pregnancy/while children are young" is universal, "marriage" is not), and (b) depending on the society, the same argument could be used to support honor killings, infanticide, the subjugation of women, intertribal wars, and all kinds of lovely things that clearly our society can't do without, because some "primitives" did them.
50
"I believe if the idea of generally replacing marriage with individualized civil contracts were to become widespread, stipulations like the two you alluded to [religion and bigotry] would become common, and would be, especially in the second case, detestable."
It wouldn't matter, because the contract would be between the parties of the action, who, presumably , will be religious and/or bigoted regardless of what the law says. The contract between them will not affect others, unless one of the party happens to be one against whom the religious or bigoted viewpoint acts, which, I'd suppose, would be highly unusual.
Marriage is already contractual (thats why you have to sign a document with witnesses), it's just governed by legal precedent in areas where the marriage contract is mute. That is why a pre-nup trumps the usual division of property upon divorce (among an unlimited number of other things).
I kind of like the idea of using corporate law as a model for managing households, but the legal entity representing a party would have to remain a unary relationship. Hm.. Maybe. That actually has some interesting implications if you extend the idea into a augmented reality world.
A person's corporate sole could enter into a marriage agreement with another entity where that entity was not a corporate sole, but instead was a corporate facade that had legal authority to enter into binding contracts. That facade would agree to provide certain services, such as appearing to the other party as a single entity with a temporally uniform personality (to a degree that fits within cultural norms), and to take care of other such domestic business as is common in marriages. This meta-mate could in fact be a collection of other people who, through the technology available (augmented reality devices) appear to the other part as a consistent avatar and have access to all the details about what other agents of the meta-mate have done and said. Different agents could handle different aspects of the relationship.
Might make interesting short fiction. Hmm, I need to go visit oort-cloud.org, I have some writing to do.
@flamingphonebook: Except marriage isn't treated as a contract. Some of the aspects of marriage is handled like a contract, some aspects are handled like a corporation, and some have no analog anywhere else in the law.
The most important difference is that the marriage contract is actually among three parties- the participants and the state. The state grants rewards based on the conditions of the contract. Because it has the power to grant rewards (for example, tax breaks), it retains some power to dictate the conditions.
Don't you see how that's a double edged sword? If the state has the power to grant tax benefits to married people, it has a vested interest in controlling the institution of marriage.
In contrast, in a "household corporation", there would be no special tax benefits from the state. The state's only role in the arrangement is to adjudicate disputes between members of the corporation and in the interaction of the corporation with other entities.
What guarantee do we have that years from now, they will not make performing gay marriages a requirement for any church or group that wants a license to perform weddings?
The same guarantee that meant the local Catholic church wasn't obligated to perform the marriage when my husband and I got married. It's a private religious organization, not the state government, and we're not members of the congregation. They're allowed to say "no, we won't perform your marriage."
Now, if the Justice of the Peace or the Country Registrar had refused, that would have been a problem. They're not a private religious organization, they're the government. They don't get to say "you're not a member of the congregation."
@#50 Me - in some states, you actually have to prove INFERTILITY for certian marriages to be legally valid (cousin marriages in Illinois, for example, last I checked). Fertility is no longer key to marriage in many places.
What I'm most concerned about with gay marriage is the thin end of a wedge.
And another spurious argument. Next the government will be forcing people to officiate at interracial marriages and let Jews into country clubs. Oh, the humanity.
Me @ #50,
If your comment requires a disclaimer begging people to be nice to you, maybe it's time for a long look in the mirror. Either take the heat for your opinions or put a sock in it.
Sigh.
There goes our tourism. If Nevada ever passes a similar law, we'll have to go back to living in igloos and eating whale blubber -_o
Signed,
One Irritated Canadian
codesuidae: Actually, one of my reasons for advocating household corporations is that they're more adaptable in the future.
Marriage defines a specific kind of relationship. The push for same-sex marriage is merely extending that definition slightly. This doesn't address the future needs of society at all.
Your sci-fi example is a good one, but we can illustrate the need for this arrangement without getting quite so esoteric. Think of the extended family- a venerable tradition that has no protection under current marriage law. Then, of course, the role of group marriages- another venerable tradition that never really caught on in the west (historical Mormons excluded). Same for the small commune.
Me 50: "Grounds for divorce" is not the same as "should not be allowed."
How about this: if a couple has not reproduced within 3 years of marriage, their marriage is automatically (no court costs) null and void; either may marry someone else; neither may claim the other as dependent; they may not file joint tax returns.
The idea that marriage is entirely, or even mostly, to provide for children is a particularly stupid one, and even people who claim it don't really believe it; they're just trying to find something that makes us dirty queers different. If they really believed it they would be arguing for horrific laws like the one outlined at the top of this post. It's an argument in my 3. category.
@ 60
Not all parts of Canada rely on gay marriage to outweigh the charms of the Blackfly/Horsefly/Shadfly/Deerfly/Mosquito. I think we'll be able to keep the igloo living and blubber eating east of Gimli yet.
@Xopher: Well, it's not an entirely stupid one. It depends on the kind of society you're in. For our society, I agree. For a smaller, more agrarian society, it's a perfectly reasonable idea.
For a smaller, more agrarian society, it's a perfectly reasonable idea.
So, one from history, then.
On a personal note, I have some friends who have been together for ten years. I know that one of them would love to get married. The other one is a huge commitment-phobe. I wonder if they'll end up breaking up because of this. Anyone out there feeling pressured to get married by this decision?
t3knomanser @ #51:
We have to get past this idea that an individual is a single functional unit- that a person is an atom.
Why?
T3knomanser, we were discussing our society, right? Perhaps I should have said "The idea that marriage in our society is entirely..." but since we're talking about yesterday's California ruling I thought that was assumed.
But speaking of early agrarian societies: in big chunks (time and space both) of medieval Europe, marriage only happened when significant property was involved, and that meant mostly among the nobility. Peasants did no more than "jump the broom" at most.
Also, the modern marriage ceremony owes its origin to rituals for blessing "special friendships" between people of the same sex, not from the premodern wedding, which was strictly a property transaction (i.e., one piece of property, the bride, was transferred from her father's family to the groom's father's family, and generally some other property went the other way).
This reminds me of the debate over the "traditional" Pledge of Allegiance. The traditional Pledge does not contain the words 'under God', which were added in the we-have-to-show-we're-not-Godless-commies McCarthy era.
Lesson: don't talk about the past if you're just assuming it's all what you're used to. The nuclear family is an invention of the 20th Century, and a bad one.
T3knomanser@40: State-sanctioned marriage is not a fundamental right. .... regardless of what SCOTUS says.
BWHAAHAHAAHAHAHA!
You are hilarious, man.
What you're saying, in short, is it isn't a fundamental right, because you don't want it to be. You know, because what SCOTUS says shouldn't matter.
Oh, please, oh please oh please oh please, try to explain your way out of this, instead of saying something like "I made a mistake" or "I am bringing my personal bias into the conversation" or "this is a tinfoil hat theory of my own making". I could use the entertainment. Fessing up to being wrong is so boring. Definitely, run with it.
Run Forest Run.
t3knomanser@55 If the state has the power to grant tax benefits to married people, it has a vested interest in controlling the institution of marriage.
OH NOES! A Slippery Slope argument! Offered as as conditional statement!
If there's one thing I've noticed, it's how much the government is motivated to tyrannize the institution of marriage because of what taxes they get from it.
(cough)crap(cough)
There are two issued being discussed. Whether equal rights area good idea. Whether state-sponsored marriage is a good idea.
I support the household corporation model because it could be used by any number of people (i.e. more than two) who might be a 'couple', parent and adult child(ren), siblings, friends, whatever. It would create equal rights for the largest number of people.
I also support me having the same rights that the most privileged member of my society currently enjoys. That means legalizing gay marriage. Woe to those who try to stop me.
wouldn't it make much more sense to fight for government to disassociate itself from oversight of marriage? I know the official answer as well as the logistical factors and the industries created around them. my question is rhetorical of course. It seems to me that the "legalities of the institution of marriage" are it's own downfall.
anita bryant continues her grave spin. I know, i know, but she's dead to me. maybe she's to blame for orange juice giving me hives.
wouldn't it make much more sense to fight for government to disassociate itself from oversight of marriage?
Baby steps. That's 100 years down the line. 50 years to get society on board and 50 years for gay men to get bored with planning weddings.
"50 years for gay men to get bored with planning weddings"
quite a conservative time frame there ANTINOUS
@ 70 GregLondon:
(cough)crap(cough)
They do. They get more money from every gay and lesbian couple in a committed household relationship because they are not married in the eyes of the federal government, and thus have to file individual tax returns, as LargeMarge and others have mentioned a couple times.
The reasoning behind the argument that Marriage shouldn't be a state-sponsored contract is that then it can be restricted according to the will of that government; e.g. the current institution.
Regardless of that and whether it's a good idea (I think so, philosophically), I though that generally we'd all agreed that separate but equal never turns out to be equal?
I suspect that most of what passes as marriage law today originated as a means to control property and inheritance rights. And much of the law was created for certain parties to acquire the actual property. Centuries if not millenia ago.
Law makers today -- even with the best intentions -- have this unfortunate legacy to contend with.
A lot of the discussion on the subject of gay marriage is philosophical in nature and tends to overlook what the marriage laws were designed for [property] and why [greed on the part of the lawmakers].
A complete overhaul is warranted, but I doubt we'll ever see it.
I have been seldom more amused nor disgusted by how this issue makes America look. We will be looked at both as progressive for what California has just done, and equally as barbaric for how much venom this unleashes. DO note that I have expressed which showing was amusing or produced disgust.
As an exercise in how our world and our lives are affected by these rhetoric battles- Ask yourself what would happen if you declared yourself openly for or against ANY equally divisive issue?
As in how family,friends,or -use your imagination- will react hearing that YOUR opinion is or is not shared. When we reach a day where free speech means what it says and says what it means then we can feel humanity has grown up a bit.
And yes- NONE of this is my declaring anything other than honesty needing to be accepted.
@t3knomanser (#51):
"I think every individual should have legal recognition as at least ten different fictional persons. We have to get past this idea that an individual is a single functional unit- that a person is an atom. In