Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Dan Savage comments on this news story about a married couple who tortured their child:
A husband and wife have been charged with torture and other counts after a bruised, terrified 17-year-old showed up at a gym with a chain locked to his ankle, claiming he had just fled his captors, authorities said Tuesday.Kelly Lau Schumacher, 30, and Michael Schumacher, 34, were arrested late Monday, said Matt Robinson, a spokesman for police in Tracy.
They had been taken into custody for questioning earlier in the day at their home in Tracy, where the emaciated boy was allegedly held against his will. A search of the home turned up evidence implicating the couple, Robinson said
Savage responds:
Kelly and Michael Schumacher are legally married--and they can stay legally married, even if they're found to be guilty of this horrendous crime. They can stay legally married even if the decomposing remains of twenty other teenagers are found buried in their backyard. Their marriage license cannot be revoked. If Michael dies in prison, Kelly can remarry--even if she's serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. If Kelly decides to divorce Michael, he can remarry--even if he's sitting on death row. He can remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce until he runs out of prison pen pals. Because the courts have declared that marriage is so fundamental a right that it cannot be denied to convicted rapists or to serial killers.But it's a right that's denied to me and my boyfriend. Because we're both men and that ain't right.
He's got a point. A really good one.
Politics
Comments
Too bad fundies and bigots are immune to rational points.
Posted by: schism | December 9, 2008 9:38 AM
We need to campaign that marriage is a secular contract, and that the Churches get to keep Holy Matrimony.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 9, 2008 9:45 AM
@gingerbaker
We tried that - and was told that was civil unions where 'marriage in all but name' and the fundies actively campaign against it.
See Michigan.
(i agree with you but practically its not feasible)
Posted by: yoshi | December 9, 2008 9:58 AM
When fundies want to make a secular-sounding argument against gay marriage, they frame it as an attempt to "redefine marriage". Too often I see this argument go unanswered, which comes across as a concession and perpetuates the illusion that they've made a point....that "redefinition of marriage" is a something anyone should be concerned about. I'm sick of that, and I want to see this assertion challenged directly.
They're goddamn right legal gay marriage is a re-definition of marriage. In the legal sphere, just WTF is wrong with that? We redefine things for legal purposes all the time, when current definitions are unjustified. No one is telling churches they have to re-define anything -- they can define marriage however they want. Whate we need to do is tell them, point blank, that they don't get to define marriage for other people. They don't own the word "marriage", and they don't hold the rights to the concept of a committed union.
Posted by: JRQ | December 9, 2008 10:11 AM
And let's be clear -- heteros have "redefined" marriage several times over in the past couple centuries. Marriage is no longer a property transaction between groom and father-in-law.
Posted by: Melody | December 9, 2008 10:22 AM
Absolutely right, JRQ. The "redefining marriage" gambit seems pretty circular to me: "You can't redefine marriage, because to do so would be to...redefine marriage." I guess you could call it a kind of conservatism degree zero: "You can never change things, because that would be to change them."
Posted by: Eveningsun | December 9, 2008 10:26 AM
Yoshi
I can't see Michigan from my house. ;D
Could you expand on your answer when you have time?
It seems to me that going down the path of civil unions is a stop gap measure at best, a tacit agreement that the GLBT community doesn't deserve equal human rights, and ultimately is a blind alley.
That marriage is a civil and secular institution is, AFAIK, the truth. And therefore a powerful rhetorical point.
If Holy matrimony is in fact, a reliably historic ecclesiastic entity, then the distinction of marriage vs Holy Matrimony should be easy to frame as an assurance that the GBLT community has absolutely no interest in interfering or redefining the religious aspects of marriage.
In other words, by elevating the religious ceremony above the civil, and reinforcing that the ceremony in EVERY church is sacrosanct, the unspoken fears of the opponents of gay marriage will be addressed and assuaged.
Meanwhile, of course, GLBT will get what they deserve - equal rights and that means no less than marriage rights.
Perhaps such a strategy failed once before. It still seems to me to be the most honest, upfront approach. And to be one that would logically appear to have the best chance of ultimate success.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 9, 2008 10:32 AM
To me the obvious solution is simply defining marriage as the filing a legal document. That document should include a simple check-box that can, if the parties choose, grant Power of Attorney to each other, so that one does not have to, down the road, go to blood-sucking lawyers to draw up those papers.
If you want to have a ceremony, knock yourself out. But the legal marriage contract is the one filed with the state. Remove "the power invested in" all priests, pastors, shamen, ministers, people with holy underwear, and in fact any private citizen to declare someone married in a legally binding sense.
I could live with that. In fact, I did live with that. My wife and I got married in court so that the green-card clock would start ticking for her. And then a few months later we got married in church. We use the first date for legal purposes, and celebrate the latter date as our anniversary.
Posted by: heddle | December 9, 2008 10:43 AM
heddle:
Two of my coworkers got married three times. To each other.
First time was via a notary public, I think (notaries public can marry people in Florida; it may have been through a justice of the peace). Then there was the Catholic wedding (his family is Catholic, he's mostly recovered) and then the Hindu wedding (she's from Nepal).
Oddly enough, they still didn't believe she was here to stay. They still suspected her intentions even after they had a kid together. (Adorable little guy, too.) They're still arguing with the agency formerly known as the INS.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2008 10:51 AM
Exactly, Heddle, my brother and his wife did exactly the same.
My wife and I are legally married without ever having been near a church. As Heddle says, we signed some documents at the town hall, and then went home and had a big old party.
It was an atheist wedding and has nothing to do with any sort of religious concept of marriage, except insofar as the fact that the two share some common principles.
Church weddings and legal declarations of marriage should be entirely separate - it protects everyone.
Posted by: Matthew | December 9, 2008 10:51 AM
Okay, that last paragraph didn't make much sense. My coworkers had the kid, and are arguing with the former INS, who don't believe she's actually planning on staying with him.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2008 10:53 AM
Wow, I've never thought of it that way. To hold less rights then some of the lowest scum of American society...
Posted by: deep | December 9, 2008 11:12 AM
I hate it when heddle says something I entirely agree with. It seems somehow a violation of the natural order of things.
Posted by: noncarborundum | December 9, 2008 11:13 AM
Morning brain fart, I read the title as Michael Savage - you know, the wingnut conservative radio guy, and I was shocked at the final outcome. A quick search on wiki reminded me that this was Dan Savage, a well known gay rights author and activist.
Posted by: pksp | December 9, 2008 11:16 AM
Benjamin, that would probably be because your coworker's foreign spouse has the wrong shade of skin.
me, i married a U.S. citizen while here on what was technically a non-immigrant visa, and ten years later i'm now a naturalized citizen. still married, but only the once --- civil marriage --- and no kids, nor were any ever in the picture. i had my share of headaches from the INS (before and after their name changes), but they never doubted i was here to stay... likely because i'm white.
friend of mine married an eastern european mail-order bride. she ended up leaving, mostly because she got bored of the small-town midwest, but they never had any real immigration problems either. again, right shade of skin.
i love it when people tell me the USA is somehow post-racist; stories like your coworker's are way too bloody obvious to immigrants and the folks who live with us.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 9, 2008 11:22 AM
Nomen Nescio,
My wife is not white and we had no problems with the INS. At least not of the time you imply. The problems we did encounter were due to the Baltimore Office being staffed mostly by illiterates--it was very much like when hell is portrayed as a bureaucracy.
Posted by: heddle | December 9, 2008 11:33 AM
Yoshi,
See Michigan.
On the other hand, we tried it in the UK too, it also was oopposed by the religious zealots on pretty much the same ground, but managed to pass it through anyway. A gay marriage is now called a "civil partnership" but is in any other way indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage.
Part of the fundie campaign against the change was just bizarre though: they claimed that civil-partnerships discriminated against heterosexual couples, because only gays could have civil-partnerships whereas straight couples had to have marriages. But that's fundie world for you.
And remember that the UK has a very established Church (which is not the cucumber sandwich place it likes to pretend it is!)
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | December 9, 2008 11:41 AM
I don't think it was their child they tortured.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | December 9, 2008 11:48 AM
Jim Thomerson:
But it was probably their chain around his ankle.
Posted by: Chiroptera | December 9, 2008 11:52 AM
Remove "the power invested in" all priests, pastors, shamen, ministers, people with holy underwear, and in fact any private citizen to declare someone married in a legally binding sense.
Careful heddle, your reader in Chad might not approve.
Seriously though, I could not agree more -- I wish I wrote that. Hi-five.
Posted by: StuV | December 9, 2008 12:07 PM
I just have to draw attention to the fact that, for all the flak he takes here on other topics, on this one, Heddle emphatically "gets it". So did my younger fundamentalist self, when I got married in 1980. Gay marriage wasn't on the radar at the time, but it was clear to me that there were two distinct agreements being made in that church on that day. One was a spiritual covenant before God, witnessed by the community of believers. The other was a legal contract administered by the provincial government.
While it's certainly convenient that the presiding clergy can sign the paperwork on the legal aspects, it's not an essential part of the religious aspect, and there's no reason the two can't be separated (except of course, for the howls of outrage from the Christianists about how we're persecuting them by removing their privileged status).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 9, 2008 12:18 PM
I think Heddle's proposed solution is perfectly fucking reasonable, which is why it's probably several parsecs away from anything we're actually likely to achieve.
Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2008 12:24 PM
As one who frequently engages heddle in rough and tumble debate, it would be wholly churlish for me not to chime in and say that I fully agree with him, and his first paragraph makes the argument as succinctly and clearly as anyone should need.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 12:27 PM
I agree that heddle suggests a reasonable model. The only proviso I'd make is that simple check-boxes for something like a POA might not be sufficient to settle the matter. For instance, people who check that box to be an organ donor on their driver's license may not have that automatically enacted if the time comes. The doctors still go to the family to ask first.
Lawyers can indeed be bloodsucking oily maggots...present company excepted of course. :)
Posted by: Dave S. | December 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Heddle, you are painfully correct. If marriage worked like this, I would fully support the right of churches to turn away gay grooms.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 9, 2008 12:42 PM
I'll again chime in on the side of heddle for this one; it's the position I've held myself for some time, and there are no rational reasons to opppose it. I just wish the opposition were rational.
Also, I think it's a bit of a cheap shot about the "reader rom Chad". My own little-visited corner of the interwebs has a regular from Finland that apparently tripped over me in a Google search or something. Audiences are where you find 'em, and if you're playing to a small one, so be it. More people read my t-shirts than my blog; but they do read it.
Posted by: Ranson | December 9, 2008 12:50 PM
My husband has the right color of skin, but the wrong variety of genitalia (i.e., the same type as mine), so I am completely unable to sponsor him for immigration. So here I am, living in Canada and even able to see the United States from my dining room window on very clear days, but not able to live there without choosing to live apart from the man I've pledge to spend the rest of my days with.
Dealing with the INS does usually suck, but the alternative of not being permitted to deal with them at all sucks even more.
Posted by: Alex | December 9, 2008 12:54 PM
I write an indie music blog and for the longest time I had a single, solitary reader from some tiny former French colony in the pacific. It sort of warmed my heart a little to know that he or she checked in every day to read whatever bollocks I was on about that particular day. And that even as isolated as he was, he still had access to some pretty obscue and interesting music. I liked teh internetz a little better for that.
Not to hijack the thread though, sorry - carry on.
Posted by: Matthew | December 9, 2008 12:57 PM
Someone said, in reference to marriage getting redefined plenty of times in the past, that "[m]arriage is no longer a property transaction between groom and father-in-law." Very true, but I betcha a lot of the people arguing against this current and appropriate redefinition push (to include same-sex marriages) also regret that older one.
Posted by: bob | December 9, 2008 1:05 PM
Actually, bob, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people arguing against the "definition change" actually wish it were still a "property transaction between groom and father-in-law."
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 1:18 PM
Gingerbaker,
I think that yoshi is quite correct in saying
The basic problem is that both straights and gays continue to insist on getting a warm, fuzzy government approval of the sexual side of the relationship. If we all decided today that it's none of the government's business who competent adults do or do not have sex with, then we could end the government's involvement with marriage.
Instead we would have a government approved and supported household contract by which two competent adults agree to support each other in all the ways that marriage now does, except that there would be no implication of a sexual relationship (or the lack of it). Gays in a romantic relationship, straights in a romantic relationship, and non-romantic couples (two elderly cousins who want to set up a household together; best friends, etc.) would all qualify for the government-backed benefits of a unified household.
The result would be free access to all for greater financial and psychological security,for the couple and for any child of either or both or adopted by either or both, with likely less reliance on government welfare.
So long as as straights and gays join together to exclude non-romantic couples from the various benefits of marriage, there will continue to be the struggle between those who think the government should bestow its warm fuzzy of official approval on gay sexual relationships and those who strenuously insist that the fuzzies be reserved for male-female sexual relationships.
Someday, I hope, we're all going to mature out of the need for the government to confirm and officially recognize our sexual choices, so that we can stop discriminating against non-romantic couples who also desperately need and want the same household partnership benefits.
And, no, there's no ethical reason that household partnerships couldn't be extended to three or more people, but so far no one has figured out how that would work in terms of inheritance, divorce, making medical decisions for each other, etc.
And what about society's perceived need to discourage incest? Right now, father and daughter can't "marry" because a government contract carries with it the approval of sex between them. With household contracts, and no government marriage at all, there would no impled permission of sex, and incest laws could remain in force.
There are plenty of other groups, most religious and some not, who would be delighted to celebrate sexual relationships and award marriage ceremonies and certificates to those who wish for it.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 9, 2008 1:41 PM
How does the fact that bad people can get and remain married build a case for gay marriage? Ed, the "point" you mentioned sounds purely like an emotional argument, not a rational one.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 1:54 PM
The point being made is that the main thrust against gay marriage is that homosexual activities are "deviant behaviors." Well, so is murder, so is rape, so is kidnapping, so is torture, so are a lot of things. But noone who opposes gay marriage also opposes, at least not nearly as vociferously, marriage for convicted murderers or rapists or kidnappers or torturerers. So, evidently, gay people are lower than murderers, et al., according to the logic at work in the arguments constructed against gay marriage.
Posted by: jws | December 9, 2008 1:59 PM
If the anti-gay marriage bigots cared a whit about children (as they claim so stridently to), they would think long and hard about why so many children in straight, Christian families wind up psychologically damaged to some degree or another. Of course, they never do, because this argument has nothing to do with child welfare. It has everything to do with anti-gay bigotry.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 9, 2008 2:03 PM
How does the fact that bad people can get and remain married build a case for gay marriage? Ed, the "point" you mentioned sounds purely like an emotional argument, not a rational one.
By undermining the arguments against gay marriage. I don't think the case for gay marriage really needs to be made if there is no grounds to disallow it.
Posted by: Odie | December 9, 2008 2:12 PM
Sadie:
1) Children from Christian families are not damaged in any way, unless, of course, they are nto real Christians.
2) Their eternal souls are being saved! Surely that is worth the mild discomfort caused by physical or psychological abuse!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 9, 2008 2:14 PM
If the anti-gay marriage bigots cared a whit about children (as they claim so stridently to), they would think long and hard about why so many children in straight, Christian families wind up psychologically damaged to some degree or another. Of course, they never do, because this argument has nothing to do with child welfare. It has everything to do with anti-gay bigotry.
Can you give me some numbers on how many children in straight, Christian families wind up damaged, as you put it? And documentation to back that up?
But noone who opposes gay marriage also opposes, at least not nearly as vociferously, marriage for convicted murderers or rapists or kidnappers or torturerers.
Can you back that up jws, or is that just your assumption?
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 2:21 PM
"Can you give me some numbers on how many children in straight, Christian families wind up damaged, as you put it? And documentation to back that up?"
I think he was just making a point: Plenty of children from straight marriages turn into pretty piss-poor adults. Think of YOUR family -- I'm sure you have an uncle or an aunt or a cousin from a typical "Nuclear" family that has turned into a pretty atrocious adult. Maybe they've become a drug addict or an alcoholic, or maybe they rob banks.
But you don't see the right-wingers blaming those problems on the fact that their parents were married and straight, do you? Of course not. The only time they'd ever blame the parents is if the parents were gay -- "Your son turned into a bank robbing drug addict because you are GAY!"
Basically, they argue that gay marriages will ruin children and turn them into horrible adults, yet never seem to mention the many horrible adults from "typical families" that exist today.
"But noone who opposes gay marriage also opposes, at least not nearly as vociferously, marriage for convicted murderers or rapists or kidnappers or torturerers."
And again, he was just trying to make a point.
Please point me in the direction of even one person protesting or debating the fact that convicted murderes and rapists and kidnappers get married all the time. I bet you can't find one because they don't exist.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 2:34 PM
What they're really immune to is arguments based on equality/egalitarianism - that's why arguing with them on the basis of fairness or past injustice is useless. They believe that there are "saved" and "sinners", the Elect and the godless. These self-proclaimed Real Americans fundamentally disagree with the maxim "that all Men are created equal", though they will never admit it.
For all their wailing about "elitism", they are most hypocritical elitists of all.
Posted by: Joe Max | December 9, 2008 2:45 PM
Basically, they argue that gay marriages will ruin children and turn them into horrible adults, yet never seem to mention the many horrible adults from "typical families" that exist today.
Maybe the reason nobody is mentioning the issues of children becoming horrible adults from "typical families" is because nobody is pushing some kind of political agenda for these dysfunctional "typical families". But I can assure you that bad straight parenting is as bothersome to religious conservatives as gay marriage. Its just that bad straight parents haven't organized themselves into a political movement demanding legal protections for their behaviors.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 2:46 PM
What they're really immune to is arguments based on equality/egalitarianism - that's why arguing with them on the basis of fairness or past injustice is useless. They believe that there are "saved" and "sinners", the Elect and the godless. These self-proclaimed Real Americans fundamentally disagree with the maxim "that all Men are created equal", though they will never admit it.
Incorrect Joe. Maybe you know this and just are just ignoring it intentionally, but Christians DO believe in equality/egalitarianism, but only for immutable characteristics. Christians do not believe that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 2:50 PM
"Christians do not believe that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic."
Just like the used to think that being black wasn't an immutable characteristic?
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 2:53 PM
But these horrible parents already have legal protections that ordinary, functional, well-adjusted homosexuals do not. That's the whole point. To name just two, they can already marry and there is no categorical ban to keep them from adopting children.
My my, it sounds like you're treating bad parenting and religious conservativism as disjoint, while treating gay marriage as comparable to bad parenting. How do you justify this?
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2008 2:54 PM
"Maybe the reason nobody is mentioning the issues of children becoming horrible adults from "typical families" is because nobody is pushing some kind of political agenda for these dysfunctional "typical families". "
Oh, I see. So EQUALITY is a "political agenda" now? Equality should be a given considering our Constitution, but since it obviously is not a given in our country (which I find rather ironic, considering our Constitution), we have to fight for it.
" But I can assure you that bad straight parenting is as bothersome to religious conservatives as gay marriage. Its just that bad straight parents haven't organized themselves into a political movement demanding legal protections for their behaviors. "
That argument makes no sense whatsoever. "demanding legal protections for their behaviors" implies that gays are demanding legal protection from criminal behavior, since I was talking about no one getting upset that murderers and rapists can marry, as long as they are straight. They are demanding equal rights. There is a difference.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 3:00 PM
Christians DO believe in equality/egalitarianism, but only for immutable characteristics.
So we can discriminate against people because of their occupation, their hobbies, their wealth, their eating habits...and Christians think that would be fine?
Posted by: Odie | December 9, 2008 3:01 PM
You do know religion is not an immutable characteristic, right?
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2008 3:02 PM
"My my, it sounds like you're treating bad parenting and religious conservativism as disjoint, while treating gay marriage as comparable to bad parenting. How do you justify this?"
THIS! This is what the problem is.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 3:03 PM
Oh FUCKING mroberts. I am just going to say it. I fucking hate you.
There; no faux intellect, nothing to back it up nor nothing to try to pretend that I am not being base and frothing.
mroberts: I FUCKING HATE YOU.
Posted by: WBPNYC | December 9, 2008 3:31 PM
marilove/DaveL:
Color isn't immutable? But... but... but what about Michael Jackson?
(Michael Jackson is living proof that in America, any poor black boy can grow up to be a rich white woman.)
And I shudder to say this, but I actually agree with heddle. Completely separate the religious and legal aspects of marriage. I support a church's refusal to perform ceremonies for gay couples, but not the church trying to impose that refusal on the government.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2008 3:32 PM
Just like the used to think that being black wasn't an immutable characteristic?
Christians believed that one could go from black to white? Really? Who and where?
So we can discriminate against people because of their occupation, their hobbies, their wealth, their eating habits...and Christians think that would be fine?
I wouldn't necessarily say we should discriminate against those things you mentioned, but the law discriminates against behaviors all the time.
Oh FUCKING mroberts. I am just going to say it. I fucking hate you.There; no faux intellect, nothing to back it up nor nothing to try to pretend that I am not being base and frothing.mroberts: I FUCKING HATE YOU.
Yup, and I'm sure in the next post you will accuse me of being the big bad hater. Let everyone see the incredible hypocrisy of those who accuse conservative Christians of being the haters. NOWHERE on this blog will you ever see from me anything resembling the hatred I get from many of the people on this blog, including this "tolerant" poster.
You do know religion is not an immutable characteristic, right?
Of course I do, but it receives special protections because the Founders wanted it that way.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 3:40 PM
mroberts -
So gays getting married is equivalent to child abuse in your mind? Now that's fucked up.Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2008 3:45 PM
NOWHERE on this blog will you ever see from me anything resembling the hatred I get from many of the people on this blog, including this "tolerant" poster.
BULLSHIT! YOU COMPARED ME TO PEOPLE BEATING THEIR CHILDREN. BULLSHIT. JUST BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND YOURSELF AS A NICE PERSON DOESN'T MEAN THAT I WILL LIKE YOUR HATE.
Ok, enough yelling. I know nothing will make a difference in the "christian" hater so I am done. I am REALLY cranky today and this just set me off.
There, mroberts.
Posted by: WBPNYC | December 9, 2008 3:45 PM
Holy crap people, talk about reading into my posts. With my first post on this thread I responded to somebody that made the following assertion:
Christians are bothered by homosexuality but not by bad straight parents.
I replied with the following point:
No, Christians are bothered by homosexuality AND bad straight parents.
A lot of you took that to mean that I think gay parents = child abusers.
I did NOT say that. You all READ that into my post. I said that Christians are bothered by gay marriage AND bad straight parents. Maybe I could have phrased my post a little clearer, but saying what I did does NOT equate gays to child abusers. I apologize if you took it that way, but that was not my meaning.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 3:53 PM
mroberts, show me the vast collection of columns from worldnetdaily about the "murderers" agenda. Show me the protests against a rapists right to marry.
It doesn't happen because there's a curious disconnect among people like you.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 9, 2008 3:55 PM
mroberts, show me the vast collection of columns from worldnetdaily about the "murderers" agenda. Show me the protests against a rapists right to marry.
Bachalon, that's absurd. Show me a political movement to legitimize murder and you will have a "vast collection of columns" against it. Why would columnists write about something that is a non-issue? I don't see how rapists getting married is a major issue either. Columnists are going to write about major issues, and I don't think that rapists getting married is one of them. If that issue bothers you, bring it up. You might get a lot of people supporting a ban on rapists to marry from both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 4:00 PM
Lies, lies, lies. You don know there's a commandment against that, right?
And let me add, just because you don't use words like "I fucking hate you" doesn't mean you aren't spreading hate. It's a very hateful act to try to deny others legal equality. It's a hateful act to say gays don't deserve all the rights we straights have.
You can't work to harm someone like that and claim there's no hatred involved. So please stop saying you aren't involved in hate. You hate gays and gayness and you hate them enough to insist that they be treated as second class citizens.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 4:01 PM
What they're really immune to is arguments based on equality/egalitarianism - that's why arguing with them on the basis of fairness or past injustice is useless. They believe that there are "saved" and "sinners", the Elect and the godless. These self-proclaimed Real Americans fundamentally disagree with the maxim "that all Men are created equal", though they will never admit it.
For all their wailing about "elitism", they are most hypocritical elitists of all.
Posted by: Joe Max | December 9, 2008 4:01 PM
I said that Christians are bothered by gay marriage AND bad straight parents.
Which Christians, exactly?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2008 4:02 PM
mroberts -
Ignoring the part about bad parents "organizing themselves into a political movement" for now, what you said was: "But I can assure you that bad straight parenting is as bothersome to religious conservatives as gay marriage." So let me ask you a question. Is there any chance bad straight parenting is more bothersome than gay marriage to you?Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2008 4:02 PM
Bullshit. Religious conservatives are not organizing to block bad straight parents from having children or getting married. I know they don't condone abusive parents, but they're not putting nearly as much effort into that as they are into preventing gays from gaining legal recognition of their commitments to each other.
Hanley, when did religious conservatives start "organizing" to block gay marriage? When gays started pushing for it! Gays are the ones that brought this up, not conservatives. You can be assured that if bad parents start a political movement to demand special protections for bad parenting, you will have as much opposition as there is for gay marriage. The political opposition on the part of conservatives exists because gays have created a political movement to have gay marriage. How is this surprising?
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 4:05 PM
the implicit systemic racism in the immigration bureaucracy might perhaps vary from one part of the country to another, i couldn't know. but:
...that sentence could just as perfectly well describe the Detroit INS office, too. well, okay, most of the folks there do seem to be literate --- but teaching either a demonic imp or a hellbound soul, take your pick which the office workers may be, to read, doesn't make the office they're in any less hellish.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 9, 2008 4:06 PM
I know I'm late for the heddle love fest, so let me just say this:
First - there's the Gollum-heddle and then there's the Smeagol-heddle...
Second - OMG, there's a heddle-wife? For her sake, I hope that Gollum-heddle only shows up here.
/snark off
Now I'll go back and read what Gollum-mroberts is up to.
Posted by: ildi | December 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Why would columnists write about something that is a non-issue?
That's my point exactly You don't care about "protecting" marriage. You only care about keeping us gays out.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 9, 2008 4:09 PM
so if only those mean, nasty gays hadn't gone and asked for their civil rights, you poor victimized conservatives wouldn't have had to be so rude as to deny them those rights. gotcha.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 9, 2008 4:10 PM
Oh man... I just had to laugh at the screwy logic that is mr. roberts' immutability.
Yes, it's okay if your immutable characteristic is a homicidal tendency or pedophilia--People with THOSE immutable characteristics can get married.
But people with the immutable characteristic of homosexuality can't.
This could only make sense to a true-blue Liar for Jebus.
Posted by: Aquaria | December 9, 2008 4:11 PM
No not really. They came out in opposition to the civil rights movement, too.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 9, 2008 4:13 PM
Posted by: Taz | December 9, 2008 4:13 PM
WBPNYC - If I understand you correctly, your personal definition of a "Christian hater" is a person who ridicules the arguments made by some Christians when these particular Christians attempt to use the power of government to deny some Americans their right to exercise their rights even though you find their exercise repugnant. Do I have that right?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 4:15 PM
And that's admirable how?
Umm, they don't need to start such a political movement, because unlike gays, these folks already have the right to consecrate their childbearing by getting legally married. And I don't see conservative Christians organizing to deny them that right. Where in my post did I use the word surprising? That hate-filled bigots like you would organize to deny people legal equality doesn't surprise me at all. In fact it's exactly the kind of despicable behavior I would predict you hate-filled bigots to engage in.Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 4:15 PM
But I can assure you that bad straight parenting is as bothersome to religious conservatives as gay marriage. Its just that bad straight parents haven't organized themselves into a political movement demanding legal protections for their behaviors.
So it's okay to pay more attention to gay adoptive parents than bad straight parents, not because the former do more harm to kids, but because they had the audacity to get together and petition their government, and people, for redress of grievances? You pay more attention to gays because they exercise their clearly-stated Constitutional rights, and that bothers you more than straight parents mistreating helpless children?
This is only the latest in a LONG series of laughable non-sequiturs that mroberts has pulled out of his bum to rationalize his mindless hatred of gays. Dude, what happened to your "breast feeding" argument?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2008 4:15 PM
Look up, heddle -- that's the point going past you.
Posted by: Tulse | December 9, 2008 4:20 PM
Shorter mroberts,
If the gays would just quit asking us to stop denying their rights, we'd just leave them alone.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 4:21 PM
so if only those mean, nasty gays hadn't gone and asked for their civil rights, you poor victimized conservatives wouldn't have had to be so rude as to deny them those rights. gotcha.
Oh please, Nomen. The original argument was that Christians were not bothered by bad straight parenting, and you morph the whole conversation into the absurd hyperbole above. Thanks for the intelligent contribution to the conversation.
Yes, it's okay if your immutable characteristic is a homicidal tendency or pedophilia--People with THOSE immutable characteristics can get married.
Aquaria, what you are saying is completely beside the point! The fact that a scumbag rapist can get married does not equate to a justification for gay marriage. Yeah, maybe that seems weird, but currently in our society, marriage is defined as one man and one woman. If the man in that relationship happens to be a rapist, then well, I guess he can get married. If that bugs you, do something about it. But if both parties willingly enter into marriage, I don't see why they should be stopped if they fit the one man one woman criteria currently recognized in America.
Making connections between the fact that rapists can get married and gays cannot is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Criminal record is not a criteria in marriage generally, but gender of both parties IS.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 4:21 PM
mroberts said:
"I wouldn't necessarily say we should discriminate against those things you mentioned, but the law discriminates against behaviors all the time."
But you would have the law discriminate against gay people for doing the same thing as you do - having sex.
By what authority do you deem that homosexual sex should suffer discrimination?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 9, 2008 4:21 PM
Hanley, when did religious conservatives start "organizing" to block gay marriage? When gays started pushing for it! Gays are the ones that brought this up, not conservatives.
The standard excuse of tyrants and bigots: "We only started crushing dissenters after they started questioning the status quo and scaring us. It's their fault we're organizing to deny them their rights!" And of course, violence is never the bully's fault; it's the fault of the victim who resisted. And rapists...well, you know the rest.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2008 4:22 PM
mroberts, answer me this.
What is so problematic about giving a gay couple the same legal rights (and responsiblities) as a straight couple?
Obviously the word "marriage" is troublesome, because to so many people the religious connotations are dominant, but I think you would agree with me that the state cannot impose any obligations on God to grant spiritual recognition to gay marriages, so it is purely a matter of what rights the state grants people.
Why is it such a big deal to let the state do this?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 4:26 PM
Not in Massachusetts and Connecticut. And of course, not really the case either in Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. And also somewhat not the case in Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Oregon and Washington. So be careful about such blanket statements about "our" society. (For that matter, in my society in Canada, gay marriage is completely legal.)
And arguing what is "currently" the case isn't terribly convincing, since of course the issue isn't what is currently the case, but instead what the law should be.
Posted by: Tulse | December 9, 2008 4:29 PM
did anyone notice te ages of the parents of the 17 year old?
at his birth one was 17 and the other 13 ?!?!
is this a fundie marriage?
Posted by: interlude | December 9, 2008 4:41 PM
But you would have the law discriminate against gay people for doing the same thing as you do - having sex.
What?? Nobody is even making this argument. Nobody is saying gays can't get married because they are having sex with each other. The issue is that conservatives believe marriage is only appropriately between one man and one woman. This is a total straw man.
That hate-filled bigots like you would organize to deny people legal equality doesn't surprise me at all. In fact it's exactly the kind of despicable behavior I would predict you hate-filled bigots to engage in.
Since when was name-calling and demonization a rational argument Hanley? You don't enhance your position with such garbage. If you want to argue the issue, great, if you want to just call me names, then have a nice day.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 4:44 PM
the implicit systemic racism in the immigration bureaucracy might perhaps vary from one part of the country to another, i couldn't know.
I think it may.
Our Fijian friends often have to change planes in the US (direct to Vancouver is not frequently available), and they all refuse to go through LAX, in favour of Honalulu.
It took a member of the Fijian government to get one friend out of a jam in LA while changing planes for T.O. Appparently being a retired, middle-class Melanesian who lives in fucking paradise is a high risk for sneaking into the US while changing planes. Who fucking knew?
Posted by: Graculus | December 9, 2008 4:44 PM
To follow up Tulse -
mroberts, marriage is indeed defined as one man one woman *in your religion*. Why is that so hard to understand?
Why does your religion get to set the ground rules for all others to follow? What happens if I'm an Atheist or an Episcopalian and want to marry someone of the same sex? And can you explain to all of us what's wrong with Heddle's proposal of being legal joined in a court and being spiritually joined in a church?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | December 9, 2008 4:47 PM
"Just like the used to think that being black wasn't an immutable characteristic?
Christians believed that one could go from black to white? Really? Who and where?"
Not exactly, but they sure did use their religion to exclaim that interracial marriage was bad, bad, bad, and using quite a bit of the same language they do now.
So honestly I don't think Christians have any right to bring "immutable characteristics" to the table, considering their history.
Besides, people are BORN gay, therefore, it is indeed a "immutable characteristic" no matter how much people want to go "LALALALALALA!" and pretend otherwise. Ignoring something or denying its truth does not make it false.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 4:49 PM
Um, mroberts, "hate-filled" and "bigot" is a description, not name calling. "You fucking dipshit ape-raping moron" is name calling.
From Merriam-Webster: "Bigot: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
See, descriptive. My only error was in being redundant with the "hate filled" bit.
But, you nicely side-stepped my question. Why does it matter if government decides to grant two men the same legal rights, and impose on them the same legal responsiblities, it grants to one mand and a woman?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 4:50 PM
And arguing what is "currently" the case isn't terribly convincing, since of course the issue isn't what is currently the case, but instead what the law should be.
Tulse, I wasn't arguing what the current definition of marriage in the states around the country was. You came in half way through the thread. I making the point that attempting to argue for gay marriage by saying that even rapists can get married is an illogical argument because the two points are unrelated, that's all. I mentioned the "current" definition of marriage to make a broader point.
Posted by: mroberts | December 9, 2008 4:52 PM
As far as I'm concerned marriage with its solely religious definition is a violation of Church-State seperation. What he have is the government saying that my church (say, a unitarian church) has no right to make a religious statement (gays can be united in holy matrimony) since it contradicts the religious stance of the State (that marriage between gays is against the Bible, which is why that definition of marriage is used). How dare the government tell ANY church what they can and cannot believe in?
Posted by: Shawn S. | December 9, 2008 4:52 PM
James - good luck. I've asked mroberts that question several times and have yet to get a straight answer out of him.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 4:54 PM
and this definition results in a bunch of really fucked-up, illogical, harmful consequences, which is why we want to change this definition. it's not as if marriage hasn't been redefined plenty of times before, after all.
you're the one who's mindlessly resisting this change without having any damn good reason to. that results, in effect, in your agitating for continuing the aforesaid fucked-up, illogical, harmful consequences, indefinitely, for no damn good reason. those folks who are harmed by that have a legitimate grievance with you for it, yet you manage to somehow pretend to be offended when they point that out to you.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 9, 2008 4:55 PM
"The issue is that conservatives believe marriage is only appropriately between one man and one woman."
And it all goes back to sex.
Why else would there be such a big deal made of it? And of course, fundies don't care if someone is gay ... as long as they aren't having teh buttsecks and as long as they don't demand equal rights.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 4:55 PM
mroberts, how about this? In Massachusetts the definition of marriage is two adult persons, whether one man-one woman, one woman-one woman, or one man-one man.
Would you argue for redefining marriage in Massachusetts to make it one man-one woman?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 4:57 PM
mroberts said:
"Nobody is saying gays can't get married because they are having sex with each other. The issue is that conservatives believe marriage is only appropriately between one man and one woman.
So, for the record, you are saying that there is NOTHING about the behavior of homosexuals that conservatives would deem as justification for denying them the right to marriage?
But you would have the law discriminate against gay people for doing the same thing as you do - having sex.
By what authority do you deem that homosexual sex should suffer discrimination?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 9, 2008 5:02 PM
"Making connections between the fact that rapists can get married and gays cannot is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Criminal record is not a criteria in marriage generally, but gender of both parties IS."
I think the main issue with this is that criminal records probably OUGHT to be a criteria for being able to be married. If even these types of people are granted such a right (really it should be a privilege) then why not gays? It's almost as if we are saying that they are lower than convicted rapists and should have fewer rights than they do.
There is no logical argument against allowing gay marriage. It is a completely emotional argument because religions are never based on logic or rationality, but 'feelings' about gods or acceptance of arguments from authority. This is a religious issue.
Why is the definition of marriage "one man and one woman"? It's a narrow religious definition is why. The government should not be taking a stance on this issue of definition of marriage. Let the churches decide! I'm shocked that social conservatives are against letting churches in on such a decision!
Posted by: Shawn S. | December 9, 2008 5:05 PM
" making the point that attempting to argue for gay marriage by saying that even rapists can get married is an illogical argument because the two points are unrelated, that's all."
Gays can't get married because fundies say it will be "harmful" to society. Well, rapists and murderers really ARE harmful to society, and yet they can get married. I don't think it's so much an argument FOR gay marriage, as it is an argument AGAINST anti-gay marriage folk -- using their logic against them, essentially.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 5:05 PM
"I'm shocked that social conservatives are against letting churches in on such a decision!"
Ah, but social conservatives really aren't true social "conservatives" because they only want the government to stay out of our lives if it has to do with money. If it has to do with so-called "morals" then, well, the government should be in our business, making laws on what we do with our bodies and to whom we decide to marry.
"Conservatives" are a joke. They are "conservative" in name only.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 5:09 PM
"but social conservatives really aren't true social "conservatives" because they only want the government to stay out of our lives if it has to do with money."
And of course, even that's not true: As soon as their "fiscal conservative" ways cause them to lose all their money, suddenly they want the governments money to help "bail them out".
Yeah, lol, conservatives.
Posted by: marilove | December 9, 2008 5:12 PM
mroberts Please disregard the second half of my post, above, mroberts. Inadvertent repeat. :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 9, 2008 5:14 PM
You said "currently in our society, marriage is defined as one man and one woman." I pointed out that statement is not true in many parts of "our society". I don't see how I misrepresented what you said.
Posted by: Tulse | December 9, 2008 5:14 PM
Don't forget, the straight couple at the centre of this can, if they're Good Christians™, ask their god for forgiveness and have it granted; this, if nothing else, would serve to make them a-ok with other christians.
Gays, on the other hand, choose to continue to spite the christian god and must be punished accordingly. The only good gay is an ex-gay, apparently.
Oh, and let me also add my support for Heddle's comments upthread.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 9, 2008 5:17 PM
mroberts wrote
OK, fine. I'll bite.
mroberts, I am a gay man. I've been in a relation ship for several years now. I had a commitment ceremony with my partner several years ago. I do refer to him as my husband though we can't be legally married.
You want rational argumentation, convince me, without resort to your religion, why I should be happy that I'm denied something you have by dint of just being who you are.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 9, 2008 5:17 PM
I'm afraid I have to agree with heddle on this one- NO religious authority- priest, minister, rabbi or shaman- should possess any legal powers not available to any other citizen.
The only things needed for a legally valid marriage should be:
1. a valid license
2. a witnessed agreement by the couple to be married. If they want, they can declare their agreement in front of an altar, over a beer keg or in the middle of a field- what matters is that they clearly declare their intentions to enter a legally binding contract and that other people see them do this to eliminate any question of fraud or coercion.
I think, although I'm not sure, that this option exists in Pennsylvania, a relic of its Quaker heritage and the Quaker dislike of ritual and distrust of government involvement in religion.
Posted by: Ktesibios | December 9, 2008 5:18 PM
No, no it was not. The original argument took for granted that conservative Christians objected both to bad parenting and to gay marriage... but go out of their way to deny marriage rights to the latter only.
Yes, we know how marriage is currently defined in certain jurisdictions. Now try to wrap your head around this: that, in itself, is not a justification for anything. "That's the way things are", or "That's the way I like it" is not a rational argument.
Posted by: DaveL | December 9, 2008 5:19 PM
folks opposed to gay marriage really don't have much logic to use against them, honestly.
here's a hypothetical some (small, but non-zero) number of real couples are actually living through this very minute: man and woman get married. one of them (but not both) undergoes a gender change. you now have:
- a legal same sex marriage?
- a legal mixed sex marriage, ignoring the gender change?
- a legally forced, implicit divorce?
(where would the state get the legal power to force a married couple to divorce against their mutual wishes? wouldn't that be a tyrannous outrage? who knows, but if that doesn't happen, you have to either rule out the very possibility of legal gender changes --- which would also be tyrannous, and perhaps even more so --- or else allow same sex marriage.)
seriously, there is no definitive answer to this question as yet; real people are treading on eggshells trying to not rock the boat because they don't want to risk losing their marriages against their wishes. the courts haven't really decided on it, much less then has the matter gone to the supreme court yet. medical benefits and hospital visitation rights hang in the balance, just as with non-transgender same sex marriage.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 9, 2008 5:19 PM
I really wish people like mroberts and his peers would simply admit that what they object to is icky man-sex. All these retarded rationalizations get tiresome after a while.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 9, 2008 5:28 PM
mroberts,
In California, gay marriage was legal. Some gay couples got married there, legally. The state recognized their marriages as legal marriages.
Now that prop 8 has passed, should the state redefine their relationship so that they are no longer married?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 9, 2008 5:33 PM
I [was] making the point that attempting to argue for gay marriage by saying that even rapists can get married is an illogical argument because the two points are unrelated, that's all.
Yes, they ARE related, because the two points both relate to marriage and the reasons (if any) for preventing some people from marrying and not others. The question is, if rapists are allowed to marry, then what good reason or compelling state interest can there be not to allow non-violent gays to marry? It's a perfectly legitimate question, the kind that arises in political/legislative disputes all the time.
PS: The guy who once said that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they can't breast-feed, is NOT in a position to lecture anyone here about "illogical arguments."
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2008 5:36 PM
Did anybody else notice how JuliaL (ca. 1:41) got totally ignored? Not that I have a problem with that...
Posted by: jws | December 9, 2008 5:54 PM
Is Savage Love still being written?
Anyway, yes, this is just one more in a long litany of ironies. Child abuse actually happens at a lower frequency in gay households than in straight households, in all likelihood (though the data are a but hard to come by, there is strong reason to believe this).
Posted by: Greg Laden | December 9, 2008 6:29 PM
Quakers do not have any clergy - they believe it's blasphemy to say that one individual is more able to speak to/for God than any other individual. In fact, Quaker tradition says that no human can perform a marriage - instead, God joins the two souls and earthly love is a sign of that joining. Any human marriage ceremony is just a recognition of something that God has already done (this is why some Quaker meetings were among the first congregations in any denomination to recognize same-sex marriages, since if romantic love exists then that's a sign of God's influence and refusing to recognize the marriage would be like denying God).
One reason why Quakers came to North America is that their marriages were not recognized by English authorities since they had no officiant (also, they recognized the husband and wife as equal partners, which was a bit heretical in the 17th century). Because of this, Pennsylvania has had since colonial days the concept of "self-uniting marriage licenses" that require witnesses but no officiant for the ceremony. These licenses are not available statewide though. Some counties don't offer them at all and some counties require some proof that you belong to a religious denomination that has no clergy, although that last requirement seems to have been struck down on establishment grounds in 2007.
Posted by: Alex | December 9, 2008 6:29 PM
ATTENTION, ALL COMMENTERS.
ATTENTION, ALL COMMENTERS.
(At least those who would argue with mroberts)
Apparently you are all unaware of the "mroberts Corollary", to wit:
mroberts has always been completely full of manure on the gay marriage issue. It follows that he will continue to be filled with manure on said issue. That, for all intents and purposes IS an immutable characteristic.
I'm proud of myself for having been able to say that without using any pottymouth words--as if that ever fucking mattered.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Heddle's modest proposal way upthread is so eminently sound that perhaps the Founders thought of it first. Nothing in the (Federal) constitution requires any government that exists under it to recognize or define marriage in any sense. But lots of places in the constitution require every government to treat all citizens equally.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | December 9, 2008 7:48 PM
When I peeked in to Ed' blog and saw the post count on this thread, I just KNEW mroberts had made an appearance.
Some things on Ed's blog are completely predictable- a pantload of loonies swarming on Obama citizenship threads, and mroberts putting his immutable characteristics on display on any thread pertaining to gay rights issues.
It's almost comforting.
Posted by: Rick R | December 9, 2008 8:07 PM
What I don't get is, why some people get so riled up about two gays or lesbians being married to one another, paying their taxes, mowing their lawns, etc., etc. Why is this so threatening to them? Are their (heterosexual) marriages that fragile? Never mind about the abusing "parents" of that kid --- other than to prosecute them, that is --- I'm just talking about the people who seem to have such an emotional investment in keeping GLBT people from being able to do the things everybody else has a right to.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | December 9, 2008 8:53 PM
I'm glad to say it's not the first time; democommie's post above at 7:47 p.m. provided me with my biggest laugh of the day.
The next time mroberts brings up the gay marriage debate, it'll be as if every good challenge presented to him in the past, especially James Hanley's and Bachalon's challenges today in this thread, never happened. This of course is an inherent trait of conservatism so don't think it odd. How else does such a large group of people continue to cling to discredited, irrational, or unconstitutional positions while claiming they support freedom.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 9:13 PM
mroberts asks:
"when did conservatives start 'organizing' to block gay marriage"?
Hmmm...wouldn't the millions of dollars contributed to the passage of Proposition 8, which effectively did "block gay marriage" in the state of California count as "organizing" by "conservatives"?
Try to keep up with the facts on the ground, mroberts, before your fire off broad generalizations that have no evidence to confirm them.
Posted by: Teleprompter | December 9, 2008 9:39 PM
Greg Laden:
Not just written, but podcasted.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 9, 2008 9:49 PM
Posted by: Dave | December 9, 2008 10:11 PM
Michael Heath,
I love what you said about the fact that every challenge to mroberts will be memory-holed the next time this debate flares again.
I'd say it is analogous to a game of whack-a-mole with these folks when it comes to their opposition to gay marriage. First, they say it isn't natural. If you tell them that homosexuality is almost universally observed in the animal kingdom, they duck down and come up through another hole with the "gays can't procreate, therefore..." argument. When you tell them that many straights can't or don't want to procreate, yet still can marry, they duck down again to come up through the hole labeled, "the founders talked about freedom being based upon natural laws and rights. They would not have considered this either of those." When you counter with the idea that freedom doesn't apply to those things that don't offend you. In other words, they need to have overwhelmingly good reasons to deny a right to some that is enjoyed by all the rest. Then they disappear there and come back up with how dirty and unhealthy gay sex is. And you counter that all sex can be dirty depending on the relative health of those engaged therein. And besides, if we were going to deny rights to people in order to modify dirty or unhealthy behavior, shouldn't we contiune by keeping smokers from marrying or driving or getting a business license? Whack-a-mole, whack-a-mole.
Not only that, I've noticed in the numerous go rounds I've had with these dorks is that almost ever single one of them is nearly exclusively focused on the GAY MALE sex act. It's like woman can't be gay or have sex, especially if you point out that gay women have an extremely low HIV rate.
And finally, two quotes from a Thomas Sowell article criticizing the entire "left" because some schools have a community service requirement for admission. Sowell says the following:
"Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things you do not approve of. It is only when you are able to do things that other people don't approve that you are free."
and
"The essence of bigotry is refusing to others the rights that you demand for yourself."
Do you think he understands how that applies to the gay marriage debate? Or do you think he'd find a convenient loophole to wriggle free from any consistency on that?
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 9, 2008 10:16 PM
PoxyHowzes nails it above -- just fucking nails it
All you mroberts dipshits out there with your pseudo logic and self-righteous babble someday the spirit of the Constitution will prevail just like it is doing re: people of color, and scores of other things.
You dipshits will lose - you ARE losing - within a couple generations tops you all re: issues like gay marriage will be as relevant and as revered as slave owners. Times they are a changing!
And BTW do you really think your Jeebus cults will exist forever??? In the Western world .. in another 50 years they will mostly be historical curiosities for all practical purposes.
Enjoy yourself riling us up here, feel your self satisfaction -- but go to bed knowing that you are a dying breed!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 9, 2008 10:16 PM
For those interested in the column Mark Boggs referred to from Thomas Sowell, here it is: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE0NTA1YTc0NWY4Zjk0OWYyYWNmOGRlNDFjZDAxYzg=
Sowell = Hannity with a bigger vocabulary.
Sowell's syndicated newspaper columns are printed in my daily newspaper. I never read him past the first couple of paragraphs because he's dishonest just like every other conservative who has a bully pulpit in the media, at least everyone I've ever encountered.
I googled Sowell on what he calls "gay marriage" (with scare quotes) and found this: http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/08/15/gay_marriage?page=full&comments=true
It's so elliptical and full of sophistry that I'll leave to others exactly what his logic is that allows me to think he's on the side of American style freedom while supporting the continued denial of gay rights, it's late.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2008 10:28 PM
jws,
That's OK. The time will no doubt come when the idea I expressed will be so normal and familiar that children and teenagers will be shocked to hear that there was ever a time when people looked to the government for approval of their sexual relationships. Right now it's just a lot more exciting for both sides to assume that it's actually important for the government to be given such intrusive and pointless power and go on arguing about just whose sexual activities should get the government seal of approval and whose shouldn't.
Long ago in the dark ages when I was married, numerous people asked me whether my husband would permit me to finish graduate school and teach. Some thought a husband should permit his wife to work and some thought not. Even today we haven't reached the point where everyone realizes the simple answer: it isn't the husband's right to "allow" or "disallow."
When I became pregnant while teaching at a state university, our state law said that any woman who got pregnant had to report herself and be fired; not laid off, fired. Some people said the government should allow pregnant women to work, some said no. We've finally figured out that the government has no business doing either.
Eventually all the people arguing about whether the government should allow same-gender couples to be "married," thus giving a public stamp of approval to their sexual relationship, will wake up to the fact that it's not the government's business to marry or not marry people (if marriage continues to be defined as a legal contract that includes recognizing and condoning the possibility/likelihood of a sexual relationship).
These basic insights take time to filter through a society. But it'll happen. On day we'll all wake up and say, "Ask the government to decide whether a sexual relationship between two competent adults is permitted by giving or withholding a warm fuzzy Go at it stated in the form of a marriage certificate - what was I thinking?!?"
Posted by: JuliaL | December 9, 2008 10:31 PM
Posted by: llewelly | December 9, 2008 10:32 PM
llewelly I get your point but the trends under the covers suggest that we're past the knee of the curve and progressing up and out of pre-enlightenment thinking and power structures. There will always be a market for authoritarian endeavors like religions -- in Western world about 30% are hardwired and that is about a constant. But we really are approaching that asymptote fast.
Checkout the underlying statistics. For example... people like to say they are church going and god fearing -- a high percentage profess such ... but only 21% of us REALLY are holy rollers in practice. Also see trends in young people... examine reasons WHY young couples get married in church or have their kids baptized. Tradition and culture, and parental approval, do not make for faith. Times are changing faster than ever before. I probably will not see an openly atheist POTUS for instance in my short remaining lifetime (I'm a senior) but my grandchildren might and certainly their children will.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 9, 2008 10:52 PM
JuliaL, it's not about approval for a sexual relationship. Why do people always make the case on sexual terms?
It's about approval for the relationship as a whole. See, even if my husband and I weren't having sex, we'd still want to get married legally.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 9, 2008 11:16 PM
Julia,
I agree with you but I'm almost certain the marriage "traditionalists" will say that you are forcing them to redefine their own marriages. In much the same way Bill O'Reilly likes the government showing religion favoritism as long as it is just his religion, marriage "traditionalists" like having the government favor just their marriages, if only to keep it above and distinctly different from what gays can have. In a circular argument, they would say, if it were right for gays to marry they'd already be married.
Doing as you suggest would just be perceived as a different kind of "attack" on marriage to make the gays be equal to straights. (gasp)
"Now you're telling us that even our wonderful penis in vagina marriage can't be recognized as superior and fully satisfying by the government?! Why do you hate America?"
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 9, 2008 11:21 PM
Bachalon,
If you listen to a lot of opponents argue, it boils down to exactly the sexual relationship involved and their (opponents) outrage that the government would ever give it their seal of apporval. As long as opponents can keep harping on the sex act, especially the male sex act, they can keep people from seeing the whole realationship aspect and this helps to keep people from seeing that there is little if any difference between the relationships of heterosexuals or homosexuals, other than the anatomy. The less human the opponents can make gay people look, the stronger their position with "average" people. Keep the "icky" front and center and keep the emotional and human vulnerability out of sight.
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 9, 2008 11:29 PM
JuliaL
Perhaps your remarks are largely ignored because your foundational premise is completely wrong: " that there was ever a time when people looked to the government for approval of their sexual relationships."
The quest for same-sex marriage is not about approval of one's sexual relationship, nor is mixed-sex marriage for that matter. Sex is no longer required to validate the marriage contract. AS a society, we no longer expose the bloody bedsheets the morning after the wedding to prove consumation and virginity.
GLBTQ people are not seeking government validation of our sexuality, and where ever you got that idea, it was not from us. We are seeking a specific civil contract that guarantees certain vital protections for our families and our property. Ironically, from the start of this battle, the majority of people opposing or spinning about same-sex marriage have betrayed how little they actually know about the contract itself - what it guarantees, what it requires.
Your definition of marriage as a sexual contract is simply false. Your negative assumptions about GLBTQ people seeking marriage, are false and degrading. It comes across as a offensive attempt to dismiss the breadth of our relationships, to reduce the complexity of our lives, the depth of our devotion and love, the intricacies of our relationships, to genitalia.
I think you'd be furious if someone so trivialized your relationship, that you do it to ours is inexcusable.
Posted by: Darr Sandberg | December 9, 2008 11:38 PM
I don't necessarily think that allowing for same-sex marriages is a redefinition, nor do I think arguing for their allowance from grounds of secular justice is off base.
One does not need to make the argument that marriage is secular because, quite simply, it already is. Without a marriage certificate or recognition of one's common law status you aren't legally married. In other words, marriage does not exist without the say so of the state. Another point is that, the very fact that we are having this discussion proves it to be secular. This argument is about whether the state should allow a citizen to marry another citizen of the same gender. Implicit to that argument is the recognition that the state controls, declares, and makes legal, marriages. Despite what they might say, even the opponents of same-sex marriage are arguing from a basic recognition of marriage's secular nature. And having conceded that, they have conceded also that it is the right of the courts to decided upon it, as a legal issue, and the right of local, state, and federal officials and the citizenry, in other words the representatives of the state, to decided its legality, and they have conceded that it is not a question of religious conviction, but one of justice. Arguing on these grounds, they have no case.
As to my other point, that same-sex marriage is not a redefinition, part of it derives from my first point; if marriage is a secular function of the state, it is only redefined by becoming none secular or a private function, the specifics of a particular marriage are immaterial to the essential nature of the institution. More broadly one could argue in a similar vein that the primary purpose of marriage is to promote social cohesion by dampening competition for companionship, and that by recognizing same-sex relationships with the official title of marriage in a society where such relationships are becoming increasingly mainstream, one would serve this purpose. One could also make the historical argument, pointing to innumerable examples of socially accepted (and recognized) same-sex relationships which were considered, what we today would call, marriages.
But all of these are, I think, unnecessary. The essential nature of marriage is to officially bind two sound and sober adults who care deeply for each other together in an exclusive and legally binding union. It is a ritual of social harmony and acceptance. That the production of offspring was once one of the legal obligations of marriage is immaterial because its purpose is to lay legal obligations, not specific legal obligations. This is the definition of marriage, and there is nothing in it, just as there was nothing in the Californian Constitution, and still isn't, that changes that definition. Christian communities have, in the past, recognized same-sex marriages before; even in the context of their own religious traditions, it is these "puritan defenders" of marriage who are redefining it. In no way do they have an argument that proceeds past "Ew, yuck", and no one should dignify their stance by pretending otherwise.
Posted by: Julian | December 9, 2008 11:51 PM
Mark,
Certainly many religious people want the government to force their religious preferences on others. And yes, some straight couples would deeply resent not having the government back up their religious beliefs about marriage. In a way, that's the point.
For many religious people, the word "marriage" designates a sacred union, approved by God. To say that the government would no longer conduct or record or regulate "marriage" is to further separate government and religion. It's time, and it's absolutely necessary, for the government to disentangle itself from the religious element involved in setting up households.
In the past, government interference in which males and females were officially designated as sexual partners was an important part of property management and the only sure way to assign paternity. A woman had to belong to somebody, and government-sanctioned marriage established who owned her and her property and the children she bore. A little at a time, we've awakened from the particular dreamworld where that seemed a natural and normal matter and even a necessity for a stable society.
At this point, we all, gays and straights alike, need to awaken from the dream in which the government should keep records of official sexual partners and in which the only people entitled to the household protections of government-backed inheritance, insurance rights, rights to make medical decisions for each other, etc., etc., etc., are those who happen to want and to have found a romantic partner.
If we wake up and think logically, where is the justification for saying that you are not entitled to the financial, social, legal, and psychological protections of a joint household unless some available and willing person just happens to have a romantic interest in you?
We go on and on in our discussions about how illogical it is to deny the protections and benefits now offered in the marriage contract to two people merely because they happen to be of the same sex. And yet most of us continue to find excuses to cling to the even more illogical and discriminatory stance of denying those protections and benefits to two people merely because they don't happen to have romantic feelings for each other and refuse to lie and pretend that they do.
Most of us, liberals and libertarians and conservatives and religious fundamentalists alike, are so mired in our irrational belief in government-sanctioned sex that it may take a while to let go of that silliness. But it'll happen, I'm convinced.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 9, 2008 11:52 PM
It's about collateral damage - the faithful fear their monster-god; they are worried that, if they are seen to condone the homosexual lifestyle against their god's wishes, he'll smite them Sodom-and-Gomorrah style along with the icky gays.
Remember the braying mouthpieces in the leadup to and aftermath of Katrina? According to them New Orleans got what it deserved for being tolerant of teh gays.
Why the monster-god isn't competent enough to be able to pick off those doing what it is he doesn't like without harming the innocent is, of course, a good question - which I've never heard a compelling answer to.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 9, 2008 11:53 PM
Julia,
I'm in total agreement with you and have really only heard one other person make the argument you're making and I agreed with it then, too. But I still think you run the risk of raising holy hell if you try to tell all those religious folk that the religious nature of their marriage isn't tied up in the state's recognition of it. It's just one more "attack" on their theory of divine inspiration of all of our lives by their God.
Wowbagger,
Your rant reminded me of an op-ed piece I wrote for our local newspaper here in St. George about Focus on the Family's attempt to pray for a Noah's Ark rain out on Obama's acceptance speech in Denver:
""Maybe God (if there is one) doesn't play politics with weather. If He does, then we must admit that He is perfectly content killing many innocent people, small children among them, just to punish the moral transgressions of a few while scoring points for a political party or ideology. I might be more convinced if these disasters occurred like morally-attuned neutron bombs and left all the churches and hospitals untouched but destroyed every crack house and brothel, or, if the disaster left every child untouched while claiming every person James Dobson finds morally repugnant. But it's never that black or white. Death and disaster don't discriminate by political party or ideology, no matter how hard you pray.""
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 10, 2008 12:12 AM
Actually I got it from previous discussions on this blog from people who identified themselves as gay and said they wanted the warm fuzzy feelings of having their romantic relationships acknowledged by the government.
I do not define marriage as a sexual contract. I define it as a household establishment contract that includes as one element a government recognition of and approval of the possibility/likelihood of a sexual relationship between the partners.
I have no negative assumptions at all about entire groups based on their sexuality. I have exactly the same negative assumption about most GLBTQ people who are seeking marriage that I do about most straight people seeking marriage: that they are indifferent to discrimination against non-romantic couples. It isn't GLBTQ relationships that I think lack seriousness and dignity; I think they are exactly as deserving of respect and exactly as broad and deep and meaningful as those between straight romantic partners.
What I think lacks seriousness and dignity is the notion that of any people of any sexual orientation who "are seeking a specific civil contract that guarantees certain vital protections for our families and our property" the only people who deserve such a contract are those in a romantic relationship.
As you apparently deny that government approval of the sexual part of the relationship is crucial, then I take it that you agree with me that the government should cease to recognize what we presently call "marriage" and provide only household contracts with all the same provisions and benefits of present marriage contracts with the exception of the government acknowledgement and acceptance of a sexual element, and provide those contracts to all competent adults who wish to set up households, including non-romantic friends, relatives, romantic couple who think its none of the government's business, etc.?
Posted by: JuliaL | December 10, 2008 12:16 AM
Mark,
You're right, of course. But eliminating government involvement in officially recognizing traditional marriages and setting up household-establishment contracts available to all competent adults are really two different issues.
As a pragmatic matter, the place to begin is not with doing away with government-sanctioned marriage. It's with establishing household contracts which provide all the benefits and recognitions of present marriage contracts with the addition of a specific clause saying that the household contract does not license, recognize, or condone a sexual relationship between the two people. I do think it will eventually be possible to get even conservative support for such contracts to help out, for example, two war widows who don't wish to remarry but who wish to join together to better protect and raise their children. Sad cases such as this one make a powerful argument.
Once household contracts are set up without reference to a sexual relationship (or lack of it) between the partners, I believe more and more people in a romantic relationship would choose it in preference to traditional marriage. At some point, it seems likely to me, the extra "condone the sexual part of the relationship" bit may begin to seem out of the government's purview. But if marriage as such continues for a long time as a government option, it won't really hurt, I think, as long as the household contract option is there.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 10, 2008 12:43 AM
Mark,
I'm quite familiar with what opponents say. Why should we play into their hands? By attempting to engage them on the terms of that fallacy, you only legitimize that argument.
Why can't we re-frame this argument? We're better than that. Don't give them an inch.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 10, 2008 12:47 AM
Bachalon,
I understand the catch-22 of the deal. But it seems that if they are going to keep bringing it up and using that as their greatest argument, we better have some sorts of answers or rebuttals to negate their point.
I understand that their whole "icky" sex argument is not rational; if opponents were rational, there would be no debate.
Sadly, these folks are playing the same five cards in different orders every time they debate. One is the "nature" card. One is the "unhealthy" card. One is the "government approval" card. One is the "historical definition" card. And one is the "religious freedom" card.
Ultimately, every argument they make ends up being boiled down to the sex act and their disapproval. Once you kill that zombie, they don't have much else.
I'm not saying we have to argue on their grounds, but that their ammunition revolves almost strictly around the sex act. Part of the battle is getting themto realize that all ther arguments are based on that one thing. They don't realize it, of course, or won't admit it.
What I think is funny is that even if gays never marry, their behavior isn't going to change. Opponents want to act like gays not being able to marry is some sort of discouragement to being gay, because they're convinced it is a choice. I always argue that they ought to keep gays from going into business together, too, since that is just a legal arrangement as well and we wouldn't want the state to condone their behavior.
God, I get sick of these dolts.
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 10, 2008 8:10 AM
"here's a hypothetical some (small, but non-zero) number of real couples are actually living through this very minute: man and woman get married. one of them (but not both) undergoes a gender change. you now have:
- a legal same sex marriage?
- a legal mixed sex marriage, ignoring the gender change?
- a legally forced, implicit divorce?
(where would the state get the legal power to force a married couple to divorce against their mutual wishes? wouldn't that be a tyrannous outrage? who knows, but if that doesn't happen, you have to either rule out the very possibility of legal gender changes --- which would also be tyrannous, and perhaps even more so --- or else allow same sex marriage.)"
I can answer that one. I married my wife over ten years ago. At the time my birth certificate read "male". For the last five years it has read "female". We're a legally and happily married same sex couple who feel a bit of embarrasement over the fact that we slipped through a legal loophole.
We're a legal same sex couple as we live in a state that recognizes my gender change. So, it begs the question...why can't two natal women get married?
Posted by: Katt | December 10, 2008 9:29 AM
Hanley, when did religious conservatives start "organizing" to block gay marriage? When gays started pushing for it! Gays are the ones that brought this up, not conservatives.
IOW: It's all the gays fault for getting uppity.
Game, set, match.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 10, 2008 12:56 PM
mroberts says:
"Bachalon, that's absurd. Show me a political movement to legitimize murder and you will have a "vast collection of columns" against it."
------
mroberts, in the relevant sense - marriage - murder is ALREADY legitimized. Murderers can get married, in prison, after conviction. Their right to marry can not be taken from them, even as punishment for their crime - it is a fundamental right for them. Their extant marriages are inviolate. Spousal privileges regarding testimony can not be removed from them, even after conviction. Marriage is a sacrosanct right, for murderers, for those who are sexual predators of children, for rapists.
Why aren't you leading the charge to DE-legitimize marriage for these folks, if you say you would be arguing against legitimizing it.
Posted by: Lee | December 10, 2008 1:14 PM
In related news, did y'all see Jon Stewart last night? He's usually too nice for my taste, but he really gave Huckabee the smackdown on this very issue. I copied this from Pam's House Blend:
"Huckabee: There is a big difference between a person being black, and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship that-
Stewart: Okay. This is helpful. This gets to the crux of it- I think it's the difference of between what you believe gay people are and what I do. And I live in New York City, so I'm just gonna make a suppostition that I have more experience being around them...
(laughter and applause)
And I'll tell you this. Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have, for religion- we protect religion- and talk about a lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay.
At what age did you choose not to be gay?"
You go, JS!
Posted by: ildi | December 10, 2008 1:45 PM
And if they lived in Florida, they would have been able to adopt, as long as they weren't homosexuals.
Posted by: Hilary | December 10, 2008 6:26 PM
"Actually I got it from previous discussions on this blog from people who identified themselves as gay and said they wanted the warm fuzzy feelings of having their romantic relationships acknowledged by the government."
So, as I said, you did not get it from GLBTQ people, because what you are describing above is not approval for sex. You reduced the depth and complexity of our relationships to sex, and that is bigotry.
"I do not define marriage as a sexual contract." Please make up your mind. Because you claimed the we were seeking "approval of their sexual relationships" when we seek the civil contract of marriage. Maybe you only mean to define GLBTQ relationships solely on sex.
Meanwhile, the reality is that sexual intercourse is not a requirement for marriage in the U.S. and your focus on sex as the defining quality, when talking about same-sex marriage, comes across as blatant bigotry.
"I have exactly the same negative assumption about most GLBTQ people who are seeking marriage that I do about most straight people seeking marriage: that they are indifferent to discrimination against non-romantic couples."
That's a very nasty and inaccurate assumption to make about millions of people you do not know. It is a load of nonsense. GLBTQ people, same-sex couples, are living the discrimination against "non-romantic" couples because our relationships are treated as non-existent. We are told, all too often, that what we feel is not love, but lust, and our relationships are defined entirely on sex, as you have done.
More importantly, the whole 'romantic relationship' argument is another red herring. The civil contract of marriage does not require romance anymore than it requires sex. The marriage contract does not require respect, sincerity or devotion, mostly it now requires a penis and a vagina and a lack of close consanguinity; everything else is optional. The very point of Dan Savage's argument is that heterosexuals are allowed to marry even if they abuse each other or others, even if they have committed horrific crimes, all that matters is the presence of a penis and a vagina.
As for agreeing with you, sorry, but your arguments so far are too divorced from reality for that. The current civil contract of marriage does not require sex or romance, merely commitment to an open-ended contract, being over 18, and the presence of one penis and one vagina. Sex, romance, respect, fidelity, etc. may be a part of marriage, and certainly, our cultural expects them to be, but are not required. For the record, reproduction is not required either.
As it stands now, legally, a man and a woman who are just casual friends or business acquaintances or roommates or neighbors, who wish to commit to each other's material welfare and share responsibility for each other's debts, and who are not married to anyone else, brother and sister, or parent and child, can marry each other, and the only caveat is that they cannot be attempting to defraud anyone or the government in the process. They can hate each other, they can be just two roommates sharing bills, as long as one penis and one vagina is present. A man and a woman who met an hour ago at the slot machines in Vegas, can marry.
See, that is part of the frustration. Heterosexuals can marry for even the most trivial of reasons, with every intention of cheating on each other, using or abusing each other, neglecting or abandoning each other. As long as one penis and one vagina are present on the signing parties, and they are not married to someone else and are over 18, nothing else matters to the law.
But GLBTQ couples - we cannot marry no matter what.
At the very least, you have been incorrectly citing mainstream societal expectations as the actual legal requirements of the civil contract. Perhaps you should just be up front and state who is it that you want to marry, whom you feel you are wrongly prevented from marrying.
Maybe you can make a better case than the two sisters trying to evade the inheritance taxes on their £875,000+ real estate.
Posted by: Darr Sandberg | December 11, 2008 2:07 AM
At this point, we all, gays and straights alike, need to awaken from the dream in which the government should keep records of official sexual partners...
As others have pointed out, it's not just about "keeping records of official sexual partners," it's about keeping records of RELATIONSHIPS, and of the specific earthly priviliges and responsibilities to which couples have chosen to commit themselves, which governments are sometimes called on to enforce. That has always been a secular function (albieit one that has historically been shared between church and state), and one most people recognize as necessary and beneficial (why else would gays make such a fuss about getting access to it?).
This is why the idea of governments ending all recognition of marriages (or civil unions, or whatever you want to call them) is simply not an option. We can pretend that "marriage" is a religious institution, and "civil union" is a secular thing, but most people will always see the two as almost if not entirely identical; and will accuse you of "redefining" their "sacred" institution whenever you propose any change in secular marriage laws.
"Marriage," both secular and religious, is here to stay, and "getting government out of the marriage business" won't solve anything.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 11, 2008 10:30 AM
JuliaL - guess what, even the UNMARRIED can have sex, no government licence is required, just that the persons involved are of the legal age of consent.
Besides I rather doubt there is any plan for the Government to set up the Department of Prurient Interest (at least not in the next 8 years, anyway).
All that GBLT couples want is to be treated equally under law. Is that really so hard to understand?
Posted by: SingoJack | December 11, 2008 11:07 AM
SingoJack,
All that straight and GBLT couples who are not in romantic relationships want is to be treated equally under the law with those couples who are in romantic relationships. Is that really so hard to understand?
When people like mroberts say that allowing GBLT couples in romantic relationships to have the same rights and protections as straight romantically-involved couples is somehow an attack on the rights of straight people, GBLT people wisely and correctly reply that extending the rights and protections provided by marriage to those discriminated against does not and cannot hurt those who already have the rights and protections.
So why are you now here following in mroberts' footsteps by claiming that my suggestion to extend to people who don't happen to be in or don't want to be in a romantic/sexual relationship the same rights and protections now provided by marriage laws is somehow an attack on GBLT romantic relationships? Don't you care at all about household rights and protection for the GBLT (and straight) people who don't happen to have a romantic partner? Surely you aren't that callous. I have to conclude that you either didn't read carefully or didn't understand my argument.
So here it again: Marriage as now constituted provides crucial property and personal rights and benefits to couples so that they can set up safe households. But marriage is restricted by law to those who legally qualify for romantic/sexual relationships and who are willing to have themselves presented publically as being in such a relationship. Indeed there are laws that in many cases allow one partner to end the marriage purely on the grounds that the other partner refuses to engage in sex. This means that the great benefits of marriage are denied not only to GBLT romantically-involved couples (though not everywhere) but also to all non-romantically involved couples like the elderly sisters whose case I linked to earlier.
Straight couples whose relationship includes feelings/wishes/desires/behaviors that are romantic/sexual should have the protections and benefits provided by the marriage contract. GBLT couples whose relationship includes feelings/wishes/desires/behaviors that are romantic/sexual should have the protections and benefits provided by the marriage contract. And couples whose relationship does NOT include feelings/wishes/desires/behaviors that are romantic/sexual (such as best friends whether of same or different genders) and/or does not legally qualify for recognition of feelings/wishes/desires/behaviors that are romantic/sexual (such as siblings) should ALSO have the protections and benefits provided by the present marriage contract.
I propose that: (1) Federal Household Contracts be established to provide all the same benefits and rights and protections of marriage to those couples not in a romantic/sexual relationship. (2) Marriage as it exists now with its romantic/sexual element/connection be ended, as it is not the business of the government who is and who is not in a romantic/sexual relationship. Of these, (1) is more important than (2), and I believe that (2) would eventually follow if (1) were successfully enacted.
There. Now, surely, you agree with me.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 12:03 PM
Raging Bee,
If marriage were replaced by household contracts, then the government would indeed be keeping records of relationships, but without regard to whether there is a romantic/sexual element involved. We are so accustomed to thinking of romantic partners as the basis for a loving, safe household, that it's difficult, I think, to let go of that. Civil Unions as presently understood also assume a romantic/sexual element to the relationship. I see no logical need for them (though perhaps practical as it has sometimes seemed to be the best that could be obtained in a particular environment), as anyone who qualifies for one should legally be permitted to marry.
Two people should not need to be, nor should they need to pretend to be, nor should they be willing to be publicly perceived to be, in a romantic relationship in order to qualify for all the present benefits and protections of marriage. All competent adult couples should qualify, without regard to sexual orientation or eye color or any other restriction. A simple concept. Its time is coming.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 12:33 PM
Uh no.
Granting equal protection to LBGT couples actually will be helpful here.
Consider the permutations:
a) Same sex; not related. Domestic Partnership. All the protections of marriage.
b) Different sex; not related. Marry. Ditto.
c) Same sex; related. Living Wills/Powers of Attorney*.
d) Different sex; related. Living Will/Powers of Attorney.
So I don't get it, why, exactly, does a new piece of legislation need to be written? -DJ
PS Romance/sex is totally irrelevant to the argument. We're talking about LEGAL protection.
PPS Checked everything except the handle. Am I an idiot or what? ☺ DINGOJACK
*I not sure, but I think you can nominate anyone you like in a Power of Attorney or in a Living Wills. Perhaps one the the legal posters here can help.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 11, 2008 12:42 PM
JuliaL,
A couple of opposite sexes are already able to marry without having to demonstrate that they have, or intend to have, a sexual or romantic relationship (unless one of the two is a foreigner, suspected of wanting to marry to gain residence). So all that is needed to achieve what you say you want is for the right to marry to be extended to same-sex couples. So why are you blethering on about complete irrelevancies?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 1:13 PM
JuliaL
Other than siblings, any heterosexual couple who is of legal age (or has parental approval), not married to someone else, can marry. They do not have to be in love, they do not have to have sex. The government does not track who is in love or who is having sex. Your claims about the requirements for marriage or civil unions, are inaccurate, and it is begining to look like deliberate inaccuracy.
Best friends can marry, if they are a male/female couple, not married to anyone else, and of legal age. They can do if they have committed murder, sold drugs to children, raped animals, committed treason, or engaged in any other criminal behavior - as long as one person is male and other other female. The requirements for heterosexual marriage are very, very low. About the only heterosexual pairings denied marriage are those with the potential of incest - brother/sister and parent/child.
It is clear that you are dancing around something you do not wish to address directly. I have seen the same basic argument before, from people who, in the end, were seeking the right to marry their siblings. Legitimizing a non-sexual marriage between siblings would sanction sexual marriages between siblings as well. Your arguments appear to be an indirect attempt to link incest with same-sex marriage.
Once again, be upfront - who is it you wish to marry but are not allowed to marry?
Posted by: Darr Sandberg | December 11, 2008 1:14 PM
JuliaL: I'm still waiting for a response to what someone else has pointed out - that there are plenty of places in the Constitution commanding that people be treated equally, and absolutely zero places commanding, or even suggesting, how marriage is to be defined.
Disallowing gays to get married in a nation that prides itself on "freedom and equality" whenever it wants to start wars in Asia is hypocritical at best, sinister and bigoted at worst.
Posted by: jws | December 11, 2008 1:18 PM
Darr Sandberg,
These two unmarried women have for more eighty-five years shared a loving life together and have asked only for the same inheritance rights that both straight and GBLT couples are receiving in their area. You trivialize their relationship and their need by saying they're trying to "evade" taxes.
Given the extraordinarily unfair treatment of GBLTQ couples in the US, you have every right to be in pain. That does not change the fact that others may be in pain for a somewhat different reason. These women's only difference is that they are born sisters and thus do not qualify under marriage laws which do in fact require that people be legally eligible to have sex in order to receive the benefits and protections of marriage.
Again, I believe, argue for, and support the principle that GLBTQ people should have exactly the same rights as straight people, and that same-sex couples should have exactly the same rights as mixed-sex couples. I completely and absolutely agree with you that loving GLBTQ couples have a relationship exactly as complex and worthy and dignified as that of straight couples.
The single difference between us is that I want the protections and benefits of the present marriage laws ALSO (not instead of) extended to those who do not qualify under law for sexual relationships, to those not in a romantic/sexual relationship who do not wish to have to agree to a legal contract that presumes that element of the relationship, to those who do have a romantic/sexual element to their relationship but do not feel it is any of the government's business. Despite all your anger and accusations in your comments to me, extending the rights and benefits now provided by marriage to those three groups will not hurt or deprive you or any other GLBTQ person and may in fact include and help any GLBTQ people who fall into one of these three groups and thus will be left out of those protections and benefits provided by your own more limited goal.
Nor does it help your case for you to argue that certain other competent adult couples should continue to be deprived of the legal benefits you so rightly wish for yourself.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 1:24 PM
jws,
I agree with you completely.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 1:31 PM
These women's only difference is that they are born sisters and thus do not qualify under marriage laws which do in fact require that people be legally eligible to have sex in order to receive the benefits and protections of marriage. - JuliaL
AFAIK, it is legal for sisters to have sex with each other. Incest laws applicable to adults only seem to apply to opposite-sex couples. So what excludes these sisters from marriage is that (a) they are the same sex; and (b) they are siblings. I agree, they should be able to marry, but all this guff about the government keeping a register of who is having sex just obscures your point.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 1:37 PM
I do not wish to marry again. I was married once to the love of my life. He died, and I still grieve for him. I am financially secure and have no need for a household establishment contract either. I do, however, have elderly sibling cousins whose poverty would be relieved if they could claim the same legal benefits and protections that married couples can now claim. They were each once in a loving relationship with a person who has died.
However, I point out to you that if I had the most wicked personal motivations it would not change the fact that principles of liberty and fairness demand that ALL competent adults should have equal access to the benefits and protections now provided by the marriage contract.
My claims are few, so you should be able easily to check them:
1. Marriage laws of course do not require people to have sex, but they carry a clearly implied permission to do so. The household establishment contracts I support would not carry either an explict or implied permission and thus would not invalidate anti-incest laws.
2.People who are ineligible legally to have sex are ineligible to marry (because married people are legally permitted to have sex).
3. In many environments, one couple in a marriage can end the marriage on the grounds that the other person refuses a sexual relationship.
4. The marriage contract carries a public expectation that there is a romantic/sexual element to the relationship.
All of this means that marriage is not available on the same terms to people not legally eligible to have sex; to people not in a romantic/sexual relationship who do not wish to present themselves inaccurately to the public or each submit him/herself to the legal loophole that the lack of sex is grounds for breaking the contract; and to people who are in a romantic/sexual relationship and think that it is none of the government's business.
Even if you convince yourself that this problem is faced by only two million, or two thousand, or just two people in the entire country, I still cannot understand why you would wish to deny them the clear protections and benefits now provided by marriage contracts and which you so rightly wish extended to yourself.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 1:59 PM
Marriage laws of course do not require people to have sex, but they carry a clearly implied permission to do so. - Julial
Nonsense: in the USA and most other countries,adults do not need anyone's permission to have sex, so the marriage laws cannot logically imply such a permission.
People who are ineligible legally to have sex are ineligible to marry (because married people are legally permitted to have sex).
More nonsense. Unmarried people are also "legally permitted to have sex", so by your logic, couples who are not legally permitted to have sex should not be allowed to be unmarried either.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 11, 2008 2:09 PM
Nick Gotts,
In the environment in which they filed their suit, same-sex couples can indeed claim the inheritance rights they ask for. So, according to the international court, it is solely the fact that they are siblings that legally prevents them from claiming the same rights and benefits. And what is the source of laws forbidding siblings to marry? The incest laws, I suppose. Why else would a court that recognizes the rights of same-sex couples to all the rights and benefits and protections of marriage declare these two women ineligible?
It certainly does, and I wish people would stop saying it. We all know the government keeps no register of who is actually having sex, and we all know that marriage is restricted to those the government has decided are legally permitted to have sex.
If the condoning of a romantic/sexual element were removed from the marriage laws by removing the requirement that the two people be legally eligible for a sexual relationship, and if the my-partner-refuses-to-have-a-sexual-relationship basis for divorce were removed from the marriage laws, and the public perception problem were addressed by the removal of the label "marriage" and perhaps by a preamble that states the contract cannot be presumed to give permission for or condone any sexual element to the relationship, then we'd have household establishment laws that all competent adults would qualify for. So simple.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 2:22 PM
Nick,
You keep reversing my statements.
I didn't say that adults need permission to have sex. I said that marriage laws grant that permission. I suggest that you experiment by applying to marry your mother with a note saying that you don't plan to have sex, so it's OK. You'll find that marriage certificates are denied to anyone the government has decided should not have sex, without regard to whether they are having it or not. Are you really claiming that isn't so?
And people who are unmarried do not need a certificate from the government to be so. They also do not get the legal benefits and protections that accrue to marriage.
It is a simple fact that people the government deems ineligible for a sexual relationship (which includes children, people closely related by birth, and certain vulnerable adults) will not be granted a marriage certificate. I'm mystified by your apparent claim that this isn't so.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 2:33 PM
DingoJack,
Glad no one is trying to steal your name. You're such a popular commenter here that I assumed somebody was trying to take advantage of that.
I certainly agree. Every expansion of access to a contract that carries the benefits and protections that marriage does is a good thing. I just want to see it extended to ALL competent adults. I see no reason why somebody must always be left out.
Why is this not sufficient? Two reasons:
1. As same-sex couples have already discovered, it not possible to write your own contracts that give you all the rights of a marriage contract. For example, you can write all the papers you want declaring that your same-sex partner should make medical decisions for you if you are unconscious and in most states it will be ignored. Nor will creating your own documents allow an unmarried brother to put his disabled unmarried sister on his work insurance policy at the same prices, etc. as a wife.
2. It is neither reasonable nor fair to say that some couples must pay out the sometimes high costs of a private lawyer and/or rely on boilerplate documents that have failed again and again to provide a limited element of protection, while other couples need only pay a couple of dollars and receive government backing and, in general, public backing for the full range of benefits and protections.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 11, 2008 2:50 PM
JuliaL
"These two unmarried women have for more eighty-five years shared a loving life together and have asked only for the same inheritance rights that both straight and GBLT couples are receiving in their area."
No, they are asking for something else. Something other sets of siblings do not have.
"You trivialize their relationship and their need by saying they're trying to "evade" taxes."
No, you falsely accuse. I made no statement about their relationship, and see little 'need' when people have assets of more than half a million dollars. Evade is an appopriate term.
"you have every right to be in pain." Projecting about my state of mind is uncouth, JuliaL, and does little to further your clearly dishonest argument.
"These women's only difference is that they are born sisters" No. The relationship between siblings is not the same as that between two people who are not siblings but commit to each other.
"Despite all your anger " And yet another dismissive assumption from you about my character or state of mind.
"I do not wish to marry again." So your posts are little more than a smokescreen for making a case for incestuous marriages.
See, the malice in your position is that you are trying to force GLBTQ people to make approval of their relationships contingent on approval for incestuous relationships - and while the sisters may not engage in sex, allowing incestuous marriages will also allow incestuous sex. It is a nasty little game, JuliaL, trying to link same-sex couples with incest obliquely.
You can marry one your cousins, in most states. But, as you said, you are not actually interested in marriage for yourself. Clearly, you are only in creating a link between incestuous marriages, and same-sex marriage.
What is interesting is that you are making claims, often derogatory, about the motives of millions of GLBTQ people, and yet, have not even researched the reason why siblings are not allowed a sex-less marriage. You "suppose" incest is the reason, indicating that you are fully aware that you are attempting to equate same-sex couples with incest.
Further your premise assumes that the relationship between siblings (why limit yourself to two), without sex or with it, is truly the equivalent of that between two non-sibling adults. You have provided no evidence to that effect.
Of course, you too impose a limit "competent adult" that draws as much from expectations about sex as it does from expectations about the ability to understand and give consent. If the two sisters in your example are allowed to marry, why shouldn't a parent marry his or her infant child? The parent who wishes to pass his entire estate, tax-free, to his offspring, is his/her need any less real? What about siblings who would prefer to leave their assets tax-free to their siblings rather than their spouse and children? What about someone who wishes to leave his assets to his siblings, tax-free, while still cohabitating with and raising a family with someone else? Should he be able to marry his sister, and financially abandon whichever non-sibling adult he is spending his life with, raising a family with?
The test for who can, or cannot marry, for California included examination of whether or not there was a compelling need for the state to withhold licensing to a particular category of couples. Preventing even the appearance of condoning incest, consistently an abusive expression of sexuality, is certainly a compelling need. There is a potential for abuse in your scenario that is not present in same-sex or mixed-sex marriage - not just incest, but the material abandonment of any adults who enter into a relationship with someone who then contractually supports his/her sibling instead. That happens too often as it is. Barring sibling marriage encourages people to build commitments to others outside their immediate family.
It is extraordinarily clear that you are trying to attach the stigma of incest to same-sex couples, to discredit our relationships through guilt by association.
See, if you were serious about protecting the inheritance rights of unmarried siblings who wish to be each other's heirs, you'd be advocating a change to the inheritance tax law, and most people would probably have agreed. But instead, you've attempted to equate the relationship between siblings, with the implict taboo of incest, to same-sex marriage, indicating that your goal is not to create parity for unmarried siblings who want to be each other's heirs, but to create a negative association between same-sex couples, and incest.
I believe that is why you posted so many false claims about the nature of marriage, hoping to trap people into making an argument you could use to equate same-sex marriage with incest.
Which brings me back to my first post to you - no wonder your posts were largely ignored, the intent behind them was dishonest and degrading.
Posted by: Darr Sandberg | December 11, 2008 11:14 PM
If you can nominate your doctor or lawyer as a person you want to make medical/legal decisions for you (without regard to their relatedness or sex) I can't really see any legal reason you can't nominate your brother, cousin, partner (business or otherwise) to do this. I'm not trying to be obtuse I just can't see the necessity of creating even more laws to further complicate the matter. Nor can I understand why granting equal protection to one group prevents others for asking for the same rights. If they can make the argument and get support, more power to them, but it shouldn't prevent the first group's claim.
PS Isn't there pro-bono lawyers in your area?
PPS Sorry to hear about your husband.
Posted by: DingJack | December 12, 2008 12:12 AM
Christians DO believe in equality/egalitarianism, but only for immutable characteristics.
So, Christians do not believe in equality for people of different religions? Interesting.. thanks for clearing that up mrroberts..
Posted by: Donalbain | December 12, 2008 5:39 AM
I wouldn't necessarily say we should discriminate against those things you mentioned, but the law discriminates against behaviors all the time.
So, it would be OK by you if the law discriminated against the behaviour "Going To Church"?
Posted by: Donalbain | December 12, 2008 5:41 AM
I wouldn't necessarily say we should discriminate against those things you mentioned, but the law discriminates against behaviors all the time.
So, it would be OK by you if the law discriminated against the behaviour "Going To Church"?
Bachalon, that's absurd. Show me a political movement to legitimize murder
If gay marriage "legitimizes" homosexuality, then murderer marriage legitimizes murder.
The issue is that conservatives believe marriage is only appropriately between one man and one woman.
And yet no reason is given WHY this is the only appropriate marriage. We are just supposed to accept that it is.
But if both parties willingly enter into marriage, I don't see why they should be stopped if they fit the one man one woman criteria currently recognized in America.
Well, recognised in some parts of America. In other parts it is not just man/woman. Do you think that states such as Mass should change the definition to make sure it matches your man/woman definition? Or, if you oppose a change in definition, do you think they should keep it as it is now?
Posted by: Donalbain | December 12, 2008 5:59 AM
Donalbain:
Poor Ted Haggard would really be screwed if that happened; figuratively, I mean--then again, maybe I don't!
Posted by: democommie | December 12, 2008 9:45 AM