California may inspire a whole series of legislative actions. Minnesota has introduced a bill similar to California's.
The Marriage and Family Protection Act was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, on Friday. The bill would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies.
I love the title of the bill — that will have the wingnuts chewing their tongues in a frenzy.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I know I said that "all you need to know about [Martin] Cothran" is that he managed to misidentify both my employer and my profession and then repeat those easily corrected errors many times.
But it turns out there's more to Cothran. Sure, he's bigoted, has an odd fascination with the word "faggot…
The state of California now issues gender-neutral marriage licenses: they simply register the legal relationship of "Party A" and "Party B", where the relevant individuals fill out their actual names. That sounds reasonable and straightforward to me — it's a state-mandated contract.
Wouldn't you…
In California, the first round of what will almost certainly be a long court battle over gay marriage has just wrapped up the trial phase. After the mayor of San Francisco began performing gay marriages last year (a bad, and politically motivated, idea), opponents of gay marriage appealed…
Jeff Jacoby has a column in the Boston Globe about the situation with Catholic Charities and gay adoptions in Massachusetts. It's not nearly as balanced and thoughtful a column as you usually get from him, but I'm going to agree with the core of his argument while rejecting the over-the-top…
Something with "Family" in the title that ISN'T evil? Maybe those fundies are right about the apocalypse...
<evil, mad cackling>
Madness?
THIS.
IS.
FRAMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!
I'm glad I read what it was about, as soon as I saw it called Marriage and Family Protection, I was ready to rail against it.
That's the problem with using code words like "family" and "academic freedom". The words have real meanings, and may even have very different meanings in a different context.
When I was in school, "family" meant "part of the gay family".
Awesomness.
I'd love to see a trend of similar acts or pushes using the "Family Protection" moniker.
I know it will be several years before this becomes a reality in Minnesota. Part of me really hopes to find a job there. I would love to move back to be closer to family, but I'd also love to get back involved in this fight back home.
When I was in school, "family" meant "part of the gay family".
Oh you young people... when *I* was in school, gay meant happy and carefree. Well, I guess it still does :-)
I'm glad that Democrats are catching on about how to name bills. Republicans have been using nice-sounding buzzwords in bills for years, regardless of the bill's content.
I love how they toss the right's bullshit language back in their face with the bill name.
I love the upper Midwest! Just as liberal as we horrible Northeasterners, but a little more under-the-radar about it. I did my grad time in Madison. Is there something about the seasonal extremes that just makes it easier for people to be sensible toward each other?
*awaits backlash from sensible Southerners who read this blog*
Though it would have meant living in a time of even greater racism than we see today, I've always thought living through the era of the Civil Rights movement would have been an amazing experience. Maybe I'll get my chance!
That's the awesomest name ever for a bill like this.
I hate to sound stupid, but what is "DFL"?
I hate to sound stupid, but what is "DFL"?
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Those Norwegian bachelor farmers and communist Finnish miners had an effect.
In the earlier parts of the twentieth century, the Farmer-Labor Party became a strength in parts of Minnesota and the Dakotas. In Minnesota, it eventually merged with the Democratic Party, which has retained the combined name.
The Repubicans changed their name to Independent Republicans after Watergate, and then back to Republicans in the late 1990s.
Glad to see that "family" doesn't always mean "bigot".
Obama takes a cowardly position on this issue:
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Someone should ask,
Senator Obama, why should your religious definition of marriage be the civil standard? What does your faith have to do with the civil right of couples to form families? Why on earth should we care what your faith says marriage is, when the question is, "What should the civil law say is marriage?"
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
It's nice to see a bill where the title doesn't require doublespeak. If this one gets passed, we'll need a Student Protection act to keep the creotards's from screwing up education.
That is indeed an awesome title. I was disappointed with both Obama and Clinton's response to the CA ruling. Barely lukewarm.
I agree with Mark Morford's assessment. Not only is it social progress, it's good for the economy! Out here in wine country, weddings are big business. The bakers, DJs and limo drivers are celebrating too.
The First Amendment would already do that. But, I suppose putting that language in the bill might still be good politics.
I don't even mind that Obama's religion makes him think that homosexuals should go to hell...whatever. The thing that makes it stupid is that what he says implies that he somehow believes that his religion should dictate civil code. After all, don't most brands of Christianity also say that ANY non-believers are going to hell? Logically, then, Christianity should be the state religion.
I liked something John Edwards said in a debate when asked about his religion and the marriage issue. Loosely paraphrased, his respons was: "My beliefs are completely irrelevant. Anyone who wants to be married should have the right to do so, whether or not I believe it's proper."
Let's hope for a Obama-Edwards ticket ticket!
Hey, they stole the fringies' buzz-words! How long do you think it'll be until we see a counter-proposal for the Act To Protect Marriage and Family From The Marriage and Family Protection Act?
Frankly, I think that pair-bonding ought to be utterly irrelevant to the law, to taxation, or to inheritance. Do away with its legal status entirely and then the faithful can do whatever they want with it, or not. The end-game with the various "save the family" laws may be recognition that legal supports for pair-bonding and breeding are inherently ridiculous and unfair - while "the destruction of the family" may not be the end result, the "turning marriage into a meaningless checkbox ceremony" might be.
I am very happy that my g/l/b/w friends can get married now, because it's important to them, and I wish them joy of it.
Along this longitude, I live in the South and I have lived in the North. It seems to me that both are polite, but for different underlying social-conformity reasons and cope for abnormal politeness it in different ways.
This is great news! The way things are going, it won't be long until only a few backward states forbid gays the right to marry, and I can't imagine it's a long way from that, to the Supreme Court ruling that any such bans are unconstitutional.
Sadly, I have to join the crowd that had an instinctive negative reaction to the name of the bill, even *after* reading the title of your post, and knowing what it was about. The fact that the conservative idiots have managed to steal those words effectively enough that even evil liberals like me buy it, shows how important it is for "our side" to start taking them back, like they have with the naming of this bill. Like someone mentioned in an earlier post, lets remove as much doublespeak as we possibly can, especially from the politics!
Clinton's back is against the wall and she's not going to take any chances. So I expected this reaction as she can't afford to lose the blue-collar vote, which tends to be a bit more conservative in this area. I also believe that, had she secured the nomination already, she'd have endorsed the California ruling with more vigor.
Still, I must admit that I'm disappointed in her. She needs to stand for the hard issues, as well as the easy ones.
Obama, OTOH, did not surprised me at all. He stands for nothing but mindless change, like Jimmy Carter, but without a spine or platform. Plus, he's already shown his "man/woman" bigotry on this issue. Since Captain "Present" has no spine and his tepidness and wishy-washiness is something I've seen from the beginning (which is why I went to Clinton after Edwards failed in his campaign) I expected nothing more than pablum from him. Now, if he'd just call me "sweetie" or some other denigrating off-the-cuff sexist remark... Oh wait, I'm not a woman, so there won't be any accidental condensation sent my way.
State involvement in marriage is a very modern thing indeed.
From a NYTimes.com column several months back:
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The First Amendment would already do that. But, I suppose putting that language in the bill might still be good politics.
The first amendment is exactly why they need to put it in the bill. If the bill lacked that then it could be challenged on first amendment grounds and likely overturned.
Obama advocates separate but equal treatment of glbt people.
Oddly, he doesn't seem to see any issue with defining marriage religiously and having the government be involved in marriage. So much for church/state separation.
Here in Illinois I got asked to sign a petition by a Christian activitist group that basically asked for legal protection for religions to discriminate, which included not compelling a church to conduct marriages that are against their beliefs. I asked if this would make it OK for my church (Unitarian) which has no problems with homosexual marriage to conduct marriage ceremonies, or was it only legal protection for their religious beliefs? And then I pointed out that the laws were presently barring members of our religion from following our beliefs that all people are equal before the law. You could begin to see the smoke curl from their ears as the gears slowly began to turn with the realization that their petition might not do what they intended.
It was great fun!
Ralph #23:
Sadly, it's not gonna happen.
So much for all the Civil Rights work my grandmother did as a Columnist for the SF Chronicle. So much for the suffering of my mother and uncle as they were targeted by the children of bigots and their social/personal lives were ruined, or even getting beaten up a few times, from the fallout.
So much for dead civil rights workers. Or Brown vs Board of Education...
Separate but equal... Fuck, what a goddamn fucking wimp. He's pretty much got the nomination sewn up and he's pulling that shit?
Obama takes a cowardly position on this issue:
So, I guess you'd like McCain to win.
The progress on this issue will naturally be slow in a country where 85% of the population professes some belief in god. Like it or not, some politicians have to not alienate voters unnecessarily. Do you think Obama would seek confirmation of guys like Haynes, or Alito, or Roberts? I don't, I think Obama may mouth platitudes to get into office but what actions he takes once there will be radically different than what a McCain presidency might yield.
Eye on the Prize.
John Marty's father, famed Lutheran theologian Dr. Martin Marty, taught...
wait for it...
Reverend Jeremiah Wright!
I owe the Country my vote. Not the Democrats. With the huge Democratic majority likely in the House and Senate, I definately don't owe my vote to Obama because the DEMOCRATS WILL BE IN CONTROL ANYWAY.
And I'm definately smart enough to get past the guilt trip.
Moses: You most certainly do owe your vote to your country, rather than a given party. Unfortunately, we live in a de facto two party system, and you have to think strategically about where your vote will do the most good. My own opinion is not with McCain, any Republican from the last 100 years, or a third party that might whittle the margin.
Etha: "separate but equal"? Those words do not exactly send shivers of comfort down my spine. And I'm a little shocked that Obama could even say something like that without irony.
@#34 Moses --
I think what bothers me most in the Obama speech link is the way he uses his parents' interracial marriage as some kind of personal badge of honor and then proceeds to advocate separate-but-equal civil unions for gay people. Let's take his talk about gay marriage and substitute in "interracial marriage":
"And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue..."
...I'll contradict that entirely good-sense proposition when teh gheys are involved.
*sigh* Baby steps toward progress. Little eensy teensy baby steps...
"I liked something John Edwards said in a debate when asked about his religion and the marriage issue. Loosely paraphrased, his respons was: "My beliefs are completely irrelevant. Anyone who wants to be married should have the right to do so, whether or not I believe it's proper.""
Was he running for president at the time?
"And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue..."
...I'll contradict that entirely good-sense proposition when teh gheys are involved.
*sigh* Baby steps toward progress. Little eensy teensy baby steps...
"I liked something John Edwards said in a debate when asked about his religion and the marriage issue. Loosely paraphrased, his respons was: "My beliefs are completely irrelevant. Anyone who wants to be married should have the right to do so, whether or not I believe it's proper.""
Was he running for president at the time?
A co-worker of mine, when I lived in Minneapolis, used to say "The cold keeps the riff-raff out."
#40: as an Obama supporter, I wrinkle my nose and ask, "WTF exactly is he even saying there?"
That's disappointing.
I'm still an Obama supporter, tho'.
...which they already have under current law, but we have to spell it out explicitly in order to appease the bigots. Have you ever heard of a church being compelled to perform a marriage ceremony?
Everyone should definitely go to the Obama for President site and insist that he stand up for equal protection under the law. He was Harvard Law Review, FFS. He knows better than that.
I think the Dem candidates are so used to hearing the crap from inside the beltway that they don't realize that the "base" is way more liberal than they are. They're so scared of pissing off this mythical bunch of moderates center rightists that they're afraid to take a stand. The end result is that they alienate their supporters to placate a bunch of righty assholes who will never vote for them in the first place.
Obama still is by far a better choice than McCain. Check out McCain's stance on the issue.
I already was in high hopes that the Iowa Supreme Court would uphold the decision that the Iowa ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. The makeup of the Iowa court is more liberal (more Democratic appointees at least) than California's court, so I'm pretty sure the Cali decision will make it even easier for Iowa's supremes to do the right thing. I hope so! I'd love to see the three states allowing gays to marry be: Mass, Cali, and Iowa.
We got one couple married here in Iowa before the injunction on Judge Hanson's ruling put a moratorium on same-sex marriage pending the Supreme Court decision! :) If the court allows same-sex marriage, I hope all the wingers have head explosions.
I think the Dem candidates are so used to hearing the crap from inside the beltway that they don't realize that the "base" is way more liberal than they are. They're so scared of pissing off this mythical bunch of moderates center rightists that they're afraid to take a stand. The end result is that they alienate their supporters to placate a bunch of righty assholes who will never vote for them in the first place.
Extremely insightful and well put there, Candy.
What I see here is a far different statement from Obama than was reported on Pandagon (they got it from TPM):
Still too much "separate but equal" garbage, but better than the whinging about "Christian trabitionamalismickalistics".
M"arriage and Family Protection Act" If progressives can come up with a name like that there is some hope yet.
Ok, now give Obama a break! You have to walk on tip toe when standing for president. If he came out openly and honestly in favor of gay marriage, he might as well just tell McCain to go right ahead and take the white house. I don't know personally what he believes, but I would settle for equall but civil at the federal level, (that is all Howard Dean was aiming for), for the time being. It is only a few years ago that Vermont became the first state with civil unions, now we are seeing a slow breaking down of the barriers. Force things too hard and you get a backlash - several people have argued that Roe vs Wade gave the republicans huge power because of the anti-abortion people. Let the fed stipulate equall civil rights let the states come round slowly in their own way. When Clinton first got in power he lost months while trying to get gays in the army. He was right, but it cost. One has to keep an eye on the goalposts and not be in too much of a rush. If you have the same civil rights what's the big deal with marriage? It is a kind of dumb religious ceremony anyway. If your bond is of any value it will be a personal commitment that has nothing to do with a scrap of paper.
One major criticism of Obama is that he's an "empty vessel" in which his supporters pour their own desires. The reason I have supported Obama since Edwards dropped out is that he is young enough to not have any baggage from the culture wars of the Vietnam era. It bugs the bayjaysus out of me that he would be on the wrong side of a major issue in today's culture wars. If he gets in, we have to continually remind him that he owes his term in office to the liberal wing of the Democratic party.
Moses, dear, 2 things really quickly. First, I don't think you're really getting over the guilt, you know, about to whom you owe your vote. You might think you are, but you're not. Do you know how I know? Because the commenter I quoted wasn't you.
Get a new name, you hardly uphold the legend of Moses as a grand and illustrious personage, of strong character, high purpose, and noble achievement. Au contraire
We got one couple married here in Iowa before the injunction on Judge Hanson's ruling put a moratorium on same-sex marriage pending the Supreme Court decision! :) If the court allows same-sex marriage, I hope all the wingers have head explosions.
I would be thrilled with the heads of my Dutch Calvinist relatives going boom. The entire northwest corner of the state would be suddenly depopulated.
California needs to update some of it web sites!
Welcome to the State of California, Department of Health Services web page. This web page will give you general information regarding the requirements for the issuance and registration of public and confidential marriage licenses in California, as well as answer many frequently asked questions regarding the laws pertaining to marriage licenses and ceremonies in California. For further information, please contact the County Clerk or County Recorder's Office in the county where you will be applying for the marriage license.
General Information
You do not need to be a California resident to marry in California.
Only an unmarried male and an unmarried female may marry in California.
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/ovr/marriage/GeneralInfo.htm
This marriage thing is a bit outdated. Way back in the middle of the 19th century, Victoria Woodhull was advocating free love.
http://www.sexuality.org/authors/steinberg/cn70.html
"Victoria Woodhull's great virtue and her great failing were one and the same -- her refusal to remain silent about the sexual empowerment of women and about the sexual hypocrisy she saw all around her among important political figures of her day, both within and outside the suffrage movement. Frequently overtaken by the "spirits" from whom she drew her inspiration, she insisted on speaking uncompromisingly about what she believed and, when hypocritically attacked for her sexual views, about the dalliances of the people around her.
With regard to women's sexual appetites, she was both indignant and uncompromising: "Some women seem to glory over the fact that they never had any sexual desire and to think that desire is vulgar. What! Vulgar!... Vulgar rather must be the mind that can conceive such blasphemy. No sexual passion, say you. Say, rather, a sexual idiot, and confess your life is a failure... It is not the possession of strong sexual powers that is to be deprecated. They are a necessary part of human character... they are the foundation upon which civilization rests."
With regard to marriage, Woodhull was equally outspoken: "Why do I war upon marriage.... because it is, I verily believe, the most terrible curse from which humanity now suffers, entailing more misery, sickness, and premature death than all other causes combined.... Sanctioned and defended by marriage, night after night there are thousands of rapes committed.... There was never a servitude in the world like this one of marriage.""
So there.
about the responses of the current crop of presidential candidates...
I keep wondering what would happen if ALL of them simply stopped pandering the religious nutters. Seriously, it's obvious to anybody who knows them that these candidates aren't 1/10th as "religious" as they come off on the campaign trail.
what would the nutters do?
stay home on election day?
yeah, that would be a shame.
what would the nutters do?
Build isolated compounds and pair girls off with adult men at the first sign of menstruation?
In that case, at least one of them would recognize an ecological niche, a market segment, and would immediately start to exploit it. Three minutes later we'd be back in the real world.
With that logic, the Democrats are in control right now.
I am weeping with you, but I know you will vote for Obama. Because a McCain presidency would simply be too horrible to contemplate.
Off topic, but speaking of strategic naming, I've thought for quite a while how interesting the naming of military operations is.
In the past, military operations were targeted to mislead or confuse the enemy. Names like "Operation Market Garden," or "Operation Overlord." Named with the enemy's perception in mind, bearing no relation to the actual operation itself, betraying no information about the true goal of the operation to the enemy.
Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom" and "Operation We're Good and They're Bad."
And nothing has changed. The names are chosen to mislead and deceive those they are targeted to. The target is just different.
@#56 David Marjanovic --
I actually had a nightmare the other night in which McCain was elected and turned the country into a theocracy. Everyone had to wear little badges that read "In God We Trust," and it was impossible for scientists to get grants to research topics involving evolution.
Okay, so maybe my unconscious took some liberties in creating that scenario, but the notion is still a fairly horrifying one.
Of course I will vote for Oblablabama in November. But I think he will wimp out in face of Republican obstructionism.
Clinton understands how Republiscum work and could bash a few heads if necessary.
Because a McCain presidency would simply be too horrible to contemplate.
many of us said those exact words (with a different name) in 2000.
better get to contemplating.
*sigh*
I've learned not to rule anything out.
I'm sure some of my wingnut relatives are apoplectic over all this. One of them would erupt in fury anytime two males got too close to each other on TV or in a movie: "It's the liberal media trying to make it seem like it's normal to be gay! And we're not gonna have it!"
Hey, I'm a foreigner, and I'm coming online to tell all you STUPID AMERIKKKANS to get out there and vote for John McCain in November! Whatever you do, DON'T elect that Barack Obama just because he's the best candidate left in, no siree-bob!
Minnesota does the right thing?
Oh that's so gay.
Obama said "[M]y religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Do you really want the government ruling on "sanctity?" When that word is used, it shows that the issue is religious. If a conservative Catholic priest refuses to perform a marriage between two divorced people, do we want the state to say "You gotta do it?"
The solution is to put the civil aspects in the civil realm, and the Sky Fairy aspects in that realm. (Render unto Caesar...) IOW, do like the Italians, and have a civil ceremony that settles legal status, and a religious ceremony for those who want it.
Of course the great state of Virginia got so apoplectic over the possibility of contract law being used to create such unholy unions they almost made it unlawful for a man to buy a used car from another man.
This post just reminded me (on subject, not on content) of a blog post I read titled "A Sad Day in California". Obviously the poster was voicing his discontent with what happened for gay rights. Ugh.
My comments on this whole issue over here: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2008/05/get-leviathan-out-of-marri…
I knew you'd love a dishonest little title like that, PZ. You're such a fricking hypocrite, it's both hilarious and sickening.
Since evolutionists deny the reality of intelligent design, they think nothing has any intrinsic purpose other than what they want to attribute to it. Nowhere is this more evident in their crusade to deny the teleogical meaning of the anus by using it as an entrance when it has been obviously designed to be an exit. The anus is not a sex organ no matter how many evolutionists in the Minnesota State legislature declare otherwise!
Instead of creating human life, the evolutionistic "sex act" of buggery creates only viral and bacterial life. They think that with the power of the legislature to validate this disease-spreading practice it will then be equal to authentic marriage. It won't be. Nothing will change what will continue to happen when you jam a life-producing organ into the poop chute. I can almost hear the AIDS virus laughing at the passing of this legislation.
Posted by: Pole Greaser | May 17, 2008 4:01 PM
Does it drown out the other voices in your head?
There was a group of people whose specific job was to think up codenames which meant nothing to the enemy. As far as I can recall, this group included language experts, artists, and historians, as well as military types. I also recall (vaguely!)--but a quick search fails to find any useful confirmation--that Churchill, who clearly was a dab hand with words, personally approved the names of the more significant operations (such as Overlord).
@#68 jsn --
There's nothing dishonest about it. The title of the bill ("Marriage and Family Protection Act") accurately represents its intent. From section 2 of the bill:
(Emphases mine.)
Actually, to accurately represent its intent, the bill should be [honestly] entitled "the Marriage and Family Redefinition Act."
You can always count on a hater to care more about the form (one man + one woman) than about the substance (are these people fulfulling the functional role of a family in love and mutual support for each other?), and further, to be willing to punish anyone who doesn't fit his Procrustean bed of a "standard".
Fortunately for all the non-haters (most of the rest of us), the various configurations families can take don't need jsn's approval as to whether they exist or not.
aw, the cute little hatemongers have come out.
"the Marriage and Family Redefinition Act."
That act was the one abolishing owning many women in favor of owning one.
KAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNN!
The current pope, on what makes up a family:
The following is left as an exercise for the readers: which of the following configurations would the pope and jsn consider a family. (Hint: form, not function, is the only consideration that matters to them.)
1. A married man constantly abuses his wife, sending her to the emergency room on multiple occasions.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
2. A married man, on learning his wife is terminally ill, dumps her care on her elderly relatives, and visits once a week.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
3. A gay male couple, together for over 30 years, has experienced multiple health-care crises, and during each one, the stronger of the two partners has taken close care of the weaker partner.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
4. A woman in Haiti or Africa listens to the local Catholic church's lies about condoms promoting HIV/AIDS, and as a result, does not insist that her lover wear a condom. She contracts HIV and dies from AIDS, leaving behind two small children. An uncle takes in the children, and raises them for years, until they are grown up.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
5. Same scenario as 4, except the man who takes in the children is not a blood relative.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
Pretty easy to predict, wasn't it? And yet, somehow, *we're* the redefiners.
Huh? When did you guys ever leave?
ROFLMAO!!! Yeah, because those all represent the norm. *massive eye rolling*
Huh? When did you guys ever leave?
IKYABWAI went out with 3rd grade, didn't it?
right around the time you formed your worldview, apparently.
@#81 Ichthyic --
Ah, elementary school views on sexuality...brings back memories. At my elementary school, we had a "gay water fountain" whose water would, presumably, make the drinker gay. At first I didn't understand it because I was unaware that "gay" had any meaning apart from "happy"; then someone explained it to me, and I was still very confused...I couldn't figure out why someone would want to guard against feeling attracted to members of the same sex. It seemed like it would be easier to get along with people of one's own gender, so I thought that if anything, people should want to be gay.
I was a very, very confused 8 year old.
Hey, Walton--I got yer tyranny of the majority right over here!
jsn, it wasn't a statistical question, but an ethical one. EPIC FAIL on your part.
OT to MAJeff - is your blog permanently offline, or on hiatus whilst the dissertating is going on?
For those so scared of same-sex marriage - what exactly are you scared of? jsn, kenny, pole greaser (who I think is a Poe, really), what will happen to you if gays start getting married everywhere? Strip away your "god hates it" argument; that doesn't answer my question. What is the negative effect on you personally of gays marrying? Why should it matter to you what other people do? What will it do to you?
OT to MAJeff - is your blog permanently offline, or on hiatus whilst the dissertating is going on?
I done killt it.
I was a very, very confused 8 year old.
Or a very rational one.
At my elementary school, we had a "gay water fountain" whose water would, presumably, make the drinker gay.
naww, only eating Tofu can make you gay:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/satans_perfect_food_tofu.php
:p
I suppose that to be pedantic, it might be called the "Protecting Real Families by the Extension of Marriage Act". Hm.
Hey, a convoluted and unwieldy acronym is always a win, right? Remember the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act?
So:
"Families Reified: Egalitarian, Enlightened Definition Of Marriage" Act
Because who's going to vote against F.R.E.E.D.O.M. ?
(OK, maybe it could be declunkified a bit)
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
Posted by: jsn | May 18, 2008 9:05 PM
Have trouble comprehending the notion of ownership, don't we.
@#86 Ichthyic --
Who says I couldn't have been both? Applying rational thought to conventional social norms can often lead to a great deal of confusion....
Polyamory FTW!
damn, why'd we ever get rid of coverture? That's what would have kept us homos in our place!
Here's an idea out of the box, jsn; I'm curious whether you'd go for it.
Since you're demonstrably unwilling to let gay taxpaying citizens have full rights in their and our society, how about this?
Taxes: Straights pay, gays don't.
Since you're not willing to extend gay citizens full rights, you should at least be willing to not charge them for the society you won't let them participate in fully. Right?
I mean, you're at least *that* honest, right?
Since you're not willing to extend gay citizens full rights, you should at least be willing to not charge them for the society you won't let them participate in fully. Right?
LOL
I rather think we would see a particularly large groundswell in the gay population should such a thing come to pass.
Expect Bill Gates to come out first...
Dick Cheney next?
naah, I bet he'd be trampled by Kenny and jsn elbowing each other to be first.
OMG! Kenny and jsn were right all along!
The gays done got Jeff's blog!
@#95 thalarctos --
Kenny and jsn sitting in a tree,
E-L-BO-W-I-N-G,
First comes greed,
Then comes tax freeness
Then comes appreciation of each other's penis.
Hey, ever hear of a push-poll? That's pretty much what that was.
"Which of these would you consider an example of a fine, upstanding family? 1. [insert first horrible example of a heterosexual married couple], 2. [insert another horrible example of a heterosexual married couple], 3. [insert shining example of homosexual couple], etc."
Well, golly and gee-whiz, I wonder which one I'm supposed to choose. I just can't imagine.
So, wow, it's an "EPIC FAIL" for me not to answer a push-poll. (And who uses "EPIC FAIL" anymore other than 1337 goobers with meaningful relationships with their right hands?)
And gosh, I wonder what the reaction here would be if I did something like that, but the other way around...
So despite your horrid amoral rhetorical track record, you *would* actually consider the gay couple a better family, then? So what's your problem with the act in that case?
Those are all real-life examples, BTW.
And gosh, I wonder what the reaction here would be if I did something like that, but the other way around...
at this point I can tell you my reaction:
*crickets chirping*
meaning I really doubt anybody here takes you seriously, or would really care WHAT you do.
Though since you aren't able to contribute anything beyond a third grade mentality to the discussion, you leaving might have some impact in a positive sense.
Marriage is no more a right than is being able to drive legally.
Did I actually say that? No. Am I surprised you are trying to make arguments for me based on things I never said? No.
So you admit to having special laws and special treatment then.
Yeah, you're right. I should be contributing mature, intelligent material such as this:
Yeah, we should really get around to changing the laws so minors can drive, smoke and drink legally at any age.
Ok. If I got you wrong the first time, then you must actually be saying that even awful het couples are still essentially better, truer families than is the best homo couple?
Did I get your answer right that time? Because it's really got to be one or the other, unless you totally leave basic logic behind (come to think of it, maybe *that's* your answer).
Yeah, you're right. I should be contributing mature, intelligent material
since she said that in response to your childish inanity, you've essentially just reiterated the IKYABWAI defense.
good job.
It's the same 3rd grade argument, but now using "grown up" words.
like i said... 3rd grade mentality.
...or, you could say you were defending a 3rd grade argument you made by attacking a parody someone else made of that argument.
Shorter:
you're a moron, and we're laughing at you.
No, you still didn't get my answer right and it doesn't have to be one or the other. It's the same situation as asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and then demanding only a "yes" or "no" response.
The only ones here who have left behind basic logic are you people.
No, actually, she didn't. She posted that in response to another childish post about me "coming out" which was in turn a response to yet another childish post about Bill Gates "coming out." It's the same immature "you're gay hahaha!" mentality that permeates your ilk and is, ultimately, what you always fall back on when you find yourselves unable to respond intelligently and maturely.
Or I could say you're a bunch of lying jackasses.
I'm laughing at your unsurprisingly typical behavior.
Actually, it does, because that's the way the law works. You can't have one standard for the awful couples and another for the good ones. Either you shut out all tax-paying gay citizens from a right to choose one's own partner that the hets take for granted (one of my guesses at your answer), or you include the gay couples (my other guess at your answer). It really *is* that "yes" or "no", and I take your refusal to answer as a spark of cognitive dissonance at the moral awfulness of the theoretical position you've staked out when it comes to applying it to real people.
Not at all. I am asking your own criteria for a law you have chosen to come here and publicly advocate against. I expect it to be totally incoherent as a matter of course, as you earlier accused PZ of being a hypocrite--after all, what does someone happily and faithfully married for decades, having raised 3 strong, smart, and independent children know about marriage and families? That's the level of analysis you consistently demonstrate here, so my expectations are quite low.
But you are the one who has staked out a moral, legal, and civic position; I am merely walking you through the entailments of what you yourself have publicly stated you advocate.
Or I could say you're a bunch of lying jackasses.
scroll back to your post at #79 to see that your own words set the tone for the parodies of you that followed.
er, before you throw another tantrum.
what are ya gonna do now, cry?
The only ones here who have left behind basic logic are you people.
IKYABWAI
LOL, just how many times will we get you to do it, I wonder?
I'm guessing we could get you to do it all night long.
well, at least until your beddie-bye time, right?
I am asking your own criteria for a law you have chosen to come here and publicly advocate against.
you're asking for logic from someone who doesn't understand what it even is, let alone how to use it.
It's amusing, but I think you need to dial down the argument to his level if you want a response that makes sense at all.
OTOH, I can think of better things to do.
Ah, the "you did it first!" defense. Very mature.
Ah, the "you did it first!" defense. Very mature.
so you admit you did indeed set the tone, and you lied when you tried to blame it on Etha.
bad boy.
no supper for you.
So let's see... I make a rather accurate wisecrack about who the hatemongers are here and your response is to joke about me "coming out" and posting poems about admiring penises?
Actually, if you wanted to be truthful (for once), MAJeff set the tone with his "cute little hatemongers" remark, and you lied when you tried to blame it on me.
I make a rather accurate wisecrack projection about who the hatemongers are here
there, fixed.
projection, btw, is the "adult" form of IKYABWAI
, MAJeff set the tone with his "cute little hatemongers" remark
but he was talking about you being the cute little hatemonger.
you're not cute?
Indeed it is, so stop doing it. See my previous response.
Why do you ask? Looking for another partner?
Okay, I admit that was gratuitous. But it was damn funny and I couldn't resist.
Indeed it is, so stop doing it.
IOW:
IKYABWAI
damn, you're stupid.
I keep thinking you will give up, but like a small, yipping chihuahua, you just can't, can you?
Hm. What could MAJeff have possibly been responding to with his "cute little hatemongers" remark?
Could it have been this?
Well. Well, well, well.
@#110 jsn --
People have responded to your (immature, unintelligent) comments maturely and intelligently in numerous comments, for example, #72, #76, #78, #83, #84, #89, #93, #103, #106, #112, etc. But since you continue to demonstrate an inability to respond with anything beyond the level of IKYABWAI and poor analogies (eg, marriage / driving), there seems little point in continuing to use reason in response to someone who refuses to acknowledge it. Maybe you should stop for a moment and consider why silly little comments about your sexuality bother you so very much.
jsn, you're quite deliberately avoiding MY question. What terrible fate will befall you if gays are allowed to marry?
And as a side note, Razib brought up a good point on his scienceblog - there are states that allow cousins to marry, and states that don't. States that don't are required to recognize marriages of cousins that have happened in other states. Is this ok by you, jsn, or is it wrong?
jsn, you're quite deliberately avoiding MY question. What terrible fate will befall you if gays are allowed to marry?
It doesn't matter what will happen to him. Gays, by definition, are incapable of forming families. That's the issue.
then again, why would this thread, with jsn refusing to answer questions, be any different than any other thread. His entire point is to annoy.
Come on, you don't know the answer to that simple question ? Homophobes have a paranoia vision where suddenly, all males are going to become homosexuals, they won't procreate, and it will be the end of the world, no children, that's it. Finito.
Before I accepted my homosexuality, I was for a while, slightly homophobe. Made jokes, you know, the usual bad jokes, would have certainly voted against gay marriage (religion had no influence on me). Homosexuality represented for me the anti-male ego, so of course, all of this was perfectly irrational, but it sticks in your brain quite efficiently.
I don't believe in this Gay/straight thing. This is just a result of our social norms. What's truely within ourselves is probably much more a varying scale of sexual attractions, which moreover can vary over time and places. If we were a tuely free society, the results would be completely different.
I can only talk for males (I'm not a female), but I am very much convinced that a homosexual component exists to varying degree in every male, and it is precisely in those males that are in those grey areas and are having the most subconscient difficulties to cope with it that one finds the most paranoia against homosexuality.
Slightly OT, but also part of the sex/laws/religion nexus, so I'll put it here: UK Parliament is voting on an important Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill,which will if passed drop the requirement to "consider the need for a father" in current IVF laws (good news for lesbians and mothers single by choice who want children), and allow research on hybrid embryos, and the pre-implementation selection of "saviour siblings". There will be a free vote - no party discipline, although the government supports the Bill and leading Tories, along with prominent Christians, notably the Catholic hierarchy (and I'm sure those of other religions and none) oppose it. There will also be attempts to reduce the current 24-week time limit on abortion. Rumour has it that a number of Labour MPs not wanting to annoy the God squad when they're already in deep political trouble, will use the excuse of an upcoming byelection to stay away, so the bill could be wrecked by the right. Reason for us Brits in our hour of need!
jsn, on what base do you form your opinion of homosexuals?
Do you dislike homosexuals?
Is it the Act of homosexuality or the notion that two members of the same sex might actually be attracted and even love one another?
Is it religion based?
What is your thought on homosexuals? Not just on this marriage thing, but on the people.
I fail to see the link between abortion and research on hybrid embryos. But who knows, is this a new form of Christian barter trading ?
Rev. #131,
there is no need to ask these questions when you know that you will not get a honest answer.
People like to hide behind religion because it's convenient.
The truth is because promoting homosexuality goes against their male ego, subconsciently they believe it is going to hamper the reproductive ability of the species and weaken the fighting spirit of their tribe.
You always hear things like "it goes against nature" : the irrational thinking is that somehow because a homosexual act can't produce babies, therefore, "it goes against nature" ie nature is going to react. They are convinced that somehow nature wants us to have as many babies as possible, and can't seem to put it in their brains that somehow the situation of a world with close to 7 billion people arriving quickly to a major problem of resources limitation and with an average life expectancy which will soon be over 70 yrs, is quite different from that of 2000 years ago when the world population was less than 100 million and the life expectancy was not more than 35 yrs. Yes, "nature" still wants our males to try and have as many babies as possible, and have aggressive and violent behaviors so that they can go and kill themselves in one after the next war that our tribe's leader can come up with.
As a matter of fact, what they don't realize is that if nature indeed had a will, what nature would tell them is that it has changed it's mind and that for now, it'd rather have it's male be less violent and aggressive, make sure that they think more about educating and caring for the children that are there than being so obssessed about passing on their genes and thinking that they have accomplished their mission.
Re #132 You're quite right, there is no particular link between hybrid embryos and the abortion time-limit - it's just anti-choice MPs and groups taking advantage of this Bill by trying to tack on an abortion time limit clause. In fact, there are amendments down for the limit to be reduced from the current 24 weeks to 22, 20, 18, 16, 14 and 12 weeks. The strategy seems to be that if you make this range of options available, enough cowards will avoid the "pro-abortion" position of retaining 24 weeks, to let a 22 week or 20 week limit pushed through. In support of their position, anti-choice propagandists have deliberately distorted the results of scientific inquiries showing improvement in neo-natal survival at 24 weeks, but no imporvement and continuing very low survival levels, with many survivors being badly disabled, even at 23.
Etha (OM!!):
This quote from the Obama speech...
...highlights the need for the solution you and I both advocated on the "wedding bells" thread: Complete decoupling of "marriage" (which does have traditional religious associations) from civil domestic partnerships. Because he does have a point: When you change the meaning of "marriage," many religious folks feel like that's the government rewriting their creed for them. They're wrong, of course, and shortsighted... but they're part of the electorate just like you and I are. It's the commingling of religious and civil imperatives inherent in our current version of marriage that leads us to this sort of dilemma.
Actually, it's small-mindedness and bigotry that leads us here, but it's the aforementioned commingling that makes it so hard to get past the small-mindedness and bigotry.
Actually, the difference between now and 2000 is precisely that we have the example of that "different name" to guide us. My memory is that very few predicted exactly how massive a disaster W would be. I remember being unhappy on election night (et seq), but not despairing: I imagined W would be an incompetent lightweight, but I don't think anyone knew what a horrifying neocon ideologue he would turn out to be (even before 9/11 gave him political cover for Iraq).
I hope and (you should pardon the expression) pray that we'll all have our eyes open this time.
What terrible fate will befall you if gays are allowed to marry?
maybe he should ask Kenny?
IIRC, didn't Kenny say something about the US being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust because we are allowing homosexuals to marry?
Actually, the difference between now and 2000 is precisely that we have the example of that "different name" to guide us.
then how do you explain 2004?
If I've learned anything about Americans as a whole, it's that, for better or worse, they seem to have very short memories. Especially for things they don't WANT to remember.
My memory is that very few predicted exactly how massive a disaster W would be.
then you didn't live in Northern California.
you must also have missed his own father, in an interview on 60 minutes, telling all the world that he thought his son would be a poor choice for president.
I used to think that having two different terms for the same thing ("Civil union" and "marriage") was a reasonable compromise ("as far as the state is concerned, marriage is a civil union" ), but after seeing some of the discussions about this, I think I would change that to just keeping the word "marriage", and changing the framing such that everything that isn't the state-recognized concept of marriage (the marriage license, and similar) is instead called the sacrament of marriage. Thus: "Yes, people of the same sex can now marry — but that has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage, which is between you, your spouse, and your church. In fact, the state can't legally have anything to do with the sacrament of marriage, nor should it."
So anybody can get married to anybody (as a state-recognized contract), and the sanctity of marriage is "protected". Win-win?
So much of politics is just choosing the proper rhetoric...
Complete decoupling of "marriage" (which does have traditional religious associations) from civil domestic partnerships.
how about decoupling state-sponsored benefits for any kind of union to begin with?
why should married couples get a benefit over and above any benefit an individual is granted?
If the issue is one of power of attorney, that is easily granted via standard legal contracts that have nothing to do with marriage.
which then raises the question: What ARE the benefits to the state of providing benefits to married couples to begin with? What are the benefits to the state of being involved in marriage at all?
If you remove the incentive for the state to be involved to begin with, I would think this would speed up the decoupling by orders of magnitude.
While thinking about this, I ran across this article:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/4/4/3/p…
couldn't read the whole thing (don't have access to that journal), but it certainly seems on point.
BTW, is anyone else able to access the "I hear wedding bells" thread? On trying to retrieve that post, and only that post, I get 0 bytes. I've tried the usual stuff like clearing the cache, but it keeps coming up blank. Indeed, wget fails as well:
--15:34:00--http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/i_hear_wedding_bells.php
=> `i_hear_wedding_bells.php'Resolving scienceblogs.com... 72.3.232.156Connecting to scienceblogs.com|72.3.232.156|:80... connected.HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OKLength: 0 [text/html] [ <=> ] 0--.--K/s15:34:00 (0.00 B/s) - `i_hear_wedding_bells.php' saved [0/0]
I think something is broken in scienceblogs/pharyngula... wtf?
actually, it appears that if one searches the google database for entries on that thread, they appear scattered throughout the entire blog.
looks like a database error on the part of Science Blogs.
hope none of the other threads are affected.
Ichthyic,
I'll try to handle some of the state-marriage questions here, since that's what I'm writing about. (and this is in the American context)
The infrastructure of marriage as an arrangement materially favored by the state really took off in the twentieth century. While prior to that, it had favored marital relationships and worked to encourage people marrying, the state was relatively small and unable to do much.
One thing the state does through marriage is enforce support arrangements. At the founding of the Republic, and for most of our history, the specific roles of marriage (husband/wife) were set out in law, and the wife was in a position of subservient dependence. Her legal and economic rights were his. In return, he was to support her, economically especially. Additionally, the support of children has grown. While it was originally an expectation, as the state's capacities expanded it demanded and enforced, rather than just expecting and promoting, support of children and spouses (I know it's inadequate. However there has been a move toward the requirement of support.) In this way, the state privatizes care and support relationships through marriage.
The issue of children also comes into play--children are assumed to be "legitimate" if born within a marriage. Legitimacy is primarily a property/support issue, to be sure. Marriage creates a specific legal relationship. (What I love is that Scalia wrote a SCOTUS decision in which marital unity won out over biological parentage--this ended up establishing a basis for listing two married lesbians as parents on a birth certificate as the parents here in MA, which pissed off Mittens to no end).
The bigger issue is one of family unity, which is something we've been eroding for a while (the Scalia decision notwithstanding). It has been transformed--and this pisses of the right to no end--from a unit in which the roles for each partner are hierarchical and established in law to an association of individuals each with their own interests. The unitary family was the basis for many of these rights and benefits--they were distributed to the family through the husband, or the state acting as a proxy (see Social Security survivors benefits, the post-WWII GI Bill or welfare programs).
This is also due to an ongoing project by states in the 18th-21st centuries. Gonna go all Foucault on everyone here, but as states developed over the past couple centuries, state actors have become social managers. They use things like marriage to attempt to mold the population. It's so bloody valuable because state actors have made it so; they want more people to marry so they make it more valuable to marry (this is also what set it up as a site of heterosexual domination--we queers were simply ineligible for marriage benefits.)
I'm not opposed to locating certain benefits in relational terms. If people form a family together, intertwine their lives materially and emotionally, I really have a hard time saying that one of them should lose a home if the other dies. As tax and inheritance issues stand, the only people who wouldn't be in danger would be spouses (and maybe children). If a couple of old spinster sisters or a gay couple were to find themselves in this situation, they're both equally SOL.
I want gay couples to be able to marry. I want to tear down heterosexual domination. Goes together.
Beyond that, I want families protected, and I'm not overly concerned with the form that family takes. (OK, I have issues when the family is based on one (or more) person being the property of another, but that's for another post). Marriage is valued too highly. I won't disagree with that. I will disagree with attempts to make families only individuals. There is something qualitatively different between me and a former roommate and a couple of people who interconnect their lives through sharing many more resources.
I can't go into much more depth.
still processing (I'll get back to this tomorrow), but I will say something quick about this:
There is something qualitatively different between me and a former roommate and a couple of people who interconnect their lives through sharing many more resources.
I doubt many (any?) would disagree. However, should be it the state's role to "validate" that qualitative difference, or assign quantitative benefit (or penalty for that matter) to it?
or is it the case that we have simply grown up, generation after generation, believing that at some level the State has to validate marriage, because the State has for ages set up legal and monetary benefits for married couples?
Beyond that, I want families protected
well, maybe we should look at what families need to be protected from, and whether state sponsorship of marriage is the best way to accomplish that?
Ichthyic:
I was going to respond to your original reply to me, but I see MAJeff has already covered most of what I would have said, and far better than I would have. Just a couple points. Re...
...and...
From the language of your comments, I'm guessing you and I might disagree, at some level, about the role of "the State" more generally. To me, the state = the community (i.e., all that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" stuff). The community — ourselves and our neighbors — acts in its collective self-interest, and "the state" is simply the organizational structure that makes such action possible.
I believe that all of us benefit from the formation and maintenance of families: micro-units of the community that facilitate mutual support (not only financial but also interpersonal support) and provide a social infrastructure for sharing values, culture, and property across generations. People are happier and more secure when they live in families, and the community is better off when its members are happier and more secure.
Thus, I don't see "state sponsorship" of families as a matter of quasi-parental "protection" of people, but as the community acting in its own collective best interests: We create social structures to encourage (rather than coerce) our neighbors to behave in ways we think are good for everyone, and to support them when they do so.
None of of those social benefits, however, is necessarily connected with religious ritual or arcane restrictions on sexual expression. That's why I want us to strictly separate the social-benefit (i.e., "domestic partnership") aspects of what we now call marriage from the sacramental/sexual aspects. That's also why I disagree with Owlmirror: I think the language we use should make it perfectly clear that the social institution of the family and the sacramental/sexual interpersonal bonds are fundamentally different, even when they overlap in the case of a particular couple.
well, maybe we should look at what families need to be protected from, and whether state sponsorship of marriage is the best way to accomplish that?
Agreed. On another thread, I mentioned the book Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage by Nancy Polikoff. I'll recommend it again. She deals with these issues quite well, and basically her approach is to look at relationships of interdependence, and of dependence. She looks instead for ways to recognize the variety of family forms beyond marriage and how things like inheritance and pension, visitation and medical decision making, custody and support issues might be handled differently, based on relationships of interdependence, and different levels of dependence within those relationships.
Well, remember that in 2004, the full measure of horror that is the Iraq war was not yet obvious. The early tactical military success was still relatively fresh in the national memory, and the deep failure of the occupation was not yet obvious. Most of us on the left and center-left already hated the war, of course, but many centrist and center-right had not yet turned against the war (as they almost universally have now). In addition, the fear of changing the Commander in Chief in the middle of a war is a powerful factor, even for many people who opposed the war to begin with.
And yet, with all that, and in the face of a naive, anemic response from the Democratic candidate to scurrilous falsehoods promoted by W's surrogates, Bush only just barely won in 2004 (if, in fact, he won at all). This time around a much broader swath of the political spectrum oppose the war, and we'll be changing the CiC in any case, and the economy is in the tank, and our candidate will (FSM willing) make more muscular, effective responses to right-wing slander, and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of new voters have been energized by the campaign. If the Dems can't win this one, they can never win... and we should all be looking for real estate in Canada or Australia or New Zealand.
No, you're right, I don't...
Yeah, well, there's a universe of difference between "poor choice for president" and "worst president in our history." I knew the former on election night; the latter was impossible to predict at that moment. It's hard to remember, looking through the lens of what's happened since, how differently candidate W presented himself from how president W has behaved. He claimed to be compassionate and moderate, and most of us had little evidence on which to judge that claim; he has governed so far to the right that Reagan looks like a damn commie by comparison. He deliberately downplayed the extent to which conservative religion drives his approach to the world. He deliberately downplayed the fundamental belligerence of his approach foreign policy, only to unveil his "screw the world" attitude in the first moments of his administration, when he cut Colin Powell's knees out from under him on North Korea.
We didn't really know this guy in 2000, and in 2004 many of our fellow Americans felt stuck with him for better or worse. Now we know better on both counts, and for all of his "maverick" BS, there's no way John "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" McCain could change our national direction, even on the very dubious assumption that he actually wants to.
I think we, as a nation, will do the right thing this time; if we don't, shame on us, because the whole world would likely be totally screwed.
if we don't, shame on us, because the whole world would likely be totally screwed.
I'm leaning towards: "too late" on that front, but I hope you're right.
I don't see "state sponsorship" of families as a matter of quasi-parental "protection" of people, but as the community acting in its own collective best interests: We create social structures to encourage (rather than coerce) our neighbors to behave in ways we think are good for everyone, and to support them when they do so.
First off, let me say that I completely agree with you at a fundamental level. Libertarianism is a non-sequitor in my book.
That said, yes, that's a good point, and in thinking about ideal solutions, I should be considering how the issue would be looked at in the most ideal sense. However, realistically, when we refer to "the State" these days, there is a fundamental disconnect on a great many issues, would you not agree with that?
It is of course demonstrably the case that the "State" often acts in its own best interest, whether rationalized as "being in the best interests of the people they serve" or not.
The reason I approach it in the manner of "benefit to the state" is mainly for simplicity, as there really isn't a straight line between the State and the individual.
reviewing this part again:
We create social structures to encourage (rather than coerce) our neighbors to behave in ways we think are good for everyone, and to support them when they do so.
Consider the passage of the referendum (the anti-gay marriage referendum) that lead to the challenge to the CA constitution that was "resolved" last week by the CA supreme court. Was that an effort to support, or coerce?
This is getting a bit far afield, but doesn't the entire initiative process basically bypass the very social structures you mention act in support of everyone? Isn't the referendum an example of the Tyranny of the Majority?
How do we isolate the reality of government and politics from the economics and social nature of the issue at hand (that issue being "marriage")?
People are happier and more secure when they live in families, and the community is better off when its members are happier and more secure.
If people are happier and more secure in that state (for the sake of argument, let's assume that this is so 100% of the time), then why is there an external need to encourage it?
Wouldn't it encourage itself quite nicely?
This argument would suggest the best course of action would be of a more hands-off nature, yes?
None of of those social benefits, however, is necessarily connected with religious ritual or arcane restrictions on sexual expression. That's why I want us to strictly separate the social-benefit (i.e., "domestic partnership") aspects of what we now call marriage from the sacramental/sexual aspects.
necessarily, no, but commonly?
yes.
How can one separate social benefit when some will consider the social benefits of marriage quite differently than others?
...
Hmm, I've always considered this issue to be complex, but now that I "put it on paper", I see it's even more of a snarl than I had imagined.
I've got some work to do (on an unrelated issue :) ) but I'll be back later.
@Jeff:
She looks instead for ways to recognize the variety of family forms beyond marriage and how things like inheritance and pension, visitation and medical decision making, custody and support issues might be handled differently, based on relationships of interdependence, and different levels of dependence within those relationships.
I know this is a bit to ask, but could you give an example that represents her thinking on the issue?
If you mean that "the State" is less than perfectly representative of the will of the community, I can't disagree... but my approach to fixing that would be to try to perfect the representative character of our government(s), rather than to deny them their proper scope of action.
Oh, don't get me started. I'm a big fan of representative democracy and generally think referenda are a Bad Thing™. If you check out my reply to Peter Ashby on the teachers thread, in which I touch briefly on the fact that school budgets in my town are subject to referendum, you might be able to hear my teeth grinding in the background.
Hmmm... has it been your experience that humans just automatically organized themselves in the way that maximizes happiness? If we all had complete freedom of action, perhaps it would be so... but in real life, the things that bring us happiness (e.g., home ownership and children, in the current case) also come with costs that can form a barrier to entry. My notion of "encouraging and supporting" the formation of families has to do with modest provisions (e.g., in the tax code) to ease those barriers to entry, along with removal of pernicious restrictions (e.g., "y'all can't be a family; you have the wrong kind of sex!"). I'm not suggesting we should be in the business of bribing people into behaving in ways they're not basically inclined to.
I'm talking about separating civil aspects (e.g., legal responsibilities, economic activity, etc.), which are necessarily part of the public sphere, from the personal aspects (e.g., love, sex, and religion), which are protected by our most fundamental notions of personal liberty and privacy. If we can't make thats sort of separation, our whole national experiment is a failure.
you might be able to hear my teeth grinding in the background.
LOL
My dentist hates me, too.
;)
Hmmm... has it been your experience that humans just automatically organized themselves in the way that maximizes happiness?
well, I can really only use myself as an example, as most of my friends and relatives have been married and divorced several times...
I'm not married. I'm happy. Was it "automatic sorting"?
*shrug*
I'm talking about separating civil aspects (e.g., legal responsibilities, economic activity, etc.), which are necessarily part of the public sphere, from the personal aspects (e.g., love, sex, and religion),
but aren't the personal aspects what makes marriage a "qualitatively different" affair, re: Jeff's commentary?
If that is the case, then I agree, since I would tend to want separation of all personal issues from the venue of State responsibility.
I wonder how realistic that is in this country, though?
If we can't make thats sort of separation, our whole national experiment is a failure.
well, we haven't been doing a very good job so far (I mean, we had a president that has been pushing for constitutional amendments relating to entirely personal issues - when he hasn't simply been bypassing the constitution altogether-, and Huckabee had a lot of grass-roots support for his ideas for amending the constitution to reflect "the xian nature of the country" as well)...
There's been a long history of one side or the other deciding issues of a "personal" nature are worthy of attempts to legislate; and it's only gotten worse since the neocons grabbed some power with the rise of Reagan.
Looking at the decisions I have made of late, I rather think I've already concluded to some extent where it will end up (at least in the short term), since I'm bugging out to NZ.
;)
...like I said with the issue of McCain vs. Obama(?):
I hope you're right.
Ahhh... realistic? Probably not: I'm hopeful that we as a nation are prepared to do the right thing in November and begin repairing the damage done in recent years; that we'll perfect our understanding that our neighbors' sexuality is a private matter that's none of our business...? Well, let's just say I ain't waitin' underwater.
Still... "Man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for," eh?