December 7, 2012

Also legal starting today in Washington...

... same-sex marrying.

60 comments:

edutcher said...

The divorce lawyers are, no doubt, happy.

PS and not entirely OT: Anent the recent posts on the declining number of children, It would seem the less homosexuality is part of society, the more we have children.

Jake Diamond said...

Leave it to edutcher to say something incredibly stupid.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm neither for nor against.

What I am is perplexed that a normally intelligent woman like you, Althouse, cares about this shit.

Mostly, it's nonsense.

But, then again, so was your feminist crusade. Your fantasized grievance in that arena is bewildering, too.

Maybe decades from now, we'll discover that pharmaceuticals dumped in the water supply caused this fantasizing of grievances. Maybe the Gods are playing a trick on us all.

Who knows?

Shouting Thomas said...

Leave it to edutcher to say something incredibly stupid.

Jake, don't you have anything to do with your time?

To date, you've done nothing on this site but bitch about your disgust with everybody and everything.

That says more about you than the people you're complaining about.

Jake Diamond said...

Shouting Dumbass -
Your obsession with me is noted. Stupidity does not appeal to me so I advise you to try to find someone who can return your affection. Good luck.

Ann Althouse said...

"What I am is perplexed that a normally intelligent woman like you, Althouse, cares about this shit."

Here's a small subgroup of society, asking only for the same ordinary benefits other people have. Remove the obstacle, leave them alone, and there WON'T be more to discuss. It's the obstructionists who are making this a big bore. Get out of the way, and it will be over. But don't complain about your time being wasted, when you are the obstacle. That's incredibly boring. I already know your opinion, and yet you keep stating it. Why do you assume other people care about THAT shit?

Shouting Thomas said...

Jake, you've got some serious problems.

Why don't you find another place to work them out?

Shouting Thomas said...

Here's a small subgroup of society, asking only for the same ordinary benefits other people have. Remove the obstacle, leave them alone, and there WON'T be more to discuss.

No, that's not what they're asking for.

No, that's not what will happen.

Just as with women, giving in to one demand will only lead to another.

Michael Haz said...

Here's a small subgroup of society, asking only for the same ordinary benefits other people have.

No. Here's a small subgroup of society seeking to impose its beliefs onto a very large primary group of society that does not share those beliefs.

The Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shouting Thomas said...

But don't complain about your time being wasted, when you are the obstacle.

I hope you'll read this bit, Althouse.

I never complained about my time "being wasted." You seem unable to fit my bio, which you undoubtedly know pretty well by now, together with the reality of what I think.

I deliberately placed myself in San Francisco and New York City, although I grew up in small town Illinois, precisely so that I could experience the wider world, especially in the arena of sexuality. So, no, I don't think that the subject is a waste of time. It's fascinating.

I do think that my views of gays are pretty realistic, based as they are on decades of living among them in the gay ghettos of NYC and SF. No hostility on my part, but I don't buy the victimization BS either.

I'm not an obstacle. As I clearly stated, I don't care about the policy issue one way or another. I think the whole thing is pretty silly, but I haven't interjected myself into the political process in any way, except to bloviate a bit on your blog.

As usual for people with your political viewpoint, you've fantasized that I'm an opponent of gays, just as you apparently fanatasize that I'm an opponent of women.

You're manufacturing enemies for the sake of feeding your vicitimization fantasies, Althouse.

Erika said...

I'm surprised that you would describe this whole gay marriage thing in such simple terms, Althouse. Personally, I don't care much one way or another, but there are more issues than just 'let the gay people get their harmless recognition from the state already, you pain-in-the-ass reactionaries.' What about the polyamorous and their right to state recognition? Is it healthy to sanction single-gender parenting? Are minority rights to disapprove of homosexual conduct on religious or other grounds going to be respected?

Fairly sure you know that people have sincere concerns about the gay marriage push.

The Farmer said...

Ann Althouse said...
Here's a small subgroup of society, asking only for the same ordinary benefits other people have. Remove the obstacle, leave them alone, and there WON'T be more to discuss.


Ha. There won't be more discuss? How about, if gays can marry, why can't polygamists and incestuous couples? Why aren't you concerned about them? If marriage is a right, how can it only apply to straights and gays? How can it only apply to couples? You can't just get what you want and then stick your head in the sand. Don't be an obstructionist!

And they aren't "asking" for the same "benefits" that other people have. They are demanding what they term the "right" to marry. And if it's a right, then it should be a right for everyone, shouldn't it? Civil rights supporters in the 60s weren't excluding Latinos and Asians, were they?

Be honest. If this were about "benefits," the fight for civil unions never would have been abandoned (and it would've been won by now). This is about trying to change people's "wrong" attitudes about homosexuality through the legal system. And it's about sticking a thumb in the eye of religious people. It's obnoxious, childish and a waste of time and energy. Many, many people deeply resent this nonsense not for religious reasons, but because we don't appreciate these ham-fisted, harebrained attempts to normalize what is objectively abnormal.

Justin said...

I do think that my views of gays are pretty realistic, based as they are on decades of living among them in the gay ghettos of NYC and SF.

Because all gay people are just like the gay people living in the "gay ghettos of NYC and SF"?

Shouting Thomas said...

Because all gay people are just like the gay people living in the "gay ghettos of NYC and SF"?

Tell me where I said that. That's a pretty predictable response, but pretty meaningless, too.

But, I'll answer it anyway.

I knew gay people in my teeny-tiny hometown in Illinois, on my college campus, etc. Often, they were my friends.

I still have a whole lot of gay friends. Quite a few of them disagree with the gay activist agenda, particularly among gay men who are much more concerned with men's rights than with the gay issues.

I'm curious as to where the idea arose that knowing and liking gay people (no more or less than all other people, in fact) means agreeing with this vicitmization horseshit.

Justin said...

You said, I do think that my views of gays are pretty realistic, based as they are on decades of living among them in the gay ghettos of NYC and SF.

Doesn't that imply that living among gay people in the ghettos of NYC and SF gave you "realistic" "views of gays"? Sorry if I read you wrong.

Shouting Thomas said...

Another question, Althouse.

Since I've lived in the sexual hothouses all my life, and deliberately placed myself to observe (and often participate) in the sexual behavior of the adventurers and rebels...

My observation is that almost nobody is what is called "normal." There is a whole panoply of sexual behavior out there among heteros that is widely hated and mocked.

That includes people who like and regularly attend orgies, are fetishists of one variety or another, have open marriages, like pick-up sex with strangers, and on and on.

When I get to know these people, I almost always find out there are damned good reasons, psychological and developmental, for why they behave in those ways.

I suspect that those heteros, what you might call deviants, far outnumber gays.

What should their legal status be? Public revelation of their activities, even in places like SF and NYC can be and often is, ruinous.

Roger J. said...

no problem with gay marriages at all--I cant wait until they find out the pleasures of divorce, community property settlements and the like. Perhaps be careful what you wish for is the appropriate advice. And as noted by my friend edutcher, the divorce lawyers have just had their clientele increased. Win Win

Shouting Thomas said...

One of the more interesting and constantly repeated insights of Heartiste, the pick up artist site, is that women enter what they call the "despair" professions of teaching and nursing because of their deeply felt need to nurture and empathize.

This leads to an odd conundrum.

That fact that a person complains that something bad or unjust is happening to them isn't proof that it is happening.

The fact that your kid comes home from school complaining about being bullied doesn't mean that the bullying is a fact. Something althogether different might be happening. The person who is being accused of bullying might in fact think of the complainer as the instigator.

Or, maybe nothing at all is happening and the complainer has some problem that leads to fantasizing the bullying.

Women seem to plain like the idea that they are rescuing gay men, in particular, from something, and they tend to dismiss entirely the harm gay men bring upon themselves.

See the AIDS epidemic, which has been flushed down the memory hole, and in some strange way, blamed on hetero men like President Reagan. You would think, judging by all the carrying on, that tens of thousands of gay men died at the hands of roving bands of homophobic straight white men, instead of as the result of their own sexual behavior.

Jake Diamond said...

Shouting Dumbass seems determined to bore today. In other words, more of the same.

Gabriel Hanna said...

It is our culture. If we, as a culture, decide we would like to expand the definition of marriage a little more, after changing it so much, and we do so through our democratic rather than judicial processes--well you may not like it, but I think it is very hard to impugn the basic fairness of it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I have absolutely no desire to stop same sex marriage since it doesn't affect me in the least.

UNLESS...the SSM people begin to insist that religious groups who do not approve of homosexuality must perform marriage ceremonies.

Then I have a problem. No one has the right to force their views onto others. That goes for religions as well. Don't go out trying to force homosexuals to "convert". Homosexuals are also not forced to attend a particular religion. [at least as adults but that is a different sitiuation] If you don't like the beliefs of one church....find another more compatible to you and don't force your beliefs on others.

In other words. Get married. Who the eff cares? We should leave you to live your life as you want....just leave the rest of us in peace.

Gabriel Hanna said...

But if we do it through judicial processes, and decide that marriage is a civil right, then there is no ground upon which to resist polygamous or incestuous marriages. For some that is a bug rather than a feature.

The Constitution is not a magic wand that dispenses fairness and justice. In order to make it illegal for states to allow slavery or forbid women the full exercise of civil rights, there had to be amendments to the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional barrier to states legalizing gay marriage, or the Federal government. But there is nothing in the Constitution that makes gay marriage a matter of civil right.

Which is fine, because we can do that democratically. We do not have to pretend that the Fourteenth Amendment secretly made gay marriage a civil right, and forbade the execution of the retarded, granted citizenship to dolphins, or whatever question of basic fairness comes up in the future.

To say that you can squint hard at the Constitution and discover whatever you want in it that accords with your notions of right and wrong is to say that laws don't mean anything from one year to another.

Slavery was a great evil. The Constitution explicitly permitted it and it had to be taken out. Similarly with full rights for women.

Franklin said...

What The Farmer said is exactly right.

Can people really not see the parallels he draws? If male-female is just an arbitrary distinction, then so is the number of people that can be married. The incestuous marriage has an especially interesting aspect in the context of the debate as well, since the issue with incest concerns the potential children.

chickelit said...

The Farmer and Gabriel Hanna state legitimate concerns.

Salamandyr said...

Gay marriage was legal yesterday too. It's just that today the government recognizes it.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Salamandyr:Gay marriage was legal yesterday too. It's just that today the government recognizes it.

So is my spiritual marriage to the god Loki legal. It's just that the government refuses to let me claim him as a dependent.

garage mahal said...

"If the gays can marry, people will want to marry their desk!"

That's not a concern. You're just a fucking idiot.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Franklin: The incestuous marriage has an especially interesting aspect in the context of the debate as well, since the issue with incest concerns the potential children.

Correct, but not in the way you think. Incest as incest does not affect children. Paired recessive genes is the cause of any ill effects.

We do not require unrelated couples to seek genetic counseling, this is why we get kids with Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell, and cystic fibrosis. Hence the illegality of incestuous marriage serves no social purpose, it merely expresses out moral prejudices.

If incestuous couples were required to seek genetic counseling, why couldn't they get married if they got a clean bill of genetic health? Because we're sexual Puritans, that's why.

I make the argument to show that it can be made. Genetic abnormalities won't stop incestuous marriage from becoming law, if the right to marry whomever you love is a civil right guaranteed by the Constitution.

I trust people are familiar enough with the parallels for the arguments for gay marriage as a civil right--the analogy is with those who said "if marriage is for procreation, why can infertile couples marry?"

mccullough said...

Wonder if more lesbians will get married than gays.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@garage mahal:That's not a concern. You're just a fucking idiot.

Hitchhiker: You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?
Ted: Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the excercise video.
Hitchhiker: Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7... Minute... Abs.
Ted: Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you're going.
Hitchhiker: Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin' there, there's 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?
Ted: I would go for the 7.
Hitchhiker: Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.
Ted: You guarantee it? That's - how do you do that?
Hitchhiker: If you're not happy with the first 7 minutes, we're gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That's it. That's our motto. That's where we're comin' from. That's from "A" to "B".
Ted: That's right. That's - that's good. That's good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you're in trouble, huh?
[Hitchhiker convulses]
Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes?

edutcher said...

Shout, Diamond is shilol off meds.

Jake Diamond said...

Leave it to edutcher to say something incredibly stupid.

No, it's what everybody in the Empire State was saying after Andy Cuomo bought the votes to legalize same sex marriage there.

It's Diamond that always, when there's nothing to say, usually says it.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@garage mahal:

Slippery slopes absolutely do not exist, and no one will ever argue laws against incest violate their civil rights.

Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski argued they had rights to privacy and family life, which they say were violated when German courts jailed Steubing for 14 months in 2005.

The European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, France, ruled Germany was entitled to ban incest....

The case led to calls for Germany to join countries such as France, Turkey, Japan and Brazil in legalising sex between relatives.

Germany, as with most of the 47 Council of Europe member states, bans consensual sexual acts between adult siblings, the ECHR said. It also said there was not enough evidence to suggest a possible trend of decriminalisation of such acts....

Stuebing, from Leipzig, was adopted as a child and did not meet his sister until he tracked down his natural family in his 20s....

The main basis for Stuebing's conviction, the ECHR said, was 'the protection of marriage and the family' because the couple's behaviour blurred family roles....


Anthony said...

Lots of issues will stem from this. Will Catholic hospitals have to recognize 'spousal' rights? Will they have to perform same-sex marriages? And then, as others have mentioned, what will happen when the polyamourous start demanding their equal rights?

My biggest beef has been with the local media here (I live in Seattle). They've been four-square in support of the measure from the start and could barely contain their glee when it was approved and enacted. I wonder how they'll cover the polygamists when they wish to gain similar benefits? Especially when those proponents will be largely religious conservatives? I for one will sit with a large bag of popcorn and see them try to prevaricate and logically twist their way out of that one!

MadisonMan said...

If male-female is just an arbitrary distinction, then so is the number of people that can be married.

I disagree. If you marry one person, and die, your assets go to that one person.

Marry two people, and then die. Who inherits and why? Who gets your retirement -- and why? Who gets Social security survivor benefits -- and why?

Is it in the Govt's interest to streamline inheritance issues? I think it is, unless the government is trying to provide work for lawyers. It's easy to streamline when two are involved. More than two? More than twice as hard, I'd say.

MadisonMan said...

Will they have to perform same-sex marriages?

Anthony, do you actually understand the US Constitution?

Catholics will be required to perform same-sex marriages just about the time when they're required to marry Baptists.

Franklin said...

@Gabriel Hannah "Correct, but not in the way you think. Incest as incest does not affect children. Paired recessive genes is the cause of any ill effects."

I did and do understand that, what in my post led you to believe that I don't understand genetics? Did you think I was implying that a child might be mentally scarred if a brother and sister were his parents? I was talking solely about the genetics of it.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

Franklin said...

Very well, MadisonMan, if you think it's too hard to figure out estates post death in the polygamy hypothetical, let's use the incest one then.

Franklin said...

@MadisonMan
"Catholics will be required to perform same-sex marriages just about the time when they're required to marry Baptists."

I'm sure Georgetown thought that they wouldn't have to pay for Sandy Fluke's contraception, too.

MadisonMan said...

let's use the incest one then.

I don't see why the Govt should care about that, beyond there's a biological argument against it, that is, the higher likelihood of birth defects. Does that concern over passing on recessive genes rise to the threshold of requiring prohibition? As I'm the grandson of a geneticist, I'll say yes.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Madison Man:Marry two people, and then die. Who inherits and why? Who gets your retirement -- and why? Who gets Social security survivor benefits -- and why?

How is that different from multiple children? It's not.

Is it in the Govt's interest to streamline inheritance issues?

There's all kinds of laws about inheritance, and always have been, and it's always been very complicated.

Sorry, you can't show the rational basis for outlawing polygamy. Guess you're a bigot for opposing the civil rights of people in love.

Catholics will be required to perform same-sex marriages just about the time when they're required to marry Baptists.

e-Harmony had to do same-sex matchmaking. Wildflower Inn had to allow same-sex couples to stay there. In Canada preachers have been convicted of hate speech for condemning homosexuality and some of our Supreme Court justices have said explicitly that they look for guidance from foreign laws when interpreting our Constitution.

It's just like 6 minute abs, I'm afraid.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Madison Man:As I'm the grandson of a geneticist, I'll say yes.

Then you will ban any couple that has recessives they can reinforce?

No?

Oh, I guess you are just trying to impose your morality on everyone else then.

X said...

MadMan, you are assuming the incestuous marriage would be hetero.

MadisonMan said...

e-Harmony had to do same-sex matchmaking. Wildflower Inn had to allow same-sex couples to stay there. In Canada preachers have been convicted of hate speech for condemning homosexuality and some of our Supreme Court justices have said explicitly that they look for guidance from foreign laws when interpreting our Constitution.

Relevance of these to Federal Law? None. California law (e-Harmony), Vermont Law (Wildflower Inn), Canadian Law are the cudgels that are being used.

I'll make it easy for you: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Telling a church what to do is a non-starter for any politician. You can argue otherwise if you show me some examples of successful living national politicians who have made a career of attacking churches.

Roger J. said...

Interesting colloquy--from my perspective I have no problem with either polygamy nor incestuous marriages--There is no reason state legislatures cannot work out inheritance issues, and by so doing those would be democratically determined. With respect to incestuous marriages, the argument with respect to pairing recessive genes and possible harmful consequences seems amenable to modern techniques available in medical science.

I might have a problem with interspecies marriage because that just seems icky.

X said...

It will be a great way around estate and gift taxes. Marry your grandson, divorce him with a fat tax free settlement, rinse and repeat with your other heirs.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

MadMan, you are assuming the incestuous marriage would be hetero.

Was I? I've already admitted to reading Dear Prudence, and she just had a followup on the incestuous Gay couple!

Link.

But -- if the interdiction on marrying siblings is there for genetic reasons (I mean, they could always adopt, or use a surrogate it they wanted kids), I'd apply it equally to non-procreative couples like sisters and brothers because I'm fair that way.

X said...

I'm fair too MadMan. Let people do as they please.

But I'd go a step farther in fairness and compensate people who are not married the same as someone who is married.

ALP said...

Anthony said:

My biggest beef has been with the local media here (I live in Seattle). They've been four-square in support of the measure from the start and could barely contain their glee when it was approved and enacted. I wonder how they'll cover the polygamists when they wish to gain similar benefits? Especially when those proponents will be largely religious conservatives? I for one will sit with a large bag of popcorn and see them try to prevaricate and logically twist their way out of that one!
****************
Your post has made my day a thousand time over. I am south of Seattle, thus a regular Seattle Times reader (on line version). The way that paper is falling over itself over this issue is shocking to watch. Far from "being over", coverage of every mundane detail is on the front page.

Seattle Times is beginning to read like my old teenage magazines (Seventeen etc...) what with all the girly gushing about weddings. I hated wedding fever when I was younger and I still hate it.

Oh no, it is NOT over as far as the Seattle Times is concerned. Its just getting started. One prediction: in a year, we'll see heartfelt, insipid articles about the first "gay divorce" and what deep lessons have been learned about getting swept up in "wedding fever" without actually pondering if the two of them should have gotten married in the first place.

Its hard not to wonder if its being used to wipe other more important issues off the front page.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Madison Man: if the interdiction on marrying siblings is there for genetic reasons

It isn't, as I've demonstrated, or we would not allow people with those kinds of genes to marry if they were unrelated, just as we have no restrictions on infertile couples marrying.

So is incestuous marriage a civil right, and if not why not?

Telling a church what to do is a non-starter for any politician.

Ahem.

Patrick said...


Telling a church what to do is a non-starter for any politician. You can argue otherwise if you show me some examples of successful living national politicians who have made a career of attacking churches.


The US Government made it quite clear to Mormons that they would have to modify their religion if they wished to be US Citizens. The US government also restricted Native American religious practices.

I supported gay marriage in my state, but in part because marriage as an institution had gone from something to provide stability for society to a contract between two people having as its primary purpose the happiness of those two people well before the gays tried to get in on the deal. Marriage can be about more than the two spouses, but rarely do the words "for better or for worse" get considered when confronted with the "worse."

chickelit said...

Patrick argues...

The US Government made it quite clear to Mormons that they would have to modify their religion if they wished to be US Citizens. The US government also restricted Native American religious practices.

I see a possible distinction: were the Mormons full US citizens at the time of statehood deliberations and thus even protected by the 1st Amendment? Did the Mormon males also have suffrage at the time (beyond suffering the burden of multiple wives :)?

I'm not sure about the Indians, but I know that reservations had similiar extraterritorial circumstances at the time. Plus nowadays Indian are winning back some of those 1st Amendment rights.


Scott Lindstrom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Ahem.

Something I am completely against and am convinced will fail.

purplepenquin said...

Has anybody ever actually heard of any church/synagogue/temple/whatever being forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple whom their religious beleifs disagreed with?

Ain't trying to be snarky...'tis a sincere question.

ALP said...

purple penguin:

No, but I have seen articles regarding wedding photographers who declined to photograph lesbian or gay weddings; said photographers got a lot of bad press because of it.

Inga said...

Shouting Thomas, you reveal just what debased human being you truly are and I'm not just referring to your stance on gay marriage.

Michael Haz said...

Has anybody ever actually heard of any church/synagogue/temple/whatever being forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple whom their religious beleifs disagreed with?

It isn't too far away, given that religious orgainzations are now bing forced to provide insurance including abortion, contraception and abortifacient drugs in direct contravention of those religions' beliefs and practices.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@chickelit:I see a possible distinction: were the Mormons full US citizens at the time of statehood deliberations and thus even protected by the 1st Amendment?

Yes, as of 1850. Utah's statehood-and the Church's abandonment of polygamy--came in 1896.

They were citizens and had civil rights, yes. They were in an organized US territory.