UPDATE: The court holds that the ban on same-sex marriage violates equal protection.
AND: Here's the opinion [PDF].
ALSO: What Prop 8 did, the court writes, was take away the designation "marriage," and that word matters:
We are excited to see someone ask, "Will you marry me?", whether on bended knee or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see "Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?". Groucho Marx's one-liner, "Marriage is a wonderful institution... but who wants to live in an institution?" would lack its punch if the word "marriage" were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare's "A young man married is a man that's marr'd," Lincoln's "Marriage is neither heaven no hell, it is simply purgatory," and Sinatra's "A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late." We see tropes like "marrying for love" versus "marrying for money" played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized importance of the marriage relationship. Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie....You get the idea. The judges are old. I mean... marriage — even just the word — matters.
Posts
271 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 271 of 271There is no issue for the government to solve here, no "bigotry" to be righted, if the State simply lost the power to regulate any kind of marriages.
I don't particularly have a preference either way between the government doing all the marriages or none of the marriages. What I'm not ok with is the government having straight marriage but not gay marriage. And since I don't think the government is going to get out of the marriage business any time soon, I figure we might as well let the gays in on the fun.
John Stodder said...
"I don't know why the right can't give up on this issue."
I'm sure Ann will pipe in if I'm wrong here.
"marriage" is a specific term in law. Not to mention its cultural definition.
It specifically means a union between a man and a woman. the definition would have to change. can you guess where this is going?
Because the unintended consequences are going to lead to all kinds of permutations.
NTTAWWT.
We've more than a little homophobia going on here today.
What is it about gays that scares so many of the right wing commenters here?
Maybe you can tell me how gays being married somehow impacts your own personal lives in any way, shape or form.
Rusty - All kinds of "laws" and their definitions are changed.
What makes this so special...at least to the right?
Andy R. - "I figure we might as well let the gays in on the fun..."
Now that's something you might have a tough time selling...not in my case mind you.
Love, don't tell the conservatives here there are actually a few gay Republicans. ok, probably more than a few. :-P
Be afraid, be very afraid!
Palladian -- yes exactly.
What are "we" supposed to get back from the left?
The point is, to position conservatism correctly as being about liberty, and as a philosophy available to more people than at this time believe it could work for them.
Ending a battle that, whether you like it or not, appears to be about ending discrimination is just good strategery at minimal cost. Because my point is, what exactly are you giving up?
shiloh - There aren't many commenters here that I would want to ever actually encounter in person.
I already have enough wingnut friends that drive me crazy.
It's always interesting to me that they all want "government" out of their own lives...but love having it in other people's lives if they disagree with that person's life choice.
I don't think may of them think things through.
John Stodder - "Because my point is, what exactly are you giving up?"
Other than bitching and screaming about other people's life choices...nothing.
Explain how a gay couple getting married negatively impacts anyone on either side of the political aisle.
Palladian said...
And what will be your Catholic Stormtrooper's next move against us homos then, Simon?
File a lawsuit against the nation's largest Mosque suing them for discrimination and watch the left fly into dissembling and hysterics.
Oh, I'm a bad person because I'm not going to read all 200+ comments before I add my $.02.
To me, someone who is admittedly completely ignorant of all things law but likes to make it up anyway, it seems as if the only way all this nonsense is going to be resolved is for the Supreme Court to take this on.
If that happens, and if the anti-gay-marriage folks are pressed to explain the origins of the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, I'm not sure how they can do that outside of religion.
Historical origins, maybe, but how would that work when historically women were once considered property and when it used to be illegal for black people and white people to marry each other? We've changed the historical definition of marriage several times already.
Tradition? Again, we've changed traditions regarding marriage lots of times.
The only real origin for that definition is a religious one, and the court can't hold the religious definition of one or a few religious organizations as the national standard.
To me, it seems clear that we should have civil unions for all, and sacramental/religious marriage should be left up to the churches and synagogues and mosques. And drum circles, or whatever.
I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
Palladian. I think your case well stated and i agree. The state should butt out.
Time for a little Glen Gould to lower the blood pressure.
How upset are conservatives gonna be when Scalia votes in favor of gay marriage? Rhetorical.
Love. Homophobia means fear of homosexuals. No one here to my knowledge has such a fear. The argument at hand is on a very low plane for some who claim marriage as a fundamental civil right. On another level there is a more sophisticated discussion of what constitutes marriage other than the word and the certificate. Many believe that marriage exists to promote procreation and that the inability of homosexuals to together procreate excludes rhem from the sacrament but not from whatever benefits the state confers on those who are married. This last position is not homophobic. Let us argue for a moment that homosexual marriage is sanctioned in all states. Let us further pose that heterosexuals then devise a new religious ceremony for themselves that is exclusively for them and which is not called marriage. Do you think for a moment that that club will be exclusive for long before Andy R believes one of his human rights are being denied? None of this is homophobic, just more complicated because of the procreation issue that is not, not, available to homosexuals.
How upset are Catholics gonna be when Scalia votes in favor of gay marriage?
The horror!
"You want, like any Statist type, to use secular power to punish those who don't live the way you want them to live. And the Andy R. types want to use secular power to punish you for your opinions and beliefs."
1st, I don't want to punish, just not reward benefits to people who are not committed to the other half of the deal, raising children.
2nd, The purpose of even just law is to control behavior. It should never be to punish opinions or beliefs.
So even if you believe what you wrote, the sides are not equal in terms of freedom.
"1st, I don't want to punish, just not reward benefits to people who are not committed to the other half of the deal, raising children."
So you think Althouse's marriage should be nullified?
Why is it your business what people do in their personal relationships?
Should there be fertility tests and child-bearing requirements in order to allow people to marry?
What other aspects of human life would you like the State to organize and control? Why not health care?
So the word marriage itself matters so much that they feel free to completely change the meaning of it.
Brilliant I tell you. Those justices can split atoms with their minds.
"So you think Althouse's marriage should be nullified? "
Kinda. I think they should get no government benefits that I don't get as a single person, and I'm also willing to grant marriage benefits to gays who raise children.
Now if Meadehouse wants to adopt me, we can all get along here.
Other than bitching and screaming about other people's life choices...nothing.
Compared with battling socialism's dead hand, fighting political correctness that is stifling free expression, and keeping our country safe, I don't get the appeal of this leg of the conservative stool.
Michael - "The argument at hand is on a very low plane for some who claim marriage as a fundamental civil right."
And why is it not? How is it different than "fundamental civil rights" relating to blacks or women?
As for none of the arguments being put forth being related to any form of homophobia...you've got to be kidding...unless of course you've never heard Santorum or many other far right Christians speak about such matters.
The people here, and elsewhere might try to shield their arguments behind procreation, etc. but I personally think most of it has to do with being afraid of something you know little about...like child rearing being somehow less than satisfactory if there isn't a mother and father around (As if that's the case all the time.)
Oh, and when have gays ever intimated that they want to "devise a new religious ceremony for themselves that is exclusively for them?"
As far as I can see, they're asking for the same rights and privilages as heterosexuals.
I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage. I thought it was sacred and personal. The exact opposite of government.
All couples can get married in their own way and call it what they want, but the government condition is just called something else. Partners, fluid swappers, I don't care, but the government should not be deciding who's dedicated and in love.
John Stoddard - I find the entire argument against gay marriage to be nothing more than another form of "political correctness."
What exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?
Maybe we should start there?
Michael - See...all I had to do was wait a matter of minutes to make my "homophobic" case:
Bagoh20 - Referring to gay couples: "fluid swappers"
Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? Who refers to any couple (other than a gay one) as nothing more than "fluid swappers?"
I don't know anything about this bagoh20 character's relationships, but mine have all included plenty of "fluid swapping."
bagoh20 - "What exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?"
Unfettered fluid swapping?
"As far as I can see, they're asking for the same rights and privilages as heterosexuals."
Again, you misunderstand. We (the people) aren't "asking" for anything, and don't have to "ask" for anything, because some of us don't believe that "marriage" (however one defines it) is the State's to grant or withhold.
This is why Prop 8 and anti-Prop 8 (including this decision) are both misguided in their basic premise.
The word "marriage" does not appear in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. There is a reason for this.
I mean... marriage — even just the word — matters
I've never understood people who believe that the word matters, but the definition of the word does not.
Love said...
It's always interesting to me that they all want "government" out of their own lives...but love having it in other people's lives if they disagree with that person's life choice.
I see you're not content with beclowning yourself on the Komen thread, so you've come here to up the ante with more idiocy.
By the way, I like how your worldview pretends that gays didn't pick this fight by suing states and having liberal judges order states to confer marriage rights on gays.
No, it is all the "right wingers" doing it all.
As for none of the arguments being put forth being related to any form of homophobia...you've got to be kidding...unless of course you've never heard Santorum or many other far right Christians speak about such matters.
Of course you could provide no such examples, don't know what "homophobia" means but hey, you just know the motives of other people holding political beliefs the opposite of yours.
Palladian - Sorry. I should have said "demand."
That beter?
Jay - Once again: You are nothing more than a complete waste of time.
Just move on.
I've written it many times before, but I'll repeat myself: I despise the nonsensical "word" homophobia. I have no idea what psychological motivations drive people to dislike or disfavor certain groups, and I generally don't want to know. So it's ridiculous to trot out a pseudo-psychiatric pseudo-diagnosis like "homophobia".
Worse still, it's a hideous head-and-tail conglomeration of Latinized Greek that's essentially meaningless: "homo" [homos-] + phobia [phóbos]: fear of the same?
Simpler to call them "anti-gay".
I personally think most of it has to do with being afraid of something you know little about...like child rearing being somehow less than satisfactory if there isn't a mother and father around...
I'd like to know what exactly you know about raising children. Please establish your credentials.
Love said...
Jay - Once again: You are nothing more than a complete waste of time.
Just move on.
You're just sad because you can't back up your lunacy with any coherence.
PS: the number of mammograms performed by Planned Parenthood remains at zero.
"Bagoh20 - Referring to gay couples: "fluid swappers""
I wasn't referring to just gays with that. I thought it was a rare term that fairly encompassed all sexual partners. Even a little scissors action qualifies if done right.
Love; "As far as I can see, they're asking for the same rights and privilages as heterosexuals"
That is the philosophical problem at hand. Homosexuals cannot together procreate. I am all for them getting "married," adopting kids, getting divorced, paying alimony, paying child support, coaching their kid's teams, going to PTA, supporting their schools, taking the kids to church, the whole shooting match.
But they cannot themselves procreate. That is a "right" they do not have.
"But they cannot themselves procreate. That is a "right" they do not have."
Yet. A simple matter scientifically, that will be solved soon. So soon we all can be fighting over that as well. I can't wait.
Will a child genetically derived from two gays and raised by them, end up gay? I wonder, and if not will anyone be disappointed? Then what happens after generations of gays procreating?
OK, now I did make myself truly homophobic. I fear the rise of the bitchy and well dressed.
"But they cannot themselves procreate. That is a "right" they do not have."
Many infertile married folk can't procreate either, which is a whole other discussion ie that earlier creepy sperm donor thread.
But adoption is always available.
But they cannot themselves procreate. That is a "right" they do not have.
A lot of married hetero couples cannot procreate. God sure does have a weird sense of humor.
bagH2O gets what Michael meant; garage and shilho don't. Go figure.
Will a child genetically derived from two gays and raised by them, end up gay? I wonder, and if not will anyone be disappointed? Then what happens after generations of gays procreating? ?
Like grafting?
No clittle, bagoh notwithstanding, "we" were just pointing out many heteros can't procreate either, thus making Michael's "right" point mute er irrelevant/meaningless.
Unless Michael was using right as a non sequitur, then he succeeded! :D
moot not mute
People are very quick to say that the State should just get out of the "marriage business" entirely. How about reconsidering the point of the benefits provided for married couples -- which were, by and large, conceived of as help for families with a dependent wife and children -- and limiting them to such families (with a "dependent" spouse being one who earns less than x% the salary of the higher earner)?
But the gay marriage issue (can we avoid the "definitional" issue by differentiating between marriage and gay-marriage?) is part of a bigger one: is marriage about "love" and romance (with vows such as the icky "as long as love shall live") and a public acknolwedgement of one's relationship or is it a way of ordering society and providing an appropriate environment for children? (The arguement for gay-marriage is often that the gays will be less promiscious but I've always read that gay-married gay men don't necessarily believe that marriage has anything to do with sexual exclusivity.) And as much as societies considered marriage as a financial transaction, it was only because that marriage was expected to produce children.
It is only because the connection between marriage and children has been severed and that large numbers of people don't see any particular reason why children are better off with married parents, that society is wiling to entertain the idea of gay-marriage.
It's OK Shiloh. I've got you on moot anyways. :)
It's OK Shiloh. I've got you on moot anyways. :)
Indeed! :)
Which begs the question ~ what does Jay/edutcher et al sound like when they are incessantly whining/deflecting?
I wonder how I see the comments beyond 200. I'll try adding one.
There are some heteros who for physical reasons cannot procreate. No homosexuals can procreate via homosexual sex. A distinction and a difference.
No, I'm not "homophobic", and I'm not sure many people are actually afraid of homosexuals. That's just a childish put-down of the other side; you might as well call them cowardly pussies and chant neener-neener.
But, like many heterosexual men, I do find homosexuality...what's the right word?....somewhat squicky.
I'd prefer to raise my children in a society where gay men have the decency to refrain from parading down the street in their day-glo jockstraps with "GAY PRIDE" painted on their hairy bare ass-cheeks. Call me old-fashioned.
That's one reason that I live in rural northwest Ohio, and not Amsterdam or San Francisco. And every little victory like this for the Big Gay Machine seems to shrink that part of the world where we sniveling homophobes, and our 8 year old daughters, can be safe from that image.
"That's one reason that I live in rural northwest Ohio, and not Amsterdam or San Francisco. And every little victory like this for the Big Gay Machine seems to shrink that part of the world where we sniveling homophobes, and our 8 year old daughters, can be safe from that image"
Where can we generally upstanding homosexuals go to be safe from the image of straight people rutting around with each other in the streets, on television, in advertisements, screeching and pissing in front of bars, flinging saggy tits and muffin-tops around in the subways....
The courts found a right to Gay marriage in the US constitution. Not surprising since it was right next to the right to sodomy and the right to an abortion.
Frankly, I don't care anymore. People are willing to accept Fascism as long as they like the result and you call it by some other name like "Judicial Review".
Until the SCOTUS finds a constitutional right that hurts the 1% or social liberals this crap will continue.
Let them eat wedding cake!
Palladian: The issue is freedom for everyone, but that's not what most people want.
Except for the polygamists, yes? How can it be wrong to discrimiate against gender but not numbers?
"Except for the polygamists, yes? How can it be wrong to discrimiate against gender but not numbers?"
It iswrong to discriminate against polygamy or polyandry.
You're talking to a man whose great-great-great-grandfather had, over the course of his life, 11 wives and 57 children.
Love: Maybe you can tell me how gays being married somehow impacts your own personal lives in any way, shape or form.
Love misses the point, as usual.
Love, should Society place *any* limits on marriage? For example, should you be able to marry your dog? If not, why not?
Once you agree there should be limits, you've become one of those "homophobics" that you so despise.
So Love, limits or none? Why can't we all marry everyone else and render the term meaningless?
Milo, of blessed memory.
Palladian: It is wrong to discriminate against polygamy or polyandry.
Wow. Well, you're the first homosexual I know who's not been a hyprocrite on that issue. Grats.
"... should Society place *any* limits on marriage? "
There's a difference between "society" and the State. The State, as far as I know, was not required for the development of human morality.
"Wow. Well, you're the first homosexual I know who's not been a hyprocrite on that issue. Grats."
Well, I don't approve of it, generally, (the early 19th century was a different time) but I believe it's not the State's business to engineer society. I believe that churches, and general human decency and propriety, should be expected to "engineer" the morality of society, not the government.
... because I generally don't trust the government (especially the Federal government) to do anything right.
If we only we could dump the U.S. Constitution and replace it with the South African Constitution, such issues would already be in the hands of the Judges, and out of the hands of the people, as Reason itself intended.
Gideon7 sez:
Yet when scientists found out that adult stem cells worked just as well or better than stem cells from aborted babies, the urgent lobbying to have the State fund stem cell research all but evaporated almost overnight.
Scientists have found out no such thing. Rather what scientists have discovered is that stem cells resulting from reprogrammed adult cells (“induced pluripotent stem cells” or iPSC's) are not the same as embryonic stem cells. Well, who cares if one can still grow replacement organs from them? The body cares.
iPSC's turn out to awaken the body's immune system — raising the likelihood that organs grown from them will be rejected by the body, even though composed of “one's own cells.”
While I'm confident that we will learn how to fix this problem, so we can ultimately employ iPSC's in long-lasting organ regeneration, it will take much more careful work — comparing the detailed genomic and extra-genomic structure of iPSC cells with their embryonic equivalents — in order to ferret out the nature of the difficulty and fix it.
In short, embryonic stem cell research is far from being obsolete — and when it is, ESC's will have contributed vastly to the new iPSC order of things.
(See, e.g., these articles in Nature — note that some lie behind pay walls and some are free: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.)
By the way, embryonic stem cell lines used in such ultimately life-saving research are not derived from “aborted fetuses” as Gideon7 alleges (indeed, fetuses cannot provide embryonic stem cells, as fetuses aren't embryos) — rather ESC's come from extra embryos that turned out to be superfluous (and would as a result be destroyed anyway) so that infertile couples can have babies not kill them!
Fr. Martin,
The Trojan Horse analogy works, but I prefer to picture as folks busy at work sawing off the branch they are sitting on. Their last fleeting though it going to be, "Damn! Did you have any idea this thing could faaaaaaallllllll....."
And this:
"In short, how about vastly expanding the private sphere across the board, first--then we can talk about 'privatizing' marriage?"
is pure genius.
I don't care that much one way or another whether gays have the legal opportunity to marry. But this is a question for the people to decide through their legislature or the initiative process.
The kind of twisted logic this court applied to arrive at its decision could be used by a court to legislate on virtually any issue imaginable. Why bother with a written constitution at all?
You can call a cow a chicken; you can call Obama "fiscally prudent"; you can call one guy banging another guy "married". Mis-use of words doesn't change the wrongly-described thing into its fanciful descriptor, despite what politicians, car salesmen, or ad-men try to tell you.
The term "marriage" already has a well-understood definition which is centuries old. It's the union of one man and one woman, forming a new family unit. There are UNCOUNTABLE legal and societal assumptions, expectations, responsibilities, and privileges that flow from the idea of "marriage"; they involve children, family, property, inheritance, gender roles, propriety/ respectability, thrift, productivity, self-reliance, social norms, civic obligations, neighborliness -- everything that has to do with the mutual expectations and obligations that make a society functional. We tread on dangerous ground when we presume that the foundational unit of society should be redefined/ inverted/ overthrown for no better reason than "gay-rights agitators demand that society-at-large should afford homosexual pairings the same honor and respect that the institution of marriage receives".
Flipping a word's well-established meaning on its head is stupid in the first place. And using a word to mean something it specifically DOES NOT mean, especially in legal matters, is acutely dangerous. Just wait until some progressive redefines "due process" to be "we can hold you indefinitely, you get no attorney, no trial, and you have no recourse whatever". --Oops, wait: the NDAA already does that. Hmmm. Wonder what other parts of the Bill of Rights are being "redefined" into their opposites while we're debating whether a man can "marry" another man?
I'm for freedom as much as the next guy, but the organized gay community supports a whole raft of leftwing causes that are anti-liberty.
I am loath to lend them my support, given their support of causes that undermine and have been undermining Constitutional rights for the past 50 years.
They will get their marriages, which they will then use to scam benefits from their employers while they live in open relationships and fuck who they want. Its already being written about within the community.
The 'freedom' issue is a sideshow. The organized gay community is quite content to be slaves to the state and to enslave others to it, as long as the state recognizes their marriage and they get a cut of the bennies.
Just checking in, submitting a comment so that I can see the comments beyond 200.
Just a for a re-cap.
California approved a measure, defining marriage as being between and man and a woman in the 90s.
Gay couples sue to have same-sex marriages recognized by the state.
A constitutional amendment is put on the ballot defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Courts state that California must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples before the constitutional amendment is voted on.
Amendment passes.
Amendment is overturned because it would take away rights that were previously given only because the courts wouldn't put a stay on marriage licenses until the vote.
And people wonder why we don't respect these judges?
Pretty interesting to see all the same arguments here that both the original judge & the court of appeals found without merit.
Denying Teh Vox Populi their Gog-Given right to retroactively take away other folks' basic rights via referenda is sure some ugly business, alright. Surely this heinous decision will be overturned once the Powers That Be see what smouldering hellscapes of misery Canada & much of Europe have become since destroying the ancient & venerable institution of marriage by allowing more people to engage in it.
Special love goes out to the commenter who decries the ruthless fascists of the left, always taking victories without ever giving any concessions in return.
"Okay, you give us gay marriage & we'll give you dibs on either overturning women's sufferage or a return to segregation - your pick!"
Who can forget Bush legalizing pot in exchange for weakening habeas corpus? Good times, good times.
Post a Comment