Althouse: "I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex."

April 29, 2015

"I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex."

So said Chief Justice Roberts, in part of yesterday's oral argument which I discussed in some detail earlier this morning.

I just wanted to write a separate post to beat you over the head with the profound accuracy of the Chief's statement.

The government, in banning same-sex marriage, does nothing to ascertain that couples are sexually attracted to each other.

The Sue that loves Joe could be a lesbian, and the Tom who loves Joe could be heterosexual.

Maybe Joe is a very desirable marriage partner for reasons that have nothing to do with a desire to have sex with him. Maybe he's rich and powerful and has a wonderful circle of friends. This Joe, perhaps, loves to cook and is a great cook, and he's got an extensive wine cellar. Maybe he loves just the kind of movies/sports that Sue/Tom loves, and he keeps up an endlessly entertaining stream of conversation, full of witty observations and howlingly funny jokes. And he's perfectly happy to allow Sue/Tom to pursue sexual adventures. Go right ahead! Have them! And come back home to Joe's delicious late-night supper and drink some of Joe's top-notch wine and you can talk about sex for hours.

The government has no idea, and the government should have no idea.

294 comments:

1 – 200 of 294 Newer› Newest»

Anne in Rockwall, TX said...: Doesn't the government have an idea when it comes to immigration fraud?; 4/29/15, 9:23 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Texas Annie, that's a good point.

I know a Canadian married to a US citizen who, even though they were married in the US and have a child, and have been married over a decade, and have shared an address (mostly in Canada, since initially they lived there) that whole time, have paid taxes jointly, etc....

STILL has to pay an expensive lawyer and dredge up proof that their marriage is 'real' in order to get permanent residency in the US with her US citizen husband and US citizen child.

They essentially need affidavits from friends and family saying "Yes, they are in love."; 4/29/15, 9:26 AM
rhhardin said...: Right, everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex.

In polygamy, any number of wives can be married to the same husband. They're not married to the other wives.

It's amazing how the word marriage retains its integrity among the common folk.

What gays want is civil unions. The same thing without the man/woman specific name.; 4/29/15, 9:27 AM
Jason said...: Huh?

No.

Of all the arguments I've seen mustered on both sides, this is the most ridiculous.; 4/29/15, 9:28 AM
rhhardin said...: Call them civil unions and a lot of bakers and florists and photographers would find it unobjectionable, too.

They wouldn't have to defend the word marriage, which is the hangup now solved with state force.; 4/29/15, 9:29 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Now I kind of want to marry Joe.; 4/29/15, 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Or maybe Sue and Tom are Joe's adult children.

They don't want a sexual relationship with Joe, they just want all the benefits that come from the government seeing them as "married".

What a farce.; 4/29/15, 9:29 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: ...he keeps up an endlessly entertaining stream of conversation, full of witty observations and howlingly funny jokes."

This is exactly why so many women want to marry me.

I have learned how to let them down gently. Into my lap.

I am Laslo.; 4/29/15, 9:31 AM
Rusty said...: eric said...
Or maybe Sue and Tom are Joe's adult children.

They don't want a sexual relationship with Joe, they just want all the benefits that come from the government seeing them as "married".

What a farce.

Exactly.; 4/29/15, 9:33 AM
dbp said...: I think the problem Alhouse and others who favor SSM is that they convolute marriage and state recognition of marriage. Any two or more people can live together under any arrangement they like and they can freely call it marriage. State recognition of a relationship is necessarily public and should suit some public purpose. The state has an interest in stable households when children come into the picture and this is likely in male-female relationships. The state has no interest in furthering (or hindering) homosexual relationships since children cannot come accidentally into the relationship.

And no, I do not think the state should intrude into private matters such as the couple's fertility or plans for children. Though I should note that many religious traditions specifically call for married couples to be fertile.; 4/29/15, 9:35 AM
Mick said...: Of course the government has no idea. But it does know that Sue is FEMALE and Tom is MALE.

The weakness of the relativist mind as displayed by "law prof" Althouse, cannot think in absolute terms of truth.

The TRUTH is that the law of nature requires a coupling of opposite sexes to continue the human race, or to propagate the citizenry, and that is the ONLY reason that heterosexual marriage is sanctioned by the state. That heterosexuals may marry and not have sex is besides the point.

The state should never sanction anything that is against the "law of nature and natures's god" (See Dec. of Ind.).; 4/29/15, 9:35 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "I just wanted to write a separate post to beat you over the head with the profound accuracy of the Chief's statement. "

Instead of 'beating over the head' you might be better off with spanking and light bondage.

Let us know the Safe Word.

I am Laslo.; 4/29/15, 9:36 AM
Annie said...: Or maybe the state should have an interest in what is best for any possible children of said 'marriage'. Children that won't naturally occur between Tom and Joe....who, if they insist on Rent-A-Womb, would be denied a mother. Why purposefully do that to a child?; 4/29/15, 9:38 AM
CarlF said...: I am interested on why sexual discrimination occurs in the discussion. Last time I checked, sexual discrimination is not barred in the Constitution (and the Equal Rights Amendment never was added).; 4/29/15, 9:38 AM
Fabi said...: Sue, Tom and Joe should enjoy the liberty of a plural marriage.

Let's end all this duonormative bigotry and hate!!; 4/29/15, 9:38 AM
Real American said...: anyone can marry anyone else! There are no "bans" on gay marriage. A guy can marry another guy or marry a dog or a tree or his car. The issue isn't whether gays can marry. The issue is whether the state recognizes the relationship as a marriage, which comes with certain legal rights and obligations. The principal purpose of marriage relates to making sure opposite sex couples stay together for the benefit of their children, which are likely to occur naturally as a result of the relationship, often without the intention of the couple. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting that stability because without it, you get Baltimore. Thus all of these other relationships are extraneous to that purpose and the state has no legitimate interest in recognizing them.; 4/29/15, 9:40 AM
Fr. Denis Lemieux said...: If the government has no idea, no interest, and no business concerning itself with the details of Sue, Joe, and Tom's relationship(s), then why is it warranted to be involved in these relationships at all?
The only reason for government to take any interest whatsoever in 'marriage' is that marriage (or the action that consummates the marriage) produces children, and it is in the interest of society that human children be raised in a stable situation. There is no other reason possible why the government should involve itself in the personal emotional lives of its citizens.; 4/29/15, 9:41 AM
MayBee said...: Why should Joe have to choose?; 4/29/15, 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Annie said...
Or maybe the state should have an interest in what is best for any possible children of said 'marriage'. Children that won't naturally occur between Tom and Joe....who, if they insist on Rent-A-Womb, would be denied a mother. Why purposefully do that to a child?

You'd be surprised at how many people actually support child abuse. I've been surprised.

Ultimately, codifying gay sex marriage relationships into our constitution is codifying child abuse into our constitution.

This is why the Catholic Church got out of the adoption game in Massachusetts once the State forced them to work with gay sex couples.; 4/29/15, 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger MayBee said...
Why should Joe have to choose?

This has been pointed out to Ann Althouse on her website for quite some time now.

I've never seen her answer the question.; 4/29/15, 9:46 AM
Amichel said...: Gay marriage can only be contemplated because we have forgotten why marriage was codified into law, supported and protected by both government and culture in the first place. Marriage is the foundation of a family. It is the bedrock on which the next generation of children will be raised. An association of families are the foundation of society. It's as simple as that.; 4/29/15, 9:48 AM
Scott M said...: Let us know the Safe Word.

The safe word has always been "banana".; 4/29/15, 9:49 AM
Boltforge said...: The State is in the marriage business due to it's interest in exiting beyond this generation. From the stable heterosexual marriage comes the stable next generation.; 4/29/15, 9:51 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: The law does not discriminate based on sex, the definition of marriage does.

That's the point of a definition. To discriminate between those things a word refers to, and those that it does not.

It would be Orwellian for the state to redefine marriage to suite the preferences of those in power.

If the court truly determines that recognizing marriages only for opposite sex couples is unconstitutional than it should declare state recognition of marriage as unconstitutional.; 4/29/15, 9:51 AM
jimbino said...: Tom and Joe could be brothers, cousins, grandfather-grandson or close friends like Huck Finn and N****r Jim, in which case they will be denied the right to feed at the marriage-benefit trough alongside all those married couples.

The only fair policy would be to abolish civil marriage altogether, leaving all the Fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics free to marry in the church and the rest of us free from being taxed to support their marital privilege, all of us being treated as individual persons as the 14th Amendment countenances.

Marriage is SO yesterday!; 4/29/15, 9:54 AM
MayBee said...: Maybe it is best for people who want SCOTUS to find the right to simply begin to embrace the idea of polygamy and close blood marriages.

Maybe that's what I need to do, too.

Wouldn't that be the most honest position?; 4/29/15, 9:54 AM
Fernandinande said...: The government has no idea, and the government should have no idea.

Then the gov't shouldn't be involved.; 4/29/15, 9:59 AM
Big Mike said...: @Althouse, you're making too much sense to be a university professor. Please cut it out immediately.

I had been opposed to gay marriage because I recollected that the word "sacrament" was used in relation to my own wedding and I viewed gay marriage is yet another effort by Democrats to stick a thumb in the eye of devout Christians. I'm not a devout Christian myself (in fact I'm a proud, but non-proselytizing, atheist) but I recall Niemöller's famous quotation. However if Christians are okay with gay marriage, as they seem to be, then it's not my problem anymore.; 4/29/15, 10:01 AM
Jason said...: I apply to the state for a fishing license. But instead, I take it and I go deer hunting.

The game warden catches me with a dead buck in the back of my truck and cites me for hunting without a license. Do I get to use, as my defense:

"but I WAS fishing."

No you weren't. You shot a deer.

"Well, I had a fishing license."

No, of course not. Fishing licenses, by definition, don't include hunting. Hunting is a different thing than fishing. "but no, your honor. I don't like fish. I want to shoot deer and eat venison."

"Well, be that as it may, you weren't fishing, you were hunting, and hunting isn't covered under the license you had."

"But, but... I don't like fish! I was born this way! I never liked fish!!!!" Muh personal preferences!

Is the government obligated to change the definition of fishing to include hunting to accommodate his personal preferences?

No.

Of his or any others' personal preferences, The government doesn't have an idea, and shouldn't have an idea.; 4/29/15, 10:02 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Jason, you know the story about the guy who got arrested for killing a California condor, right? He was lost in the woods north of Sacramento, starving, and ate the bird. The judge at trial said "I'm gonna let you off with probation so long as you answer one question: what did it taste like?" The guy said, "Well, judge, it was just about half-way between spotted owl and bald eagle."

That's my father's favorite joke.; 4/29/15, 10:12 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Right, everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex."

Doesn't respond to the point in the post.; 4/29/15, 10:13 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I think the problem Alhouse and others who favor SSM is that they convolute marriage and state recognition of marriage. Any two or more people can live together under any arrangement they like and they can freely call it marriage. State recognition of a relationship is necessarily public and should suit some public purpose. The state has an interest in stable households when children come into the picture and this is likely in male-female relationships. The state has no interest in furthering (or hindering) homosexual relationships since children cannot come accidentally into the relationship."

The question is what the state can do to people, and if it sets up a legal status from which many consequences ensue, the limits matter and must stand up to the legal tests imposed on government action.; 4/29/15, 10:15 AM
jimbino said...: Real American,

The principal purpose of marriage relates to making sure opposite sex couples stay together for the benefit of their children, which are likely to occur naturally as a result of the relationship, often without the intention of the couple. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting that stability because without it, you get Baltimore. Thus all of these other relationships are extraneous to that purpose and the state has no legitimate interest in recognizing them.

The usual syllogism is:

1. The State has a legitimate interest in maintaining the human race or at least the State.

2. Hence the State has an interest in proper nurturing of children.

3. Proper nurturing of children requires a Mom and a Dad who are married.

4. So the State has an interest in enforcing marriage rules that exclude gays, polygamists, singles and the childfree from its benefits.

The premise is unsupported, and the Shakers, among others, have disagreed. Proper nurturing of children often requires that Mom and Dad get divorced and live apart. The conclusion doesn't follow, since, as pointed out in Oral Argument, granting all the 1000+ benefits of marriage to the currently disenfranchised groups will not take benefits from the marrieds.; 4/29/15, 10:15 AM
Quayle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/15, 10:16 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "The state has an interest in stable households when children come into the picture and this is likely in male-female relationships. The state has no interest in furthering (or hindering) homosexual relationships since children cannot come accidentally into the relationship."

The state needs to have at least a legitimate interest in excluding those it excludes.

What is the interest?

I can tell you the interest the government argued yesterday. Do you know what it is?

I challenge you to find out and to put it succinctly, then look at it and tell me why I should do anything but scoff.; 4/29/15, 10:17 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Then why is marijuana still largely illegal? Why prostitution?

The victim-less-crime argument can go on and on. Why am I not allowed to run a for-profit poker game in my house? Hell, what's with usury laws? Minimum-wage laws? These are not good grounds, these "you gotta have a reason" arguments.; 4/29/15, 10:22 AM
I Callahan said...: I think the problem Alhouse and others who favor SSM is that they convolute marriage and state recognition of marriage

I don't mean to be dour, but if our hostess, a law professor, can't see the inherent inconsistency in her argument that the government should have no idea what goes on in a marriage, but STILL favors the government's involvement in marriage (by codifying gay marriage), then said law professor is letting her feelings get in the way of any reasonable and logical argument.

All really is lost.; 4/29/15, 10:22 AM
Anonymous said...: "...The premise is unsupported, and the Shakers, among others, have disagreed. ..."

That could account for the Shakers extinction.; 4/29/15, 10:22 AM
rhhardin said...: "Right, everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex."

Doesn't respond to the point in the post.

That's the situation, though. Everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex. It's equal.

The line given takes the wrong partial derivative. You don't hold the person fixed, you hold the sex fixed. It's not a problem about Joe, it's a problem about marriage.

In marriage, everybody's equal before the law. Marry the opposite sex, whether you're gay or lesbian or straight.

If not, it's not marriage.

It's civil union, or you pick your word. That word will develoop its own connotation as the consequences come out. It will be a resource to the language instead of a contamination.; 4/29/15, 10:22 AM
Quayle said...: "The government has no idea, and the government should have no idea. "

Right. The government has no idea that Tom is a man and Sue is a woman.

If that is the case, then the government is an ass.

Jason, the truth as uttered by our overlords at the Supreme Court is that "[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"

Sorry to say, Jason, your liberty to define your own concept of meaning doesn't extend to state hunting or fishing licenses.

It only covers determinations of when a fetus is human and whether that human is allowed to live or die.

Fortunately for our prescious sense and commitment to compassion and morality, deer and fish are well protected from your potentially whimsical and possibly obtuse definitions.; 4/29/15, 10:22 AM
Bob Ellison said...: I've got a neighbor who's interested in becoming my indentured servant, nay, my slave. I'll pay him a lump sum and pay his family ongoing fees so that I can whip him and make him work 22 hours/day and all that.

But the law says I can't do that. Why?; 4/29/15, 10:24 AM
I Callahan said...: The question is what the state can do to people, and if it sets up a legal status from which many consequences ensue, the limits matter and must stand up to the legal tests imposed on government action.

Just what is the government doing "to" people here that codifying gay marriage into law is the only fix for? It certainly isn't contracts - anyone can have a will drawn up. As far as social security benefits and the like, the laws can be amended rather easily.

Sorry, professor, I think this subject just hits too close to home for you personally, and because Roberts said something you inherently agree with, you are focusing on that one point.; 4/29/15, 10:27 AM
JAORE said...: Polygamy: "This has been pointed out to Ann Althouse on her website for quite some time now.
I've never seen her answer the question."

I asked, in another post, why the precedents cited would not lend themselves to polygamy. Yep, no response.

I don't think our host would answer, "That is just stupid.... shut up". But, since it comes up a lot I had hoped she would weigh in. Her blog, her rules, of course.

But it does begin to lead one to the conclusion that the avoidance is because the honest answer might weigh against her desired outcome.; 4/29/15, 10:27 AM
rhhardin said...: then said law professor is letting her feelings get in the way of any reasonable and logical argument.

On the contrary, the argument is crafted to be consistent with the feelings.

Various entries to it are pretty firmly blocked, though.; 4/29/15, 10:27 AM
rhhardin said...: Richard Epstein supports polygamy as well as gay marriage. Though he'd prefer to call the latter civil unions, and strongly disparages the thuggery against bakers and florists who opt out of the fad.

It takes a huge amount of thuggery to move 99% approval to 100%, where they 1% is not bothering anybody and not trying to do anything but live their own life.

His 99% I'd suppose has SSM called civil unions. so the 1% would be the buggery moralists and not the language preservationists.; 4/29/15, 10:33 AM
rhhardin said...: What should chick flicks be called, or is there nothing corresponding to chick flicks in SSM genres.; 4/29/15, 10:36 AM
jr565 said...: If sue loves joe and Joe is her sister, Sue can't marry Joe either.; 4/29/15, 10:38 AM
DougWeber said...: So arguendo let us assume that marriage as currently enacted is sexually discriminatory. Then the question is does the government have a basis either rational or strict for this distinction.

There in fact are many differences. The most important is that Joe marrying Bill will produce no children without intervention. Joe marrying Alice will most likely produce children unless there is intervention.

The government has a very strong interest in the production of children. Ignoring issues about bringing them, children are necessary for the continuation of the state. See the Shakers.

Note that the practical effect of marriage is that certain benefits accrue to the married such as lower tax rates. Does the need for the continuation of the population justify these special privileges? If it does not, then are not these discriminatory against those who are not married?; 4/29/15, 10:39 AM
Charlie Currie said...: Maybe Joe is the head of a successful drug cartel, and Tom and Sue are junkies...; 4/29/15, 10:42 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: As others have stated, when it comes to recognition and granting of special privileges by the state, marriage is not about "love."

The government recognizes and rewards marriage because it is an institution necessary for society to create and educate children.

While it may provide benefits to the husband and wife (from an economic standpoint the wife trades her reproductive capacity (a diminishing resource) for the husband's productive capacity) that is not why it was created and continues to exist. In fact, the concept of romantic love is thought to have been created by French troubadours in the middle ages.

Of course we now live in a technically advanced, incredibly wealthy society (for now.) So marriage customs originating before the advent of cheap contraceptives, big government that can provide for all, even if everyone stops being productive, and the Internet, are now seen as quaint relics of a bygone age. As ancient as that over 100 year old document, the Constitution.; 4/29/15, 10:47 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Mick:

"The state should never sanction anything that is against the "law of nature and natures's god" (See Dec. of Ind.)."

Ah yes, but discerning the will of "nature's god" has proven quite tricky.

I really do not understand this obsession with the natural order or "natural law." It seems most of modernity has been about trying to protect ourselves from the capricious assaults by nature. I, for example, don't think it's a very good idea for two 13-year-olds to have sex and procreate, but nature demands it.; 4/29/15, 10:47 AM
Fr. Denis Lemieux said...: OK. The state ONLY has an interest in doing something to stabilize the one, the only, the sole activity that human beings perform that has (normally) the effect of bringing new human beings into existence.
Because of the biological immutable facts of both procreation (there is only one sexual act that can make a new human being) and development (humans are unique in taking many years to grow to maturity), there is an urgent state interest in stablizing male-female sexual relations within a legal structure.
There is NO OTHER state interest in intervening in the whole spectrum of other human relationships. How is this not clear? The exclusion is not arbitrary (nor is it really exclusion, since a gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex, which is hardly unknown in human history), but is based on the unique nature of heterosexual intercourse.
I am a bit embarrassed that these things have to be explained to people.; 4/29/15, 10:50 AM
Chuck said...: Althouse: The question is what the state can do to people, and if it sets up a legal status from which many consequences ensue, the limits matter and must stand up to the legal tests imposed on government action.

So what's your legal test? I say, along with U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, that it is "rational basis" and that the states' (traditional) definitions of marriage easily meet that test and clearly pass constitutional muster.; 4/29/15, 10:54 AM
Bob Boyd said...: "And the difference is based upon their different sex."

Yup. It is. Because that has always been, until very recently, the unquestioned definition of marriage.

It seems to me the argument is that the definition needs to change because it conflicts with values we hold higher. OK.
But the SC can't say that because the SC doesn't have the power in the constitution to change the definition. Do they?
They do have the actual power, though, and I think they will use it.
Congratulations Tom. Joe's a good catch.
You haven't heard the last from Sue, though.; 4/29/15, 10:54 AM
walter said...: ""The state has an interest in stable households when children come into the picture and this is likely in male-female relationships. The state has no interest in furthering (or hindering) homosexual relationships since children cannot come accidentally into the relationship."

The state needs to have at least a legitimate interest in excluding those it excludes. "

Aren't we more talking about a targeted subsidy/law? The "positive" argument FOR the subsidy/recognition would be that of above.

A better argument for some kind of legal status is that since SS adoption/child-raising is legal, similar concerns come about.

But I have to wonder how much genuine concern would be out there if significant $$ benefits weren't in the offing.; 4/29/15, 10:54 AM
ron winkleheimer said...: "I asked, in another post, why the precedents cited would not lend themselves to polygamy. Yep, no response."

According to Wikipedia about 25% of all countries recognize polygamous marriages.

The only honest answer to that question for people who disapprove of polygamy is that they disapprove of polygamy and hope:

1) The majority of people will continue to disapprove of it too.

2) The Supremes won't find a "right" to it in the Constitution.

Cause there are already people agitating to legalize polygamy and guess what, they are using the same arguments as "marriage equality" activists.; 4/29/15, 10:55 AM
JMS said...: From the Hapsburgs to the Clintons, isn't marriage primarily about accumulating power, protection and wealth, not sex and procreation? So denying that right to same-sex couples is obviously illegal discrimination.; 4/29/15, 11:00 AM
n.n said...: The government's compelling interest in couples, not couplets, is identified in the preamble to the Constitution where two parties are named: We the People and Posterity. It is a simple and foregone conclusion that government, society, and humanity will favor the productive relationship between a man and a woman capable of accepting responsibility for the conception and evolution of a new human life.

That said, if they choose to go forward with normalization of transsexual behavior, then the must on principle -- avoid the pro-choice or selective principles argument -- normalize other dysfunctional, unproductive, and even "gross" behaviors other than what?

They have already legalized and normalized elective or premeditated abortion of wholly innocent human lives for trivial and casual causes.

They have already normalized womb banks and sperm depositors to appease dysfunctional couples, compensate for career-oriented feminists, and to create an illusion of transsexual fitness.

I wonder on what grounds they will discriminate against other orientations and behaviors. Pro-choice or selective principles is progressively disfavored by the population, other than after suppression through liberal doses of opiates, judicial overrides, and executive orders.; 4/29/15, 11:00 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I don't mean to be dour, but if our hostess, a law professor, can't see the inherent inconsistency in her argument that the government should have no idea what goes on in a marriage, but STILL favors the government's involvement in marriage (by codifying gay marriage), then said law professor is letting her feelings get in the way of any reasonable and logical argument."

No, the question of the government's involvement in marriage is not on the table. The government has chosen to be involved. I was not asked to approve or disapprove that decision, which was made long ago, long before I was born.

If there were a proposal on the table to disentangle all government involvement in marriage, I would look at it and express an opinion on that. It's an interesting idea, but I haven't said I'm for or against it. It would obviously be very hard to do and there's no significant legislative activity in that direction now.

I'm living in the reality that we have, and within that, the question is what government can do with its system of marriage.; 4/29/15, 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Althouse:

Assuming the Constitution requires states to recognize single sex marriage, do you agree that there is no logical reason to prohibit two sisters from marrying each other?; 4/29/15, 11:07 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Assuming the Constitution requires states to recognize single sex marriage, do you agree that there is no logical reason to prohibit two sisters from marrying each other?"

No. I think anti-incest laws are well-supported by legitimate, indeed compelling, interests.

I mean, is that even a serious question? I guess you want to suggest that it could be argued that incest prohibitions are only about avoiding offspring. If that were true, you'd have to allow father-daughter marriages where one person is sterilized.; 4/29/15, 11:10 AM
MayBee said...: If that were true, you'd have to allow father-daughter marriages where one person is sterilized.

Why not?; 4/29/15, 11:14 AM
rhhardin said...: I'm living in the reality that we have, and within that, the question is what government can do with its system of marriage.

What we have is up for discussion and revision.

Wrong precendents need to be reversed.

"The argument is already over" is one of the routes to power discussed by sociologist Joseph Gusfield.

1. discover a new public problem.

2. take ownership of it.

3. make clear that the discussion is already over.

4. profit; 4/29/15, 11:15 AM
Howard said...: I love how the fearful Althousians preach hate standing behind the prince of peace. Friedrich Nietzsche laughs from the grave.

Nothing about procreation in standard wedding vows, Fr. Lemieux. Acceptance of children from G_d leaves the door completely open to adoption, turkey basters and emasculate conception. The religious stuff only applies to this particular cult of the christian myth. Clearly, the vows are primarily about a couple committing to each other for life to help the other through the trials and tribulations of an uncertain world.

From Catholic Wedding Help:
Catholic wedding vows are usually preceded by three questions from the priest:

"(Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?"

"Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?"

"Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?"

The bride and groom respond "I will" or "yes" (Rite of Marriage #34).
Catholic wedding vows

The Rite of Marriage (#25) offers several options for Catholic wedding vows. The standard version goes like this:

Priest (or deacon): Since it is your intention to enter into marriage, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.

Groom: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

Bride: I, (name), take you, (name), to be my husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.

- See more at: http://catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/catholic-wedding-vows.htm#sthash.JnOeMiU2.dpuf; 4/29/15, 11:17 AM
Opus One Media said...: As much as I disagree with AA's general opinions, she has logic on her side on this one.

Further, "marriage" is and always has been in evolution and not as portrayed in the questioning by the justices. In my lifetime laws regarding mixed race marriage, marriage between mentally challenged parties or persons of low IQ, etc., have fallen to such arguments that AA raises.; 4/29/15, 11:20 AM
MayBee said...: Marriage Licenses in Illinois:

Eligibility

Under Illinois law, only eligible persons can marry. Both partners must:
be 18 years of age or older
not be blood relatives
not already be legally married to someone else or each other
Exceptions

Under state law, first cousins older than 50 years of age may marry.
Under state law, applicants who are 16 and 17 years old may obtain a marriage license with parental consent.
Both parents or legal guardians must:

appear in person
provide sworn consent of the marriage at that time
provide valid identification
If a court-appointed legal guardian is providing consent, a certified copy of the appointment is required.

Applicants who are 16 or 17 must present the following:

a certified copy of their birth certificate
a second form of identification showing their date of birth
=================

Note: A former stepfather may marry his former stepdaughter; 4/29/15, 11:21 AM
n.n said...: With pro-choice principles, an efficient and "humane" abortion industry, and the wide availability of womb banks and sperm depositors, the concern about genetic weakness and disease is unjustified. With the normalization of dysfunctional behaviors, including: transsexual, "Peter Pan" syndrome, consideration for evolutionary fitness cannot be considered a compelling interest. The advocates for selective normalization -- not tolerance -- need to address the moral hazards they are creating through arbitrary exclusion.; 4/29/15, 11:21 AM
J. Farmer said...: The fact that sexual orientation seems to be rather hardwired in the brain, whether from genetics, early childhood experiences, or (probably) some combination of the two, seems to set it apart as a special case from incenstuous and polyamorous relationships.; 4/29/15, 11:22 AM
Rosalyn C. said...: The fact is that many thousands of gay couples are having children (through surrogacy, adoption, IVF) and are living as families. This is a reality, not a theory. There's been no proof that living with stable, loving parents of the same sex is harmful. Doesn't the state have the same interest in the stability of those families that it has in heterosexual families?

The other side of the coin is should we deny the right to marry of post menopausal women and sterile men because it serves no social purpose?; 4/29/15, 11:22 AM
LilyBart said...: Why can Joe marry both Sue and Tom?; 4/29/15, 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: It is a serious question.

You assert without further support that "I think anti-incest laws are well-supported by legitimate, indeed compelling, interests." But other than the danger toward potential offspring, is there even a rational basis to prohibit incest? I can't think of any. And if there is no danger of pro-creation, there is no rational basis for prohibiting sister from marrying.; 4/29/15, 11:22 AM
Hazy Dave said...: So, polygamy is the answer? Or is only one of them allowed to "marry" Joe?; 4/29/15, 11:23 AM
rhhardin said...: Marriage is about man/women.

Man/woman love is about children (Levinas has the phenomenology in an appendix to Totality and Infinity, briefly that the unknown future of the love is a mutual metaphor for the children to come).

The system is peculiar to man/woman, and stabilizes the meaning of the word marriage and man/woman love.

The argument goes wrong when it loses sight of the word and tries to find a state interest. The state has whatever interest it wants.

That's what's being discussed.

Building a system that doesn't run counter to human motivations is the primary tool to avoid tyranny, democracy or not. Otherwise lots of force is necessary, as for instance with the various bakers and photographers and florists.

SSM can have their own word and everything would work out fine. The system would run downhill.

That ought to be part of the reality.; 4/29/15, 11:23 AM
Anonymous said...: What is the interest?

The benefits of government's recognition of marriage come at a cost to the government-- for example, the taxes which the Winsor decision prevented the Treasury from collecting on Thea Spyer's estate. It chooses to bear those costs in the case of traditional marriage because of its overriding interest in children having stable families to grow up in, a consideration which is not present to nearly as large a degree in same-sex marriages. While I think governments should recognize same-sex marriages anyway, I have a hard time seeing it as constitutionally mandatory.; 4/29/15, 11:24 AM
walter said...: "Nothing about procreation in standard wedding vows..."

That focus seems to skip over the idea that opp sex marriage cuts across cultures.; 4/29/15, 11:26 AM
Howard said...: Ann: The anti-gay bigots have uncontrollable, deviant sexual urges that make them equate rape, incest, bestiality, pederasty, etc. because of their own repressed homo-lust guilt. It's a tell.; 4/29/15, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: I have no idea why I hyphenated procreation. I am not a robot, nor am I a good proofreader.; 4/29/15, 11:31 AM
Hazy Dave said...: I guess I was asking Justice Roberts that question. As to whether the Government has a legitimate interest in peoples' sexual preferences in exchange for certain recognitions, benefits, and responsibilities, I'm not totally on board with that. On the other hand, prosecution of various kinds of thought crimes is becoming more common in western democracies. And some of them, arguably, are of a sexual nature. So, are we clear that it's an economic benefit being sought through the recent redefinition of "marriage"?; 4/29/15, 11:32 AM
MayBee said...: Ann: The anti-gay bigots have uncontrollable, deviant sexual urges that make them equate rape, incest, bestiality, pederasty, etc. because of their own repressed homo-lust guilt. It's a tell.

See Howard, this is what you need to get past. Your attempt to shame people who ask about incest and polygamy as creepy bigots. Because the legal arguments for the things you list (except for bestiality) for the *right* to marriage are very similar to the arguments for gay marriage.
And the arguments against them are very similar to what people used to argue against gay marriage (back when gay people were considered closeted and creepy).

So you are hurting your side (my side) by lashing out like this.
Consider saying, we'll cross those bridges when we come to them.
Or...is polygamy really so bad?

But acting outraged at equating what was *once* unacceptable with that which is *currently* unacceptable isn't going to win you the logic argument.; 4/29/15, 11:39 AM
Doug said...: If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, and Sue wants Joe to be a man and Tom wants Joe to be fire hydrant ....

Why is Roberts talking past the idea that marriage is a thing that does not exist with two men or two women or a father and son, or a woman and a Great Dane?; 4/29/15, 11:40 AM
jr565 said...: Howard wrote:
Ann: The anti-gay bigots have uncontrollable, deviant sexual urges that make them equate rape, incest, bestiality, pederasty, etc. because of their own repressed homo-lust guilt. It's a tell.

Puh-lease. Not sure about that rape portion. But all the others are restricted marriages. and so when people make absolutist arguments about marriage equality ohers, knowing that marriage is so restricted ask about these other restricted unions to see how well your logic holds up.

You want to have a discussion about marriage equality but only in a vacuum. We are holding you to your words and asking you to have a discussion about marriage equality when it comes to marriage.; 4/29/15, 11:41 AM
Jessica said...: "No. I think anti-incest laws are well-supported by legitimate, indeed compelling, interests.

I mean, is that even a serious question? I guess you want to suggest that it could be argued that incest prohibitions are only about avoiding offspring. If that were true, you'd have to allow father-daughter marriages where one person is sterilized."

Why do you assume that sex is part of the new definition of marriage? Why should it be? It's understandable why the assumption of a sexual relationship would be an important part of traditional marriage between a man and a woman (as has been explained above) if procreation and raising children with a mother and father was felt to be an important reason for the state to be interested in marriage.

However, if you're arguing that the new definition of marriage no longer includes anything about procreation (which is what I gather from Prof Althouse's posts), then why should considerations of sex or sexuality play into the definition at all? What possible reason could the government have to be interested in some people's sexual relationships but not others when considerations of the "best" ways to raise children is not longer relevant to society's concept of marriage?

And doesn't this fly in the face of Lawrence vs. Texas, which argued that the reason why anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional was precisely because the government had no rational basis to be interested in the sex lives of consenting adults? Why do you feel that, in the case of gay couples only, the government now does have a rational interest in their love lives? Why should the government be interested in two people who are romantically (read: sexually) committed to one another but not to two people who love one another platonically (as the related family members examples). The above quotation from the Justice talks about "love" but the discussion here seems limited to only sexually expressed love, hence the prohibition you referred to re: incest.

So basically, the questions for Professor Althouse are these:
1) As one of the justices noted (can't remember which one), this case is not about joining into the group of people who can marry. It's about changing the definition of what marriage is. What is the definition of marriage that you support?
2) There will likely be some human relationships that are excluded from this definition (there have to be...the act of defining something necessitates excluding relationships that don't fit the criteria). Why are these relationships not worthy of government recognition? Is your chosen definition a form of "just discrimination" and if so, why?; 4/29/15, 11:41 AM
J. Farmer said...: I always find myself inhabiting a strange space in these debates. I believe that conservatives are absolutely correct in trumpeting the importance of the family as a basic social unit and the importance of stable committed relationships in producing human capital in offspring. I do not take a cavalier or nonchalant attitude towards fatherless homes or "broken" families in general.

That said, I think the importance that is ascribed to "redefining the word" is absurdly overhyped. What is the mechanism by which such a redefinition would have deleterious effects on current or future heterosexual marriages. How does same-sex marriage, of which there are currently less than 100,000 in the United States, pose any significant risk to the 60,000,000 or so heterosexual marriages?; 4/29/15, 11:44 AM
jr565 said...: Maybee wrote:
"ee Howard, this is what you need to get past. Your attempt to shame people who ask about incest and polygamy as creepy bigots. Because the legal arguments for the things you list (except for bestiality) for the *right* to marriage are very similar to the arguments for gay marriage.
And the arguments against them are very similar to what people used to argue against gay marriage (back when gay people were considered closeted and creepy)."

And it certainly shows htat Howard has some deep seated animosity and hatred towards those other groups. Because he finds it so outrageous that you would DARE to compare homosexual marriage to polygamy. If its outrageous then those polygamists must be trying to engage in some seriously deviant stuff.
Dare I say it, Harold is a polygamophobe.
So, now lets go to the person who's into polygamy Harold. What is he going to think of you saying gay marriage shouldn't even be discussed in same sentence since what he wants is so disgusting and immoral. Isn't he going to call you a bigot, Harold?; 4/29/15, 11:45 AM
hombre said...: Is the science now "settled" that homosexuality is congenital? If not, doesn't the question change to:

If a person chooses to become a member of a group knowing that certain legal benefits are not available to the group, is that person then legally qualified to complain that he or she is constitutionally entitled to those benefits?

I don't know if the Court has answered that question before. Also, I may be misinformed, but it appears that the Court and others have simply assumed for the purpose of these cases that the science is "settled."; 4/29/15, 11:46 AM
Howard said...: Another point, there is a State interest for people to be committed to each other through sickness, health, richer, poorer, though life and into old age and death. Child-rearing is a much smaller part of it. The opposition to gay marriage is, however, all about the fear of sexuality by those who believe they were purposefully made defective and eternally damned by a middle-eastern genocidal devil whom they believe to be god.; 4/29/15, 11:47 AM
MayBee said...: If marriage liberty is a constitutional right, what is the argument for disallowing father/daughter marriage but allowing stepfather/daughter marriage?; 4/29/15, 11:47 AM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
That said, I think the importance that is ascribed to "redefining the word" is absurdly overhyped. What is the mechanism by which such a redefinition would have deleterious effects on current or future heterosexual marriages. How does same-sex marriage, of which there are currently less than 100,000 in the United States, pose any significant risk to the 60,000,000 or so heterosexual marriages?

Its how its being framed. It's framed as an attack on the compelling state interest to have marriage be a man and a woman. If it were a totally separate thing and framed as a way to get gay people rights which doesn't involve religious people to say bake cakes for such unions, then even religious folks might be more likely to support it.
How could they not. Its not technically marriage. SO whats the argument going to be? We don't want gays to have rights?; 4/29/15, 11:47 AM
Etienne said...: I don't see where Sue and Tom can't both marry Joe. Why limit marriage to one partner.

If we're going to change the law, let's put the whole wad on the table, and let the wheel spin.

In 1000 years we will know if it was the right thing to do.; 4/29/15, 11:48 AM
Howard said...: jr565: I never mentioned polygamy because I don't find anything wrong with it as long as it involves consenting adults. Besides, it's bible approved.; 4/29/15, 11:49 AM
jr565 said...: Jessica wrote:

Why do you assume that sex is part of the new definition of marriage? Why should it be? It's understandable why the assumption of a sexual relationship would be an important part of traditional marriage between a man and a woman (as has been explained above) if procreation and raising children with a mother and father was felt to be an important reason for the state to be interested in marriage.

However, if you're arguing that the new definition of marriage no longer includes anything about procreation (which is what I gather from Prof Althouse's posts), then why should considerations of sex or sexuality play into the definition at all? What possible reason could the government have to be interested in some people's sexual relationships but not others when considerations of the "best" ways to raise children is not longer relevant to society's concept of marriage?

Sure, you could have two spinster sisters, who have no intention of sleeping with each other, get married just for the tax benefits of marriage. They love each other, as sisters do, but don't have any intention of consummating a marriage.
Why is consummating a marriage important anymore?; 4/29/15, 11:50 AM
Howard said...: hombre: You are tying yourself up into a Gordian knot with that argument.; 4/29/15, 11:50 AM
CWJ said...: "You can like the life you're living
You can live the life you like
You can even marry Harry
But mess around with Ike
And that's

Good, isn't it?
Grand, isn't it?
Great, isn't it?
Swell, isn't it?
Fun, isn't it..."

Sigh.

Good, grand, great, swell, fun.

Unless you fail to tithe to the SSM god and provide the proper sacrifice of cake, flowers, and photographs. Then you'll see what real hate is.; 4/29/15, 11:52 AM
jimbino said...: n.n. says,

The government's compelling interest in couples, not couplets, is identified in the preamble to the Constitution where two parties are named: We the People and Posterity. It is a simple and foregone conclusion that government, society, and humanity will favor the productive relationship between a man and a woman capable of accepting responsibility for the conception and evolution of a new human life.

There is no requirement in the Constitution that "our posterity" not be a null set, or grant of a right to extort taxes from non-breeders to support that posterity.

Furthermore, the preamble, being a preamble, is not part of the Law of the Land.; 4/29/15, 11:52 AM
Howard said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4/29/15, 11:53 AM
CWJ said...: Oh and also hypothetical pizza. Can't forget the hypothetical pizza.; 4/29/15, 11:53 AM
jr565 said...: Howard wrote:
jr565: I never mentioned polygamy because I don't find anything wrong with it as long as it involves consenting adults. Besides, it's bible approved.

So then your operative grounds for discriminating against people would be "I don't find anything wrong with it as long as it involves consenting adults"
So take incest. What if the person IN the relationship says "I don't find anything wrong with it and it involves consenting adults". Who are YOU to say they shouldn't get benefits, simply because you don't like what they're doing. Theyre' doing it, not you.

Its certainly the argument made for gay marriage. "How is their gay wedding hurting your wedding? Well, how would they having incest hurt you. Are they forcing you into incest with your family? No. so then it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

How's that?; 4/29/15, 11:54 AM
MayBee said...: Howard: what was the rape part? And why include incest? What is wrong with incest among consenting adults?; 4/29/15, 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Althouse writes;

No. I think anti-incest laws are well-supported by legitimate, indeed compelling, interests.

I re-read your message a few times and never saw an argument for those supposed "well-supported" and "legitimate" even "compelling" interests.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.; 4/29/15, 12:01 PM
I Callahan said...: No. I think anti-incest laws are well-supported by legitimate, indeed compelling, interests.

Ah, so THIS is where the professor finally draws a line. It's arbitrary as hell, but at least it's a line.

I mean, is that even a serious question? I guess you want to suggest that it could be argued that incest prohibitions are only about avoiding offspring. If that were true, you'd have to allow father-daughter marriages where one person is sterilized.

Hey, you're opening the door here. I'll repeat that you've made an arbitrary decision as to when the door can be closed. That said, allow me to be politically incorrect here (disclosure: I'm not condoning this). There have been a number of arguments in this thread highlighting the reason government has always encouraged marriage: having kids. At least an incestuous marriage can create kids; a gay one, by its nature cannot.; 4/29/15, 12:04 PM
Howard said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4/29/15, 12:05 PM
Anonymous said...: There's been no proof that living with stable, loving parents of the same sex is harmful.

Then you haven't been paying attention to what's happening all around our country in the inner cities, where children are growing up without fathers or without mothers.

Which parent do you suppose a child can do without? The mother, or the father?; 4/29/15, 12:06 PM
MayBee said...: Howard- but marrying your (ex) step father is legal. So how can we know if that is ever consensual?; 4/29/15, 12:07 PM
jimbino said...: Ann Althouse says,

I'm living in the reality that we have, and within that, the question is what government can do with its system of marriage.

That sentiment could have been used regarding slavery. We didn't need a war to end slavery; it could have been fine-tuned in the South by, say, releasing slaves after 5 years, releasing pregnant slaves, or releasing married slaves.

No, state involvement in slavery was unjustifiable through and through, as it is in marriage, and it's in the interest of human rights that both be abolished.; 4/29/15, 12:07 PM
I Callahan said...: Ann: The anti-gay bigots have uncontrollable, deviant sexual urges that make them equate rape, incest, bestiality, pederasty, etc. because of their own repressed homo-lust guilt.

Have you even bothered to read the comments in this thread? Because I have, and most of them are well-thought, honest comments, that are NOT bigoted.

Or are you just an a$$hole who can't stomach the idea that someone may disagree with you?; 4/29/15, 12:08 PM
MayBee said...: Althouse is making the sex discrimination argument. Or at least she is writing favorably about Roberts making that argument.; 4/29/15, 12:09 PM
jr565 said...: ANd Howard, do you call people who are against polygamy names like you do those against gay marriage?
I notice for example the supremes would still say there is a compelling state interest to continue banning polygamy. And even althouse would say its ok to continue banning it. Not to mention Obama, Clinton and most liberals.
Would you have a problem if the CEO of Google put money behind an ititiative that said marriage should only be two people and not three?; 4/29/15, 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...: So basically, the questions for Professor Althouse are these:
1) As one of the justices noted (can't remember which one), this case is not about joining into the group of people who can marry. It's about changing the definition of what marriage is. What is the definition of marriage that you support?
2) There will likely be some human relationships that are excluded from this definition (there have to be...the act of defining something necessitates excluding relationships that don't fit the criteria). Why are these relationships not worthy of government recognition? Is your chosen definition a form of "just discrimination" and if so, why?

Prediction:

Not only will you not get Althouse to answer this question, no one who supports gay sex marriage will answer the question.

At least, not seriously. Laslo might try a reply.; 4/29/15, 12:10 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4/29/15, 12:11 PM
Etienne said...: The problem with incest, as well as sodomy, is the health repercussions.

Even today we are dealing with babies so deformed by their genes that nurses just awe at how long they survive outside the womb, and billions are spent trying to cure diseases that all began with a dirty penis.

Choose what you want to empty your treasury on, and then make it law.; 4/29/15, 12:12 PM
Howard said...: MayBee: I don't agree that the stepparent-adult child marriage right is appropriate if the step-parent came into the picture while the child was a minor because consent is doubtful.; 4/29/15, 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/15, 12:12 PM
I Callahan said...: Why do you assume that sex is part of the new definition of marriage? Why should it be?

Heh. Jessica hits on something here. The professor actually stated in her original post that sex didn't have anything to do with it. But she then contradicts herself here.

Pure emotion. That's all that's driving it. She could win the argument, and shorten the thread just by saying, "I don't care about the legalities, logic, facts or anything else. People like my son should be able to marry who they want, and the law should reflect this."

At least the above would have the advantage of being the truth.; 4/29/15, 12:12 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: The government, in banning same-sex marriage, does nothing to ascertain that couples are sexually attracted to each other.

Indeed! The law treats heterosexuals exactly the same as it treats homosexuals. It does not discriminate.; 4/29/15, 12:14 PM
Mountain Maven said...: A generation from now when we look back at the societal devastation wrought by same sex marriage (the straw that broke marriage's back) we will be reminded of how welfare helped ruin the black family.
6,000 years of received wisdom trashed for political fancy.; 4/29/15, 12:15 PM
I Callahan said...: Another point, there is a State interest for people to be committed to each other through sickness, health, richer, poorer, though life and into old age and death. Child-rearing is a much smaller part of it.

OK, this is a reasonable view. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's OK.

Then we get this:

The opposition to gay marriage is, however, all about the fear of sexuality by those who believe they were purposefully made defective and eternally damned by a middle-eastern genocidal devil whom they believe to be god.

Read my prior comment again, Howard.; 4/29/15, 12:15 PM
MayBee said...: MayBee: I don't agree that the stepparent-adult child marriage right is appropriate if the step-parent came into the picture while the child was a minor because consent is doubtful.

Yet many states allow it now.

Further, if the father figure never married the mother- an increasingly common occurrence - there is no way to stop it.

See how modern life messes with all of these tidy rules for legal marriage?; 4/29/15, 12:15 PM
Howard said...: Blogger jr565 said...

Well lets stick to adult consensual incest then.
I don't know who gave you such a hard mind-fucking, but I'm pretty sure you can take a pill for that. Ask your doctor if it's right for you.; 4/29/15, 12:16 PM
MayBee said...: She could win the argument, and shorten the thread just by saying, "I don't care about the legalities, logic, facts or anything else. People like my son should be able to marry who they want, and the law should reflect this."

That's kind of where I am. Although it isn't about my son.
And I don't think it's logic-challenged to want gay marriage to be legal. I actually came to support it logically first, then emotionally.

But I also recognize the court ruling it a right is fraught. It's other people who won't admit that, that bother me.; 4/29/15, 12:19 PM
hombre said...: Howard: "The opposition to gay marriage is, however, all about the fear of sexuality by those who believe they were purposefully made defective and eternally damned by a middle-eastern genocidal devil whom they believe to be god."

"Fear of sexuality?" "Purposefully made defective?" "Eternally damned?" "Genocidal devil?" Shall we generously assume this is hyperbole rather than a display of ignorance and bigotry?

Howard: "hombre: You are tying yourself up into a Gordian knot with that argument."

Is that your legal opinion? If so, please explain. If not, kindly STFU.; 4/29/15, 12:20 PM
Howard said...: MayBee: What's your point? I think that law is wrong, but it has nothing to do with consensual relationships. It's sick that you insist on equating incest with committed gay relationships.; 4/29/15, 12:21 PM
MayBee said...: Howard:
MayBee: What's your point? I think that law is wrong, but it has nothing to do with consensual relationships. It's sick that you insist on equating incest with committed gay relationships.

Thank you for your thoughtful commentary, Howard.; 4/29/15, 12:22 PM
Howard said...: hombre: the followers of the book of moses, IMO, worship a make-believe devil.

As far as you telling me to STFU, thanks for making my point by being hysterical.; 4/29/15, 12:24 PM
Brando said...: The fact that the state cannot properly answer these questions is exactly why the state should not be in a position to judge whether someone is "married". If a buddy from work and I decide we'd like to be "married" because we like watching TV together, sharing household chores, and going on double dates with chicks, and call ourselves married, it has no bearing on two people who actually love and have a sexual relationship with each other--and most would consider my arrangement a sham.

But the big question is--so what?

The answer to "so what" is "so legally married status has tax, inheritance and other legal complications" so government has decided to legally recognize some statuses. Which is fine--call it a "civil union" and establish a fair standard for who is in one--maybe only two people maximum, because otherwise a ten person civil union might game the tax system (if in fact there should be tax difference for married vs. unmarried couples--an argument for another day). And if in any of those civil unions people want to say they're also "married"--have at it! Some people can say gay civil unions aren't "marriages" and only straight civil unions are, and other people could disagree--but the thing is, the government should have nothing to do with it.

The fact that anyone who is conservative would want the government to recognize one type of civil union to the exclusion of others baffles me. It's as though it's their one blind spot when it comes to wanting government out of our lives.; 4/29/15, 12:25 PM
Peter said...: "From the Hapsburgs to the Clintons, isn't marriage primarily about accumulating power, protection and wealth, not sex and procreation?"

Ignoring that most of us are commoners (as must be the case, for if all are royalty then "royalty" has no meaning) the reason why marriage was important to the Hapsburgs (and other royals) was precisely because of procreation, for the succession to the throne depended on legitimization of that procreation (and marriage provided that legitimization). Without procreation, legitimization is moot.

As for the Clintons, in what ways would they have been unable to accumulate power, protection and wealth had they not been married?; 4/29/15, 12:27 PM
I Callahan said...: Brando - in fairness, I think most here have no problem, in general, with the guidelines you list (civil unions, etc.). I think we're just trying to logically argue with our hostess, who isn't applying much logic in her case for gay marriage.

If she just admitted that the law doesn't matter, it should be done anyway, I could at least understand that view.; 4/29/15, 12:29 PM
Howard said...: MayBee: You got it, sweetheart. I appreciate you thoughtful, passive-aggressive condensation of our host by accusing her of lying on her blog because you think her view is really just about her kid and not her moral love of humanity.; 4/29/15, 12:30 PM
Matt said...: "The state's interest in regulating procreation" is a really weak formulation. It feels like what the state's interest is: "not having to spend the money on all this family law and probate crap."

If a child is born to a married woman, the husband's paternity is presumed. If the parents die intestate, the children are the presumptive heirs. Quick, easy, relatively painless. State resources are minimal.

On the other hand, adoption is difficult. You have to get affidavits from everybody. There are due process concerns when the biological parent can't be found. Sometimes adopted children can still inherit from their biological parents.

Every child of a same-sex couple has to be adopted at least one of the partners. Every single time, the state has to expend resources to go through this process. Every single time, someone is worried that this whole thing could be re-opened because of due process concerns.

Is a state's concern about how to allocate its finite resources a stronger interest than the same-sex couple's interest? Probably not, but it is still an interest.; 4/29/15, 12:30 PM
Renee said...: This is why Windsor really was a good case, it was about taxes not love.

These cases about a child's birth certificate though... Um no.

Taxes is one thing, altering a person's identity is another.

There is a big push for adoptees to obtain original birth certificates & DNA/Ancestry is easy. Birth certificates are public record, the right belongs to the person to know who they are.; 4/29/15, 12:31 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Howard,

The question of just how legitimate gay relations are, and just how far that legitimacy extends are what is to be proved, as the logicians would say.

If you have made up your mind, well, good. Tell us that & your reasons.

But your butthurt "How dare you compare...." is just tiresome. Do you go on feminist sites where they discuss all male-female sex as rape & pull your "shocked & stunned" routine? Equating loving, consensual het relationships to forceable rape is nasty, too, but yet I don't see anyone demanding that radical feminists be dismissed from their tenured positions for saying it. The feminists in question have a point of view. I think it's loathsome, but I can, with some work, wrap my mind around where their coming from. Is it too much for you to so the same with the hypotheticals posited here?; 4/29/15, 12:33 PM
jr565 said...: Howard wrote:
Another point, there is a State interest for people to be committed to each other through sickness, health, richer, poorer, though life and into old age and death. Child-rearing is a much smaller part of it. The opposition to gay marriage is, however, all about the fear of sexuality by those who believe they were purposefully made defective and eternally damned by a middle-eastern genocidal devil whom they believe to be god.

A lot of gays have already made argument against monogamy and long term marriages. Maybe rather than for life they can be short term engagements that can be renewed periodically.
THus, the long term, for richer or poorer thing may not be a state interest at this point.
It certainly was when marriage was about kids. Don't break up the home if you have kids since kids are going to be raised without a parent.
If two gay guys break up and there are no kids, why does society ultimately care? There's less reason to make marriage a long term commitment.; 4/29/15, 12:34 PM
DougWeber said...: On the incest question, I think I can give a reasonable example.

First note that there are benefits that only accrue to married couples: tax rates, social security benefits, health insurance.

My sister is past menopause so reproduction is not a concern. Neither of us is married. We do not wish to have sexual relations. But the current law would not permit us to establish a household that could take advantage of the benefits given to married couples. As we age and have neither children nor spouses to take care of us in our old age, it might be reasonable for us to pool resources and form a single household. And in the past this sort of arrangement has been common(see Emily Dickinson). Since the benefits in our society are so great for a married couple, we would gain greatly if we could be married. What is the basis for denying us this option in this case?; 4/29/15, 12:35 PM
MayBee said...: Howard- I wasn't the one who wrote it was about her kid. I don't think it is.; 4/29/15, 12:37 PM
B said...: Sue Joe and Tom should all marry.

Oh wait, that's still not allowed. Because reasons.; 4/29/15, 12:38 PM
DougWeber said...: Matt: "The state's interest in regulating procreation" may look weak now, but is historically the reason for marriage. Check the history and anthropology. All definitions I can find for marriage are based on reproduction and its management. Our current formulation of society tends to not want to restrict partners, but that is not the historical state. Even still, as I remember, members of the peerage and certainly of the royal family in England require permission for at least the Queen to marry.; 4/29/15, 12:39 PM
Howard said...: MayBee: sorry, I mis-read your post and thought you agreed with the thought that you quoted that Althouse's opinion was just about her son.; 4/29/15, 12:41 PM
n.n said...: jimbino:

The preamble serves, among other purposes, to identify the named parties to the social contract, The Constitution. There are no "null" named parties. The denotation and connotation of Posterity are not subject to interpretation and logical legerdemain. That the Court saw fit to legalize casual abortion of one of the parties based on a sincerely held fantasy and amoral/immoral individual religion, does not change the intended and actual meaning of either The Constitution, science, and morality.

As for collecting taxes from people with a "Peter Pan" syndrome to Promote the General Welfare of the named parties to The Constitution, that is part of the social contract until amended or overridden/reinterpreted by the fringe (e.g. pro-choice or selective-child policy).; 4/29/15, 12:43 PM
Derve Swanson said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 4/29/15, 12:44 PM
I Callahan said...: by accusing her of lying on her blog

Not accusing her of lying at all. Just of being human, and emotional. I'm just pointing it out.

because you think her view is really just about her kid and not her moral love of humanity.

So it's impossible to you to fathom that some people (I'm not one of them, by the way) may see this as something that may HURT humanity in the long run?

I guess you could look at it the way you do. Especially based on the bigoted things you've said about religion in this thread. A subject about which you have no understanding whatsoever. But I bet you feel high and mighty.; 4/29/15, 12:46 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"It's framed as an attack on the compelling state interest to have marriage be a man and a woman."

So what? I have never met anybody who got married because of a "compelling state interest." I have still never heard a credible case for how legalized same-sex marriage leads to the destabilization or destruction of traditional marriage. I think the secular arguments against same-sex marriage never really work, because they are actually just camouflage for what is truly a religious argument. I honestly do believe that a great swathe of the anti-SSM group is motivated out of a belief that homosexuality is an immoral or even disgusting way to conduct one's life. But since there only source for this belief is a book of ancient Judean mythology, it won't hold up in a secular argument and so we get those most cliched reason of all for opposing something politically: for the children!

@Mountain Maven:

"A generation from now when we look back at the societal devastation wrought by same sex marriage (the straw that broke marriage's back) we will be reminded of how welfare helped ruin the black family.
6,000 years of received wisdom trashed for political fancy."

How can the 2% or 3% of the population that is gay wreak "societal devastation" for the 97-98% who are not gay?

Again, I am dying for somebody to explain to me how two queers getting married in Kansas City will have the slightest impact on the marital plans and decision-making of the straights who also live in Kansas City, especially considering the latter outnumber the former by something like 50 to 1.; 4/29/15, 12:47 PM
n.n said...: The progress of social development has lead liberal society to the logical establishment of corporate relationships that are gender and sex agnostic with a right to liquidate unwanted, inconvenient, and underperforming assets (e.g. children). The mental gymnastics of pro-choice or selective principles necessary to avoid conflict with the majority of society and humanity does not serve to protect, and, in fact, undermines the integrity of generational liberals and progressives.; 4/29/15, 12:49 PM
Sigivald said...: I was going to say things, but it ended up being a small novel, and between Texas Annie, rhhardin, and dbp, it's all been said.

I'll happily support legal equality of any N consenting adults vs. "current marriage", though I also think the State should reduce the "benefits" of "marriage" as it stands.

I won't support "demanding they call it marriage, because it will make us feel so much better" - especially because I can't help but think the more common motive is really "to make the Other suck it up and accept us".

Because you can't actually make anyone "accept" things like that; to a Christian, e.g., "marriage" is a sacrament, and no Court can redefine it.

Decouple "marriage" from "benefits"/"legal equality" and the whole problem falls apart.

But then all you get is equality, not Forcing Those Christ Rubes To Suck It Up And Treat Us Like Real Married People.

(To go all Nietzsche, you can't just force a Revaluation Of All Values on people.

They won't accept it, and it won't help to try.); 4/29/15, 12:50 PM
Sebastian said...: Presumably, the case is going to be decided on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. It provides:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Traditional marriage laws do not "abridge" any privileges or immunities, since SSM never existed as a "privilege" to be abridged.

Such laws also do not deny due process.

The only relevant constitutional argument has to do with denial of equal protection. But traditional marriage laws treat all similarly situated persons equally. They say: anyone who finds a consenting partner of the opposite sex of a certain age etc. that agrees to marry will have such and such rights and duties.

Any privilege created by law "excludes" somebody. The law gives homeowners rights not extended to renters. Equal protection does not mean: every dweller should get a tax break, but: if a state gives homeowners a tax break, any homeowner should be able to claim it. Equal protection does not mean: everyone should be admitted to college, but: if a state institution sets standards for admission, it should consider every applicant the same way according to those standards.

Implication: SSM should be left to the democratic process. The policy question is a much closer call for many people. State experimentation is the American way and can test arguments pro and con. (Of course, that leaves the knotty problem of state recognition of other states' laws.); 4/29/15, 12:53 PM
Curious George said...: I don't know about this legal mumbo-jumbo, but that Joe sure is getting a lot of tail.; 4/29/15, 12:56 PM
Howard said...: YoungHegelian:

I hold that the legitimacy of gay relations is self evident (apologies to T Jefferson).; 4/29/15, 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: J. Farmer wrote;

Again, I am dying for somebody to explain to me how two queers getting married in Kansas City will have the slightest impact on the marital plans and decision-making of the straights who also live in Kansas City, especially considering the latter outnumber the former by something like 50 to 1.

Absolutely right.

It's not like businesses will be shut down or people will be fined for not celebrating these marriages.; 4/29/15, 1:06 PM
hombre said...: Howard: "hombre: the followers of the book of moses, IMO, worship a make-believe devil. As far as you telling me to STFU, thanks for making my point by being hysterical."

"The followers of the book of moses...." I'm a Christian. I don't know the "book of moses."

"STFU" is not indicative of hysteria. It is indicative of an unwillingness to listen to bullshit.; 4/29/15, 1:09 PM
Howard said...: I Callahan:

You accuse Alhouse of lying by omission. Your denial is passive-aggressive.

I understand that people think their anti-gay position is moral due to religious beliefs.

These beliefs, however, are immoral. The god of moses seems like a devil to me and the bible is the work of men. People who believe it is the word of a just and good God are fooling themselves.

That's not bigotry, that's just practical objectivism.

I know I am low and weak. Such is the lot of mortal man. Those who rely on superstition to put others down think they are high and mighty. They are weak loud-mouth bullies with a big (pretend) brother to back them up.; 4/29/15, 1:15 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Careful, you guys are going to make the "cruelly neutral" start crying (to be fair, it doesn't take much) again if you keep pointing out her logical inconsistencies and massive personal emotionalism on this subject.

Don't be "ugly" everyone.; 4/29/15, 1:23 PM
Howard said...: Hombre:

unwillingness to listen is what you do = adult behavior

telling someone to STFU is what you wish someone else to do=hysterical behavior

Jesus Christ, don't you know that your Holy Bible starts with Moses the Law Giver?; 4/29/15, 1:24 PM
Howard said...: eric: Your point is essentially that separate, but equal is OK. It was over-turned in Brown v Board of Education.

Admit it's just about the dirty sex thoughts that the gay make you have.; 4/29/15, 1:28 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Excuse me, but that word is taken.

"Marriage" has a long and well established meaning. You want to apply it to a different concept? Go find a different word. This one's taken.; 4/29/15, 1:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"It's not like businesses will be shut down or people will be fined for not celebrating these marriages."

You are conflating two different things. First, I oppose the lawsuits and find them ridiculous. I believe that people engaged in private commerce have a right to refuse their services to anyone they choose for any reason they choose--bigoted, indifferent, or otherwise. I would support, for example, a baker who believed that racially mixed marriages were against their personal beliefs and refused to provide a caker for a mixed race marriage. However, I doubt that such a baker would be held up as quite the victim that others have.

But returning to my original point, I asked how same-sex marriages would delegitimize or otherwise be harmful to the heterosexual institution of marriage. If the Congress announced tomorrow that it would abolish all legal recognition of all marriages, do you believe that would be followed by mass divorce and families abandoning their children? So, again, tell me how same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage.; 4/29/15, 1:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Hammond X. Gritzkofe:

Why do you think it is, if all this really hinges on the definition of a word, that so many states passed amendments to their constitutions not only barring same-sex marriage but any marriage-like arrangement (i.e. civil unions, domestic partnerships)?; 4/29/15, 1:35 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said... I think anti-incest laws are well-supported by legitimate, indeed compelling, interests.

Other than preventing procreation, though, what are those compelling interests regarding marriage between same sex related adults? If the "government should have no idea" that is, has no interest in the type of relationship granted the legal benefits of state sanctioned marriage, what state interests do anti-incest laws (or really laws preventing marriage between related persons) serve?; 4/29/15, 1:36 PM
MayBee said...: If the Congress announced tomorrow that it would abolish all legal recognition of all marriages, do you believe that would be followed by mass divorce and families abandoning their children? So, again, tell me how same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

I don't think same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

But about your first sentence...while I don't believe such an action would be followed by mass divorce, I do think marriages would stop happening if they were no longer legally recognized.; 4/29/15, 1:39 PM
Fabi said...: As the inchoate arguments from Howard make clear, this is not about reason or logic, and it certainly isn't about marriage 'equality'. His camp believes they're on the verge of legitimacy, and anger is directed at those who suggest other potential definitions, e.g., total quantity, relationship, as it reveals the arbitrary nature of two-person same-sex marriage to be no more meritorious than other possible variations.; 4/29/15, 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: J. Farmer wrote;

But returning to my original point, I asked how same-sex marriages would delegitimize or otherwise be harmful to the heterosexual institution of marriage. If the Congress announced tomorrow that it would abolish all legal recognition of all marriages, do you believe that would be followed by mass divorce and families abandoning their children? So, again, tell me how same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

First you show me who in this thread is making this argument.

Otherwise, it's called a straw man. Clever, but overplayed.

First, I oppose the lawsuits and find them ridiculous. I believe that people engaged in private commerce have a right to refuse their services to anyone they choose for any reason they choose--bigoted, indifferent, or otherwise. I would support, for example, a baker who believed that racially mixed marriages were against their personal beliefs and refused to provide a caker for a mixed race marriage.

That's so generous of you!

Thank you for both simultaneously recognizing the rights business owners ought to have, while taking away those rights because hey, gay sex marriage.; 4/29/15, 1:40 PM
J. Farmer said...: @MayBee:

"But about your first sentence...while I don't believe such an action would be followed by mass divorce, I do think marriages would stop happening if they were no longer legally recognized."

I guess that would all depend on what you call "marriages." Do you mean that you believe without legal recognition, men and women would stop cohabiting in fidelitous relationships and sharing parental responsibilities?

@Fabi:

One potentially compelling reason to treat homosexuals differently than people desiring polyamorous or incestuous arrangements is the biological nature of sexual orientation.; 4/29/15, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Fabi said...
As the inchoate arguments from Howard make clear, this is not about reason or logic, and it certainly isn't about marriage 'equality'. His camp believes they're on the verge of legitimacy, and anger is directed at those who suggest other potential definitions, e.g., total quantity, relationship, as it reveals the arbitrary nature of two-person same-sex marriage to be no more meritorious than other possible variations.

If it were just anger, who cares?

But he hates us. You can tell by how he writes. He's not just angry, he is filled with hate and loathing. And I'm sure you know how happy it makes him when a Christian business is shut down for refusing to participate in the gay sex celebrations.

Which is what makes J Farmers points so laughable.; 4/29/15, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: One potentially compelling reason to treat homosexuals differently than people desiring polyamorous or incestuous arrangements is the biological nature of sexual orientation.

Are you telling me polyamorous and incestuous relationships aren't as sexually oriented as homosexual relationships?

What evidence do you have to support this?

Because I can tell you from personal experience that I've never been able to find just one woman attractive. I've been married now going on 20 years and if I could choose to find only my wife attractive, I would.

Instead, I find myself wanting women who aren't my wife.

You're ignoring your own biology if you think polygamy isn't an orientation.; 4/29/15, 1:47 PM
hombre said...: Howard: "Jesus Christ, don't you know that your Holy Bible starts with Moses the Law Giver?"

Nice try, but the "Book of Moses" cited by you is not part of the Holy Bible. It is a part of the Mormon faith and has nothing to do with the Pentateuch.; 4/29/15, 1:55 PM
MayBee said...: Do you mean that you believe without legal recognition, men and women would stop cohabiting in fidelitous relationships and sharing parental responsibilities?

I mean that without legal recognition, the social norm/goal of getting married would begin to evaporate.
Kind of like we are seeing now, but faster.
It happens now because there is less social pressure to get married and because laws have sprung up to support women with children who choose to no longer be married or never get married.

So, make marriage not a thing, and yeah, I think it becomes a relatively quaint relic.; 4/29/15, 1:56 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"First you show me who in this thread is making this argument."

Well, if you go back to my original comment that you were replying to, you will see that I addressed my remarks to two specific commenters and quoted their words. My hypothetical was merely to make a point to you. "Marriage" is already a word with multiple definitions and multiple layers. Every married couple I know does not consider themselves married because they have a piece of paper from a clerk's office but because they have made a decision to share their lives together.

So, my question remains. And notice that you have made no effort to answer it. How does same-sex marriage harm heterosexual marriage?

"Thank you for both simultaneously recognizing the rights business owners ought to have, while taking away those rights because hey, gay sex marriage."

Give me a break. First, people involved in private commerce are already legally barred from discrimination for a number of factors. Again, I disagree with those laws, so you cannot accuse me of "taking away those rights." Also, take the case of the baker in Oregon. That case was covered by a state antidiscrimination bill that covered LGBT people. The bakery could just as easily run afoul of that law by refusing to provide a cake to a lesbian birthday or social event as a wedding, so it's disingenuous to say that gay marriage is the reason.; 4/29/15, 1:56 PM
Clayton Hennesey said...: What's marriage?

Surely if Ann and the Supremes can say everyone has a right to it they can identify what it is everyone has a right to. Otherwise, how can we be sure their rights are being fully accommodated?; 4/29/15, 1:57 PM
MayBee said...: Every married couple I know does not consider themselves married because they have a piece of paper from a clerk's office but because they have made a decision to share their lives together.

Really? Then why get a piece of paper from a clerk's office?; 4/29/15, 2:00 PM
Gabriel said...: Whether one is restricted from marrying an arbitrary number of people, an arbitrary gender of people, an arbitrary age, an arbitrary degree of consaguinity--all of these restrictions are equally arbitrary.

This is proved by the vast diversity of human marriage customs in time and space.

That is why I am finding these oral arguments tedious, but hilarious.

The traditional marriage advocates can't find a compelling reason why marriage should absolutely have to be one and one one woman.

The same-sex marriage advocates can't find a compelling reason why, if same-sex marriage is justified, then isn't any form justified.

And the reason is the same for both sets of advocates--no such compelling reasons exist.

Sorry, rationalists. Not everything follows from universally accepted premises by sweet reason. Some things just are the way they are, until they aren't.

The question is who gets to decide how things are? I would say the people, but evidently this will be decided by black robes.; 4/29/15, 2:01 PM
MayBee said...: Exactly, Gabriel. Well said.; 4/29/15, 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: J Farmer wrote;

"Marriage" is already a word with multiple definitions and multiple layers.

It is? What are those multiple definitions and layers?

What is the proposed change to the current definition?

No one here is arguing that changing the definition of marriage from one man to one woman is going to harm their one man and one woman marriage.

Why do you think they need to make that argument to point out what is self evidently true? The current definition of marriage is one man to one woman. Some people want to change that definition.

Or do you define marriage differently and claim the definition isn't changing?

So, my question remains. And notice that you have made no effort to answer it. How does same-sex marriage harm heterosexual marriage?

Do you know what a straw man is?

If I were claiming it harms hetero marriage, I'd answer your question.

How about asking your question of someone who is making that claim?

Oh yeah, because no one is.; 4/29/15, 2:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Gabriel writes;

The traditional marriage advocates can't find a compelling reason why marriage should absolutely have to be one and one one woman.

Because children ought to be raised in a home with both a mother and a father. The State has a compelling interest to encourage the best case scenario for our children.

Otherwise, we end up with more Baltimore riots.; 4/29/15, 2:05 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"Are you telling me polyamorous and incestuous relationships aren't as sexually oriented as homosexual relationships?"

Yes. I am talking about "sexual orientation" as in the dominant pattern of sexual and romantic attraction. The fact that you find multitudes of women sexually appealing is not the same thing as polygamy.

I am not saying that sexual orientation is the key difference, but there is compelling evidence that sexual orientation (whether hetero or homo) is probably pretty firmly established by early childhood and is relatively unwavering. There is no similar understanding of either incest or polygamy.; 4/29/15, 2:06 PM
Anonymous said...: J Farmer wrote;

Yes. I am talking about "sexual orientation" as in the dominant pattern of sexual and romantic attraction.

Exactly right. And every man I know has a dominant pattern of sexual and romantic attraction to multiple women. If this isn't polygamy, what is?

I can't speak for incest, because I don't feel that. But I imagine people who do would argue they don't choose it.; 4/29/15, 2:12 PM
Ann Althouse said...: On the govt interests in rejecting polygamy as a legal marriage, the lawyer arguing for ssm yesterday was pressured and answered:

"The States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If
there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family
2 disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be."; 4/29/15, 2:13 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Basically, the structure set up for 2 doesn't work for more than 2.; 4/29/15, 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: J Farmer wrote;

I am not saying that sexual orientation is the key difference, but there is compelling evidence that sexual orientation (whether hetero or homo) is probably pretty firmly established by early childhood and is relatively unwavering.

If by homo you mean same sex attraction, then that's too broad. While it may be true for men, it's absolutely not true for women.

Which begets another interesting discussion. The media is likely to accept that Ann Heche is bisexual, or changed from Homosexual to Hetrosexual.

However, if a man goes to a Church class and tries to change from Homosexual to Hetrosexual, well, that's impossible and even cruel.

It's ironic because the media will be the first to tell us there are no differences among the sexes. Yet they will without reflection put forward this double standard and accept without argument that women can change their sexual orientation, but men cannot.; 4/29/15, 2:15 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"How about asking your question of someone who is making that claim?

Oh yeah, because no one is."

Are you thick? Go back and read the original comment you quoted me from. I was addressing two commenters, jr565 and Mountain Maven, and I quoted them. I never addressed my remarks to you until you quoted me. If you don't believe SSM harms heterosexual marriage, then you have no beef with me. But I am talking to more than just you.

"The current definition of marriage is one man to one woman. Some people want to change that definition.

Or do you define marriage differently and claim the definition isn't changing?"

No, I am saying that the state can change the way it defines marriage for the purpose of the law, but religious people who believe a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman are free to keep that definition.

Are you saying that changing the definition of marriage would have a deleterious effect on society? If so, how?; 4/29/15, 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann wrote;

"The States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If
there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife?

Suddenly the children are important?

Which parent isn't important in the raising of the child? The mother or the father? Which can the state do away with while simultaneously not leading us into more Detroits and Baltimores, etc?; 4/29/15, 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you saying that changing the definition of marriage would have a deleterious effect on society? If so, how?

Yes, the how is seen in our inner cities.

Children need both a mother and a father. Children raised without a father lack discipline. Children raised without a mother lack compassion.; 4/29/15, 2:19 PM
MayBee said...: "The States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If
there's a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there'd be lots of family
2 disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don't apply here, when we're talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be."

Every single one of those things can be taken care of with family law, just as divorce and remarriage require family laws and an enforcement structure.

It would be an additional burden, but it's one the states apparently were willing to take on as the divorce rate and illegitimacy rates have soared.

(The coercion, I assume, is imagining men are forcing women into marriage. But that is assuming only men are capable of wanting such an arrangement.); 4/29/15, 2:19 PM
jr565 said...: ""Right, everybody can marry somebody of the opposite sex."

Doesn't respond to the point in the post.

It just show that gays can't possibly have a right to it since they don't meet the criterion. You'd have to change the criterion to get the benefit. But equal protection only says you have equal rights, not that society needs to change a definition to accommodate you.; 4/29/15, 2:19 PM
jr565 said...: Althouse wrote:
Basically, the structure set up for 2 doesn't work for more than 2
and the structure set up for man and woman doesn't work for man and man or woman and woman.; 4/29/15, 2:22 PM
MayBee said...: Honestly, how would it be any different than a man who has married, had children, divorced, and remarried?

Does the second wife have access to the child of the first wife? Can she make medical decisions on behalf of the child in the case of emergencies?

Answer: This is all worked out by law and with lawyers, and enforced by the state; 4/29/15, 2:25 PM
jr565 said...: "1. The State has a legitimate interest in maintaining the human race or at least the State.

2. Hence the State has an interest in proper nurturing of children.

3. Proper nurturing of children requires a Mom and a Dad who are married.

4. So the State has an interest in enforcing marriage rules that exclude gays, polygamists, singles and the childfree from its benefits.

The other issue not addressees is that its a framework to allow bioligcal parents to raise their own kids first and foremost. So ideanlly society doesn't want a Mom and Dad, they want THE Mom and Dad of the kid to be the ones taking care of the kids.
surrogates, and adoptions, are there when that framework wasn't followed.; 4/29/15, 2:26 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"Yes, the how is seen in our inner cities.

Children need both a mother and a father. Children raised without a father lack discipline. Children raised without a mother lack compassion."

Completely agree with this. But, how does same-sex marriage cause increased illegitimacy?; 4/29/15, 2:29 PM
Fabi said...: Good points, Gabriel. I'd only add that the one man, one woman arrangement is the only legal, nationwide definition applied during the entirety of this nation.

I concur that it should be left to the people to decide, not the courts. And there are plenty of citizens who resent their views (and often votes) being negated (overturned) by a handful of judges.; 4/29/15, 2:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"The other issue not addressees is that its a framework to allow bioligcal parents to raise their own kids first and foremost. So ideanlly society doesn't want a Mom and Dad, they want THE Mom and Dad of the kid to be the ones taking care of the kids."

I agree with you here, but how does same-sex marriage have anything to do with heterosexuals procreating outside of marriage?; 4/29/15, 2:30 PM
jr565 said...: Maybee wrote:
I don't think same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage.

I don't think gay marriages harms traditional marriage per se. But I think that changing focus of gay marriage from structure to raise biological kids to "it's all about the love" harms marriage in that it damages the underpinnings of the reason we have marrage at all.
Take a kid who gets his girl pregnant.
If marriage is about the kids he needs to man up get married, and not make his kid a bastard.
if it's about love, then they don't love each other. He can go his way, and pay or not pay child support, and she can go onto the state rolls, if she can't pay for baby itself.; 4/29/15, 2:31 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
I agree with you here, but how does same-sex marriage have anything to do with heterosexuals procreating outside of marriage?

not that much. Its just that since gays aren't generally producing biological kids, theres' no real reason to promote it as if it were the ideal. That kids are produced out of wedlock means that gay families can step up and support the kids that the heteros dumped into the system.
But that's not a rsaon to make gay marriage equivalent.; 4/29/15, 2:33 PM
YoungHegelian said...: @Howard,

I hold that the legitimacy of gay relations is self evident

I take it that you & human history don't get along too well.; 4/29/15, 2:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"Exactly right. And every man I know has a dominant pattern of sexual and romantic attraction to multiple women. If this isn't polygamy, what is?"

If it isn't polygamy? Huh? You don't consider yourself or your friends to be polygamous do you, despite their sexual attraction. That's why it isn't polygamy. Polygamy has nothing to do with gender or sexuality.; 4/29/15, 2:35 PM
jr565 said...: Liberalizing marriage and adding no fault divorce also did a lot to weaken marriage.
But if you look at inner cities, where majority of kids are born out of wedlock it shows what happens when that family structure isn't there.; 4/29/15, 2:35 PM
MayBee said...: If marriage is about the kids he needs to man up get married, and not make his kid a bastard.
if it's about love, then they don't love each other. He can go his way, and pay or not pay child support, and she can go onto the state rolls, if she can't pay for baby itself

But with this scenario, if there are no kids there's no real reason to get married.
Which I don't agree with, either.

I think marriage is a beautiful legal commitment to live your lives together, and to raise any children that may come into your life.If you don't have kids and you stay committed, that is incredibly beautiful. That is strong.; 4/29/15, 2:36 PM
Fabi said...: So those desiring plural marriage are descriminated against because the structure isn't set up to accommodate that? Is that structure sacrosanct? Is that structure a compelling government interest?

Equality takes a back seat to convenience, I guess!; 4/29/15, 2:36 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jr565:

"ts just that since gays aren't generally producing biological kids, theres' no real reason to promote it as if it were the ideal."

Didn't that ship sale about 50 years ago with the advent of widespread contraception use? The way the government supports "traditional marriage" isn't by cheer leading or advocating an ideal. It supports marriage by offering legal and financial inducements. As long as those benefits remain, I don't see the government supporting traditional marriage any less by extending those benefits to the small percentage of gay couples.; 4/29/15, 2:41 PM
MayBee said...: YEah, Fabi.

And I don't even agree the structure doesn't work for more than 2 as it is.

In my kids' elementary school, the school had to keep track of which of Susie's parents was allowed to come pick her up from school that day. And whether Joe had to have permission slips sent to two different households. And whether it was ok to have a parent teacher conference with Billy's mother alone or if his father needed to be there, too.
That is the current reality.

How is this not a completely malleable structure, at this point?; 4/29/15, 2:41 PM
rhhardin said...: On the govt interests in rejecting polygamy as a legal marriage, the lawyer arguing for ssm yesterday was pressured and answered:

Polygamy however is recognized as marriage, meaning as covered by the word marriage.

The wives are not married to each other. They are married to the husband.

Divorce is between the husband and the particular wife, just as it is today, in answer to the particular supposed objection.

The ssm guy didn't recognize that the word marriage worked for it even as he was using it.; 4/29/15, 2:41 PM
jr565 said...: "But with this scenario, if there are no kids there's no real reason to get married.
Which I don't agree with, either."
A lot of gays are questioning the need to make it a life long commitment. They are postulating that it can be a commitment that lasts a few years and then you can renew it, like a magazine subscription every few years.
Yet another way marriage is undermined as institution.
Since gays are generally not having kids it makes sense. But it doesn't help moms and dads trying to raise kids if its a limited engagement.; 4/29/15, 2:42 PM
jr565 said...: J Farmer wrote:
Didn't that ship sale about 50 years ago with the advent of widespread contraception use? The way the government supports "traditional marriage" isn't by cheer leading or advocating an ideal

Look at inner cities, and number of kids raised out of wedlock and you tell me.; 4/29/15, 2:43 PM
MayBee said...: A lot of gays are questioning the need to make it a life long commitment. They are postulating that it can be a commitment that lasts a few years and then you can renew it, like a magazine subscription every few years.

That may be true. I agree that isn't marriage.
But the gay people who I know who are married are all-in. As all-in as my straight married friends.; 4/29/15, 2:44 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: The state needs to have a legitimate interest in excluding those it excludes."

Ann seems to have shifted the burden of proof in this discussion.

The plaintiffs in this case should have the burden of showing that there is no rational basis for the state to limit marriage to members of the opposite sex.

For example, they must show that the state interest described by Fr. Lemieux at 10:50 AM is not rational.

The facts of biology and the concern for "...our Posterity" as set out in the Preface to the Constitution make this a heavy burden.; 4/29/15, 2:46 PM