Could someone explain this to me…
Posted on February 24, 2004
Filed Under Life
because I just don’t get it.
If two adults make the commitment to combine their individual emotional and financial lives into a single unit…if they are going to look at each other’s families and call them their own…if they are going to consider raising children together…
Does it *really* matter whether or not they are the same gender?
I find it difficult to believe that our President has nothing more pressing on his domestic agenda.
Comments
28 Responses to “Could someone explain this to me…”
The most pressing thing on Mr. Bush’s domestic agenda is getting himself re-elected.
If two men or two women should be able to marry, why not three men? Why not one man and five women? After all, maybe they’ll “make the commitment to combine their individual emotional and financial lives,” “look at each other’s families and call them their own,” and “consider raising children together.” Who’s to say?
And next thing you know, cats and dogs! Living together!
Steve, and why not?
Is it something I’m into? No. Would I be thrilled if one of my daughters decided to shack up with a crowd? No. Do I think that our government has any right to regulate how people love and share their lives? Absolutely not. As long as all 3, 5 or 30 people are fully aware of what they’re doing and no one is getting hurt and it’s what they want I think our government can have its opinions but not use its legislative powers to act on them.
I think what Bush is doing is far more offensive and a much bigger threat to our country than two men in MA or San Francisco getting married. If we allow Bush to change the Constitution to answer to his own morality and a strong conservative lobby, what’s next? Wasn’t Iraq enough? How much more are we going to let him get away with?
And if I want to marry my daughter? What if I want to marry my pet bird? By defining marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, government is not regulating how people love or share their lives. Gay people are free to love and live their lives as they see fit. But changing the definition of marriage to be so expansive would actually destroy marriage itself. Think about it. How would a law making it legal for any combination of people to marry be any different from eliminating marriage entirely? Marriage is an institution designed to develop family units, to trace the lineage of offspring, and to bring order to our society. Marriage has existed for a *lot* longer than the U.S. Constitution. Is our 21st century American society so much more enlightened than the societies that came before us that we are finally doing the right thing by “redefining” it today?
But see, you’re making my point. Marriage shouldn’t be defined in the constitution at all. What should be law is how a “spouse” is treated whether it’s a hetero or homosexual relationship. I know if anything happened to my husband I would automatically have certain rights to make decisions and act on his behalf. I believe gay couples should have the same protections and it’s not a religious issue, it’s a discrimination one. To say otherwise is making an opinion on homosexuality and that has no place in government either. There is separation of church & state and I haven’t read one valid argument against gay marriages and for the constitution change that manages to leave religion out of it.
I’m not making your point. Did you know that the law already has provisions that confer upon gay couples all of the “treatment” that married couples receive (if such couples chose to avail themselves of those provisions)? Wills, living wills, powers of attorney, and the like permit any named party to have the legal “rights” of married couples. So, it’s not a matter of unfairly denying ‘legal rights’ that only married couples have. It’s a matter of *what* marriage *means*, and whether marriage as an institution will mean anything (or nothing). As I wrote before, “marriage” has meant something very specific for ages. Why should we decide to make it mean nothing? To see the fallacy of your logic, consider another status conferred by our government on certain individuals who qualify: citizens. Let’s say I’m offended that only people born on US soil are automatically deemed “citizens.” That’s not fair, right? Is the best response to say, “let’s redefine ‘citizen’ to mean anyone born anywhere on earth?” Or do we prefer that “citizenship” mean something?
If “marriage” includes gays it may make it mean nothing to you, but it wouldn’t change my view. Marriage (at least my definition of it) is a life-long committment between two adults for the purpose of sharing a household and family. I think divorce is far more destructive to the institution of marriage than gays marrying. Or how about Britney Spears who did it for a day just to see what it felt like? If marriage is a fundamental truth, why do we need to define it in the constitution at all?
What about if people with brown hair were denied citizenship simply because our President had a moral objection to brunettes and there was a strong enough lobby behind him in an election year? Would it be okay to rewrite the constitution? Where do you draw the line?
Gays have been having marriage ceremonies for years. It’s words and piece of paper and like you said, living wills fill in the rest. They’re only missing the civil document. Not allowing the cities/states to issue licenses is one thing, changing the constitution to say “we find you unacceptable” is something else and is against what this country is supposed to be about.
Steve, it’s not at all the case that current law grants gay couples the same rights as married couples. It’s true for legal documents that don’t mention marriage, as you noted, but it’s not true for things like taxes, inheritance, parental rights, and a variety of other things that explicitly cover married couples.
Those things also don’t apply to unmarried heterosexual couples. The difference, though, is that heterosexual couples have a simple choice — they can marry and enjoy those benefits, or not marry and not have them. Gay couples don’t have that choice.
Eric,
Inheritance “rights” are not automatic for gay couples, but wills provide legal means to achieve them. Parental “rights” are not automatic for gay couples because gay couples can’t have children. Adoption is a choice for them, a means by which the law can confer those rights upon them. And actually, tax law *favors* unmarried couples (gay or otherwise), for married couples filing jointly are subject to the “marriage penalty” you might have read about in the news recently. Marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) is not required for any of the legal “rights” you mentioned.
1. Our nation was forced into all of this constitutional amendment debate by gay activists who chose the most liberal state of the union, petitioned the most liberal judiciary of the union, and have achieved in that state court what could not be achieved by the legislative bodies in *any* state, including Mass. Liberal judges in Mass. have rewritten the Mass. law from the bench. Due to the “full faith and credit” clause of the federal constitution, *all* states must now bow to that interpretation. Unless all states want to acquiesce to the definition of the Mass. Sup. Ct., the only recourse is a constitutional amendment. This demonstrates the havoc that activist judges can wreak when they legislate from the bench.
2. I’m not talking about denying gays’ citizenship because of their sexual preference. I was using “citizenship” in my earlier post to illustrate how the government confers privileges upon certain persons, and denies privileges to others. Marriage is not a right, just as driver’s licenses and hunting licenses are not rights. They are granted by the government to those individuals who meet the requirements and petition the government for the license. It is not proper to refer to “marriage rights,” for there are no such “rights.”
3. I think we’re on the same page when you say “gays have been having ceremonies for years” and “it’s words and a piece of paper.” This is their prerogative in a free society and they should be free to do so. I do think you go too far to say that any opposition to gay marriage is opposition to gay lifestyle or is just plain homophobia. Opposition to gay marriage is based on a belief in the traditional definition of marriage and the conviction that the institution must be protected, not destroyed.
Actually, states don’t have to acknowledge Massachusetts’ marriages as valid. When Hawaii appeared poised to allow gay marriage a few years ago, Congress responded with the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to not acknowledge each others’ marriages. Something like 38 states have passed laws banning gay marriage, so a couple that gets married in Massachusetts (which isn’t possible yet) can’t move to one of those states and still consider themselves married.
And “liberal judges in Massachusetts” is practically redundant.
It’s a rather liberal state. On my side of the country, Gavin Newsom was the conservative candidate in the San Francisco mayoral election last November….
Hi Judi et al! May I join this very civil discussion?
Until the president announced support for a constitutional amendment, I was against same-sex marriage and neutral towards civil unions — even though they would have made my life easier. But a constitutional amendment goes too far, especially when the aim of its main proponents is to “protect” a Judeo-Christian institution. Worse, unless saner minds prevail, it may go even further.
Before Bob and I hooked up (Bloom’s Day, 1976), I assumed I would always live alone. I knew I shouldn’t marry a woman and felt I’d never meet a man to share my life with. In those days I felt heterosexual marriage was a poor institution to imitate (weddings? tuxedos? flowers? bridal registries? waiting below the bridal chamber window for the hymen to break? — silly and barbaric, in my not very humble opinion.) At any rate, I knew of no happy marriage to imitate! But then Bob and I met and started sharing a life together. Somewhere along the line we exchanged matching rings which we still wear (no ceremony public or private — I have some self-respect ).
No joint accounts or health insurance policies. Our one experiment in jointly-held property was a disaster. Since we lived in the city and relied on bicycles, we sold our two old cars and bought one new one. Then we tried to buy auto insurance. Are you married? blood relatives? incorporated? Luckily, before we got incorporated as a business in Delaware, we were able to find a company that would insure us but not at a favorable rate.
We have now, or will have soon, all the major legal documents to protect us. It’s not as easy as it sounds. All it takes is one nasty relative to make your life legally difficult. Which is what we had during Bob’s first lung operation in 1980. The full story is too long to relate here. Even with wills, living wills, health-care powers of attorney, etc. there are still some privileges we are not entitled to because we are not “next of kin.” When I handled my cousin’s estate in Colorado, I was unable to receive her remains and the possessions she had on her when she died because we were not next of kin (her estranged sister was.)
Eric, the DoMA is very likely unconstitutional. Remember, the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over any federal law (or any other kind of law or treaty for that matter), and most legal scholars believe a Supreme Court of any makeup would find that the full faith and credit clause supercedes the DoMA. That’s why people who support the traditional definition of marriage are so eager for a constitutional amendment. Makes sense, eh?
Mike, I found your comments very interesting. I do think you are incorrect to state that marriage is a “Judeo-Christian” institution. Take a look at other cultures and societies around our world, both past and present, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find *any* society, culture, or religion that has defined marriage as something that includes same-sex couples…
It isn’t all that difficult to find one. Same-sex marriage has been legal in British Columbia and Ontario since sometime last year, and it’s likely to be legal in all of Canada by sometime next year.
First of all, thanks to everyone for keeping this so civil. I’ve been prepared to pull the plug at the first sign of a flame and thankfully there’s been no need.
Anyway, Steve, look at the way other cultures, religion and societies have historically defined woman’s rights. More like “what woman’s rights?” Even our own Constitution as originally written. But we live in a country that after a long battle was able to say “this isn’t right” and make the change to be non-discriminatory. If you believe as I do, that someone is born gay and they can no more change that I can stop being left-handed, then you may believe as I do that the only Constitutional change should be the one that gives gay couples the same rights and opportunities as heterosexual ones. Not an amendment that discriminates.
Sad thing is, while we’re having this debate President Bush is getting away with doing nothing about the worst economy in recent memory, the sad state of education, the mess in Iraq, etc.
Judi said: Sad thing is, while we’re having this debate President Bush is getting away with doing nothing about the worst economy in recent memory, the sad state of education, the mess in Iraq, etc.
===
This is precisely what I meant when I said I was against gay marriage. I should have written that I was against gay marriage as an issue. A long time ago, I promised myself I wouldn’t become a one-issue person — there are too many important issues — but now, here I sit, a one-issue person after all. The only thing I care about is Regime Change.
I hope this attempt at distraction blows up in Rove’s face. From what I’ve read, he is nowhere near getting the votes in Congress to pass the legislation and the Republican leadership seems intent on dragging their heels (part of the plan?)
It has been very interesting to observe how people express their opinions on this subject. I usually try to stay away from religious & political discussions because I don’t like to get caught in the crosshairs of people with more extreme positions. I’ve seen quite some heated discussions lately on a few boards.
In Belgium & the Netherlands they evolved from a civil unions type of contract to regular marriage, I believe, to do away with the inequality & legal problems that still remained with those.
I just hope this and other topics that are currently of high importance in America turn out with a positive outcome. The war in Iraq (lies about weapons of mass destruction), xxx billion $ budget deficit, economy, healthcare and potential constitutional amendment are pressing issues; which many believe to be heading in the wrong direction.
Eric,
Yes, some countries in Europe and Canada have made gay marriage legal, albeit only in the last couple of years! My first question to you is this: Have we finally become so “enlightened” in the last couple of years (globally) that we are finally smart enough to jettison the biased, unfair, discriminatory, (do I daresay “evil”?) traditional definition of marriage? My followup question is: Is it ever fair to place *any* limits on *any* behavior, or is our new morality an “anything I want, and who are you to tell me otherwise” approach? Finally: Do you equate morality with personal choice, or can you articulate a definition that places some limits on some behavior (incest, pedophilia, etc.)?
Judi,
With all due respect, marriage is not a “right or opportunity.” It is a license conferred upon citizens who qualify. (As a corollary, I note that any collection of individuals who wish to cohabitate, procreate, or live as they see fit are free to do so in this country, without a marriage license if they don’t qualify.) Gays *do* have all the rights of any non-gay citizen, but they don’t qualify for marriage licenses. I guess we should question the fairness of a government that refuses to issue driver’s licenses to the blind?
Steve, I think the big problem here is that you consider homosexuality to be in the same class of behavior as incest and pedophilia.
Likewise, a state that won’t issue a driver’s license to a blind person is doing so in the interest of public safety. Our society doesn’t need to be protected from gay people.
Judi,
If you wish to classify predisposition to some kinds of behavior as “genetic,” and withhold that classification from others, I don’t think we can ever have a real debate. If I am genetically predisposed to pedophilia or alcoholism, shouldn’t the government protect my “right” to act out on those predispositions? What if I have a genetic predisposition to violence or murder? I suppose you will argue that genetics don’t contribute to those predispositions.
Second, you’re not addressing my point about blind people and driver’s licenses. The point (which you have not refuted) is that government has historically and rightfully “discriminated” (this is not always a dirty word) against certain people when it comes to assigning priviliges to them. Here’s another example for you: I don’t have any children and therefore don’t qualify for child tax credits and/or deductions. I have a low “genetic” sperm count and can’t have children… why is it not a violation of my equal protection under the law for the government “discriminate” against my genetic inability to have children?
Even if I’m an alcoholic, I can walk into any liquor store and buy booze. It isn’t until my actions cause harm to myself or others that the “government” steps in and limits my rights. What has homosexual done to harm you or anyone else that entitles the law to step in and protect the rest of us? And now you are adding alcoholism into the comparison along with pedophilia and incest? I compare homosexuality to being left-handed. Not right, not wrong, just different.
I did address your point about blind people and driver’s licenses. You have not addressed mine. The reason blind people can’t drive is because there is currently no way of adapting the technology to allow it to happen without putting people at risk for death or injury. Paraplegics can get a driver’s license, because hand controls make that possible. It’s not discrimination, it’s a matter of public safety to not have blind people driving. If there was some way of allowing blind people to “see” traffic through technology or other means, licenses would be granted.
How can you compare a gay couple to a blind person mowing down people on a sidewalk they can’t see? If homosexual relationships are treated the same as heterosexual ones, why is that a threat to you or anyone else? Are people afraid that heterosexuals will suddenly become gay because it’s legal to do so and get married?
You can adopt a child and have 100% of the rights that any biological parent has. Medical technology may change to allow you to have biological children one day. If this ridiculous amendment goes through, a gay spouse in this country can never claim the same status in a court of law or inheritance the way a heterosexual spouse can for no other reason than discrimination against their sexual orientation which is not a good enough reason.
I read an interesting suggestion on another blog. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether and sell only civil union licenses. Everyone would have the same rights before the law; religious organizations could determine who is allowed to marry in their eyes. What other sacraments does the government regulate?
Interesting idea, Mike.
That is the way it’s done in many parts of Europe, particularly in Scandinavia. Common law arrangements in Sweden are so well-protected legally that many couples (hetero, same-sex alike) choose not to get married. This explains why over half the children there are technically born out of wedlock, which is not the same as a single-parent household with all the ills that implies in this country. Some couples choose to marry only after raising a family together and demonstrating their ability to keep the promise. Perhaps this is taking hold in the US. Last year my nephew’s girlfriend got pregnant; when asked if they were going to marry he replied: I think getting pregnant is a bad reason to get married. I was shocked but now I see the wisdom.
There was a negative article on this subject in yesterday’s SF Chronicle: http://tinyurl.com/2dpbf
[As a student of Swedish (my grandmother was Swedish), I was surprised when I first encountered the official term Swedes use for people in this kind of union: sambo (sam=together, bo=to live)]
Judi,
You’re coming dangerously close to accusing me of hate. I’m not threatened by nor do I hate gay people. I don’t support any attempt to tell gay people they can’t love one another, live as they please, or to be blunt about it, have sex as they please. This is America. It’s not an effective rebuttal to my arguments to accuse me of hating those with whom I disagree. People can respectfully disagree, Judi.
But I do support a traditional definition of marriage. I do love marriage and I want my marriage to mean something.
You *still* have not told me how it is a denial of equal protection for the government to withhold a license from individuals who don’t qualify. You’ve posited that homosexuality is neither right nor wrong (because it is genetic), but you’ve not explained why other predispositions to genetic behavior can be categorically wrong– do you simply define right and wrong as a personal choice? You’ve said laws exist to protect others, but you haven’t explained the countless laws intended to protect the goals of our society, such as laws against prosititution, adult incest, illegal drug abuse, and the like. I guess we must agree to disagree. Good luck with your web site!