To The Future
Feb 20
Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross became the first people to complete the civil union ceremony for homosexuals in New Jersey on Monday. The video is here. And a little note to anyone who would attack these men. These men are our family, our firends, our co-workers, our countrymen. They are as decent as worthy of rights and respct as any other American, as any other person. And they will have them.
And when they do, finally, wrestle full equality form your bitter hands, your children and your grandchildren will look upon you with the same measure of bewilderment and disgust that the children of 60s Klan members and followers of Bull Connor do. Hopefully, you will have learned enough to be ashamed.
#1 by Ted at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
A rather combative tone, directed at all readers, regardless of their stance on the issue. I hope this style is not repeated in the future.
#2 by Kevin at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
Ted
I thought the target of the tone would be clear, but since its not: no offense was meant to people who support full rights for all citizens and I do not assume that any readers necessarily fall outside that category.
#3 by Big U at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
Just a quick question,
Does this mean you would support adult relatives (brothers and sisters, etc.)marrying each other, polygamy and any other sexual relations that certain segments of society feel are okay?
#4 by Dan M. at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
My God, you talk like being gay isn’t
something priests should wash afteran “abomination”.Seriously, it’s pretty damned funny that there are people who get bent out of shape by not agreeing with their taste in genders and sex acts. It’d be like making public statements about whether life-long lovers can have oral sex. Oh, wait…
#5 by Dan M. at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
I’m under the impresison that there is still pretty good evidence that very close relatives, even without significant genetic peculiarities, have a much increased chance of birth defects. If that’s true, then close-relative procreation is a major risk behavior and falls within the scope of pretty strict regulation.
Beyond than, I see nothing wrong with a free-for-all among consenting adults.
(Yes, everyone still has the right to be skeeved out by some pairings.)
#6 by Big U at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
Dan M.
I don’t think major risk behavior is something that is allowed to be used as a deterent any longer and it certainly is not allowed to be an incentive for regulation regarding sexual activities.
The question was not “do you see anything wrong with?”, but rather “do you support?” as that is what the original writer was insisting is the only proper and fair opinion regarding gay marriage.
#7 by Dan M. at February 20th, 2007
| Quote
Well, if “make no legal distinction between those that do and don’t do” the activity or “do not disparage those who do” the activity is “support” for the activity, then yes, I support it.
Insofar as chirdlen are not a necessary result of sex, close-relative sexual relations shouldn’t be regulated, either. The “victim” of violating the regulations I suggested would be the kid, not the parents. No kid, no problem.
#8 by Pejar at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Y’know, I’m not sure about that justification against incest. It’s not difficult to find people whose children will have an increased risk of genetic diseases, yet we would never say they should not have children. Furthermore medical tests could show certain couplings which are likely to genetic defects, yet it is only in the case of incest that we would consider banning their marriage. I think another rationale is needed for this.
Much better is pointing to the fact that incestuous relationships have a very high risk of abuse due to differing bargaining powers upon entering the relationship - a child has a special awe for a parent or even a sibling which may be manipulated, and there may well be pressure not to complain about wrongdoing for fear of splitting up the family. For this reason, although not all such relationships will be abusive, the law needs to take a clear line and ban them (not just prevent them getting married).
Incidentally, this is one reason why many (though not all) libertarians have no problem with incest. Since they tend to see a choice as free as long as there is no threat of violence (eg. freedom of contract between workers and employers) they will not be convinced by the considerations in the paragraph above.
#9 by Kevin at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U.
First, let me ask you a question: how do you justify your opposition to gay marriage?
#10 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Okay Kevin, since you are unwilling to answer my question, I will answer yours.
I feel marriage between a man and a woman has been a societal underpinning for many years. As we have gotten away from that, society has suffered and continues to get worse as everyone focuses on their individual rights regardless of the effect on society. As the value of marriage and monogomy have dropped, so has society as a whole morally, ethically, etc. This is just another step away from that.
Do I care what people do in their bedrooms? No. But I don’t see how this is anything other than an attempt to force acceptance of a particular lifestyle on society. So what’s to stop other groups from forcing acceptance of their lifestyle on society?
#11 by Kevin at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U
I just wanted to make sure that I understood where your question was coming from. To be blunt, I reject your premise entirely. Marriage, in the sense that we are talking about (I am not talking about religious marriages) is a secular institution established by the state in order to simplify legal relationships for the benefits of individuals and, to a lesser extent, society (in the sense that its good for society to have clear lines of inheritence, child responsibility, etc NOT in the sense that it fulfills some amorphous “underpinning” argument). In that case, the state should have to have extraordinarily good reasons for denying people equal treatment under the law - -i.e. marriage. The state has no such justification: we would no more accept the notion that jews could not marriage catholics because for thousands of years that prohibition underpinned society than we should accept it for homosexuals. In other words, your question does not interest me because it stems from a premise that I reject. To discriminate people the state needs a better reason than “We have always done it that way”. Show me how homosexual marriage runs counter to the purpose of secular marriage — show me how it makes inheritance, or child responsibility, or medical decision making so complicated as to be a burden to the state — and then we can talk.
#12 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
So you refuse to answer my initial question and do so by deflecting into some other argument that was not related to what I was originally asking. I am not surprised as I have never received a straight answer to that question from those who support changing the definition and laws pertaining to marriage based on sex partners. Dan M, though I disagree with his position, is at least honest and forthright.
You seem to be guilty of the same close-mindedness you accuse those who are against same-sex marriage of having. I am disappointed that you don’t have the guts to answer the original question as it was pretty simple but you feel justified in preaching to others what they should and must see as acceptable.
#13 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
My above note should have said “with the exception of the answer from Dan M., I have never received a straight answer”.
#14 by Ted at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
I would add the following questions to Kevin’s comments. How does allowing gays to marry alter the value of heterosexual marriage? Do two gays getting married hurt your marriage? Did you feel it at your core when the two guys got married in NJ? Did it impact you more than a 25 year old stripper marrying a 90 year old guy? Or two drunks getting married in Vegas and then getting divorced the next day? Or a TV show titled “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?” or any other example of a heterosexual marriage that does not represent our “societal underpinnings”. I hear no objection to these marriages, only gay marriages. Makes me think it is more about resentment of gays and less about protection of traditional marriage..
#15 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Ted,
If you hear no objections to those marriages you pointed out, then you haven’t been listening to a number of groups that support the importance of stable long-term marriages.
And your response still does not deal with the question I asked. Why is that?
#16 by Ted at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U, You didn’t ask the question of me, so I did not feel compelled to answer it, but I will.
Marriage between a brother and a sister is marriage between a man and a woman. Since you are the one that is using this as a standard for marriage, it seems this question should be answered by you. Also note that if I am heterosexual and I am not allowed to marry my sister, I still have a couple million potential candidates. All of which is to say your question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
But since you need an answer, my answer is no, I do not support marriage between brother and sister because of genetics. However, if brother/sister marriages were allowed, it would have zero impact on my marriage, my morality, my family.
Polygamy? No, I do not support it. For straight marriages or gay marriages. Because it undoes what a civil marriage is supposed to do, ie define certain legal relationships. But again, if polygamy were legal, it would not impact me or my family or my values.
Now, back to the discussion. Can you reference a single quote by a politician that indicates they will attempt to curb any heterosexual marriages?
And if a gay marriage is long term and stable, doesn’t it count to these groups you mention?
#17 by Kevin at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U
“So you refuse to answer my initial question and do so by deflecting into some other argument that was not related to what I was originally asking.”
No, and I don’t see how you could arrive at that notion form what I wrote. I simply pointed out that you were asking a question that I consider unrelated to the point at hand. The premise of your question is invalid: you presume that people can be denied equality because they have always been denied equality. the answer is simple enough: adult incest no, because of genetics, polygamy no because it makes a hash out of the legal arraignments. but see, thats answering the questions under amy premise, not yours. You appear to be setting up the ridiculous “well if you change society for homosexuals, you should change it for them, you hypocrite!” and I just wanted you to admit that you weren’t concerned with the legal meaning of marriage but rather with your emotional attachment to the way marriage has always been defined for you. You weren’t being clear, and I wanted to make sure that ambiguity was on the record.
And answer Ted’s question: unless you are in the closet yourself and just itching for the chance to marry someone of the same sex, how could a marriage between any other people possibly affect your marriage?
#18 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Ted,
The fact is that any time society changes a law, it does have an impact on everyone. Society had laid out the rules of marriage and restricted it to one man and one woman. Changing the rules to allow two men or two women to marry is a change based solely on who someone has sex with. To be consistent, that restriction should no longer apply to any other sexual relationships either, meaning there is no argument to prevent marriage between brother and sister or polygamy either.
Genetics can not be used against the brother/sister marriage because the gay rights movement made it clear that the ability to procreate is not a valid argument to support traditional marriage.
Legal issues can not be used because as is being proven, laws can be re-written to fit the current situation.
One can not justifiably support gay marriage and not also support any other type of marriage that gets brought forth.
#19 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Kevin,
I’m not saying “if you do it for homosexuals you have to do it for everyone”. What I am saying is “if you remove the traditional definitions, what right do you have to keep ANY restrictions in place? Any restrictions will necessarily be based on some set of rules or ideas that clearly have no basis in anything other than preconceived notions.
I have no emotional attachment to the way marriage has always been defined (though I assume by your tone that you will insist I do). I am, rather, focused on the fact that more legal issues will arise.
Here in Canada, we have legalized gay marriages. Guess what…within weeks of that decision, there was pressure brought to bear to legalize polygamy and the government is doing a study to see what the ramifications would be and what laws would need to be changed to do so.
On the equality issue, what equality did homosexual couples gain by getting married that they did not already have other than the right to divorce?
#20 by Janusz at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U wrote: “What I am saying is “if you remove the traditional definitions, what right do you have to keep ANY restrictions in place?”
The “traditional definitions” of marriage argument gets very sticky. Here in the US, before the anti-miscegenation marriage laws were overturned, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. By your thinking, that “traditional definition” of marriage should have been retained. Instead, the US decided to make the definition of marriage more inclusive, similar to what gay-marriage advocates hope to achieve.
“On the equality issue, what equality did homosexual couples gain by getting married that they did not already have other than the right to divorce?”
Benefits in tax issues, visitation and inheritance rights, acknowledgement of spousal rights in child-rearing issues…the rights gained are far-reaching.
#21 by Kevin at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
“hat I am saying is “if you remove the traditional definitions, what right do you have to keep ANY restrictions in place? Any restrictions will necessarily be based on some set of rules or ideas that clearly have no basis in anything other than preconceived notions.”
Then that’s just nonsense. I already pointed out what purpose secular marriage serves in the state and gave you examples of the kinds of problems that would be sufficient to keep homosexuals from getting married - -they weren’t based on any preconceived notions but on reasonable standards base don the stated purpose of secular marriage. Heck, Ted and I gave you conrete examples of cases where marriage should be denied. Pretending that everything boils down to “I don’t like it” is disengenous at best.
“Guess what…within weeks of that decision, there was pressure brought to bear to legalize polygamy and the government is doing a study to see what the ramifications would be and what laws would need to be changed to do so.”
So what? Really, so what? If the Government fo Canada finds that polygamy doesn’t make a hash of the legal arraignments that underpin marriage, then why not?
#22 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Janusz wrote: “Benefits in tax issues, visitation and inheritance rights, acknowledgement of spousal rights in child-rearing issues…the rights gained are far-reaching.”
I can understand that part then. Here in Canada, those rights had been established for quite some time prior to the marriage idea being raised. My assumption was that it was similar in the states.
#23 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Kevin wrote: Heck, Ted and I gave you conrete examples of cases where marriage should be denied.” and “So what? Really, so what? If the Government fo Canada finds that polygamy doesn’t make a hash of the legal arraignments that underpin marriage, then why not?”
You argue against yourself. Your concrete example against polygamy involved legal issues and yet you fail to acknowledge that laws can be changed meaning it is not a valid or concrete example.
On the other one regarding genetics, you provided no more evidence to deny it that people against homosexual marriage did when they brought up the inability to procreate argument. How do genetics matter if relatives decide to marry?
You still present no real argument other than you don’t agree with those relationships being allowed in marriages which really makes you identical to the people you are so willing to rip apart.
#24 by Kevin at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
“You argue against yourself. Your concrete example against polygamy involved legal issues and yet you fail to acknowledge that laws can be changed meaning it is not a valid or concrete example.”
no, you misunderstand: the purpose of secular marriage is to make common things people who create families do easier: inherit, raise kids, deal with health issues, deal with medical responsibility, etc. Polygymay makes a hash of those issues, I think, because of the complicated nature of the relationships. It is acceptbale for a state to say: “Nope –doing this makes things worse in the areas that justify state marriage, so it wouldn’t be appropriate to allow it.” Those results are pretty concrete and subject to empircal investigation. Now, if Canada comes to opposite conclusion, then there really is no reaosn to deny polygamy marriages.
“On the other one regarding genetics, you provided no more evidence to deny it that people against homosexual marriage did when they brought up the inability to procreate argument. How do genetics matter if relatives decide to marry?”
Because the presence of disabled children means much more state involvement and resources to those children. if incest really is drastically more likely to increase the number and severity of those kinds of kids, then I can see the argument for the state not subsidizing it. Though, to be honest, the argument isn’t that compelling to me.
“You still present no real argument other than you don’t agree with those relationships being allowed in marriages which really makes you identical to the people you are so willing to rip apart.”
And thats just flat wrong. I have given you over and over again reasons. You either cannot or do not want to understand. heck, I even said that if Canada finds that polygamous marriages don;t present insoluble problems to the exercise of the activities that marriage is designed to support and streamline, then I don’t care if polygamous marriages are allowed. Ther eis a world of difference between “well, we’ve never let them do it before!” and “won’t that make the things marriage is supposed to make easy much, much harder?”
#25 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Kevin: Just so I understand, you feel polygamous marriage is okay as long as the laws can be adjusted to allow it and incestuous marriage is okay as long as the couple agrees not to procreate. So then, in the right circumstances (approved by you), you would support any relationship being given marital status, is that right?
There are a multitude of ways to have given all the same rights to gay couples without opening up the definition of marriage. Those options would fall under the equal-but-different category much like common-law relationships do.
Your initial post made it clear that you feel people who do not agree with changing marriage to include anyone other than just a man and a woman is bitter and similar to racist KKK members. Not only is that inflammatory but it also speaks to a significant intolerance to differing opinions that you hold in your own mind.
#26 by tgirsch at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
I support legal same-sex marriage between unrelated consenting adults. In response to your question asked in comment #4, my answer is “No.” There you have it, a straight (no-pun-intended) answer to your question. Now, of course, one assumes that you intend to follow up with some additional questions that assume that incest and polygamy are somehow equivalent (morally or otherwise) to same-sex marriage, but before you go there, I’d ask you to demonstrate why that’s the case. I’d also like to point out that as long as you’re bringing up polygamy (especially in the context of long-standing traditions), you may as well address the fact that monogamy is a fairly recent development in the grand scheme of things. I imagine that, when monogamy started becoming the norm, there were traditionalists who despaired about the “decline of values” and the “destruction of the sacred institution of marriage.”
#27 by tgirsch at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
if you remove the traditional definitions, what right do you have to keep ANY restrictions in place?
In part because tradition isn’t terribly relevant here. Whether a law should stand or fall (or be changed) is not a function of tradition. It’s a function of whether or not it serves a useful purpose, and a function of whether or not it is just. By “traditional definitions,” women were at one time subservient to men and could not vote, and African-Americans were at one time only counted as 3/5 of a white person for purposes of representation. If a tradition is unjust or obsolete, it’s not worth keeping.
On the equality issue, what equality did homosexual couples gain by getting married that they did not already have other than the right to divorce?
Probably already covered by others, but a partial list: the ability to file taxes jointly, to make financial and medical decisions for one another, a clearer path of inheritance, a legally-recognized right to jointly make child care decisions. Want more?
Here in Canada, those rights had been established for quite some time prior to the marriage idea being raised. My assumption was that it was similar in the states. … There are a multitude of ways to have given all the same rights to gay couples without opening up the definition of marriage.
It’s not that way in most states. Would it make you happy if we simply conferred those rights, called it “civil union” instead of “marriage,” and moved on? That seems to be the norm here, but it smacks of “separate but equal” to me.
The objection that I have to this argument is that it talks about the “definition of marriage” as if this is some fixed-in-stone thing, when history shows that it is not. But if we want to fixate on “traditional definitions,” then the state has no business recognizing marriages of any kind. That’s for the churches to sort out. The state should be issuing only civil unions, and it should not be discriminating those on the basis of race or gender.
#28 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Tgirsch, thanks for a direct answer along with the clear comments.
My question was simply related to my not understanding how who a person has sex with can be ignored when defining marriage in the gay marriage debate and yet it does matter when dealing with allowing brothers and sisters to marry or allowing polygamy (just a couple of examples). It seems someone somewhere has decided to draw a line for their own reasons (legal, moral, financial, etc.). It confuses me how people who refused to accept those lines in the gay marriage debate have no problem redrawing them in regards to other possible marriage combinations.
Also, I had no intention of adding any further questions.
#29 by tgirsch at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
My question was simply related to my not understanding how who a person has sex with can be ignored when defining marriage in the gay marriage debate and yet it does matter when dealing with allowing brothers and sisters to marry or allowing polygamy (just a couple of examples).
The sex itself doesn’t matter quite so much as the possible consequences of that sex. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, sex (the act) is not the only criterion by which the allowability of a marriage is determined. As Pejar points out, incestuous relations run a far greater risk of abuse and inequality because of pre-existing familial power structures. And as Kevin and others point out, any marriage involving more than two people becomes orders of magnitude more complicated from a legal perspective. If I become incapacitated, it’s crystal-clear who has authority to make my legal decisions: my spouse, by virtue of our marriage. But if I have even two spouses (never mind three or more), orders of precedence need to be defined, and all sorts of legal wrangling can ensue. So the best argument against state-recognized polygamy has nothing to do with sex; it has to do with the fact that it’s incredibly messy from a purely legal perspective.
In both of those cases (incest and gay marriage), legitimate cases against their recognition by the state have been made; cases which do not involve “that practice is offensive,” but rather involve practical concerns. It is my position, as well as that of others here, that in the absence of such compelling reasons not to recognize/allow a marriage, we should err on the side of recognizing/allowing it, in the interests of equal protection.
The above in short form: If you oppose gay marriage, and you don’t have a better reason for opposing it than “we’ve never allowed it before,” then that’s anti-gay bigotry, plain and simple.
#30 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
If you feel my only reason is “we’ve never allowed it before”, then you have not been listening to me.
You state that the legal issues with polygamy would be huge and yet for several years (over 20 here in Canada), legal reasons were the main argument against changing the definition of marriage. Several years ago, gays won the right to every right that heterosexual couples had. On the legal front everything was 100% equal. Then the main public relations argument was that gays wanted to be treated equally even though in every sense of the word they already were. The fact is, they wanted to get society’s stamp of approval on their lifestyle so they went after changing the definition of marriage.
This argument tends to have very little to do with equality and alot to do with forced public acceptance. And that is one of the main things I disagree with.
#31 by tgirsch at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
This argument tends to have very little to do with equality and alot to do with forced public acceptance.
See my “separate but equal” statement, above. There’s also a practical issue here that has nothing to do with “forced public acceptance.” Unless it’s codified in your law that the civil union rights that gays have will forever mirror those of married heterosexuals, a change to either code (that governing marriage, or that governing civil union) would once again result in inequality. So while there is a symbolic aspect (which is more important than I think you give credit for), there’s also a practical aspect: If they’re the same thing from a legal perspective (in terms of rights granted, etc.), then it simply doesn’t make any sense (and, worse, adds unnecessary bureaucracy) to have separate legal definitions and separate laws concerning them.
Also, state recognition of same-sex marriage doesn’t “force public acceptance” any more than does state recognition of, say, Vegas drive-through weddings. All it means is that it’s legally allowable and legally binding, not that others have to like it.
In any case, I’m interested in seeing how that debate played out in Canada. If you have unbiased sources on that, please e-mail them to me. Without knowing first-hand, I’m skeptical of the idea that everything except for the name was (as you say) “100% equal” before.
#32 by Dan at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Why does the term marriage have to be used? Linguistically speaking, it signifies one man and one woman, so why bother redefining it? Is red the new blue? What’s the problem with calling something the thing it is? Why not call a consenual homosexual relationship with all the government benefits synandrogamy or something like that?
#33 by tgirsch at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Dan:
Why does the term marriage have to be used? Linguistically speaking, it signifies one man and one woman, so why bother redefining it?
As mentioned above, the meaning of marriage is not some fixed entity. It has changed over time. This would not be the first time its definition has changed. I have no objection to calling what the government recognizes a “civil union,” provided we call it that for everyone, rather than just for homosexuals. If you want to leave marriage to the churches and have the state deal with civil unions, that would be fine by me.
As to your “synandrogamy” suggestion, I can only assume you’re not serious.
#34 by Big U at February 21st, 2007
| Quote
Tgirsch >
As unbiased as it gets. Look at 1999 in the first link to see the same rights verification and look at the section on Canada in the second link to see the definition of common-law. Note that the only differences apply to jurisdictional differences (for example, in the province I live in, once a couple has lived together for three years they are automatically classified as common-law whether they ask for it or not while in some other provinces it is two years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
#35 by Dan M. at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Big U:
[...] the equal-but-different category much like common-law relationships do.
How is common-law marriage different from any other kind of marraiage, legally?
Dan:
Linguistically speaking, it signifies one man and one woman.
I have to contest this claim. Vocabularity is always a matter of usage, and whether a particular term covers a broader or a narrower scope is pretty much exclusively a matter of real historical usage. Historical data is silent on the matter: Historically, all marriages have been between two individuals, regardless of the sex of the participants. For the most part, it denoted a relation between one man and one woman, but that’s could be a happenstance of who got married, not a matter of how the word could be applied. Of course, that would require one to not count berdache marriages. I just don’t think history bears you out here.
Interesting, good old Webster cites the etymology of ‘marriage’ to derive from ‘male’, and ‘matrimony’ to derive from ‘mother’, while ‘wedlock’ means just ‘pledge’. That hardly seems to indicate a focus on one-person-of-each-sex. And even though berdache seems to mostly be opposite-gender, same-sex pairings, even that has been not very strict, especially wen you start involving travestis
#36 by Dan M. at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
I’ve contradicted myself. History is largly silent on whether ‘marriage’, ‘matrimony’, and ‘wedlock’ pertain to homosexual or homogendered commitments. Where there’s much data, there’s a translation barrier, but what little data remains is in favor for the terms including homosexual relations but excluding homogendered relations. Then again, how many homogendered couples are there, and how many want to marry?
#37 by Dan at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Tgirsch, you wouldn’t find it romantic if a man approached you asking you to “synandrogamonize” with him? I was pulling Greek outta my ass and seein’ what happened…
So Dan M and Tgirsch, are you claiming that since “history is largely silent” and “the meaning of marriage is not some fixed entity,” that there would have been no culturally defined expectation of marriage circa 1800 in the United States?
#38 by Dan at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
FYI: I do support gay marriages, civil unions, synandrogamy, etc… Just thought I’d clear the water… sorry for double posting.
#39 by Dan M. at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
I’m saying that denotation and connotation can differ greatly.
Ask an 1800 European immigrant to America to define marriage, he might specify one-of-each-sex.
Describe to him something like berdache and ask him if it’s a kind of marriage, he might say yes.
I don’t think that the average person having a stereotype (and I mean this in the psychological usage akin to prototype) for a word precludes a broad understanding of the word.
#40 by Janusz at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Dan wrote: “are you claiming that since “history is largely silent” and “the meaning of marriage is not some fixed entity,” that there would have been no culturally defined expectation of marriage circa 1800 in the United States?”
Given the very specific time and location, and that most states (Vermont being the exception I believe) had enacted anti-miscegenation laws, the cultural (and legal) expection would have been a union between a man and woman of the same race. I think it’s fair to say most thinking people today would consider the racial aspect of this definition unreasonably restrictive (offensive, in fact). Similar arguments were used for maintaining anti-miscegenation laws as are being used to deny marriage benefits to gay people. It seems to me that making marriage less restrictive and more inclusive will only strengthen the institution (a main argument against gay marriage being that it undermines families). Also, keep in mind the cultural expectations of 19th century US are different than 16th century Saudi Arabia, Biblical Judea, 4th century Japan etc.
#41 by Big U at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Janusz Says: “It seems to me that making marriage less restrictive and more inclusive will only strengthen the institution (a main argument against gay marriage being that it undermines families).”
This has never happened in anything else so why would it be the case here? Any time you weaken restrictions, you water down the value of that item/institution.
#42 by Dan at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Dan M: I would argue that it isn’t the average stereotype, but it was merely the cultural expectation and understanding. To put it gently, homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder until the release of DSV IV.
Janusz: I agree with you (I think); but I’m not quite sure what you are getting at.
#43 by Janusz at February 22nd, 2007
| Quote
Bill U wrote: “Any time you weaken restrictions, you water down the value of that item/institution.”
Soooo…are you saying that by repealing the anti-miscegenation laws ie weaking the restrictions of marriage between people of different races, the value of the institution of marriage was watered down and weakened? I hardly think that was the case. In fact, by making the institution more inclusive, by allowing citizens of different races the legal protections afforded to other people, the state was no longer forcing couples into alternative types of unions. Most importantly, it validated the democratic aspirations of the state, affording the same legal protections to all citizens.
#44 by Dan M. at February 23rd, 2007
| Quote
It occurs to me that we’re asking the wrong question.
If you ask the putative fellow from the past what a marriage is, he’s likely to answer what a “correct” marriage is. If you ask him whether a certain thing is a marriage, you’ll get a much broader class. In the racial example, every normal person would know when a black and a white were married, they just wouldn’t like it. The law would then not grant them the legal benefits of the real marriage. It’s not a matter of what a marriage is; it’s a matter of what the public says about the marriage.
A small group of people (usually only two), living together, having pledged themselves to one another for life, sharing their lives, their moneys, their children, and their bodies, are wedded.
If a government or a church wants to deny it, they’re just whining. What this all is about is saying that the government is not one of the entities that’s allowed to whine.
#45 by Dan at February 23rd, 2007
| Quote
Very true, Dan M.
#46 by tgirsch at February 23rd, 2007
| Quote
Dan:
there would have been no culturally defined expectation of marriage circa 1800 in the United States?
Yeah, but it would change from place to place (cf., Utah).
Plus what Janusz said.
Big U:
So democracy was “watered down” by allowing women and blacks to participate?
#47 by Big U at February 23rd, 2007
| Quote
Get real Tgirsch> Democracy is designed to be open for any and all from the start. It is intended to be inclusive of all. Even you yourself have made it clear you do not feel marriage is open for any and all relationships.
If something (such as marriage) is naturally exclusionary in nature, then removing that exclusiveness removes a certain level of significance (weakens it or waters it down.
If something is inclusive in nature (i.e. democracy), then removing barriers to access actual strengthens it and moves closer to the original intent.
#48 by Janusz at February 23rd, 2007
| Quote
Big U: “Get real Tgirsch> Democracy is designed to be open for any and all from the start.”
I’m not sure which “democracy” you’re referring to, but I don’t think history bears you out. The fledgling American experiment with representative government was extremely paternalistic at the beginning. Suffrage was limited to men. While some representatives were elected directly, others, such as senators, and to this day the president, were not. These indirect elections tended to favor the status quo ie the upper classes. The States have evolved to become more inclusive with reforms to elect senators directly, grant women suffrage, eliminate Jim Crow etc. These reforms help to mitigate the exclusive nature of 19th century political participation.
“If something (such as marriage) is naturally exclusionary in nature, then removing that exclusiveness removes a certain level of significance (weakens it or waters it down.”
As stated above, the anti-miscegenation laws were considered the “natural” (for the time and locale) expectation of marriage. Do you believe that removing those barriers weakened the institution? If so, how? If not, your argument doesn’t hold water.
#49 by Bi U at February 23rd, 2007
| Quote
Janusz > Your use of the anti-miscegenation laws argument does not necessarily apply to the argument at hand. These restrictions were put in place to prevent something they disagreed with based on their prejudices at the time. They never should have been put in place. The gay marriage changes are changes that fundamentally alter the entire nature of an institution that has been in place from the start of the North American settlement by Europeans.
I know that people supporting gay marriage will not be willing to see the difference.
#50 by Janusz at February 24th, 2007
| Quote
Big U wrote: “These restrictions were put in place to prevent something they disagreed with based on their prejudices at the time. They never should have been put in place.”
And a similar argument could be used for gay marriage. You’re using the benefit of 21st century hindsight to make that statement; that laws against inter-racial marriage are overly-restrictive and prejudicial have gained acceptance after decades of work to end Jim Crow, end segregation in housing and in schools and attempting to end economic disparity based on race. Were you to ask people in the 19th century how they felt about marriage between the races, I’m sure their response would be similar to how you feel about gay marriage. It would be perceived as fundamentally altering a cherished intitution. It would be seen as amoral; many a 19th century preacher noted that God had created separate continents for the different races, therefore it is clear His will is that there should be no mixing of the races. In fact, I’m sure if you asked alot people in the 1940’s the response would similar. The repeal of the anti-miscegenation laws is a good analogy, and legal precedent, for ending restrictions on marriage between gay people.
“I know that people supporting gay marriage will not be willing to see the difference.”
It certainly doesn’t help that your thinking is so arbitrary and inconsistent. You state that government is naturally inclusive and marriage is naturally exclusive, and therefore one can evolve but the other can’t. You offer no explanation, and we’re expected to accept this as an indisputable fact? You state that laws against inter-racial marriage are prejudicial and should never have been enacted (I whole-heartedly agree), but laws against gay marriage are not, thought almost identical arguments were used against the both of them. The inconsistency in your thinking undermines your argument.