If you get Google alerts or some similar service, you already know that the California Supreme Court has issued a ruling recognizing a right to marriage for same-sex couples. From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
The state Supreme Court struck down California’s marriage law banning same sex couples from getting married in a historic decision Thursday that declared the law unconstitutional discrimination.
The decision will surely touch off an impassioned political fight.
The 4-3 opinion is the high court’s most important civil rights decision in more than a decade, and it is an epic legal victory for same-sex marriage advocates. California is now the second state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to be legally married.
According to the opinion, “we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”
Email alerts reactions from various groups range from “a full win” by gay groups to “a disregard of California voters” from conservative groups. The November ballot initiative will now be considered an effort to overturn this ruling.
Fallout and reactions:
Presidential candidates reactions
New York Times
Schwarzennegger
Associated Press
There seems to be a bit of confusion about marriage. The issue is about Civil marriages not religious ones. Civil marriages are state recognized marriages that confer a variety of rights, privileges, and responsibilities on the participants. Further, there seems to be some assumption that civil marriages are a by-product of religious marriages and that the concept of marriage is a religious one. This is incorrect, if anything it is historically more likely that religious marriages came from the concept of civil marriages.
So far in all of the complaints about this court ruling are about irrelevant issues (“is it a redefinition”) or foolish arguments (“gay men can marry women so the law is fair”). No on has provided any evidence of any substantive harm that allowing gays to marry would cause. The gays have shown numerous ways that denying them the rights have marriage have hurt them.
So for those of you so upset about this ruling, consider this:
You fight so vehemently to deny an entire class of people the right of marriage, uncaring how it may hurt them, yet giving them that right would have no significant effect on you (let alone hurt you), what do you think that says about the type of person you are?
Yes, Timothy, thanks. And the lunch offer stands… 🙂
Byron and Timothy,
I enjoyed your exchange and how both of you concluded. Thank you.
This is a momentous day for civil rights now that gay marriage is legal in california
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Byron,
I believe that you believe that you are not motivated by prejudice or animus. I believe that you believe that your objections are based purely in your understanding of scripture.
But I also think that perhaps you have never seriously questioned whether this is true. I think that perhaps there was a little indignation over the homosexuals redifining your precious institution (just another evil thing those homosexuals have done).
Maybe in some future musings you might ask yourself if your objections to others’ sins includes the necessity to restrict sinners’ rights under law. Perhaps it might… but I think that you may find otherwise. I believe that a seed has been planted and that in time you will find that your views are not as clear as perhaps you think them to be at this time (I am an optimist).
I completely disagree with the theological underpinnings of your direction on sexual orientation. I think that this has been one of the most understood and misinterpreted areas of scripture and that it is an evidence of the moving of the Holy Spirit that so many people are now beginning to question these small handful of ambiguos passages and finding that the traditional understanding doesn’t hold up when we look at the full message of the Gospel. (hint, hint, your New Testament objections rely on a man who was more in favor of celibacy than of “husband of one wife”. He grudgingly allowed marriage for those who burned with lust but thought that it distracted from the immediate return of Christ.)
But that’s MY belief and while I wish you shared it, I have no more right to impose my faith on you than you do on me. So you are certainly entitled to your understanding and ultimately we don’t answer to each other.
I respect that you recognize that social coupling of gay persons is better for society than single gay persons. Some folks are so “hatin’ teh gay” that they would be opposed to gay ice cream if they thought such a thing existed. Heck, we’ll take all the support we can get on issues of equality… even if it’s going to take a while longer to get you to champion full equality under the law 😉
(Just one caution for future discussions with gays… we don’t find support of “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” to be admirable. We think it’s based on deceipt and lying. Further, ask most servicemen and they’ll tell you that they’ve served with gay people and had no problems. And if you want to know how obsolete and silly this policy is, try and find ANYONE of influence who will defend it on its terms.)
I’m willing to agree to disagree to whether allowing same-sex couples changes an integral definition of marriage. But I hope that you walk away from our discussion no longer believing that gay people were granted “the special right to redefine the institution of marriage according to their desires”. Even if the definition has in some way changed, it’s not that gay people been granted power to change it but the conclusion of a rather conservative court comprised of Republicans (6 of the 7) is that the state cannot grant recognition to heterosexuals and straight couples that they do not grant to homosexuals and gay couples.
Perhaps the idea of separating church marriage and civil recognition is not a bad one. We suffer from using the same word for two separate concepts enough as it is. We all know divorced and remarried Catholics who live with a state that recognizes their divorce and remarriage and a church that recognizes either.
But unless and until they are severed, we will continue to have problems in areas where gay couples are denied civil protections and equality. Most decent people, yourself included, find it inconsistent with their ideas of right and wrong to deny gay people the tools they need to function in their lives and relationships. Yet many also balk at allowing gays to marry. Friction is going to exist.
Ironically, if states granted unions and churches granted marriage, there would be legal gay marriages in every state of the union. There are probably dozens of churches within 15 miles of where I sit right now that perform gay marriages and at least one or two within 15 miles of you.
In any case, I agree that we’ve each gotten our opinions out there. And while we’ve probably not swayed each other much, I hope that we can see each other more clearly as brothers and neighbors instead of “them”. And that’s always worth a little debate.
God bless.
We’re sort of getting nowhere, it seems to me, Michael and Timothy, but I’ll sum up a few things and probably leave it at that. I promise I will check back to read your responses, and perhaps I’ll post a follow-up, but “diminishing returns” is beginning to set in, it seems to me. I don’t mind healthy debate, and you don’t seem to either, and I’m glad that I could set the record straight on several things with each of you, so that you, Timothy, don’t think I believe that gays want to marry just for benefits (even though, as I say, that’s the PR that has come across to me pretty strongly, I know better), and that you, Michael, understand that I do believe it stinks that you’ve gotten some mighty shabby treatment by some folks who call themselves Christians. You are passionate men about the things you believe, and I am as well, and the fact that we believe some opposing things puts us into these kinds of discussions. I will say that this discussion has convinced me, more than ever, that the best course is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether, but even that’s not controversial for me, since I think we ought to reduce government involvement in everything by about 90%, and then we’ll be somewhere in the ballpark of the founders’ original intent.
This won’t surprise either of you, of course, but I ground my belief in the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage, not in some preconceived prejudice, bigotry, or “homophobia” (whatever that is), but rather on the creation plan of God, on Christ’s words regarding a “man leaving his father and mother, and cleaving to his wife”, on Paul’s lifting up the idea of being the “husband of one wife” as the ideal, etc. Full disclosure: I believe that Romans 1 and other Scripture condemns any sex outside of that one-man, one-woman marriage relationship as sinful. I can say that without prejudice, recognizing that we are all sinners (the author of that passage called himself the “chief of sinners”), and my name is right on that list. I don’t lift myself up as any better than you guys; that’s immaterial before God’s perfect holiness anyway, so it’s a game we humans play to our own detriment. But I do believe that the Bible defines marriage pretty clearly; obviously, MIchael, you disagree. I just want you to know that I ground my beliefs in my understanding of the Bible, and not on any kind of prejudice that flows from some other source, and as I argued in one post, there have been parts of the whole gay rights movement with which I have agreed; long before my conservative brethren were in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, I was with Bill Clinton on it (about the only thing I was with Bill Clinton on..).
I also believe that stable marriages contribute to the betterment of society–which is the argument for whatever government benefits accrue to the married. I could do without them…as I said, that’s not a factor in my own marriage. One could argue–I’m sure you guys would–that stable “gay marriages” could have the same effect; I wouldn’t agree, but I’d likely agree at the least that stable commitments among people beats the heck out of one-night stands, you know?
Further, every major faith seems to concur with this one-man/one-woman definition (and yes, I know, some “Christian” groups were on you guys’ side; I’ll leave my assessment of those groups out of this post, for the purpose of being charitable. Suffice it to say that their beliefs about more fundamental things than “gay marriage” bear little resemblance to those of most evangelicals.). No, that fact alone doesn’t mean “gay marriage” is wrong, I realize, but there is an old adage: “before you knock down a fence, find out why it was put there in the first place”. I believe that there are some good reasons to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, while at the same time believing that legitimate rights ought not be denied to gay folks.
Timothy, on the “redefinition” issue, we’ll have to agree to disagree; you haven’t convinced me, nor I you. Same on the “equal rights” thing; I don’t believe your example meets the criterion I laid out, not by a long shot; sorry. A “strong case” in the event of a family’s desire to contest the will just doesn’t come up to one of the standards I was proposing. The couple could still marry; the state could not force a divorce once the situation was found out; perhaps you could make the case that the third criterion is met by your scenario, but I don’t think so, and I’m not trying to change the rules or something; I honestly don’t think it fits at all. Any man and woman can marry (OK, not related by blood, etc.); the state can’t arbitrarily dissolve a marriage in the event a sexual orientation is found out; I don’t believe that a state would take away an inheritance based on your criterion, though I can believe a family might try to argue that point, but if the two lived together agreeably and consensually, it’s hard for me to see real grounds.
OK, that’s enough blathering. I admire your tenacity even as I disagree with your reasoning, and though it ought not have to be said, unfortunately it does: I respect you each as men created in the image of God.
And I’d buy you lunch if I knew where you lived… 🙂
Timothy,
Tell me about it! Biblical family arrangements are not always what most people think of when they think of marriage. Personally, I don’ t think this means that because it is in the bible that we give it a positive nod. That goes for many of the male/female relationships in the bible that I find absolutely horrifying.
And codifying marriage by biblical standards of what was/is acceptable opens a whole mess of interpretations. People see/read/interpret/find support from the bible for some of the most strange things (in my opinion.) And who is to say that my view is the best view for other people? I certainly don’t say that. So whenever I read/hear of someone trying to justify not allowing gay marriages based on some “biblical standard” I have to laugh!
Byron,
when you said
is seemed to be that you were suggesting that this is the reason gay people want marriage. If that was not your intent, then fine.
But there is a very good reason that we point out these benefits – and it is not that we marry for benefits.
It is because you heterosexuals have assigned yourself a pile of goodies to reward yourselves for being married. And you do so with my tax dollars.
It is neither fair, right, nor moral to do so.
Suppose, for a moment, that you were Southern Baptist. And suppose that you lived in a state in which Catholics were the overwhelming majority. Then suppose that this state declared that the state would allow Catholics to deduct the first $5,000 of their marriage from their income on their tax forms.
I doubt that many Catholics would marry for the write off.
But we certainly would not question the sincerity of Baptists who wanted equal treatment. We wouldn’t think their quest for a write off to be suspect or a PR mistake.
And if a Catholic said, “oh all you Baptists want are “legal rights” unlike my good valid reasons” then you might be inclined to think that this Catholic was just making up distractions rather than answer why he wasn’t treating you, his Baptist neighbor, like himself.
Ellie,
Ah, but many people do want to define marriage as “the couple must fit the definition of marriage decided upon by most churches”. Or, more realistically, “the couple must fit the definition of marriage decided upon by MY church”.
I just wanted to point out that most Bible heroes did not have families that would be welcome in a great many churches today. If Abraham and his sister or Jacob and his two wives showed up in church there would not be a rush to pull out the membership cards.
If we know one thing about anti-gays call “traditional marriage”, it isn’t found much in the Bible.
If a gay man and a wealthy woman were to marry, both fully aware of his orientation and wishing to be in the marriage, and if she were to die without a will, her family would have a very strong case to have his inheritance disallowed. The marriage is assumed fraudulent, whether or not it was based in full knowledge.
Argument withdrawn?
🙂
Byron
Something can only be redefined if you change an essential definition. An essential definition is one which sets something up and distinguishes it from other things.
You argue that opposite sex is an essential definition of marriage. I think that’s a bit like arguing that an essential definition of grass is that it is green.
If the only thing that was green was grass, this might be a truly defining aspect. But the grassness of grass – that which makes it different from a tree or a rock – is not changed if the grass were to be blue or yellow or red. And indeed there are blue, yellow, and red grasses – though they may not be familiar or common.
That which makes marriage a marriage is not opposite-sexness. There are a great many opposite-sex relationships that can range from friendships, business relationships, familial, neighborly, or even hostile relationships.
The things that makes a marriage a marriage are that it unites two people into a single unit, that vows are made before God and community (or at least a justice of the peace), and that each is responsible for the other – both for their care and for their mistakes. There may be other attributes as well, but I think these are probably the biggies. These are the things that make a marriage differ from a friendship, a courtship, a shacking up relationship, a business partnership, or any of the other relationships out there.
You argue that “oh, and they also have to be the opposite sex” is an essential part of the definition. I argue that this is not a defining criterion but simply the most commonly observed trait.
A child will use a green crayon to draw grass. And they are not wrong in that this is the most common color. And a child will draw a man and a woman when they are drawing a wedding picture. This too is not wrong in that this is the most common configuration.
But I contend that neither is a defining aspect of the picture. If all the other attributes of grass are present, the color is interesting but not defining. If all the other attributes of a marriage are present, that the sexes are not opposite may seem peculiar, but not redefining.
Byron,
Your original argument was that there was no equal rights issue because any man may marry a woman.
Now you want to redefine that to mean that as long as he’s a liar and doesn’t get caught he can marry. Yeah, that’s a moral argument.
I pointed out that marriage laws as they were did not provide for recognition of marriage for gay people to anyone. You counter that as long as the wife, the government, the IRS or the cat doesn’t object then there’s no problem. That doesn’t argue against my point, it reinforces it.
You’ve defined this marriage in such a way that EVERYONE else has power over the marriage but the guy in it. That’s not equality.
Your original assertion about equality is invalid. Don’t you agree?
Here is what I have picked up from Byron’s line of reasoning — what makes something a moral and legitimate “marriage” is that the couple are of opposite genders. Anything less than that “cheapens” the institution. It’s all about sex organs.
Two men could be gentle and caring — while a man regularly beats his wife. The gay marriage is cheaper.
Two gay men might remain faithful until death while a man goes to strip clubs and has regular affairs. The gay marrriage is cheaper.
Two men might admire and respect one another, building each other up and encouraging each other — while a man belittles and verbally abuses his wife. The gay marriage is cheaper
What “cheapens” it is that they both have male genitalia. If the sex organs look different, however, the union is more valuable, more legit, more “moral” — no matter how genuine the gay couple’s love for one another might be.
Jayhuck
I just noticed I stuck an extra ‘c’ in your name…sorry. Did I see through to why you were asking that question?
Thanks Ellie 🙂
Jaychuck
I’m not using it purposefully, I’m using it because Nick R and Timothy Kincaid used the word tradition or ‘traditional marriage’ in the two or three comments I was replying to (way back up at 101327). If they hadn’t and I was generating these myself I don’t know what phrase I would have come up with (I also don’t think I would have left a comment, so maybe that’s moot). But since I’m referencing everything out of the Bible (purposefully, because it’s the easiest way to find a large collection of really nasty polygamous marriages, that and Medea and Jane Eyre for the bigamy angle) I’m definitely referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition, as was Timothy. How could I not be? I hope you wouldn’t expect references based on the Bible to include the Buddhist marriage tradition. But within the larger context I think the type of tradition I’m talking about is really based more on the idea of a couple v. a man w/ multiple wives, rather than specifically dealing with gay v. straight marriage (I jumped in because polygamy scares me and it seemed like Nick R was about to propose its legalization based on some pretty shaky reasoning, not because I want to take a side in the gay marriage debate).
OK, Timothy, let me get to your statements. Frankly, I initiated a bit of a rabbit trail, and got caught up in that discussion, and got tired of typing…
I’m sorry you found my words “very offensive”, but that would be because you didn’t read them carefully enough. I said that “the talk that I’ve heard” in support of “gay marriage” has focused on “rights”. That is a true statement. If you read into that the implication that I don’t think that gay people meet and connect for similar reasons as heterosexual people, you’ve misread what I wrote. I don’t for one minute doubt your assertion, but your logic jumped a beat. I understand that gay people have relationships for much the same reasons we do; I’m saying–and you’ll just have to take my word for it, that the rationale I’ve heard for securing the “right to ‘gay marriage'” has largely been focused on securing somebody’s idea of “equal legal rights for homosexuals”. That may not be the reason most seek it; I can’t speak to that one way or another, and I’m willing to take your word for it. But it is the reason that has stood out to me as I’ve read newspaper arguments (made by homosexuals, many times); it’s the common argument that I’ve heard made, and it’s not even close, frankly. So if “equal rights” is not the reason for seeking “gay marriage” rights, then the PR machine is somehow failing you guys, I guess, because that’s what’s come across. Didn’t mean to be offensive, though, just to report what I’ve heard.
OK, now I’ll take on your challenge. I do not believe you’ve proven your point at all, although if you can give me sufficient answers to the questions I pose, I’ll reconsider. Now let me concede a point at the outset–maybe an olive branch? I recognize fully that homosexuals don’t generally choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that in that sense, what I’m about to suggest is significantly hypothetical. And yet I believe, unless you can answer my questions in a way other than you have, that my challenge stands. You’ve talked about court challenges, and about situations where a “marriage” was a charade, some type of attempt to take advantage of a legal loophole or what have you, and on that, I’m with you.
But here are my questions:
If a gay man, for whatever reason, decides he wants to marry a woman, stay married to her, mind his business, etc., and she consents to it…
– Will the state deny the marriage license up front?
– Will the state, if his identity is found out, step in uninvited and demand that the marriage be ended?
– Will he face legal penalty in some way if both he and his wife desire to remain married?
Now, if you can tell me that I’m wrong about those things, I’ll concede the point. But what you’ve done is chosen after-the-fact issues that deal with fraud (a “marriage” arranged for the purpose of being fraudulent in order to secure some particular benefit otherwise unavailable) or settlements after divorce, etc. You cite the McGreevey case; it’s sad what Jim McGreevey did to his wife (and by the way, my point, again, is hypothetical; I’m not advocating that gay men should get married to women!), but until he was caught, he lived in a marriage which was perfectly legal, and apparently satisfying enough to his wife that she didn’t seek to get out of it. It was only after McGreevey was caught doing what he did that she objected, and even then, of course, if she’d have desired to remain married, and he’d have as well, the government of New Jersey would not have intervened in order to deny them that right. If she’d said, “OK, Jimbo, I’ll stay with you, let you have your guy on the side”, whatever, the state would not have ruled the marriage “illegal” on that basis. Right?
Correct me if I’m wrong. And if on those points you can point to a state stepping in and nullifying or preventing a marriage which involves people who otherwise wish to remain married, and who did not get married in order to perpetrate some scam, I’ll withdraw the argument.
Now, as to the “inclusion/redefinition” debate, sure, I concede that you see it as “inclusion”, but even if you do, it’s still redefinition; call it, for your purposes, “redefinition to be more inclusive”. I can handle that, but to say it’s not “redefinition” is to play a word game.
You ask, “why on Earth would there be need to establish an institution whose purpose was only to exclude that other small percent?” Well, that seems easy enough: the purpose of marriage isn’t “to exclude” some “small percent”. Just as I said I never thought about “rights” when I married my wife, neither did it cross my mind–dare I say it crosses no one’s mind when getting married–that “I’m doing this to exclude people”. C’mon, Timothy, you’ve offered some reasonable arguments, but that’s not a real good one.
OK, that’s enough for now; I’ll shut up and let you respond!
Ellie,
I’m just curious – when you use the words “traditional marriage”, are you referring to Judeo-Christian marriages?
Timothy
I actually wasn’t responding to your challenge to find examples of traditional marriages in the Bible (although I knew you had made it). I was listing examples of marriages in the Bible that had bad outcomes because of their polygamous nature. In order to get a full sense of the Biblical view of marriage (because theoretically somebody pro-polygamy could argue that the writers/editors of the Bible had a bad view of marriage all-around, especially based off of Abraham and Sarah, who [by most definitions] were in a traditional marriage) I added examples of marriages where only two people are involved, and which had significantly better outcomes. Hosea and Gomer don’t strictly fit this model, but the point of them is that Gomer has to learn to be faithful to her (one) husband, so it relates to the same subject. Also, Song of Songs isn’t strictly about a marriage, it refers more to the engagement/courtship period before the marriage, but it speaks to the deep emotional love that two people can have for one another (in point of fact the reason that Song of Songs is more often referred to by that name than as Song of Solomon in modern theology is that Solomon was polygamous and it is not believed that he would have written a song that appears to be about the emotional side of monogamy. Also, I don’t think any modern scholar [conservative or liberal] thinks they were real, live people, anymore than they think Tristan and Isolde were real).
Also, your definition of ‘traditional marriage’ is pretty interesting. If we were writing a marriage amendment based on your requirements it might have to read “Marriage shall be between one man and one woman who are completely faithful to each other, both have perfect reputations, didn’t jump the gun on consummation, are only getting married for romantic reasons, had a traditional proposal, never adopt children or include step-children in their family, have sex, and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that no other wives or concubines are involved. Furthermore, the parents must not object to the groom’s choice of bride, and the couple must fit the definition of marriage decided upon by most churches.” On the last qualification alone we may have to outlaw marriage forever, because ‘most churches’ can rarely agree on the exact definition of anything. No one has claimed that all (or any) of the marriages in the Bible fall into some sort of perfect, traditional mold, with no problems in them. And nobody claims that all heterosexual marriages fall into that mold (or even could). That doesn’t preclude them from being ‘traditional marriages,’ nor does their imperfection create an argument that polygamy should be allowed.
I would like to add that you don’t seem to have a particularly romantic view of Ruth. The ‘non-traditional’ proposal method of Ruth is actually taken as a model in many Christian circles, and girls that take initiative toward marriage are often said to be ‘pulling a Ruth.’ Also, Boaz was not required to marry her. He actually offered to take the place of the man who was. And no, in the modern world sitting next to someone’s bed is not considered rape. In the ancient world, however, Ruth took an extreme risk with her own reputation (i.e. the thing that saved her from being an outcast in her community). Boaz could easily have slept with her and then discarded her, ruining her life with no negative consequences for him.
By the way, if my son comes home, announcing his impending marriage or not, I will have a lot more to worry about than my outfit, since I’m only twenty, and husband/boyfriend-less beside.
Byron,
You have repeated an assertion about gay people being allowed to marry without acknowleging that I’ve refuted that claim. You continue to say “gay people have always been allowed to marry” although this simply isn’t true. As I listed above in detail, gay people are NOT allowed to marry either each other or the opposite sex. Such marriages are assumed fraudulent and do not hold up in a court of law.
Please acknowlege this and state how you disagree, if you still do. Please don’t continue to make this claim and just ignore facts to the contrary.
You also keep saying that marriage has been redefined. But just saying that it has does not make it so. Clearly many people here do not see any redefinition. We see inclusion.
It is, I believe, irrational to insist that the definition of marriage is primarily – or even principly – based on the fact that the parties involved are heterosexual (or opposite sex). Considering that the overwhelming majority of persons enter opposite sex relationships, why on Earth would there be need to establish an institution whose purpose was only to exclude that other small percent. Such an institution would be useless and purposeless – especially in a society which was closeted.
So it simply must be that the institution has other far more important qualities than that of opposite sex membership. The “definition” of such an institution is tied into those purposes that it serves. That gay people also seek to achieve such purposes does not change those purposes and thus does not change the definition of marriage.
Finally, although I don’t think this was intended, your discussion of benefits was very offensive. Very offensive. Very.
You implied that the reason that gay people want marriage is for benefits – those benefits that are rightly restricted for heterosexuals.
Though it may not have occurred to you, gay people enter relationships for the same reason as heterosexuals. We seek companionship, love, a soul mate. Or sometimes it just sneaks up on you when you aren’t even looking. Thousands of movies have been made about the reasons a man and woman find each other and every single one of those movies could also have been made about two men or two women.
And gay people make commitments for the same reason as heterosexuals. To express love, to honor, to make vows and promises, to share with family and community.
But once those relationships have been entered and once those commitments given it is natural to wonder why my brother’s committed relationship comes with benefits and protections and mine does not. And the gender of the person he’s committed to seems to be a pretty flimsy basis on which to dole out priveleges.
It would have been both foolish and offensive to tell Rosa Parks that the only reason she wanted an end to discrimination was for preferential bus seating. Or to tell women that the only reason they wanted to end discrimination was for the key to the executive bathroom.
These benefits aren’t the reason we want an end to discrimination, they are but examples of the discrimination that we want to end.
Ellie,
Thank you for seeking to provide examples of traditional marriages from the Bible. But I think you included some that would not be accepted by most churches today:
Abraham and Sarah – actually, as Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister, that would be an incestuous marriage and, as you mentioned, Sarah gave her husband Hagar
Ruth and Boaz – Boaz was required by levirate law to marry Ruth and provide her with children. Ruth seduces him in his sleep – I guess that would be considered rape today – and we do not know if he had other wives.
The Lover and Beloved of Song of Songs – we know nothing about this couple, if indeed it was a real couple. For all we know the Lover had 300 wives and 600 concubines.
Joseph and Mary – Catholics teach that this was a sexless marriage. But even protestants agree that Mary conceived out of wedlock and that Joseph raised a child that was not his own – hardly what conservatives have in mind when they say “traditional”.
Hosea and Gomer – yes this may be allegorical but it certainly would be frowned on by most churches. Gomer was a prostitute. I doubt that if your son came home and said, “hey folks, I’m marrying this prostitute” you’d immediately start looking for a Mother of the Bride dress.
Elizabeth and Zacharias – you may have me on this one, I’d have to go back and check Scripture for the details of their marriages. But surely you’d agree that you really have to go looking to find “traditional” marriages among Biblical heroes. It’s a lot easier finding those who were not.
Thanks, Boo, I think I’ll pass on further interaction.
Michael, I’m really sorry that some professing Christians can’t recognize hurting people who need to be ministered to, irrespective of our agreements/disagreements. I wouldn’t for a minute deny the reality of your feelings or your pain at the loss of people so close to you, and I don’t know what to say about the way some folks treated you other than, for what it’s worth, I’m sorry. We can–and should–have discussions of this type, spirited discussions hopefully in a spirit of respect, but at the end of the day, we all bleed; we all hurt; we all experience the emotions God gave us, and when people who are close to us–irrespective of the reason–are lost, it’s time for Christians to “weep with those who weep”. Though on a different plane, I recognize, but with certain similar feelings to a point, one of my 2-3 best friends in the world dropped dead of a heart attack at a young (and seemingly very healthy) 47, back in February. Not a day goes by when my heart isn’t saddened by his loss, when I don’t pray for his family, when I don’t think about my friend Rusty. Man, it hurts. And for your sake, I sincerely hope you never have to experience again the loss of close friends, because having gone through that agony once, well, it just hurts, man, bad. Sorry.
That’s exactly it – women are not valued in a polygamous culture but if you were raised in that culture (and right now they are prodcuing more offspring per woman than in the mainstream) then think about how that influences those offspring. Soooooo – the conclusion is that as a polygamous group grows, and it will becaue of the children being produced – then more women are in a submissive role.
But making polygamy illegal doesn’t by itself destroy polygamous cultures. Arugably, it would have been easier to stop the FLDS abuses if the legal system had been more involved. But if you manage to expose more of the women in polygamous groups to the idea of being equal to men, then you lessen the demand for it. The FLDS is insular because it has to be, because the larger culture of more equality and all that other e-vile liberal stuff influences people in the opposite direction. If you want to get rid of polygamy, work to get rid of sexism.
First, gay people have always been allowed to marry, even if they didn’t want to, so I will not concede one of your key premises (I’ll refer you back to my silly “skydiving” and “high-rise window washing” analogies that illustrate that a right unwanted/unappreciated/unused is nonetheless a right, and the things that flow from that).
Right. And vagrancy laws affect rich and poor alike. Funny how this exact same argument can be used against interacial marriage, except that you don’t, because of the high minded principle that interacial marriage just doesn’t squick you out as much.
It isn’t, per se, “gay people marrying” that will cheapen my marriage, but rather that the radical redefinition of marriage cheapens the institution as a whole.
Right, it’s cheapened when the damn queers get it. This is what’s called “homophobia.” That’s its name.
Let me help you with what I mean. I’d argue that as long as the government is in the business of pronouncing people “married”, it ought to maintain the time-honored definition.
Said time going back no further than 1967, of course.
I see people arguing for “tradition” and that marriage is being “redefined”. Let’s be clear. According to anthropologists same-sex marriage has existed in societies all over the world for a very long time. Nothing is being redefined, except perhaps how people express their prejudice.
Boo,
That’s exactly it – women are not valued in a polygamous culture but if you were raised in that culture (and right now they are prodcuing more offspring per woman than in the mainstream) then think about how that influences those offspring. Soooooo – the conclusion is that as a polygamous group grows, and it will becaue of the children being produced – then more women are in a submissive role.
Byron: I sinerely appreciate your sympathy. Yes, it was incredibly painful to take care of at bedside, until death, three wonderful men I deeply loved. I would have traded places with them if I could. To watch them suffer was horrible, especially with no word of support from my previous “”Christian” friends. Since then, I have often said that some of the best Christians I have met are Atheists.
With partner number one, no one from my family came to the funeral or sent a card. EXODUS said nothing — except for some snarky posts on the internet accusing Gary of cheating on me. The “Christian” minister backed out of the service at the very last minute when he learned Gary had been gay — explaining that he was afraid that his presence would be misconstrued as “an endorsement of the gay lifestyle”.
But, thanks be to God, Jesus sent the Comforter — and my faith in him has strengthened with each loss.
Even though the State did not recognize these unions, we were “married” in the best sense of that word. I understand that because of your beliefs, it really bothers you that the state would call these “marriages” — but in terms of vows, fidelity, love and self-sacrifice that’s exactly what they were.
Let me help you with what I mean. I’d argue that as long as the government is in the business of pronouncing people “married”, it ought to maintain the time-honored definition. I’d prefer, in other words, for things to be as they have been; I have no problem, per se, with government being in the “marriage business”, and on balance, I see benefits I’m reluctant to forego. That said, if we come to the place where government continues to take steps such as it has in CA, then I don’t believe the legitimacy of a marriage is diminished in the eyes of God because of it.
Perhaps it’d be helpful to remember that I admitted that the whole idea of divorcing government from marriage is something that most of us haven’t spent much time, until recently, thinking through. I never believed it’d come to this.
On a personal note, while I don’t know what kind of hetero marriages you encounter and feel that you overstate the case, from my experience, it must have been incredibly painful to lose, not one, but three partners. I can’t imagine…
BTW: I have been heterosexually married — in a church — and since then married to three male partners (who are now deceased) one on a beach, one in a park and one in an old courhouse.
Where didn’t matter. What we called it didn’t matter. Our promises to each other before God mattered and (except for the ill-advised straight “marriage”) all were “til death do us part.” More than I can say for most hetero “marriages” I encounter.
Agreed: The government would be well-served to get completely out of the marriage business.
But I am confused. On one hand you seem very concerned about ” the official government definition” of marriage and yet (earlier) you said that a male/female marriage would be just as legimate without it.
Touche on the last part, my friend!
My only rejoinder to your first comment would be that it’s not about your definition, but the official government definition. I don’t give a rip if you walk around and say, “I’m married to my partner”; say whatever you will. For that matter, go have some ceremony in one of those supportive churches if you want; no skin off my nose.
Again, I’ve begun to believe–and this predates this CA decision by a couple years, by the way–that the government would be well-served to get completely out of the marriage business. Maybe that’s something we could agree on, I don’t know.
Once again, if marriage is “more than a word” — then why are you making such a big deal of me using it to describe my union with my partner? You know what it means to you. I know what it means to me. My definition doesn’t cheapen yours — unless you let it.
And in response to your comment — “I doubt many folks who marry even give a thought to whatever effect marriage might have on their legal rights” — perhaps they should give more thought to it, especially considering how many of them end up as a legal and financial mess.
Michael,
Because marriage is, in my thinking (and that of a majority of Californians, Americans, and every major religion of the world of which I’m aware), more than a “word”, and more than the sum of whatever legal rights it bestows. It would be valuable if it bestowed no particular legal rights whatever. Save for historical aberrations such as polygamy, etc., it is an institution that has had one central meaning throughout time. As a Christian, of course, I believe it to be of divine origin, and believe that definition to be pretty clear, in both the Old Testament and in the words of Christ.
By the way, the “rights” angle raises another key issue, it seems to me. Though I wouldn’t presume to speak for all “gay marriage” advocates, and thus plead guilty to introducing a generality here, the talk that I have heard in support of “gay marriage” has almost always focused on the legal rights that such a change in the definition of marriage would afford to gay individuals. When I married my wife, I never once considered, for even a split second, the additional legal rights that our marriage would afford me. It didn’t even qualify as an afterthought. To me, using this as a major rationale for seeking “gay marriage rights” constitutes a further cheapening of the institution, because I doubt many folks who marry even give a thought to whatever effect marriage might have on their legal rights (and with the asinine “marriage penalty” that married couples face come tax time, there is at least one legal disadvantage).
Boo,
Since that twists my words into a form I don’t recognize, I’ll try once more to be clear.
First, gay people have always been allowed to marry, even if they didn’t want to, so I will not concede one of your key premises (I’ll refer you back to my silly “skydiving” and “high-rise window washing” analogies that illustrate that a right unwanted/unappreciated/unused is nonetheless a right, and the things that flow from that). But beyond that, in one sense, I guess I’d plead guilty, not at all to the superiority you read into my words, but to a diminished respect for the legal aspect of marriage if indeed it morphs as it has in California. But I’d feel the same way if we weren’t talking about “gay marriage”, but about polygamy (which assumedly would be completely heterosexual in nature) or “group marriage”. It isn’t, per se, “gay people marrying” that will cheapen my marriage, but rather that the radical redefinition of marriage cheapens the institution as a whole.
So yes, I’ll concede this much: just as I have less respect for a government that does everything in its power to cater to environmental extremists, and then blame high gas prices on oil companies, I have less respect for a government that takes the actions that the CA Supreme Court has. And just as I have little respect for some of the other entities that our bloated government has undertaken in the name of the “public good”, so I have little respect for this one.
I’d put it this way: it is my tremendous respect for, and commitment to, marriage that prompts my contempt for its radical redefinition. I’m not particularly a drinker of alcohol, but I can imagine that a connoisseur of fine wine would be outraged if his favorite Chianti were watered down with a 50/50 mix of New York City tap water, such that he’d swear it off entirely were the situation not remedied. That seems a little like what I’m suggesting here, that’s all.
Bryon: It does seem to come down to what you call it. If you can’t have the term “marriage” all to yourself, you want to take your football and go home. You said: “I believe that every person ought to be able to do things like decide to whom to leave their money, decide whom to live with/be intimate with, decide whom to have at their bedsides, etc, without the government saying “you can’t”. You just don’t want them to be legally able to call such a relationship “marriage”. You want that all to yourself. Why is the word so important to you?
I wish I could thank you in the same way… I think I’d offer the fact that I’ve been married almost 26 years to the same woman, the only woman to whom I have ever been married (or been intimate, if I may be so bold as to say it here), as evidence of “proper respect for the institution”. I lack respect for governments that do things I consider wrong, for courts that usurp any semblance of constitutional restraint as well.
But I’ll leave that one and move on to your groundless insinuation that I feel “superior to gay people”. This is typical of the type of empty rhetoric that unfortunately tends to characterize these types of discussions.
Well, let’s see. You said:
What’s germane is that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman committed to each other “til death do (them) part”. Sure, a lot of folks lie about it, and break their vows, but that doesn’t change the basic definition. That’s the definition I signed up for. Now, in California, that’s been radically changed. Radically redefining marriage cheapens it, makes it something other than it has historically been. It’s not, per se, you doing anything, but the very institution itself has now taken on a radically-different meaning. If the rules of the game change–as they have in Massachusetts and now, California, then I’m not obligated to play the game anymore.
Which seems to indicate that:
a) you have so little respect for the legal institution of marriage that if the darn queers get it to, you’re gonna take your ball and go home
and b) your belief that people being able to marry the same sex will cheapen it enough for you to want to abandon the institution means that one of your main motivations in being married is to feel superior to gay people. Explain to me exactly how else gay people marrying will cheapen your marriage, other than the privilege of being able to engage in an institution that gay people can’t.
Michael,
Where we would differ, then, would be whether or not God ordains same-sex marriage. At any rate, thanks to you as well for the thoughtful responses.
Boo,
I wish I could thank you in the same way… I think I’d offer the fact that I’ve been married almost 26 years to the same woman, the only woman to whom I have ever been married (or been intimate, if I may be so bold as to say it here), as evidence of “proper respect for the institution”. I lack respect for governments that do things I consider wrong, for courts that usurp any semblance of constitutional restraint as well.
But I’ll leave that one and move on to your groundless insinuation that I feel “superior to gay people”. This is typical of the type of empty rhetoric that unfortunately tends to characterize these types of discussions. I’ve attempted to make a cogent argument–you don’t agree, fine. I’ve also said, if you read, that I believe that every person ought to be able to do things like decide to whom to leave their money, decide whom to live with/be intimate with, decide whom to have at their bedsides, etc, without the government saying “you can’t”. I don’t agree with sodomy laws. Run the list: I’m an ally in that respect, as I said; perhaps you missed it. FYI, I consider myself semi-libertarian.
But what doesn’t follow is a belief that the definition of marriage ought to be altered in such a radical way. It’s really that simple.
Ellie,
Very good summary – thank you. I wonder why the anti-gay marriage PhDs in this country are unable to understand what you have articulated. All they seem to be able to do is rely on slippery slope arguments involving polygamy. Boo drives the point home with his statement – if the only argument against polygamy is that same-sex marriage is illegal, that is not a rational argument.
As Professor Kirk says to Peter and Susan in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe “Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?”
Byron, thanks for your thoughtful responses. You said: “Marriage is first and foremost ordained of God, not ordered by the state.” BINGO! It is a personal and sacred commitment between two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to one another. If I “marry” my life partner, that is exactly what we will be doing — with or without state recoginition.
Isn’t it interesting, though, that most Christians believe that without that legal recognition, the two people who are thus committed are “living in sin” — as though the state’s marriage laws were lifted directly from Scripture? That is one of the arguments I have often encountered from those who are against gay relationships on “moral” grounds. They argue that only those “marriages” that are state-recognized are legitimate and “moral” — and that since gays could not “legally” marry, they were therefore living in sin. Catch 22, huh?
Your comment is right on: ” People who would be married under such an arrangement ( a non-state recognized marriage) would have every opportunity to demonstrate to anyone/everyone, by their commitments first to God, and then to each other, the real sanctity of marriage. The state’s sanctioning of such would matter little to me one way or the other.”
That’s what makes marriage holy — and the fact that we are both men does not “cheapen” the institution. Lack of love and fidelity cheapens it. As a Christian gay man, I would apply this very same principle to my commitment to my partner — “first to God, and then to each other” — whether or not the state (or church dogma) defined it as legitimate. Love comes from God.
The rational that female equality does away with polygamy is loose. Since a person who grows up in a cultrue (of any kind) is likely to adopt it’s customs and religion. Society has a way a changing, flexing and relaxing rules over time. How exactly that course will wind it’s way through our times is anyone’s guess.
Give me an example of any culture/subculture that sanctions polygamy and regards women as equal to men. (Hint: most polyamorous people don’t want to get married at all)
1. The “interracial marriage” argument introduced by Wayne is a canard. There is a distinction–the distinction that makes the difference–between redefining the very nature of marriage, as this ruling does, and determining what members of society are eligible to receive the benefit of marriage (I probably could have worded that better). Of course, we were wrong to outlaw interracial marriage, to declare one-man/one-woman marriage to be inaccessible to those who would have chosen to engage in it across racial lines. It’s a different thing altogether to alter the fundamental nature of the institution.
Really? So who gets to decide exactly what counts as a “fundamental” alteration to the nature of marriage? Who decides that race isn’t fundamental while gender is? Cause there were a whooooooolllle lotta people at the time of the Loving decision who would have said race was fundamental. I’m trying to see how your use of the word “fundamental” differs from “my completely arbitrary preferences,” and honestly I can’t.
You’d agree with my argument, though, that if I decided that I no longer wanted government recognition of my marriage–the equivalent I meant to draw to quitting a church–that my desire ought to be accommodated, without having to go through the rigmarole of divorce? Just stands to reason, don’t you think?
Um, no, cause see, if you decide to take steps to create a legal bond, then you’re going to have to take steps to dissolve that bond if you decide to. Just stands to reason, don’t you see?
Now if, as you seem to be implying, your main attraction to the concept of marriage has been to feel superior to gay people, then by all means get a divorce, because you don’t really seem to have the proper respect for the institution.
Boo,
The rational that female equality does away with polygamy is loose. Since a person who grows up in a cultrue (of any kind) is likely to adopt it’s customs and religion. Society has a way a changing, flexing and relaxing rules over time. How exactly that course will wind it’s way through our times is anyone’s guess.
Warren- the polygamy thing is ridiculous. Ask yourself two questions:
1. Is there a legitimate legal argument to be made against polygamy on its own merits?
2. If you literally can’t think of any legal arguments to be made against polygamy on the basis of polygamy, should we have laws in place that do not reflect sound legal reasoning?
In other words, if one buys the slippery slope argument, one is effectively conceding that one has no legitimate argument against polygamy as polygamy, and hence has no legal ground to stand on opposing it.
In any case, worst case scenario, polygamy gets legalized. Who’s going to want it? Fundamentalist Mormons (and not all of them will, since many support their kids through welfare fraud) and maybe some first generation Arab Americans, and that’s probably it (and the children of that first generation won’t when they grow up). Female equality essentially does away with demand for polygamy.
Nick R
The tradition of purely monogamous marriage in Western culture goes back at least, oh, 2,500 years to Ancient Greece, predating American tradition for a couple of millenia. (I’d suggest you read Jane Eyre and Medea as partial explanations of that phenomenon). The practice of monogamous marriage (ignoring the collection of concubines by kings/the extremely wealthy) in East-Asian society dates back pretty far too. Coincidentally (or not) the cultures most likely to be extremely sexist and dangerous for women to live in happen to also be the cultures in which polygamy is traditional.
You might also want to read the Old Testament as a collection of case studies of really nasty polygamous and bigamous marriages. They illustrate really well the problems that polygamous marriages face, mainly jealousy (leading often to hatred between the wives), the husband showing favoritism towards one wife or another, nasty competitions between wives (for children, for bed-rights on a given night), and often hatred and competition between the children of the different wives. Emotional fulfillment seems to be imediately handicapped by the sheer fact that the husband cannot devote as much time to each wife (when the prince sweeps the princess off her feet he doesn’t usually take her home to a castle full of other girls). Not to mention the devaluing of women that comes with the territory, and the competition that develops between polygamous men in modern society. Because they aren’t being killed off in greater numbers than women anymore there isn’t a surplus of women available to provide each man with multiple wives. Therefore in modern polygamous societies we see young men thrown out of the societies on silly pretexts (completely cut off from their families in the process), as with the ‘lost boys’ of the FLDS.
If you want to see a bad polygamous marriage, you can read the story of Jacob, Leah (and Zilpah), and Rachel (and Bilhah). It becomes one nasty piece of work, really fast, and the two girls’ father, Laban, set them up for it. Abraham and Sarah were in a ‘traditional marriage,’ but Sarah gave her husband Hagar, and if you want to believe the Bible we can trace the Israel-Palestine issues back to that. David’s and Solomon’s problems with multiple wives, specifically in regard to their sons, is pretty instructive too.
As far as monogamous marriages, Adam and Eve (who provide a large part of the basis for the Christian conception of marriage), Ruth and Boaz, the Lover and Beloved of Song of Songs, Joseph and Mary, Elizabeth and Zacharias. Hosea and Gomer, who are extremely important allegorically. And in a way the Proverbs 31 woman. Those are a few good examples where a part of the marriage is actually known through the text.
Upon reflection, it appears to me that every polygamist marriage I have ever heard of has always been heterosexual. As such, the best way to prevent polygamist marriages from ever happening is to pass a constitutional amendment banning heterosexual marriage. Then, we won’t have to worry about the polygamy problem. But, then again, enacting constitutional amendments to prevent people from having rights is so … unChristian, don’t you think?
Actually, Michael, I agree with some of what you say, but first, let me say this: I took this thread down a bit of a rabbit trail and didn’t answer some (likely weightier) things; sorry. I’ll make this my final post on this point, and if you’d like to respond, that’s great; I’ll just leave it. Big point of agreement with you: what the two of us meant, not by “signing a paper”, per se, but by the commitments we made to each other, has not changed one iota. What we meant has not changed, and would not, of course, paper or no.
Now, to the question of “what should a pastor do”, etc., I would answer thusly: a pastor ought to have a prophetic voice at times, calling by his words/deeds the government to account for its misdeeds. Perhaps we could agree that one of the problems of the “Religious Right” (whatever that is) is that the RR “baptized” Republicanism, overlooked its flaws, and accented the flaws of the Democrats, etc. To not criticize George W. Bush at points when he ought to have been, but at the same time to holler loudly at Bill Clinton, is a dereliction of duty on the part of pastors. Now, I concede that my version of protesting such rulings might strike many as odd; fair enough. But one man’s “pouty” may be another man’s attempt at political protest. Sure, I’m ticked at it, but don’t some of the more famous leaders of protest movements begin with frustration/anger at the status quo? Not that I intend or expect to lead some mass movement; just to suggest that political protest, such as I am talking about, has long been an American way of doing things.
Finally, to answer your question:
Why would you encourage your parishioners to live together outside of a legally recognized marriage? Isn’t shacking up a sin? Why not encourage them to stay legally married and show us gays what true marriage is all about?
I would say this: marriage is first and foremost ordained of God, not ordered by the state. If having a marriage not licensed by the state constitutes “shacking up”, i.e., “sin”, then prior to the government’s intervention into the matter of licensing marriage (again, memory may be faulty by a tad, but I want to say late 19th-century), then by definition all marriages prior to that time were “shacking up”. My point would be that marriage in God’s eyes does not Biblically entail the state’s stamp of approval, that some form of the blessing of the church (or similar entity) is what is necessary, and that having that blessing would by definition not be “shacking up”. People who would be married under such an arrangement would have every opportunity to demonstrate to anyone/everyone, by their commitments first to God, and then to each other, the real sanctity of marriage. The state’s sanctioning of such would matter little to me one way or the other, and it’s only because, I think, we’ve never been faced with the changes of today that we’ve never had to think hard about these types of issues. My response may not sit well with many/most of my brethren; we each will answer to God for the decisions we make. But for me, this seems appropriate, to make clear to any and all that we bow first before God and then, under that, we yield to the state (and by the way, such yielding to the state is most often quite appropriate, according to the Bible itself. I sure don’t want to give the impression that I’m a believer in anarchy.). What I propose actually doesn’t involve defying the state (it’s not illegal to live together sans state sanction); it rather only involves, effectively, ignoring the state’s offer of official approval, and there’s a difference.
OK, my viewpoint’s both exhausting and exhausted; thanks for the back and forth, and have the last word, if you care to!
Warren, I’m curious, what are your objections to polygamy? It’s certainly biblical. Only leaders are barred from polygamous marriages in the New Testament. Based on what you are saying, it appears that there is really, truly any legitimate reason to ban polygamy in the first place. Seriously, I’m curious to know what people’s objections to polygamy are, other than American tradition. Personally, I think we oppose it because the societies that have polygamy generally give women no rights whatsoever and because people enter into polygamous marriages for reasons other than love and fidelity (not that those are inherent to marriage to begin with).
But at the same time, I’m still waiting to hear an honest argument against same-sex marriage, especially one that has no slippery slope in it (given that slippery slope arguments are not valid to begin with).
Divorce has deprived many children of a parent. Not to say abandonment.
Why does everyone always bring up this argument? Gays will at least provide a stable home that is legitimized by the state now. BTW, in case someone who is against gay marriages didn’t know – gays are raising children as we speak.
I would feel sorry for her — if you thought so little of that “piece of paper” that the two of you signed that you would throw a little tantrum and tear it up. Is that what a pastor would do? Is it what a mature man would do? What the two of you meant by entering into that contract has not and should not change. That’s what really matters. That contract has not changed.
That gays can marry doesn’t (or shouldn’t) change YOUR marriage in any way. By threatening to tear it up or turn it back in, you begin sound more like a pouty kid than a man who takes his legal/personal agreements seriously.
Why would you encourage your parishioners to live together outside of a legally recognized marriage? Isn’t shacking up a sin? Why not encourage them to stay legally married and show us gays what true marriage is all about?
Michael,
Why would you feel sorry for my wife? I wouldn’t treat her any differently if I tore up a certificate, or turned it back in; wouldn’t change a thing.
Timothy,
I most certainly would not counsel my parishioners to avoid marriage; I’d encourage it as much as I currently do. What I’d counsel them to do is to not worry about state approval.
And I understand your analogy between the folks in 1947 and today; I just think that the issue is far more fundamental.
Marty,
Your ignorance is showing. In California they already had the state seal of approval.
And opening marriage to same sex couples had exactly zero impact on sexual fulfillment. That occured under domestic partnerships.
Byron,
I don’t give a flying flip if you stay in your marriage. That’s up to you. And if you counsel your Georgia parishoners to avoid marriage, well that’s between you, God, and the people who turn to you for guidance.
But, no. I do not think that the relationship between a single heterosexual married couple and the state of California has changed in any way whatsoever. No Californians went into marriage predicated upon whomelse was excluded from it.
I will say this for the racists in 1947. At least none of them pretended that they would boycott marriage because mixed-race couples could now marry. Nor did they seek to change the constitution to exclude mixed-race couples after the courts found the ban unconstitutional. And that was when the people opposed mixed-race marriage by over 90 percent.
How very sad and ironic that racist bigots in 1947 were less reactionary than anti-gays today.
Byron, you said: “Were I a resident of the state with a marriage license, I’d turn it in and ask my “marriage” to be de-recognized by the state.”
If this is true, I feel very sorry for your wife.
Timothy — thus encouraging more ss couples to deliberately deprive a child of his mother or father. Because now it has the state seal of approval.
And no, I don’t expect you to care about the kid and his right/need for a mother and a father, versus his mom or dad’s need for sexual fulfilment.
Byron: You said: “It means what it means; it ought to mean what it means.” Dont’ you really mean that it should mean who YOU want it to mean?
Legally, it means what the law says it means. Personally, it means what you and your spouse demonstrate that it means — by the love you show each other and your kids.
And regarding what to tell children, tell them what it means to you. Just like you would tell them what God means to you. Tell them that other people have different feelings and beliefs. You might actually raise kids who are tolerant of the differences they will encounter growing up. It’s a teaching moment. YOU tell them what it means — not me and not the state.
Timothy,
You’d agree with my argument, though, that if I decided that I no longer wanted government recognition of my marriage–the equivalent I meant to draw to quitting a church–that my desire ought to be accommodated, without having to go through the rigmarole of divorce? Just stands to reason, don’t you think? Because my counsel to couples in Georgia who seek my assistance in marriage will be, should “gay marriage” become the law of the land, that I could care less whether they get government approval, that I won’t sign any marriage licenses anymore. We could at least agree on that, right, that people ought not be forced to remain in situations that violate their consciences? I’ll answer the other stuff later; my hands are tired of typing.
Marty
In California gay individuals and couples could already adopt on an equal basis with heterosexuals. The only impact this decision will have on children is whether those raised by gay couples will say, “my parents are married” or “my parents are domestic partners”.
How about this weakness: you can join or quit whatever religion you like. But you can’t join a different government. We all share that one, and in California we share it equally.
So quit your church and join one that believes gay people shouldn’t marry, or that women should be submissive, or that slaves should obey their masters, or that the world is flat and has four corners. But you don’t get to restrict the government only to those who agree with you.
Byron: This ruling in no way prevents you from conducting your marriage according to “definition you signed up for”. For you, it’s still one man/one woman. And by the way, “one man/one woman” is about all the old “definition” meant. It didn’t define the relationship as loving. Many aren’t. It didn’t define the relationship as Christ-centered. Many aren’t.
It didn’t even define the relationship as monogamous or faithful. That “one man and one woman” definition tells us nothing but the genders of the people involved. It does not necessarily mean staying together “til death do us part” — most don’t. Some “one man/one woman” marriages involve swinging with other couples. Many involve cheating. Some are for show. Some are strictly financial arrangements. Some are sexless. Some are abusive and cruel.
“Marriage” is defined by the couple, not the state — by the vows they make and by the qualiity of the love they share. Once again, if marriage has been “cheapened” it is entirely the fault of the straights who have steadily cheapened it over the years. Quit laying that blame on gay people.
Byron
No, Byron. That simply isn’t true.
Sure a gay man can find a woman, stand before an altar, throw a party, get a toaster, and set up house. He can even call himself married.
But that marriage is legal ONLY until it faces the first challenge. Neither society or the law automatically recognizes marriages between gays and straights.
Challenges by the IRS, the ICE, the spouse, family, distant cousins, or the local 24 Hour Fitness can be upheld by simply pointing out that the man is gay.
Take, for example, Dina Matos McGreevey. She’s suing Jim McGreevey for fraud… because he’s gay. And that’s just a disgruntled ex-spouse.
If a gay man inherits from a spouse, her family immediately challenges the will. And they have a good chance of winning.
Take a marriage that involves an immigrant. That can land you in jail.
Or suppose that the wife is called to testify against him in court. The prosecution would immediately argue the illegitimacy of the marriage because he’s gay.
Even the Catholic Church will annull a marriage if one party is gay.
The truth is Byron, heterosexual men can marry just about any woman they like. Gay people can legally marry NO ONE.
Are you relying on sound bite or are you completely ignorant of history?
For the overwhelming preponderance of history polygamy was the accepted role. Marriage was defined as one man and as many women as he could afford.
For much of the rest, the man and woman did not “commit to each other” but rather were assigned marriage and the woman became his property.
The notion of marriage between two equal parties, one man one woman, is very very recent.
For heavens sake, pastor, pick up your Bible.
I have a challenge for you. Find me three Bible heroes who had what you consider to be a traditional marriage.
Frankly, sir, I don’t believe you.
We Californians don’t see the world – or marriage – ending if a gay couple marries. There will be exactly zero heterosexuals that turn in their marriage license over this. Perhaps it’s different where you live.
An analogy just occurred to me; hope it holds. I’m a Christian, and I voluntarily associate with a church. That church defines Christian faith in a certain way, defines membership in a certain way, and I agree to both the definitions and the terms. For years, I invest my life into that. One year, a new pastor is hired, and he begins to change the definitions in ways that are egregiously wrong , according to the understandings by which I affiliated with the church in the first place, in order to make a “bigger tent”, because it isn’t “fair” to leave out people who aren’t in line with the previous beliefs (by the way, this happens all the time in churches; it’s why Wayne could produce a laundry list of “Christian” churches that supported this decision). Am I wrong to protest the shifting of the lines? Am I wrong to be emotionally invested in preserving what I signed up for? Further, absent effective redress, am I not entitled to say, “I can’t abide by those definitions; I will remove myself from membership, because the lines have shifted in ways I cannot abide”?
Maybe that analogy has a weakness or two, but none are readily apparent to me.
Warren,
First, the article you linked to about Schwarzenegger is factually incorrect. The Governator has never attempted to ban gay marriage. He’s vetoed legislation twice based on his decision to wait for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of Prop 22. Now that they have, he will enforce the law and oppose efforts to change the constitution.
You err in thinking of marriage from a religious perspective. The courts do not address religion, they address law.
Legally, it is a very simply matter to allow the laws to apply irregardless of sex. In fact, it simplifies things.
At a time when men and women were inequal under law, this would have been a legal nightmare. Who would promise to obey whom? Who could make legal contractual decisions?
But now that CA law disallows any preference based on sex within the marriage contract, there is zero impact on legal decisions, case law, legislated law, application by administrators or really anything other than changing some forms.
But to change the number of parties greatly impacts the legal arrangement that we call marriage.
Is it possible to have multiple parties to the civil (legal) side of marriage? Sure. Business partnerships have multiple partners all the time.
But the legal complexity makes it a different animal than that which is currently marriage, or civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or common law arrangements. Two people is an equal situation (under law). Three or more people allows for out-voting or inequal power.
Should courts some day allow this, it will not be a simple change. We would not only have legal difficulties, we would be creating a whole new legal animal. This new arrangement would not have two persons who could bring an equal claim before the courts, but rather an entity which would require contractual arrrangements, voting power, and equity agreements.
From a conservative religious perspective, allowing gay marriage is a HUGE change, and not just for “sin” reasons. Men and women are not equal in marriage from a conservative religious perspective and thus issue of gender roles come into play.
Who is the head of the family? Who is to be submissive?
Those religions that believe men and women are equal tend to have less issue with gay marriage. And legally, it’s purely academic as to whether a man marries a man or a woman.
But if you stop thinking as a conservative Christian and see it from a legal perspective, you’ll see that these two are not related, much less a logical leap.
Finally, I do not believe that your objection to this ruling is based in your disapproval of polygamy. It is hardly fair to hide your real objections by discussing polygamy.
If you hesitate to publicly champion marriage exclusion because of your objection to gay couples marrying, perhaps a better response than changing the subject would be changing your mind.
Sorry, Michael, but that’s where we disagree. It’s not, per se, what you call your relationship with another person (i.e., it isn’t about semantics) or what I call mine, but what the radical redefinition of marriage does to the institution of marriage itself. No argument, as I said before, that some heterosexuals have screwed marriage up royally, but that’s not germane. What’s germane is that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman committed to each other “til death do (them) part”. Sure, a lot of folks lie about it, and break their vows, but that doesn’t change the basic definition. That’s the definition I signed up for. Now, in California, that’s been radically changed. Radically redefining marriage cheapens it, makes it something other than it has historically been. It’s not, per se, you doing anything, but the very institution itself has now taken on a radically-different meaning. If the rules of the game change–as they have in Massachusetts and now, California, then I’m not obligated to play the game anymore. As Warren has said, despite the convoluted rationale/assurances of the court’s ruling that this need not lead to polygamy, there’s absolutely no rationale stopping point; now that gender is disregarded, why should number not be as well? And so marriage is well on its way to becoming a “fill in the blank according to your own preferences” proposition. That is what demeans my marriage.
And though its another issue, I resent those rules being changed in direct contradiction to the will of the voters of the state of California (and if Reagan appointed the head clown, then we’ll add that to his list of mistakes). Everybody in California is a little less free today.
David,
It is also important to note that this court is considered to be “cautiously conservative”. In fact six of the seven judges are Republicans and were appointed by Republican governors.
Chief Justice George, the author of the opinion, received his first judicial appointment from Gov. Rondal Reagan.
And excuse me, but this sounds downright pouty to me: “Because what California and Massachusetts now call “marriage” is something I don’t recognize, and which I have no interest in being party to.” Come on.
This ruling doesn’t change straight marriage or limit free speech. You haven’t been stripped of any rights. Just take care of what you call marriage. What I call my relationship with my life partner in no way impacts how you take care of your own.
This is plain ridiculous: “That’s how I’m harmed, not by two people living together in whatever arrangement they decide, but by calling any/all such things “marriage”.
How does my language hurt you? How does “callling” myself “married” hurt you in anyway? What is it called in other languages? It may annoy you, but If it truly does hurt you, I submit that you should get tougher skin.
And if it is true that “marriage is well on its way to becoming an institution devoid of meaning” — I submit that that is entirely the fault of the heterosexuals who seem to take it so lightly.
Ken,
A few posts back, you wrote,
However, only certain men in CA could marry the person whom they loved and wanted to create a family with. it is this inequity that the CA supreme court found to be unjust.
This is not an inequity. Just because I don’t like, or choose to exercise, a given right, doesn’t mean I don’t have that right, and hold the right equally with others. I have the perfect right to be a skydiver, as to avocation, or a high-rise window cleaner, as to vocation. The simple fact that those rights are useless to me (as a guy who avoids heights) does not diminish the fact that I have them; disuse or lack of appreciation do not negate the rights. Neither does the fact that I don’t like or use those rights entitle me to seek different rights that are more agreeable to me…well, I guess I can seek them, but it doesn’t follow that the court system is thereby obligated to grant them to me. I could argue, for instance, that an “approximate thrill” to skydiving is taking ecstasy, and thus because I don’t care for the right to skydiving, I am entitled to the creation of an equally-satisfying right. And the courts should laugh at me. But the point is that the rights of homosexuals were exactly equal to those of heterosexuals; they just didn’t feel that way, and so to produce that feeling (maybe a bad word; don’t get hung up on it, but understand the concept), the courts decided to radically redefine marriage.
Ken also wrote,
Additionally, polygamous marriages would “alter the substantive nature of the legal institution of marriage” in many ways that same gender marriages would not. Therein lies the rub; I completely disagree with that notion. Totally. I can make a reasoned argument that polygamy alters marriage less than does “gay marriage”. Further, polygamy has a longer historical track record than does “gay marriage”.
No, Michael, while you’re certainly right that those problems you list are real, to impute nefarious motives to opponents of “gay marriage” harms your otherwise reasonable argumentation. I assure you, my opposition has nothing whatever to do with the many cultural problems surrounding the family, except perhaps the desire not to add another to the list.
Finally, I’ll be happy to tackle Michael’s challenge:
I am talking about this nonsense from FOTF and other organizations that gays pose some sort of “threat” to straight marriage. What on earth on THEY talking about? How does my living with my partner threaten them?
Here’s the answer(s):
1. Living with your partner doesn’t threaten me at all. I’ve long believed that people ought to be able to choose whatever sexual living arrangements they like. I’ll preach against certain choices, hetero- and homo-sexual (I preach against the former more than I do the latter, incidentally), but I think that the state has no business regulating such. Further, I believe that whoever you want by your bedside in the hospital, whoever you want to leave your money to, etc., is your business, and not that of the state’s. Whatever laws need to be enacted to make those things happen, count me as an ally.
2. What that doesn’t mean, though, is that you ought to be able to call anything you choose “marriage”, in this case two people of the same sex, but in other cases other arrangements, as will surely come. The reason that radically redefining marriage–which as we’ve said, is what this is–harms me, is that marriage is well on its way to becoming an institution devoid of meaning. It means what it means; it ought to mean what it means. It’s not something we can just tinker with and play with according to our societal whims. Saying “I’m married” now no longer means, in California and Massachusetts and, I fear, soon in America, what it once did. It’s a game I don’t want to play. Can I get out? Will I be able to renounce state recognition of my marriage on the basis that the rules have changed, that I didn’t sign up for this (without going through divorce proceedings)? Seems like I should be able to, right? Because what California and Massachusetts now call “marriage” is something I don’t recognize, and which I have no interest in being party to.
That’s how I’m harmed, not by two people living together in whatever arrangement they decide, but by calling any/all such things “marriage”.
Further, this muddies the water significantly for parents who want to instruct their children as to what marriage really means. Yes, I can carefully instruct them that, no matter what California and Massachusetts say (and eventually, America), marriage is between one man and one woman–and I will, of course–and I can instruct them that way.
Beyond that, we already are seeing in Canada the squelching of free speech in the name of political correctness. How long will it be before having a principled, Christian opposition to “gay marriage” will be called “bigotry”–check that, it’s happening in many quarters already–and then, how long after that before it becomes criminal to voice such opposition? I hope I’m wrong about that, but watching what’s happening in Canada gives me little reason for optimism.
You may not buy it, but that’s the answer.
Michael,
1. I think it’s already been proven that when people make a mockery of Marriage (think Britney, Liz Taylor, etc), the institution suffers. A great many people think “husband & husband” is just plain silly. I personally think “Daddy & Daddy (no mommy)” is cruel and unusual.
2. Sure, some countries do it different than we do — you didn’t answer the question: how we we get from here to there? Legislatively, obviously — but HOW? Who is going to stand up and be “anti-marriage”? I don’t think it has even a remote possibility of happening in this country. At least not until more damage (see #1 above) is done.
Marty: I am talking about this nonsense from FOTF and other organizations that gays pose some sort of “threat” to straight marriage. What on earth on THEY talking about? How does my living with my partner threaten them?
And as for “how exactly would we go about doing that? — if I am not mistaken, some countries make it a simple, civil contract. You go to the courthouse, fill out a form, pay a fee and register your relationship. Then, if you want to throw a “marriage” with church, flowers, ugly birdesmaids dresses and photos — knock yourself out.
Michael, Focus on the Family (among many many other organizations) has always fought against teen pregnancy, unmarried cohabitation, and casual divorce. What on earth are you talking about?
As for getting the government out of the marriage business, as many have suggested, I’ll ask it here as I’ve asked elsewhere:
How exactly would we go about doing that?
I can’t think of a single politician who could survive taking a blatantly “anti-marriage” stand. So how could we get from here to there?
Seems to me that opponents of gay marriage are just trying to deflect attention from the real problem — teen pregnancy. kids out of wedlock, a tremendously high failure rate for straight marriage, serial step-families, spousal and child abuse, shack-ups, the sexualizing of children, dragging kids through one marriage or relationship after another, infidelity, poor parenting, chasing material things, the big house, the big car, etc.
That’s why they keep talking about this as a “threat” to marriage — when the real problem is right under their nose. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw In Colorado Springs” “Focus On Your Own Damn Family”.
This decision will mean that more children, not fewer, will grow up without either a mother or a father, according to the bias of their remaining natural parent.
Tragic that nobody seems to care.
Warren,
I agree with you. when the ruling (if the ruling) gets tested by polygamists etc… it won’t hold up.
Byron,
I recieve a few christian magazines online and at home. One of them is about marriage. Still seems we need to focus on the problems in our relationship styles and marriages more. The article are interesting but I have read few that take seriously the rate of divorce within christian chirches. Now type in any search bar on the online magazines the word homosexual and you will get page after page of political arguments – not teaching, not helping, not helping those in marriages etc…. So – no it is not just the headliners about whom I am speaking.
Warren said in post 101181:
Ken – I do not see the misquote – I cut and pasted from the decision.
and you missed the entire 1st line of the footnote on p. 80
“,and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state”
which is what makes your cite confusing and misleading.
Polyamourists might easily make the case that they are attracted to more than one person and why should the state deny them marriage
Polygamists might make their case, and nothing in this ruling prevents them from trying, however, the issues aren’t even close to being the same. And this ruling doesn’t apply to the polygamists, that is all the justices were saying.
I am not necessarily suggesting a slippery slope reason against the ruling,
Yes you are, your whole argument here is based off a footnote, that is there to clearly counter the slippery slope argument. In a 121 page decision, you simply focused on 1 small footnote, not the substantive portion of the majority opinion.
I am just trying to understand why the binary nature of marriage would be considered untouchable when the gendered nature of marriage is not now a part of what marriage is.
Who said the binary nature is “untouchable” ?
It seems to me Warren that you disagree with this ruling, but can’t actually come up with any counter arguments to the majority opinion. So instead you are trying to argue about a completely different and unrelated issue.
Do you seriously want to say that you can’t think of any significant problems that polygamous civil marriages would cause?
Many people don’t realize that the involvement of the state in marriage is of recent vintage; if memory serves, it was late 19th- or even early 20th-century when states began sanctioning/regulating it. I’m inclined to agree with you, Michael, that perhaps this is the best way to go.
Truth be told, I really don’t see why the state should define or be involved in any “marriage” anyway. Couples who want to should be able to form legal contracts (civil unions) with each other and call it whatever they want. To me, “marriage” is an exchange of promises “before God and these witnesses” — a sacred thing, a personal convenant that the state should stay out of. If two consenting adults decide to live together in peace, why is it any business of the state?
Our capacity to rationalize, justify, minimize and distort is nearly endless. Formidable intellects are put to that use, so intelligence does not inoculate anyone. It has been humbling in recent months to see how I can eagerly wrap my intellect around my preferences.
Psychology has taught me a lot, but I am not sure it is devoted to the improvement of my character.
Ken – I do not see the misquote – I cut and pasted from the decision.
“Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture…” sounds like an appeal to tradition and cultural understanding to me.
I understand that the appeal to “a suspect class” is new here but as I read it, the case finessed this a bit by indicating that religion is not immutable and yet religion is entitled to a strict scrutiny standard in cases involving religion. Many polygamists view their practices as a religious tenet. Polyamourists might easily make the case that they are attracted to more than one person and why should the state deny them marriage?
I am not necessarily suggesting a slippery slope reason against the ruling, I am just trying to understand why the binary nature of marriage would be considered untouchable when the gendered nature of marriage is not now a part of what marriage is.
This does not need to be debated contentiously. Nothing we do here will change the ruling. The voters of CA will probably have a say anyway in a few months and eventually I suspect the US Supremes will have a go at this. I am simply discussing the tests application of the law here.
Warren asked in post 101092:
Could someone read this and the rest of the opinion and help me understand what will keep a polygamist’s challenge from being successful, if it can be proven that polygamy does not have a “potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment”?
Because the desire to be a polygamist has not been determined to be a “suspect class” (this decision did rule that sexual orientation is) thus you cannot claim that strict scrutiny would apply to the polygamous case. Additionally, polygamous marriages would “alter the substantive nature of the legal institution of marriage” in many ways that same gender marriages would not. In general you are comparing apples to oranges, and the court is simply pointing that out (note the quote – which you misquoted – was a footnote to this affect).
So whether you agree with the decision or not, can someone explain to me how the logic of this decision forbids a revisitation of this result for polygamous/polyamourous marriages?
The ruling does not “forbid” re-visitation of past cases, it says the rulings of those cases are not effected by this decision because they are significantly different issues. And you are wrong when you claim the court is “appealing to tradition” in claiming polygamy laws should not be changed. The court clearly states:
It didn’t claim that those rulings upholding bans on polygamy and incest were based on tradition. It said
(footnote on page 80 of the decision which you misquoted).
Several thoughts:
1. The “interracial marriage” argument introduced by Wayne is a canard. There is a distinction–the distinction that makes the difference–between redefining the very nature of marriage, as this ruling does, and determining what members of society are eligible to receive the benefit of marriage (I probably could have worded that better). Of course, we were wrong to outlaw interracial marriage, to declare one-man/one-woman marriage to be inaccessible to those who would have chosen to engage in it across racial lines. It’s a different thing altogether to alter the fundamental nature of the institution.
2. It of course is judicial activism to nullify the results of a legal referendum voted upon by the people of California, but a further problem with Chuck’s reasoning, it seems to me, is that he extends rights to “couples”, instead of to individuals. But if Jayhuck’s words are right, then ought we not outlaw referendums altogether? That’s a rabbit trail, but a fair question, seems to me.
3. Mary, your “we’ve really screwed marriage up” argument might be true enough, but it isn’t germane to the argument, it seems to me. Further, I think that if you believe that the majority of pastors aren’t doing much in America to “repair things”, it’s because the types of things that they are doing in that regard don’t make headlines, whereas some idiot with a bullhorn will. Looking beneath the surface of what the drive-by media chooses to report will reveal, I believe, a different story. If I’ve even said the word “homosexual” from my pulpit more than 3-4 times (in passing references, likely) in the year-and-a-half I’ve pastored my current church, I’d be surprised. What I am doing, right now, is teaching through a series in which one of my stated goals for our church is “zero divorces, ever”, and I’m arming people with Scriptural principles to do just that. It happens all the time, all over the place; probably then not nearly as much as it ought to, sure, but the point is that Freddie Phelps and his gang of idiots makes headlines, or Pat Robertson making a monkey of himself, but the thousands of pastors and churches who try to deal with marriage relationships don’t tend to make Brian Williams.
4. David is dead-right; we can expect polygamy and group marriage, coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Doesn’t “Big Love” pave the way for societal reconditioning of attitudes? Now of course I think that’s a bad thing, that we aren’t far from “fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-definition ‘marriage'”, because the floodgates will soon open to this, and Warren’s observation about the court’s decision is trenchant: the “reasoning” is pathetic, to ground the decision on “our nation’s culture” is to place the foundation of the argument against polygamy and group marriage (and, probably, incest as well–sorry, Mary, but your disapproval of that won’t matter much in a few years) in quicksand. Granted, some will see this as a “good”; I see it as a tragedy that now seems unavoidable. And of course one can see these expansions of the suddenly-elastic definition of marriage wreaking havoc with, say, employers who choose to extend benefits to “married…people”. If I were a California employer…well, I’d move, but with this ruling, I’d advise my employees that all marriage benefits would be suspended within a reasonable period of time (and that I’d increase their paychecks to the degree I saved money with this move). Won’t all employers be faced with that decision once polygamy takes hold? Just a question for serious thought…
Byron: “At that point–indeed, already–”marriage” in California isn’t worth the paper the marriage licenses are printed on,”
Yeah? And whose fault is that? You can’t blame the dismal failure of most marriages on gay people. Straights managed to screw that up all by themselves.
And you are mistaken when you say: “Now, homosexual Californians have been given the right to redefine marriage according to their whims.” No. it is still defined by law. It wasn’t a “whim” — it was our system of government at work — a legal, consitutional decision. You’re just sore that your side lost.
Chuck,
Good point. Majority rule can be very discriminatory, but it is the job of judges to be able to rise above that.
It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
good post.
It is important to note that conservatives seeking to use elections to place republicans in office who will nominate judges to interpret the law, rather than legislate, is clearly a failure.
Secondly, “Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.”
There is no scientific proof to support the notion that polygamous relationships are inherently detrimental to a sound family environment. There may be ways that some incestuous relationships actually turn out to be scientifically helpful to a sound family environment.
Our world is a diverse world and there is more genetic and cultural and historical support for polygamy than monogamy. As immigrants from these diverse cultures and rich history arrive in America our legal system must adjust to not impose our puritanical moral values on others.
I just want to know – who’s moving to California or back to California because of this? Oh boy – there goes the real estate values – no one but gays, dinks, and the very rich will be able to offord living in the Golden State.
Could someone read this and the rest of the opinion and help me understand what will keep a polygamist’s challenge from being successful, if it can be proven that polygamy does not have a “potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment”?
Well, Warren, you could use the same illogic to roll back interracial marriage. If we let people marry from different races, the polygamists/gays etc. will want to marry. Why don’t you just go with that – or is it no longer conservatively correct? The fact is, each case is decided on its own merits – and the slippery slope is utter nonsense. Warren, with all of your gay readers, why don’t you just pop a Champagne cork and be happy for us?
Just to clarify – that statment – it has led to gay marriages – was said in sarcasm. For the record, I support gay marriages and find nothing to oppose them.
Warren,
They won’t. Unfortunately with freedom comes some things we would not do oursleves but others would decide to. Unless, a two parent household starts to show dramatic changes soon – there will no argument against polygamy, incest etc… But in good conscience, I can’t say that gay people should not marry because of the slippery slope logic. If you really wanted to use that logic – then we ought to outlaw marriage altogether – as it has led to gay marriages.
From the CA same-sex marriage decision (pg 80):
Could someone read this and the rest of the opinion and help me understand what will keep a polygamist’s challenge from being successful, if it can be proven that polygamy does not have a “potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment”?
The decision rests on a view of the court that allows a setting aside of male-female tradition but then appeals to tradition to specify why polygamy may not be considered in the scope of this decision (“Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” – see above).
So whether you agree with the decision or not, can someone explain to me how the logic of this decision forbids a revisitation of this result for polygamous/polyamourous marriages? If it can be established that polygamous marriages are not injurious to “mutually supportive and healthy family relationships,” what will keep this court from a similar finding for polyamourous groups?
Byron said in post 101077:
yesterday, any man in California could marry any woman in California, because the definition of marriage was one-man, one-woman.
However, only certain men in CA could marry the person whom they loved and wanted to create a family with. it is this inequity that the CA supreme court found to be unjust. And yes it is a re-definition of marriage, just as previous courts redefined marriage from the “one-man one-woman of the same race” and “one white man one, and one white woman” definitions.
Byron,
I also have reservations about how the decision was made. I personally, support gay marriage but had hoped that it would be made possible through both voting and courts.
But – what does it matter to you that two men or two women marry. You’re not gay and I don’t expect you to understand that loving someone of your choosing and having the right to marry them is all they are asking for. Now – I draw the line at child marriage, forced marriage, incest etc… but again – these things will have to be discussed and worked out.
Marriage between a man and woman does not guarantee a better coupling for society. I can think of some pretty rotten parents, people who are married, etc… and they are straight. In my opinion they should not be allowed to marry or have children and yet – they are so. You see – the whole argument that gays will disrupt the fabric of society does not fly with this ex gay christian. Really – that fabric is torn and has been for a very long time by the abuses that have occurred within that “traditional” family structure. And honestly – I don’t see the christian leaders of this country making much of an effort to repair things. I read alot of ranting and raving about those “pesky gays” but that’s just displaced anger.
I’ve yet to find one argument that can be absolute about preventing gays from marriage and inheritance rights. It may not be for my way of living, or yours, but there are other fine people in this world who deserve to have an opportunity to know what marriage is like. It’s not right for you or I to deny that to anyone.
Actually, every single Californian lost freedom today, homosexual or no. Californians had voted down “gay marriage”, by an overwhelming margin, but the arrogant California Supreme Court, straying far beyond constitutional boundaries, denied the legitimate outcome of the vote, arrogated to itself power it doesn’t have, and abridged Californians’ rights. Having established this precedent, what’s to keep a different court from ruling that the referendum vote of Californians, say establishing certain protections for groups of people, can be abridged in favor of whatever utopian “good” the elitist potentates deem to be in vogue at that time? Freedom suffers again…
Well, according to Byron, we have now expanded our rights. If heterosexuals want to – they can now marry a person of their own gender. Yahooo!
As most advocates of “gay marriage” do, you sidestep the issue, Boo, and enter instead snarky comments. I’ll go slow on this: yesterday, any man in California could marry any woman in California, because the definition of marriage was one-man, one-woman. Now, homosexual Californians have been given the right to redefine marriage according to their whims. That’s why it’s never been about “equal rights”, but about the very definition of marriage itself.
Sure, you’re right in one sense: I now have the “right” to “marry a dude”; gee, thanks. But do I have the “right” that was granted to homosexuals, to collaborate with, say, my sister, three of her friends (two male and one female), and call it “marriage” (and then have the state recognize it)? By the “logic” of this ruling, apparently I do!
Wonder what would happen if someone moved to California and applied for a marriage license under such pretenses. Would the state Supreme Court have any rationale for denying it? Somebody want to tackle that question instead of just being rude?
Of course, I know I’ve just set myself up for more snarking…
Problem is, this ruling does not treat people equally. Every person already had equal rights under the law; every single American has the right to be married. This ruling is categorically not about equal rights. Rather, it grants to a certain group, in this case, homosexuals, the special right to redefine the institution of marriage according to their desires, and to have the state recognize that right.
Even if one grants your ridiculous premise about gay people having already had equal rights, this ruling still does treat people equally. You notice the right to same-sex marriage isn’t going to be restricted to gay people only. Str8s and bisexuals have the exact same right to do so as gay people.
Now go marry a dude to celebrate your equality.
Problem is, this ruling does not treat people equally. Every person already had equal rights under the law; every single American has the right to be married. This ruling is categorically not about equal rights. Rather, it grants to a certain group, in this case, homosexuals, the special right to redefine the institution of marriage according to their desires, and to have the state recognize that right. There is nothing in the logic of this ruling to prevent, in theory, polygamists, group marriage advocates, and the like to argue that their particular arrangements are special and ought to be accorded equal legal status. At that point–indeed, already–“marriage” in California isn’t worth the paper the marriage licenses are printed on, and were I a resident of the state with a marriage license, I’d turn it in and ask my “marriage” to be de-recognized by the state.
But beyond that, this ruling takes away freedom from every single Californian, and the homosexuals who celebrate now do so without understanding that the same silly judicial ruling that today said, effectively, that the legal referendum decided (overwhelmingly) by California citizens a few years back, to not recognize “gay marriage”, could just as easily have the double-edged sword effect of having some other court, in time to come, rule that a non-discrimination law, say, passed by Californians in legal referendum was not binding. This was an exercise of breathtaking, raw judicial power, a breach of any sense of constitutional authority, a power-grab by four people who essentially said, “we stand above the will of the citizens of California”. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re not paying attention…
BTW I have a friend who is very Conservative and active in his church. He moved out of state about a year ago and we haven’t talked much since. I know without a doubt that his head is about to explode because of the CA ruling.
As an ex gay who is christian, I support this ruling. People are to be treated equally by the standard of our constitution.
Timothy Kincaid
You’re absolutely correct there are plenty of Christian groups that are supportive of gay rights. Plus there are a lot of gay Christians.
But my completely unscientific guess is that there are many more Christians on the right than on the left in regards to gay marriage.
One correction to your analysis, Drowssap. It was not Gay v. Christian.
Among those signing on in support of the lawsuit were:
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ
Lutherans Concerned / North America
More Light Presbyterians
New Ways Ministries
Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship
National Coalition of American Nuns
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
California Church IMPACT
California Council of Churches
Religious Society of Friends / Quaker Pacific Yearly Meeting
Progressive Christians Uniting
Reconciling Ministries Clergy of the United Methodist Church
All Saints Episcopal Church
All Saints Independant Catholic Parish
First Mennonite Church of San Francisco
First Christian Church of San Jose Disciples of Christ
Pacific School of Religion
St. Francis Lutheran Church
and many many more Christian churches (I tried to provide a broad sample)
In addition, hundred upon hundreds of pastors and ministers signed on in favor of this change – and I’m not including the Universal Unitarians, Jews, or other non-Christian religious leaders.
Ultimately it was an argument based on the morality of SOME Christians and in the long run that just isn’t very convincing in a court of law.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Web: http://www.TruthWinsOut.org
TWO Ecstatic Over Historic California Marriage Ruling
Ruling Undermines ‘Ex-Gay’ Propaganda And Lets Potential Recruits See The Truth About Same-Sex Relationships
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org expressed jubilation over the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. The momentous 4-3 ruling is one of the biggest victories in the GLBT equality movement’s history. It also undermines “ex-gay” propaganda that demeans gay relationships to recruit new members.
“We are thrilled to be a part of history and experience a monumental victory for marriage equality,” said Wayne Besen, TruthWinsOut.org’s Executive Director. “The court made a bold decision and confirmed that all relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal in California.”
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” the court said in a majority decision. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
The California court also said that the right to marry in the state’s constitution “guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship.”
“This ruling is a devastating blow to ‘ex-gay’ cults, because it undermines their propaganda, which claims that same-sex relationships don’t work,” said TWO’s Besen. “The images of happy couples marrying undercut their efforts to recruit vulnerable people.”
The ruling will take effect and marriages will begin in 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement that said he will “respect the court’s decision and will “uphold its ruling.” He also said that he “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
TruthWinsout.org is a non-profit organization that counters right wing propaganda, exposes the “ex-gay” myth and educates America about gay life. For more information, visit http://www.TruthWinsOut.org.
-30-
Michael Bussee
You miss my point.
Christians argued that homosexuality was immoral.
If gay groups had argued the opposite point that homosexuality was in fact moral they would have been whomped. Conservative Christians outnumber you guys 100 to 1.
But gay people didn’t do that. They chose to fight the battle on the basis of principles. They chose to argue that people should be treated equally under the law.
I’m not saying one is better than the other, I’m looking at this from the outside.
IMHO gay people picked up the sharper sword in this debate. It wasn’t a lot sharper and this resulted in the long, WW1 style trench warfare we’ve seen over the last few decades. But ultimately gay activists were victorious.
In my opinion now that gay people have legal standing they will begin to argue that homosexuality is moral. If Christians take the opposite tact that homosexuality is immoral they will ultimately lose again. There are plenty of weapons to chose from and they probably shouldn’t pick the one that lost this first battle. In any case get ready for another multi-decade debate.
Just because a man and woman are married doesn’t make it “moral” — and just because two people of the same gender are making state-recognized, personal and legal commitments to each other doesn’t make it “immoral”.
Morality has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with how people treat each other.
Today’s ruling was the result of a multi-decade battle that isn’t over yet.
Christians fought the gay rights movement on the basis of morals
The gay rights movement fought Christians on the basis of principles
In a long war that looked like WW1 style trench combat principles eventually beat morals