Synchronicity, of a Sort
Posted on June 5, 2006 Posted by John Scalzi 41 Comments
Today is the 25th anniversary of the identification of a mysterious syndrome attacking gay men, which would in time be called AIDS. President George Bush is marking the day by calling for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would bar same-sex marriage, despite the fact that there are currently thousands of U.S. citizens who are in legal same-sex marriages.
I am ashamed that the president of my country wants to use the Constitution of the United States to break up the lawful marriages of thousands of my co-citizens. But I’m not at all surprised at his timing. The depth of his contempt for the Constitution, and of his pandering to bigots, requires no less of him than this.
There are parallels, I think, between this George and another: George Wallace. The latter George famously stood in a schoolhouse door in 1963 to show he stood with those who believed in segregation now and forever. Later, when he was asked why he indulged in racist politics, Wallace said, “You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.” Yet in his later political career, Wallace recanted his racist views, reached out to those to whom he had earlier expressed hate, and worked to make amends. Was this recantation personal or merely political? It’s not for me to say, but even if it were the latter it was still the right thing to do.
By declaring his desire to take away rights that people already have, George Bush is standing in his own schoolhouse door, condoning bigotry to satisfy his own particular group of floor stompers. One may hope in the fullness of time he will do as Wallace did and attempt to make amends. I would be willing to forgive him, to the extent that he is doing me wrong by his position. But there are others whom he is wronging more, and from whom he will need forgiveness more.
I think the funding has been good; my understanding is that some of it, at least, comes with some strings attached (i.e., teaching abstinence, etc) which one may or may not see as useful. I’m not commenting on AIDS funding as much as the timing of his announcement for a renewed push against same-sex marriage. Here in the US, AIDS is/was a disease that disproportionately struck the gay community.
The scandal in AIDS funding is this – the Bushies have demanded that equal dollars be spent on each of the three strategies for combating AIDS in the third world: teaching abstinence, teaching monogamy and condom distribution. Basically, they’re spending twice as much money preaching morality as they are for condoms.
Not exactly what I would call a decent job…
Bush — as with many things — promises more than he ever intends to deliver. So it is with AIDS funding.
And yes, most of what funding actually happens comes with some strings that make things worse in the long run. Multiple studies in multiple contexts have shown that “abstinence-only” approaches results in more disease transmission (and more unwanted pregnancies).
I can’t see an elderly George W. Bush recanting his stance. Twenty years from now, he’ll still be standing in the schoolhouse door while all the kids inside are sending their kids to schools in the suburbs.
Daka: Nothing in the US Constitution bans polygamy, underage marriage or bestiality. What is it specifically about gay marriage that requires the federal government to get involved in restricting it?
Why, oh, why is the first response to the same-sex marriage always some sort of specious “slippery slope” argument that seeks to tie the notion of same-sex marriage to all sorts of things completely unrelated to it?
A reason why same-sex marriage ought to be legal (and is in the state of Massachusetts) is because laws which prevent same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of gender. That is, if we are to treat both genders equally, we can not arbitrarily decide that it is ok for a person to marry a member of one gender but not the other.
In order to invoke the “slippery slope” argument, one really should explain how this working out of existing anti sex discrimination law inevitably leads to any of the other scenarios that Daka has argued should also be legal. (My contention is that it does not. So there is no line to draw.)
If Daka truly feels that those other relationships ought also to be considered legal marriages, he will have to argue them separately from same sex marriage since the arguments in favor of same sex marriage do not apply to those other relationships.
Daka, I’ll make you a proposition: If you can tell me just ONE way that same-sex marriage harms my heterosexual marriage, and one that doesn’t involve quotations from ANY religious text, I’ll join you on your side of this debate.
Daka, I’ll make you a proposition: If you can tell me just ONE way that same-sex marriage harms my heterosexual marriage, and one that doesn’t involve quotations from ANY religious text, I’ll join you on your side of this debate.
The thing is, Bush hasn’t really been that enthusiastic about the gay marraige stuff. I don’t think he really cares. Plus, I’m sure he knows it’d never get passed anyway, even if he did care to make a real push for it.
Which in some ways is just as bad, since bringing it up like this is just blatant pandering to those who do care about such things. I would think those he’s trying to pander to would eventually realise that he’s not really going to do anything, and would stop letting themselves be pandered to, but…
I think polygamous marriage is just as valid as gay marriage — I don’t see a principle that would let you be for one and not the other. Personally, I’m “for” both of them — if all involved are consenting adults, do whatever you want. Frankly, I don’t think the government should be involved in any sort of marriage.
The bestiality thing is pretty stupid though.
I wrote about this too John. It pisses me off that this dim-witted ninny is trying to turn the Constitution into a dating manual by dictating who we should or should not be attracted to, and with whom we should or should not want to spend the rest of our lives.
Daka:
As for what “good” he’s trying to accomplish, I don’t see it. How can you consider it good to restrict the rights of honest, tax-paying American citizens based solely on the of what gender their parter is?
Moreover, your argument is a complete slippery slope in that you forget the fact that marriage requires legal consent, and unless your dog can sign its name, you’ll never get it.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Bush’s plan to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage is that any such amendment would contradict the already existing 14th Amendment. The case of Loving vs. Virginia eliminated the ban on inter-racial marriage, and though some may consider that irrelevant, I think if you look at it in terms of discrimination, you’ll see that it does, in fact, apply quite nicely.
Now, before you bring up pedophiles marrying children, let me tell you that pedophilia is a crime in which there is a minor victim unable to give legal consent.
Right now, the two major arguments against gay marriage are based upon either personal “ick” factor, or Religious principles. And the fallout from amending the Constitution based upon either of those reasons would be utterly devestating for this country in terms of 1st Amendment freedoms.
Finally, the best advice I can give you is to say that if you are against gay-marriage, then perhaps you shouldn’t marry someone of the same gender as yourself.
Sorry for the long rant, John.
John H
Nothing in the US Constitution bans polygamy, underage marriage or bestiality.
There is also no right to marriage in the Constitution.
JC
A reason why same-sex marriage ought to be legal (and is in the state of Massachusetts) is because laws which prevent same-sex marriage discriminate on the basis of gender. That is, if we are to treat both genders equally, we can not arbitrarily decide that it is ok for a person to marry a member of one gender but not the other.
That is a very suspect argument, though I agree it is the position the Mass Supreme Court took.
But there is, in reality, no “equal-protection” violation when banning same-sex marriage because “equal-protection” applies to individuals, not groups. As a result, no (fe)male can marry another (fe)male in states where this is banned.
Thankfully, the voters of Massachusetts voiced (voted) their approval of Gay Marriages partially relieving the Mass Supreme Court Justices of their awful twisting of the law to effect a desired outcome.
kevin r.
The thing is, Bush hasn’t really been that enthusiastic about the gay marraige stuff. I don’t think he really cares. Plus, I’m sure he knows it’d never get passed anyway, even if he did care to make a real push for it.
This is exactly right. Both the debate in the Senate and the “pep rally” Bush held today is political pandering, pure and simple. Republicans are starting early to make sure the Social Conservatives actually come out to vote.
Daka:
I’d like to know, why is gay marriage so easily interchangable with polygamy, bestiality, and pedophelia in your mind? Homosexuality changes the dynamic of marriage not one bit — it’s still a loving union between two people. Can’t you see how that differs from a union between four people, or one person and a horse? If you don’t, tell me, and I can draw out the differences for you cleanly and plainly.
Greg:
Unfortunately there are enough state legislatures that have said they would ratify such an amendment. But it has no chance in the Senate, so the point is moot.
CoolBlue:
You are correct, which proves my point: this is just another case of the federal government overstepping its Costitutional bounds.
John H
You are correct, which proves my point: this is just another case of the federal government overstepping its Costitutional bounds.
Well, it doesn’t prove your point unless I am the gold standard for correctness in all things political (in which case, disagreeing with me automatically makes you wrong [Hear that John?]).
But it does make us in agreement on this subject.
Which should probably scare the shit out of you.
I apologize for sounding like I was trying to get anybody on my side. I am not a writer and (as John has already said) it appears that all I have accomplished is to show that I fall in the category of people with their heads up their ass. I’m only trying to present some thoughts that bothered me.
I’m more worried its a long process that degrades over many generations rather then in the case of two years. I don’t think you will find evidence short term that it is hurting anybody. How long did it take people to find evidence that smoking was hurting anybody?
I’m only asking where does it stop (and I used bad analogies). Did you know that there is no evidence that first person shooters have anything to do with people killing other people? Although I heard the kids that shot up Columbine had the whole school mapped out in a first person shooter and practiced with it first? There have been lawsuits generated over similar cases. But some wonder if there is something we are missing with this thinking. Yes, in case you wonder I’ve played them, many, even helped develop them. But when we have to design the game to shoot an innocent unarmed person begging for mercy to get a max volience rating something with that bothers me. (yes you strive for that rating because they sell better)
Marriage is not always between two competent people. Marriages in some countries are arranged by the legal guardian (owner?) of the person getting married. There was even a 60 minutes show (I believe) that uncovered a group of people that were marring their kids off at crazy ages. So if there really is a clear definition on this so we can keep the nut cases from coming forward and giving concent for their pets to marry people that want them great or do you look the other way and say they aren’t hurting anybody so leave them alone? Is that the new standard? Or better yet if we can’t prove short term that it hurts anybody then its ok? I worried but that thought process wherever its used.
There are many things I dislike about Bush too. Killing the ability for small business to ban together to get health insurance, allowing large corporations to use pention money for capital equipment, killing stem cell research etc. But my list is much larger when it comes to the Kerry’s, Clinton’s, and Kennedy’s of the world.
There is good and bad everywhere, we all have to navigate through it best we can and hope we don’t make decisions that we look back on and regret (i.e. George Wallace). If do, oh well, *shrugs* fix it and go on right?
“Beyond Stupid” as they might have been. I don’t want to be a target for those more articulate then I that is for sure :(
Thank you for letting me post my thoughts though.
Daka:
“Marriage is not always between two competent people. Marriages in some countries are arranged by the legal guardian (owner?) of the person getting married.”
You’re going to have to back that up that assertion, Daka. Also, more to the point, you’re going to have to show that this has any relevance here in the United States. Unless you can show that any state in the Union allow any person to be married without their consent or allows people who are not judged competent to give their consent to get married, what they do elsewhere is not on point to what we do here.
“How long did it take people to find evidence that smoking was hurting anybody?”
Unless you’re seriously trying to suggest that same-sex marriage should be identified and treated as a disease, this is a ridiculous comparison, as marriage is a legal state, whereas smoking is a physical act. If you want to suggest that same-sex marriage is a disease, you’ll need to provide me some epidemiology to convince me. So far as I know, no marriage anywhere at any time has ever been considered a disease.
Clearly if you’re worried about the long-term side effects of same-sex marriage, the scientifically prudent thing to do is conduct a long-term study on its benefits and effects, which would require a study group, possibly, as you suggest, across several generations. Pushing for an Amendment to the Consitution to bar such a thing, thereby dissolving the thousands of same-sex marriages that already exist in the US, would naturally not provide scientifically useful results.
Daka, the problem is that whatever your concerns, thousands of American citizens are already legally married to members of the same sex. If this marriage amendment passes, the United States renders null and void these legal marriages. That is an outrageous legal and moral violation, and establishes these people as second-class citizens. This is not a nebulous concern about what might happen — it will happen. Because same-sex marriage already legally exists here in the United States. Period, end of sentence.
Daka, here’s a simple question for you: You have two people standing before you, as married as the day is long, in a loving, committed and monogamous relationship. Are you willing to tell these two legally married people and that you’d support a constitutional amendment to render their marriage null and void? Because, very simply, when George Bush says he supports an Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, that’s exactly what he’s doing: Saying that some marriages shouldn’t exist.
If your local school teacher feels its right to have a legal marriage and intimate relations with his/her dog would that be ok too?
The fact that you think two people of the same sex loving each other has something to do with screwing a dog, says a whole hell of a lot more about you than it does about me. And I know, I’m breaking John’s suggestions rules about not being nasty, but W ruined my day this morning and it’s not getting better.
Tired of being a second class citizen. That’s all.
Hmm.. I really don’t know why polygamy is bad, per se? Consider the following Fabio “I can’t believe iss not budder” hypothetical:
Fabio has 10 wives. He’s then capable of having ten children a year with these wives. After a decade, the planet would be overrun with one-hundred tiny Fabio and Fabiettes.
Yes. These are the sorts of things that keep me up at night.
Daka:
Why shouldn’t any amount of people who want to get married get married? I think your definition of marriage is too narrow and misses the point. You are focused on the one man one woman and not the other important part; that they love each other. If 3 people love each other why shouldn’t they be allowed to form a union to support and nurture each other? Why does the number bother you? Why does the gender?
I understand that you miss the 50’s when morality started at home and was strictly enforced through public mores. However, the times have changed and people are no longer forced to follow strictly Christian rules when they live their life. It would be great if you could tell a 13 year old that having sex is a special wonderful thing meant only for grownups who are married and not have that 13 year old go home and watch people having sex on TV as often as they can. The truth is that telling kids to be abstinant doesn’t work when it is the only sex-ed offered. It is absurd to think that teenagers only think about sex if a condom is present. Teenagers think about sex any time they see something curved or something straight.
Daka:
You make the argument that polygamists want the law to recognize their marriages since it now recognizes gay marriage. You somehow interpret this as some kind of disease spreading across our country.
Yet polygamy predates the Bible. By your logic, polygamists have just as much right to define marriage as you do.
When you stop trying to defend a definition that is out of date and start looking at the actual issue you might start to see why denying same-sex marriage is just the religious right’s way of discriminating against people they don’t like.
Daka:
“Gays are not second class citizens just because they can’t redefine the word marriage.”
You’re just not getting it, Daka. Gays didn’t redefine the word marriage. In the case of Massachusetts, the state supreme court decided the definition of marriage there was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Unless you have inside knowledge on the sexuality of the members of that court — unless you can show that the members of the court who voted for allowing same-sex couples to marry are all totally gay — you can’t lay this on gays and lesbians.
Moreover, you’re continuing to operate on the assumption that marriage in the US means only men and women. This isn’t true, nor has it been true since May 17, 2004. You shouldn’t be asking why gays and lesbians get to change the definition of marriage, because the definition of marriage already includes same-sex couples. If anyone’s trying to change the definition of marriage, it’s religious conservatives.
And you’re wrong that gays and lesbians would not be second-class citizens if the definition of marriage were changed to be only between a man and a woman. If the anti-same-sex amendment were to pass, my entirely legal marriage would not be affected, but the entirely legal marriage of a same sex couple would. Their rights would be restricted. If the words “second class citizens” have any meaning at all, they mean that rights some members of society have are denied to others.
“I don’t think he is trying to hurt gays deliberately.”
I see. Tell me, do you think the people in same-sex marriages wouldn’t be hurt when their marriages are declared null and void? Do you think they wouldn’t be hurt that their president is saying their marriage has no right to exist? Do you think it won’t hurt when the legal rights and protections they have as a married couple are stripped away and two people who were legally married are now considered legal strangers to each other, with no more rights in their relationship than two people passing on the street? Because I have to tell you, if someone did that to my marriage, it would hurt me a lot.
If you don’t think Bush means to hurt gays and lesbians, then what you’re really saying is that the man is a either a moron or a sociopath. Because he knows several thousand gays and lesbians are already legally married to members of their own sex — and if he doesn’t think saying he thinks their marriages shouldn’t exist isn’t hurtful, there’s something wrong with the wiring in his head.
You say you don’t know what you would do, but that you think that Bush is doing the right thing. Since what he is doing is proposing to sever the legal marriages of thousands of American citizens, what you are saying is that you think severing these marriages is the right thing to do. You want these marriages to end. Because these marriages are not theoretical. They exist, and will continue to exist, and more of them would happen right up until the theoretical second when the 37th state ratified this odious, hateful, bigoted, cruel, monstrous amendment into the Constitution of the United States.
Like it or not, Daka, when you support President Bush in this Amendment, you are saying to that couple that their marriage shouldn’t exist. You are the one who is saying you have the right to change the definition of marriage, because the definition of marriage already includes same-sex couples, and you want to change it to something that doesn’t. You are saying that you have a right to tell them they should not have a right that they currently enjoy. You are saying that they should have fewer rights than the rest of us.
I’ll never see polygamy legalized in my lifetime because of the nightmare of insurance and inheritance and the related laws.
What I -would- like to see in my lifetime is people thinking, when this particular slippery slope argument comes up, about how (a) not all polygamy is one-man-many-women and that (b) making a union legal protects the two people in it even more than it validates them, and that’s really important.
But I’m biased.
Daka, I’m truly sorry that you can’t see your bigotry for what it is. I’m sure that you are well-meaning and kind, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are willing to enshrine a form of discrminiation into our beloved Constitution. And that is something I will not tolerate.
So I guess you can call me bigoted, too. Bigoted against bigotry.
P.S. I’m still waiting for you to take me up on my challenge. Don’t feel bad if you can’t come up with anything. To date, no one has.
So what if being married hurts people? We tried the whole “saving the fools from themselves” thing with the whole Prohibition debacle. Stupid idea then, stupid idea now. In any case dollars-to-donuts you find that gay marriage is about the same as any other marriage.
I agree with Emily that we won’t see polygamy because it would drive the IRS nuts.
Yes? And your point is?
Actually, I think that was an episode of Numb3rs.Again even if they did, point being? They could have also “recreated” the school with a “map.” Maybe some D&D style markers. Crap! Someone! Call the press! D&D will kill our children!
And judges keep throwing them out. When the lawyer in question gets particularly annoying the judge occasionally revokes his temporary license in whichever state he’s pissed off this time. Comedy gold.
No. They strive for “T,” not “MA.” Much in the same way the movie industry strives for PG-13.
And defining marriage to be between a man and a woman addresses this how exactly? Oh, wait. It doesn’t.
the parents need to spend more time raising their children and teaching them
Some of us parents are teaching our children that gay people are also people, that it doesn’t matter if the happy couple getting married are both girls, and that some traditions are not worth preserving. Be careful what you wish for.
Daka: for many years, marriage meant one man and one woman of the same race. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the original trial judge said, in his opinion: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Daka:
“I have gay friends”
Isn’t it interesting how bigots always have their gay, black, asian, mexican, etc. friends and that somehow is supposed to ease my mind that their fear and hatred are rational?
“(and God help us all if you people vote in Kerry next term)”
Why Daka, whatever do you mean?
Daka,
You’ve mentioned a couple times how you are inarticulate and cannot make your points very well.
Personally I think you have articulated your feelings very well. You are afraid. You are worried. You can’t quite put your finger on the reasons but you definitely have fear.
My God, man, buck up! The religious right is pumping you full of fear so that you’ll vote for them, that’s all. They like to see you scared.
Well try to grow a spine for once and set your fears aside. For John’s sake I won’t get too snarky but I don’t think the fact that you are worried and scared is a good reason to discriminate. Sheesh.
Daka:
“So what I would tell that couple standing in front of me? I would tell them they jumped the gun that is what I would tell them, and sometimes when people jump the gun they get hurt.”
Well, but the problem is, they didn’t jump the gun. A state ruled that they could get married, and so they did. You can’t jump a gun when the shot’s already been fired. If this couple had been one of those in San Francisco who got a liscence before there was a legal foundation in that state for their marriage, I would be inclined to agree with you about the gun-jumping thing. However, in Massachusetts, all the legal niceties were done, and there was no legal bar to their getting married.
So when you say to them that they “jumped the gun,” what you’d be saying is, basically, “I’m not ready for you to be married.” And I’m sure their response would be (although probably more nicely put than this): “So what?” Why should your comfort level keep them from doing something they are legally allowed to do?
“It’s not the way it is now and for the majority of people in this country it has not been redefined for the country just because of one Massachusetts court. ”
I’ve disposed of this elsewhere. Fact: Any American may now be married to someone of their own sex. Yes, they’d have to move to Massachusetts to do it. But the question is not whether it is impractical, the question is whether it is possible. So, like it or not, the definition of marriage for all Americans now includes the same-sex option. It’s simply a matter of what one needs to do in order to accomplish it.
“This one Massachusetts court,” as you so apparently dismissively put it, is the highest court of law in the commonwealth — it has the right and obligation to adjucate the law there. It ruled the commonwealth was violating the rights of its citizens and asked the legislature to remedy that. That’s how our system of government works. If you want to amend the Constitution to keep the courts, both state and federal, from doing the jobs, you are of course more than welcome to try.
“I don’t feel gays should look at themselves as second rate citizens.”
Well, of course, I am heartened to hear that. I do hope you’ll back the spirit of your words by recognizing that same-sex couples (who are, one suspects, almost entirely composed of gay and lesbian individuals) are married, have a right to be married and should have a right for their marriages not to be dissolved because some people aren’t ready for them to be married.
“Now I gotta find a store that has your books while I am still out here in CA.”
Hopefully you’ll find them! If not, I’ll have a bone to pick with the distributors.
“You’ve mentioned a couple times how you are inarticulate and cannot make your points very well.”
Hey Tripp. No, no that’s not the case when I have one poor guy thinking I am comparing him to a dog and everyone else thinking I hate gays because I voice my opinion on one issue that is against them. I need to do a lot better.
“My God, man, buck up! The religious right is pumping you full of fear so that you’ll vote for them, that’s all. They like to see you scared”
I agree that religious people try to scare people into various beliefs. Really I don’t buy it and I don’t believe in what people do to other people in the name of religion. I actually don’t believe in religions themselves.
If I came across scared that’s just my inability to write. I’m concerned, worried a bit that the core issues are not as straight forward as people would like to make them here. I’ve seen a lot of people base their belief on “that’s good for me so I am for it’ and miss out on the bigger picture. I’m the type that will take proof and data over a verbal nonsense any day. I’m obviously coming across as being biased through my statements so I need to work on that I guess. (Opens door for those that want to come back and just say – “or just face that fact that you are”?) *laughs*
Trust me when I tell you I have a spine and thanks for the assurance that I’m at least getting my concerns out. I am way more worried about how much of John’s blog space I am taking up with these long responses which is why I have not answered so many people. I can see John is emotional about this issue, as are many people. That’s ok everybody from what I have seen are making some valid points. Nobody from what I have seen so far is totally right, including me.
What started me off was John trying to compare this with George Wallace and discrimination. It’s not the same or gays wouldn’t be able to live in the same neighborhoods or go to the same schools or join the army. It’s an equal rights issue for sure, and one state has started down the wrong road to resolve it, but that doesn’t mean the whole country sees it that way. Some are open minded about what is really happening here and some are not. Some think it is done, over, period, end of sentence. Some focus so hard on the closed doors behind them they don’t see the better opportunities in front of them.
I am a business man Tripp, and have done extremely well at it. The best resolutions in my experience are not one-sided, involve input from everyone and keep emotions and name calling out it. The ones that can’t do that are the ones that are scared. My backbone is just fine. Hehe
The slippery slope argument doesn’t work for me because that bright line is so simple and easy to draw. Consenting adults ought to be able to legalize their relationships. That means that you don’t have to worry about children and dogs even if same-sex and multi-person marriage is legalized. It also means some of the liberal polyamorists would be able to legalize their marriage while a conservative fundamentalist in one of the renegade Mormon communities on the AZ-UT border wouldn’t, if the latter were trying to take a wife not of legal age to consent, which could make for interesting voting demographics.
daka,
Some are open minded about what is really happening here and some are not.
You’ve hinted at this a couple times. What do you think is really happening here?
Daka: “What started me off was John trying to compare this with George Wallace and discrimination. It’s not the same or gays wouldn’t be able to live in the same neighborhoods or go to the same schools or join the army.”
What, you think gays are allowed to join the army in the U.S.? Only if they pretend to be straight.
Just think, if the American military hadn’t kicked out ten thousand servicemembers for not being heterosexual since “don’t ask, don’t tell” came into effect in 1993, they might not be having such manpower issues now. (And that’s not counting however many people don’t join the military in the first place because of this policy. *I* wouldn’t join an organization in which I was so explicitly unwelcome.)
Daka said: “I’m the type that will take proof and data over a verbal nonsense any day.”
What kind of proof are you looking for? You say that you are not religious. If that is the case, then why are you opposed to same-sex marriage? Your opposition is truly puzzling to me.
same-sex couples (who are, one suspects, almost entirely composed of gay and lesbian individuals)
Don’t give us bisexuals the invisibility treatment.
While the Netherlands hasn’t legalised polygamous marriage, there was the case of a triad getting a civil union. Great for them!
Therese Noren:
“Don’t give us bisexuals the invisibility treatment.”
Perish the thought!
My only concern about polygamy is where it occurs in weird, closed, cult-like subcultures where the particpants may be under pressure from family to participate, may be punished for refusing, and may be underage.
But if, say, a guy in New York meets a woman who grew up in Florida and a guy who grew up in Seattle, and they’re all adults, and they decide they want to be together, I find it hard to quibble.
For practical reasons, it might behoove the state to insist that such people present a detailed pre-nup before granting the marriage license, so that taxpayer money and resources aren’t wasted later on trying to figure out how to divide their parental custody and assets should there be a divorce or death.
Daka writes: “It has meant a man and women for centuries John and one state has attempted to change it for the whole country on May 17, 2004 with all those that are for it screaming that is the way it is now. ”
And before the Loving case, for most of America, marriage meant a man and a woman of the same race.
Was anyone harmed when that unjust definition was changed by the court? How?
CoolBlue writes: “But there is, in reality, no “equal-protection” violation when banning same-sex marriage because “equal-protection” applies to individuals, not groups. As a result, no (fe)male can marry another (fe)male in states where this is banned.”
That logic can be used easily to justify any number of nasty laws. “A white person can marry anyone he or she wants, as long as it’s a white person of the opposite sex.” “A person with an inheritable genetic defect may not marry a person with the same inheritable genetic defect” (where the defect could vary from some actual disorder, to “being short” or “low intelligence”).
Alternately, instead of barring interracial marriage, such laws could be used to enforce interracial marriage, in an effort to dilute a given ethnic minority in the population until it disappears.
Once you’re writing arbitrary laws controlling who may marry whom, you’re on a slippery slope to eugenics.
Dan @14
“Perhaps the biggest problem with Bush’s plan to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage is that any such amendment would contradict the already existing 14th Amendment.”
Okay. The new admendment would contradict the earlier admendment. So what? That is what admendments are for–to change the meaning and intent of the document including any earlier admendments.
If, Dan, you suggest no new admendment may contradict an earlier admendment you simply do not understand the meaning of “admendment.” Were we so stupid, we could amend our Constitution to, say, establish a state religion supported by taxpayer dollars. We won’t. But we could.
As for Bush and his proposed ban on gay marriage, it never happened. This is 2010 and President Obama will not be proposing such an action. And for the record, many of us with faith-based views that do not approve of same-gender sexual relationships, understand that ours is a pluralistic society where people with whom we disagree on such matters have the right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they play by the rules of civil society (rules prohibiting murder, theft, fraud, etc.).
But please, do not be so clueless as to think that new constitutional amendments are in anyway bound to agree with earlier language in the constitution. New amendments can change the constitution flatly contradiciting older language and thereby superseed the older language. Or what’s an amendment process for?
Opps. Let my Texas drawl into my typing. “Admendment” in the previous post should be “amendment” throughout. Silly Willis, Texan since birth.