Same-sex marriage in the heart land.
Note the attorney quoted at the end of the article: Richard Socarides. Charles Socarides son. English majors, help me, is that irony?
It seems even clearer to me that this issue will eventually come before the Supreme Court. Can the nation long sustain a patchwork quilt of laws regulating marriage?
Here is the ruling summarized with a link to the full court documents.
93 thoughts on “Iowa Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional”
Comments are closed.
JT,
Just to make this clear. I’m from an Eastern European country, so my involvement in this debate is not political. I don’t have any political stake in what’s being debated in your country, so my point of view is foreign to any direct interest in the process. I worked and lived in a few Western European countries, some of which allowed same-sex marriages or some form of partnership, and which are not on the brink of disintegration because of that. Immigration and ethnic integration are bigger practical problems for European countries, just as aging and declining populations are (the two are related). So, while comparisons can help arguments, in the practical realm they don’t fit real dynamics so well.
You said that the USA is a country bigger than those that legally recognised same-sex marriages. Right now there are some countries like Spain, Canada and South Africa that approved SSM and are not exactly small, like Belgium, Norway and Sweden. Ironically Belgium has some problems right now with maintaing union because of linguistic, ethnic and political issues, but these issues have a long history that started way before they allowed immigrants and same-sex unions. So you’re right about language and ethnicity as potential factors for both unity and separation, but there’s no indication that this can apply to family and SSM in the same way.
Jayhuck,
What makes me think that? Too many centrifugal forces pulling at family right now. People putting their desires first, alternating lifestyles that no one has the patience to accommodate, social mobility, the media telling men they can live like teens forever, etc etc. We’re headed to a consensual unions era, by all appearances. It might be that gays claim and get access to an institution that is slowly falling apart, due to causes which are unrelated to them.
Evan,
What makes you think that family, however you define that, is not the goal now? I know several gay couples who have children and who fight for marriage rights simply to make the lives of their loved ones easier. Gay marriage is not anti-family. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but I think we need to make that clear!
Thanks for your thoughtful analyses, Evan. I am a bit bogged down with a few things at the moment and so can’t reply to all in your post, but I would like to. Most importantly, however, I want to give several of your points some time to roll around in my head. so since you have made many interesting points, I’ll just respond to one right now.
First, culture. For most of our history, the United States has successfully assimilated the largest number of diverse cultures and people, it could be argued. Many chose to speak their native tongue at home or in their neighborhoods, but they wanted to learn English for the workplace. One reason was utilitarian. They wanted a job and in most instances, use of the language was required or at least preferred. The other reason was an emotional need–the immigrant felt that learning English, the language of America, was a source of pride, a sign that he or she had worked hard to belong.
We know, of course (and unfortunately it is a fact that some on the far left either can’t or won’t concede for reasons I don’t understand) that language binds people to one another. Linguistics, anthropology, neuroscience, sociology–there is no field of study that denies the link between thought and language, no field that denies that language binds people to one another. The globe is full of examples of the forcing together of peoples within certain borders even when they don’t share a common language. The results are almost always disappointing and conflict, strife are historically common.
Thus, that immigrants to the US wanted to come here while still retaining their own cultures up to a point (and I will state that it was the immigrants themselves who added the “up to a point”) was, it seems, what accounted for their success here and the country’s success. What is occurring now in states in which immigration from Central America is heavy, is that a high percentage of people, particularly those from Mexico rather than those from Guatemala and Nicaragua do not attempt to learn English. I don’t think this is necessarily because they don’t want to learn, but rather because there are powerful interest groups, lobbies, that see to it that they needn’t learn English in order to enage in commerce, attend public schools, etc. Humans don’t do what they don’t need to do.
If one lives in one of these states, most of which are border states, one sees this occurring, and realizes that Balkanization is taking place. Everyone is a loser, everyone that is except those whose power or influence is derived from seeing to it that a common language is not developed, that a crucial binding cultural force is not woven into our lives.
I mention this only because you rightfully mention marriage as a cultural institution. belonging to more than one culture. Yes, but like language, marriage and attitudes toward it are that which bind diverse peoples together. I am not disagreeing with you so much as I am simply stressing that this nation has always been successful at accepting diverse peoples, diverse cultures. However, there was a two way street, as the immigrant realized he came here precisely because the country offered what was not offered at home, and the individual seemed to understand that one couldn’t find hope for financial security and freedom if one came to a land disunified by cultural diversity. The immigrant often came here fleing chaos, seeking order, and he knew that such order was achieved by accepting certain cultural norms–language was certainly chief among these.
Another norm was the concept of family. I was raised in a town in which a man from West Africa had been married to several women. He was almost murdered by a fellow tribesman in his homeland so his cousin sponsored his immigration to the US. He never expected that once here, our laws would accommodate him by allowing him to have a concubine.
I understand that some nations have allowed or are flirting with allowing Sharia law. I also understand that the populace themselves are against this and that there is a resultant, growing ethnic strife, that instead of prejudice waning (on both sides), it is growing. I think it clear that this happens when people sense that something so basic to their culture, something which binds them, is altered without their consent. They needn’t be educated in history to instinctively know that while diversity is enriching, it can reach a point at which, if certain norms are not held in common, there is no unifying force. All there are are borders and names attached to peoples. The drawing of a border and the naming of people as West Germans and East Germans did not obliterate their common cultural heritage. Similarly, the forcing together of diverse peoples, the slapping on them a name the “Soviet Union,” as if they really were a “union,” as if they shared much of anything, was farcical and tragic. We all know how that turned out.
We haven’t the homogeniety of the Scandinavian countries nor of Japan, a homogenity that might allow for rather broad changes in norms, nor the heterogeniety of the former Soviet “Union,” a heterogeniety that may presage our own fate, many fear. Would that not be ironic?
So, norms? I have to think about that, Evan. My initial response is to react by saying that norms are crucial, particularly in a country as diverse as ours. Otherwise, we are nothing but a collection of peoples held together by…what? A name? The United States? United in what way?
Hope to talk to you later.
BTW, I still would like for us to consider what our justices must consider. What might be a workable definition of “marriage” in this, the United States. Or, if we can’t find one, does that mean we should dispense with the term altogether, from a legal standpoint, anyway?
I am especially interested in the ideas of those who are in favor of keeping the term “marriage,” but in changing it. I would like to know how it should read, in your opinion.
JT
Thanks for the carefully considered reply. I took your question seriously, but I stopped short of writing a legal definition. As you have correctly noticed I didn’t offer a definition, rather a sociological tautology.
The issue with defining an institution like marriage is that marriage belongs to more than one culture and one period in time. So if you, in general, want to define marriage with a normative purpose in mind, you have to make sure you won’t restrict its meaning to a historical understanding of marriage or to an utilitarian point of view.
For instance, going back to your illustration with cars, when carmakers began making cars, they did that without having a definition that would preclude one day accommodating entertainment devices. If Daimler or Ford were alive today, they would probably be surprised that people are trying to fit their homes into a car, with all the displays, TVs, DVDs, music players, special compartments for beverages and so on. A car is a car and it should always be so, right? Well, for some it’s a pimpin’ stereo on wheels… Still an automobile, but much more than that.
The same thing happens at many levels in society with many elements of our daily life, material or not, — they get customised. That still doesn’t turn an ipod into a fork or a wife into a janitor. So, an institution can be redefined if social and political changes in society require it so, although not to the extent that marriage could be anything. Tradition is always a good place to start, because there is a continuity of practice that has some currency in society at a moment in time. That’s where a definition could be found and reconsidered to include the social changes I mentioned.
We should also consider that people from China, India, Arab states marry too, and if they move to a Western country, do they have to marry according to an institution that belongs to a cultural group or one that is broadly defined by the state in legal terms? Does marriage belong to a culture and must only be strictly defined in accordance with the provisions of one religion in a secular state? Or should the state provide a definition that is general enough to allow for some flexibility?
This is a serious problem, because the legislator must decide what is the proper balance between respecting the newcomer’s right to have his/her culture respected (inasmuch as that is possible) and the right of the citizen to keep his/her established institutions. Should an Arab immigrant get the right to have more than one wife because his culture allows it? This is the point where democracy and globalisation collide and there is no easy answer, but a political one. A negotiated definition could be a common denominator or it could take into account changes in society.
Why I believe that an utilitarian definition should be avoided? Because that could create qualitative preconditions for marriage. Let’s say someone proposed that marriage should promote childbearing. What happens if the married don’t have children? An increasing number of married couples are childless today. Should people love each other in order to marry? Many would agree, but that doesn’t mean that they must. So we return to the legal understanding of marriage, the old contractual one, which was a formal recognition of a union between a man and a woman that provided clauses for rights, duties and handling of property. There is no precondition of utility for marriage in this definition, the parties are not required to fulfil some public utility by their union.
We must bear in mind that the past understanding of marriage as a vehicle for promoting childbearing was defined in a historical period that did not recognise variations in sexual identity. So if present society admits that there are people exclusively or primarily attracted to their own gender and that each individual has a right to enter a legal status that confers financial benefits that others have, based on an inherited institution of marriage from a historical period that excluded same-sex partnership, then the definition of marriage should be reworded so as to not specify both parties’ gender.
The fact that we debate this issue is symptomatic of the crisis this institution of marriage is going through. But the debate in itself is unlikely to have created the crisis, because the number of marriages has been going down for a few decades as the number of consensual unions and other types of partnership has been growing. Sociologically, it’s more likely that the sexual revolution (discovering and eliberating the Body), feminism (eliberating and ’empowering’ women) and hypertrophic individualism have contributed to this crisis, long before the issue of same-sex marriages appeared. If we are looking for a way back to a time when family was a goal, I think that people can only learn that by first making all the necessary mistakes, before learning to appreciate what they lost and striving to get that back from a diminished position but with a reshuffled set of priorities.
Mary said…….
I haven’t looked at any polling data to see if the respondents feel this way, Mary. I’ll have to research this because I am sure the question has been asked by Gallup, Rasmussen, Pew, someone.
I am assuming you mean that gays who wish to marry wish to do so because of financial concerns. Do you also mean that straights who wish to marry wish to do so because of financial concerns?
One thing comes to mind. It seems that more and more people are not marrying, even though they have children together. They could derive financial benefits from marrying, but one reason I suspect they haven’t been marrying is that there are opposing financial benefits to not marrying (public assistance , which includes food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare checks). This is an instance in which public policies seem to be at cross purposes. That is, the tax codes, inheritance laws, etc. promote marriage; the welfare policies discourage
marriage.
How would you define marriage were it up to you?
If there were not so many financial benefits to marriage – we would not be having these discussions. It would be a non issue.
I mean to the christian conservative is a jewsih or muslim wedding less valuable because it was not performed under the tenant of christianity?? Yet, the jew and the muslim get the benefits of a “christian” marrige in this country.
Evan said,
LOL.
Evan, your answer is both humorous and telling. Somehow, though, I can’t see any of the 50 state supreme courts or SCOTUS writing either a minority or a majority decision that reads this way. Under their breaths, however, those justices that are having to grapple with the question of what constitutes marriage(i.e. California Supreme court justices) are probably wringing their hands and saying, “Well, if we do allow the change” (as some of them want to do and others don’t ), “then what? What will we do down the line the next time someone challenges the definition? And, challenge, they will.”
However, Evan, I do think your definition points out the very difficulties we encounter when we seek to broaden some legal definitions. Affirmative action comes to mind. While it was always a politically controversial issue when it first became policy, the problems with its definition didn’t become apparent for a few years. At that point, it became (and remains) a tremendous problem for those who deal with it on a daily basis. No two schools, no two governmental agencies, no two this or that are able to agree on who qualifies under affirmative action. Just my opinion, but in a few more presidential terms or so, I will lay odds the policy is overturned or at least, redefined, and the re-definition will narrow its scope markedly.
Not to make light of this subject, but instead to demonstrate a point: automakers knew when they designed vehicles that ultimately came to be called SUVs that these vehicles didn’t look like cars, didn’t perform like cars, didn’t do any number of things that a typical automobile did.
When gas prices soared and when automakers realized that some people in the market for a new vehicle were no longer enamored of the SUV, they created the “crossover” vehicle, a combo of sorts, a vehicle that sits on the chassis of an automobile but which has many of the more attractive features of the SUV. The crossover looks suspiciously like the station wagons of old, yet they handle much better than station wagons ever did.
Automakers realized that they needed a change in nomenclature to reflect the change in physical features and in the mechanical handling of all their vehicles–car, SUV, crossover. Even the trucks, with their rapidly changing forms and appointments, got new names. It’s pretty hard to call a Lincoln Mark LT a “pick-up truck.”
What I am attempting to say is that the old adage is true. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck, it’s a duck. However, a duck is not a goose and neither is a chicken nor a rooster nor a mudhen nor an ostrich nor a … etc. etc.
It appears to me that either my question was received with disinterest (although I think that may not be the case since the thread had been pretty spirited in discussing what marriage ought to be) or we are having a difficult time defining marriage .
Only Evan has offered a response. Perhaps he offered it in jest, perhaps not. The interesting thing about Evan’s “definition” is that it places primacy on the individual as the arbiter of what is and what should be. There are no societal considerations, in other words. Also, Evan’s response explains why marriage exists (people want it for different reasons) but it is not a definition of marriage.
Thus, might I suggest that if the question does interest anyone, and if we are indeed having trouble fashioning a definition, we must first ask ourselves, ” What is the purpose of marriage?” What do we hope to achieve by even having it at all? If there is no purpose, then we’d have to assume marriage needn’t exist at all. If there are purposes, we might ask ourselves if they can they be achieved in ways that don’t require marriage. On the other hand, if there are purposes, let’s list them.
So, any takers? Can we list some criteria? For example, is there a social need for marriage? Do we believe that society derives any social benefits from marriage? Yes? No? Should that be or not be an argument for the institution of marriage? Or, is that irrelevant? Should marriage be what Evan said, “Marrriage exists for the reasons people marry.” If this is how we do seek to “define” marriage, then can the same manner of defining other constructs traditionally defined by the state go the same route? Is that even possible?
Also, if marriage should be what the individuals define, why do we need the state to define it for us? Why could we not simply proclaim ourselves married and thus, divorced as well? We could fill out papers saying we are married (whoever “we” is or are), and then if we wished a divorce, we could fill out and file those papers as well. That could take care of the record keeping.
Yet, if that is the manner in which marriage is handled, with the state not the determiner of it, why have marriage at all? Well, we might answer, “There are benefits to being married.” If there are benefits in being married, such as financial ones, then why not simply change the laws so that one needn’t be married to receive such benefits?
I don’t know the answer to my questions. I am seeking answers.
I repeat:
Debbie,
Justr wondering …. what criteria do you use to define a christian?
Marriage is a financial plan.
JT,
-Some people marry because their relationship reached a stage when they want to make a commitment.
-Others also because they have already been living together for a long period of time and the legal status would give them some benefits.
-In some countries, people marry because they are expected to do that.
-Class position for some makes it mandatory to consider marriage as a carefully planned life plan.
-Some marry because they are afraid of living a single life when they reach old age.
-Men and women marry for different reasons, but both want to find a stable partner for whom they develop some form of attachment.
Many different reasons for different people…
JT
Marriage exists for the reasons people marry 🙂
I posted day or so ago,
I am having trouble crafting a definition. Since the discussion has revolved around what ought to legally qualify as marriage, anyone have a definition yet which they feel is fair?
If we are having trouble crafting one, is that because we haven’t considered what it is we expect marriage to achieve in our society? Or, am I wrong for suggesting that there is or should be any societal consideration? Does it exist for other reasons? If so, what? What is the purpose of marriage. Why does it exist? Should it exist?
Help!
Sorry, Lynn. You were referring to JT’s post, I must presume. I figured you’d lumped us together.
Mary, by some of your statements, I could not determine your Christian faith. Sorry.
I did see that I missed answering an earlier question you posed to me about who the parents of my children would be (presuming I would have had any) if I had chosen to pursue a lesbian relationship. Mother would be whoever gave birth and father would be whoever supplied the sperm. The other gay partner would be a guardian.
Well…. evidently “it” lacks truth because you were not the impetus for my prior post.
My gig is not to scare people into submission.
Revelations is a pretty heavy dose for anyone to read. Scholoars, theologians, and believers have argued over it’s meaning and interpretation for a long time.
I consider myself a christian and an ex gay (for lack of a better word).
Debbie,
Sometimes laws have to single out minorities to protect them from majorities who might knowingly or unknowingly discriminate against them.
Debbie,
Straight people can marry the adult person that they have a romantic and emotional bond with – gay people can not!
Ann/Emily,
Just a side note – its interesting, but probably not surprising, that the word Pesach so closely resembles the Orthodox Christian term for Easter – Pascha 🙂
Jayhuck, Jews are Jews from birth. Everyone deserves equal treatment. What laws are singling out homosexuals — except ones that favor them?
Mary, “threatening people with God’s wrath”? “Vengeance theology”? Whatever did you infer that from? I do recall mentioning Christ’s coming judgment of his church. You can read about it in Revelation. You don’t talk as if that will be your gig. Are you a Christian?
Debbie,
The affluent argument can be and has been made regarding Jewish people – yet no one would argue that they, as a group, deserve less than equal treatment under the law.
David,
Who defines whether we are moving downward or upwards??
Inequities in the tax code? Are you being serious David? – actually, I’m afraid you probably are. This is about so much more than simple inequities in a tax code – I would have at least hoped you realized that by now.
David Blakeslee wrote:
I have a few of those consequences in mind, but would you name some of them so commenters can debate how dangerous (or not) they are?
Debbie,
I’m not sure that threatening people with God’s wrath is a good way to convince people of God’s love and provisions.
I’m not trying to whitewash things and am just saying that gay people have heard enough of the “vengeance” theology to be sickened away from God.
And no I don’t belong to the spare the rod spoil the child program but from personal experience was never engaged with Christian anything when it threatened to kill me.
You can do lots of ungodly things if you wish, Jenn. The law “takes away” from the remaining stability of families, already weakened by the decline of morality. I am well prepared for the coming years. Are you? There are things coming that you can’t even imagine.
Debbie –
I am sorry that you are angry that expanding a definition takes away from your exclusivity…but it does not change the fact that you can marry someone of the opposite sex if you wish. This law does not “take away” from your ability to practice your faith, or to marry who you wish.
It’s a scare tactic, and by your reactions, a pretty successful one. I suggest that you begin to prepare yourself now for the coming years. Same-sex marriage will be the law of the land soon enough. Estimates are that all of the Northeast will have SSM by 2012…and by the look of it, it’s coming…
Emily K,
I am not sure that I always agree with what you have written on this blog or, if you are the same Emily K on exgaywatch, on that blog either, however, I do want to wish you and your’s a happy and peaceful Pesach.
Debbie, the myth of the “affluent gay” has been debunked several times, most recently here.
And if we’re so affluent, how come I couldn’t afford to buy toilet paper 2 weeks ago? Why is my uncle living with his sister (my aunt) rather than buying a house of his own?
Even if all gays had the money to just pick up and move to a place that accepted them whenever they encountered attitudes like yours, everyone knows that moving is a difficult decision that breeds a lot of hard work and preparation. If one’s family is in North Dakota, why pick up and go to Massachusetts just because gay marriage is legal there? Additionally, most people these days are more concerned with losing their house than finding a new one.
My generation has already won this fight. 10 years ago when I came out as a teenager, nobody batted an eye at my high school. Being able to lie about an entire group of people is a luxury you won’t be able to enjoy much longer.
The codification of individual rights by amending moral standards downward has many unintended consequences and is often a simplistic, naive attempt to “make” the world equal when behavior creates different outcomes.
Other writers above have noted how “no fault” or easy divorce was meant as a moral good…but the “average outcome” is disproportionately harmful to women and children.
We could also mention that sex out of wedlock, leads to children born into families with out sufficient financial and emotional resources to provide adequate care. A near 40% birth rate of children out of wedlock bodes poorly for the children and burdens our already overburdened social support network.
Arguing that gay marriage is heading down a slippery slope to polygamy and polyamory is looking in the wrong direction.
We are well down that slope…heterosexuals fought for individual rights against established moral standards meant to protect the weak and vulnerable. Premarital sex, cohabitation, teen pregnancy, domestic violence and a poorly prepared “next generation” followed.
Individual rights can be hijacked by simple Narcissism.
Inequities in the tax code can be easily fixed in other ways, Tim.
Lynn David, you clearly do not understand what I said, which is evidence of the truth in it.
Hi,
Yes, did read the decision a few days ago. I simply wanted to point out that the word “equal” is likely to be interpreted differently by whoever is doing the interpreting.
Now, I have been asking myself this: if the one man, one woman definition of marriage is simply not acceptable, then how would I define marriage.
Anyone out there have a definition yet?
I agree with you JT to a certain extent – You could easily make the argument that gay people are treated the same as straight people under the law because both parties can marry people of the opposite sex – That is the “same”. Equal, however, would imply that both parties are able to marry the person that they are romantically and emotionally involved with.
Still – the judges on the ISC articulated the issue beautifully in their decision.
JT –
I highly recommend you read the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent decision!
Ah, not so fast. “Equal treatment under the law.” Not as simple a phrase as you make it seem.
A person one year shy or one day shy of eighteen may not be treated the same as one who is 18. However, according to past decisions, that is not to say that the under 18 lack equality under the law.
There are those of course who argue that different treatment of the under 18 from the 18 and over does indeed constitute unequal treatment.
The words “equal” and the word “same” are not and have not been viewed as synonymous in American jurisprudence.
My point is that it’s not that simple.
To all,
First, just to clarify, I am an agnostic. I was raised by parents who believed, and I accepted that there was a God and that Christ was the son of God. However, not until I was an adolescent did I attend church with any regularity. In my teen years, I became a churchgoer of my own volition. Over the year, though, things have changed. Deep in my gut, I want to believe, but I have to tell you that any faith I have is quite transitory, so it’s only fair that I tell you that by my standards and anyone else’s, I’d have to be called an agnostic.
Here’s my question to anyone who cares to answer it:
1) do you think that there should be a legal classification called “marriage” in our society
2.) if so, how would you define “marriage” as legal term if it were up to you?
Lynn,
Sort of like that terribly misleading ad put out today by the National Organization for Marriage – talk about scare tactics – gees! When all else fails, try scaring people!
Lynn,
LOL 🙂
Oh dear…. “the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket” argument.
.
My mother heard that from her elders during the Great Depression. I’ve heard it from some during the ’60s & ’70s in the context of the Civil Rights Movement and anti-Vietnam War protests. Now we’re hearing it from the extreme right wing and some Chrisitians who are fearful of an Obama presidency and marriage for gays and lesbians.
.
Life goes on… unless you’re of an Abrahamic religion which hopes for an armageddon… but life will still go on. If I ever make the “hell in a handbasket” argument, you have my permission to track me down and…..
JT –
Let’s not confuse entitlement for equal treatment under the law.
Mary and JT are both right. Christians have become hypocritical, and ought to be seeing to our own house. Frankly, I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Church Age. It will only get uglier, but God has always had a remnant of the faithful who are to “rebuild the way cities” (Amos). Read Jeremiah 5. It speaks of God’s judgment on the people of Israel, much of which has already been carried out. But it speaks to the Church as well. Why would we assume God’s judgment for His chosen people would not also be Christ’s judgment for his church?
David,
There are plenty of similarities between the ban on interracial marriage and same-sex marriages. I don’t think you have to look to hard to see them.
But marriage is more than a religious institution, it is also a secular institution. We already have churches who perform gay marriages, what we don’t have, and should have, is equal treatment under the law for gay people, which should translate to civil marriages for same-sex couples.
This idea, reached by the judges on the Iowa Supreme Court was articulated beautifully in their decision.
JT
No common values. I wonder who is really interested in creating such a senario. I would suggest that those in power are the ones who would benefit from everyone constantly demanding there own way rather than working to build unity and truly see what they are us to.
Mary this is all part of the slippery slope that we had been warned about decades ago. It has only taken us this long to get to this point. No Christianity, no society. Just a dog eat dog world based on survival of the fittest and it is all garbage.
Then we should have curbed divorce, stopped state run orphanages, stopped welfare, stopped medicare, etc… because these are all roles that citizens from a christian background should have been stepping up to fulfill. Alas, the christian country is not so christian looking in the long run, is it? And this has all been well before the issue of gay marriage came to mind. It all looks very hyprocritical to me.
People have a right to petition the government and the citizens for change. What is a right and what is an entitlement is ambiguous and depends on who is doing the defining. Christians would have a stronger argument if they were out in numbers demonstrating that divorce is harmful to the family, too AND not engaging in divorce or using the law to effect divorce.
I do think it is fair to say that in eras in which a man and a woman married, had a family, and raised their children, the children and all of society benefitted. If we can’t agree on that then what hope is there that we can agree about anything? It’s getting harder and harder to see this country as a place with common values and without that, no civilization has managed to survive.
We have become the new Balkans. Our diversity is not uniting us, but dividing us because we don’t agree upon common values anymore.
We have divided into tribes, a common occurrence when there are no common values left to unify. I am wondering if we have grown to mistake rights for entitlement.
For the advancment of society …..
Sort of the same argument some men and women used to use to keep women from voting or owning real property.
Timothy, I object to reinventing the definition of marriage, regardless of who is doing it. Yes, it is fair for two cohabiting gays to pay more in taxes. Marriage (real marriage) is an incentive for advancing society and should be so rewarded. Also, some principles that you would call godly are, indeed, already enforced by law. I guess you’re making the Dominionist argument we keep hearing. Are you worried there will be a Christian uprising? I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. The Church has no heart for battling sin anymore. Christians have compromised themselves away to nothing. I would be more concerned about the praying remnant as that is where the true power is concentrated.
There is no doubt, inequity in the family laws.
Lastly to Mary,
What if I had left divorce out of my scenario? Both Laura and her mother could just as easily be widows, but that changes nothing–they are still not allowed the privileges of married people so either we 1) do nothing and allow the laws to treat singles differently than they treat marrieds 2) allow mother and offspring to marry one another (why not, it can be argued given the other allowances a few judges and one legislature has decided) or 3) work to change insurance provisions and to change tax laws
I don’t think there is any doubt that “no fault” divorce really has left an unintended, yet very devastating mark on the fabric of our lives.
Nonetheless, both scenarios show the discrepancies that exist in the system. In the olden days, someone took care of the widow – presumably a child and that child’s spouse. Where is that spouse?? Oh – wait the divorce laws are errant with loopholes all over the place to allow good christians to divorce eachother (something that is also not allowed in the church except under certain circumstances) and we all know that people are cheating at that one too. But hey …. where are those same people when it comes to gay marriage??? Standing up and crying “gay marriage is against God, is immoral is not of “MY” relgious faith. I will protect my right to my religion ( without being mean mind you) and I will divorce and re-marry as I feel like it. ”
All I see is lots of hyprocrisy (sp?).
To Timothy Kinkaid who said,
Here’s a scenario that matches yours.
Laura is 53 and divorced, with a job that has medical coverage for her family. Her family includes a son and a daughter, both out of college, one still living at home , the other working in another town. She has a mother who is widowed, 76 years old. , living in the same town. The mother draws a social security pension and has Medicare plus must pay hefty fees for a supplemental policy to Medicare.
Laura and her mother must each file as “single” for both state and federal income tax purposes.
Laura, whose medical coverage at work would cover a spouse and children, is not allowed to use that extra coverage (which marrieds use) to cover her mother, even though it is NOT being used to cover her kids and a spouse.
Also, Laura can’t claim her mother as a dependent for either medical or tax purposes, even though two married people can. Married people can do so even if each of the them works and doesn’t need the income of the other to survive. In other words, in the real world, a substantial number of marrieds are not literally “dependent” on their spouse for either medical or financial needs.
In order for Laura’s medical plans to cover her mother, her mother would have to be deemed a “dependent”. That would require theat the mother give up her own residence, that she divest herself of her own bank accounts to demonstrate financial need; or she would have to demonstrate she needed constant medical care, care supplied by Laura. The mother would have to give up her own independence, in other words, even though married couples have to do no such thing.
If Laura were allowed to marry her mother, her mother would be spared supplemental health care costs since she would be covered by her daughter’s health insurance policy and both of them would be able to file as a married couple for tax purposes.
Laura and her mother have learned that being single is very expensive. Tax laws do indeed benefit married people. They were designed that way to make it easier to bear the costs of having and rearing children.
Nevertheless, we can ask that if we are going to change the laws to make everything fair, why can’t Laura marry her mother?
If women can now marry women in some states, I do think there may be some states out there where there are no stated restrictions against a close family member marrying another close family member.
To me, instead of Laura marrying her mother (and demanding their “right” to marry anyone they wanted)it would make more sense if they worked to change the insurance policy coverage provisions and also worked to change the tax laws.
Debbie mentioned having same-sex marriage supported by her taxes. So perhaps I should provide a realitic scenario to help her consider this question about taxes:
Fred and Susan are married. Fred makes $62,000 per year and Susan makes $18,000. Assuming neither has dependants or any itemized deductions, they will jointly pay $7,316 in federal income taxes for 2008 after their $1,200 stimulus rebate.
Compare them to Mike and Joseph who are not allowed to marry. Mike makes $62,000 per year and Joseph makes $18,000. Mike will pay $9,013 after his $600 rebate and Joseph will pay $360.
Mike and Joseph will pay $2,057 in extra taxes in 2008 alone compared to the heterosexual couple and they will receive fewer services from their government for it.
In the midst of our conversations about sin and behaviors and religion and contracts and ceremonies… let’s remember to ask ourselves if we really think it is fair or Christian to tax Mike and Joseph $2,057 more than Fred and Susan.
Debbie,
If I understand you correctly, you object to persons of Christian faith that don’t agree entirely with you from practicing on their beliefs.
Now I know that there are some Christians who would happily use the force of law to uphold their “Godly principles”. Especially against those other Christians who just won’t agree with them.
Perhaps you are one of those. If not, you may wish to more carefully review your thinking because you are beginning to sound that way.
@ Jayhuck and others,
I don’t think the comparison between Fred Phelps and your average Christian pastor is similar.
Neither do I believe that there is a reasonable comparison between bans on interracial marriage and bans on same sex marriage.
If marriage is an institution created and supported by religious communities, those religions have to look to their scriptures to support what marriage is. I think Judaism and Christianity do those things fairly well. For those who practice those religions to exclude people of other ethnic or skin colors is not supported by the very faith they practice.
The heterosexual component is intrinsic to the idea of marriage: one being for child rearing…to avoid reductionism, I won’t say that is the only reason.
Homosexual behavior is one of many forbidden behaviors in Scripture, to my knowledge there are not Christian or Jewish rituals which endorse any forbidden behavior.
FYI, the culture wars continue. Sometimes the backlash from such a thing is a greater defeat than the perceived victory. Sorry, I forget the newspaper this came from. I found it on Politico and copied and pasted here:
I’ve got no problem with it….
Oh brother. Yes, please enlighten us, if you dare.
The “slope” has materialized into a movement within the Unitarian Universalist Church, to say nothing of what is going on in prominent Ivy League universities. Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) was established in the summer of 1999. Valerie White, founder of the UUPA with her brother, Harlan, told “Bi” Magazine in 2003 that the UUPA planned to keep its polyamory movement low-key for the time being. “It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage. … Our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community are fighting a battle that they’re close to winning, and we don’t want to do anything that would cause that fight to take a step backwards.”
No, we wouldn’t want to do that, now would we?
That slippery slope – if it is such a thing – was broached by the Israelite patriarchs, Arabs, and more recently the Mormon Church in America. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The stipulation put on Utah becoming a state by the USA that Utah’s marriage laws should be written to outlaw plural marriage was an unconstitutional act. My suggestion to demand all persons be party to a single marriage license/contract would likely stop most plural marriages from happening. Other than that your slope doesn’t exist. I f the slope is slippery, it is so for those who are attempting to scale that slope up from marriage as you would define it.
.
On the other hand it would allow two lesbians/bisexual women and two gay/bisexual men to create a family which would produce an issue of children. Would four parents of one mind raising children be any worse than two? Any thoughts, Warren?
. . .
Also, what would the answer be to my first qustion directly to you about who would the parnet of your children be if…
Debbie,
When mentioning pedophilia keep in mind that a child has an undeveloped brain being manipulated by a mature adult. There’s a big difference between tweo adult lesbians or gay men making a decision to marry than an adult and an underdeveloped child.
So the polygamy “slippery slope” argument is not that far-fetched in your view, Lynn. And I suppsoe polyamory isn’t far behind. Wonder how many other gay marriage supporters feel similarly. When you open Pandora’s Box and begin redefining marriage, who is to say where it ends? We could go ahead and lower the age of consent as the Dutch have done. Then we could legalize pedophilia, too. Shouldn’t we have compassion for those folks who can’t marry the object of their affection? It’s all about love, right?
Lynn David
Thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware that there were two types of marriage in the Roman Empire during the time of Jesus. I wrote that marriage was a contract for the sake of simplicity, it was more than that, of course. It’s useful to show what marriage was not back in those days but it is now. We, as modern people, tend to think a lot about it in terms of rights and our own projections of entitlement (finding the ideal match and changing oneself to project an image of ideal match). Romans didn’t think primarily in these terms, and neither did other civilisations long before them (Sumerians). They thought marriage was inseparable from motherhood (marriage = matrimonium, mother = mater), but the most important thing in their days was status and property, seeing that marriage would strengthen both spouses’ chances of social advancement, by joining their property and producing more Roman citizens (preferably men, because they were in charge of all public business). Women’s status revolved around their husbands’ and their success around the success of their marriage.
Today roles are pretty much reversed. Men compete for women and women decide if they accept a guy or not. It’s the man’s fortune and status that matter more than a woman’s dowry. And women have their own status and money, which gives them more space for decision.
If you can bring some references for that, it would be good to draw a comparison, but it’s likely to be a different cultural model of marriage. The father who gives away his daughter and her dowry to a carefully picked man was a common pattern since Sumer arose. I’d be surprised if the American Indians fathers gave their “two-spirited” sons much in the same way… If same-sex marriage/partnership becomes largely available in the Western world, in my opinion, it would be a first in this form that includes freedoms and rights.
As far as I know, marriage in the Medieval Age had a bad publicity among Christian clerics. The thinking was that this life was only a preparatory stage for the afterlife, so it was more fitting for a man of belief to contemplate and not engage in a union that sheltered sin and lust with a woman. When Luther, Calvin and Zwingli married, they set a major precedent in their communities (according to a French historian, Jean Delumeau). Christianism always had a hard time getting in bed with sex. Luther said he would marry to confront the devil and his scales. You can compare that with today’s mentality infuenced by identity and science: we have mainly two types of sexuality and some combinations. So the devil is either hidden everywhere (like Giger’s Alien creatures popping out their heads from virtually any space) or nowhere.
So your definition should take precedence over how gay people might define their relationships and wish them protected in law?
.
The truth is that those (adult humans, one would hope that would be understood but lately it seems that some would like to argue otherwise to demean some) who enter into a marriage forge their own pesonal definition of what that marriage should be. It is up to the state then to support their decisions. And yes, I would include plural marriages in that as long as all parties attested to one marriage license or marriage contract at the samee time. Thus for a man to add a wife (or woman to add a husband) they would necessarily have to dissolve the first marriage and then form a plural marriage with the all the old parties and the new party(-ies) attesting to the marriage contract.
It seems that I remember reading that at the time of Christ in the Roman Empire there were contract marriages and what were called conscience marriages. In a conscience marriage the couple publically declared their intent to live together as man and wife. It is said that the Christians adopted the form of conscience marriage as their marriage vows in the Roman Empire.
.
The first marriage that happened in a church was something like 870 (if my memory is correct). Sometime in the early 1200s a pope declared marriage sacred (ie, a sacrament) which should be declared and blessed in a church. But it was necessary to redeclare in the Council of Florence about 1431 and also the the later Council of Trent because people were not getting married in churches. The Council of Trent also declared, “If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.” I guess I am anathema, because same-sex marriages were occurring in the Americas long before Christ came along.
Debbie,
How many gay people pay taxes in states where they cannot marry? Evan is right on with his response to your taxes argument.
“false comparisons” is not a realistic or honest take.
David,
I agree, but once again you seem to undermine the parallels between the interracial marriage struggle of the past and the gay marriage struggle of today. For reasons I can only imagine
My question to you Debbie is this: Had you not sought counseling to change your own SSA and had instead moved in the direction of living out a same gender attraction life, who would be the parent of your children?
I would check my social stats before making some of those assumptions, Debbie. INcluding checking into the family and tax laws of each state, district etc… that does not allow for same gender parenting or coupling. It puts people at some financial disadvantages.
As far as gays not having children …. well, regardless of how those children came into the world, they do exist.
Mary, what child’s parents can’t get married? You can’t be talking about gay people because they can’t reproduce. They can have sperm-bank babies or surrogate-mothered babies or raise one partner’s child from a previous marriage. How is a gay parent being prevented from moving into a school district or doing anything, for that matter, because of a lack of money? The partner can work and bring money into the household. In fact, gay people are much better off financially than most demographics.
I feel sorry for lots of situations. Mostly, I feel sorry for kids who grow up confused and without both a mother and father as proper role models. I feel compassion for gay people, but their relationships are far out of the norm. They are not in the best interest of society. They create confusion where there ought not to be any. Most of all, they are ungodly.
I also feel compassion for the poor, widowed and orphaned. I feel compassion for people who lose their jobs or who are victimized by crime. The world has never been fair and happiness was never promised us. John 16:33. We are promised grace for overcoming our infirmities, our afflictions and the world.
I do feel sorry for the children who are born and whose parents cannot get married. I do feel sorry for those who love and support eachother but cannot get health insurance for the entire family because of “marriage” laws. I do feel sorry for the gay people who have shared a household for decades and cannot pass it on to eachother in death without a huge tax consequence becaue of the tax laws for “married” couples only. I do feel sorry for the gay parent who wants to move into a good school district but without the dual income of another partner cannot do so. There are so many things that the lack of marriage does to disadvantage gay people.
Debbie Thurman,
That’s what I said. The state can and does support some things that not all citizens support in their beliefs. There is one principle in the modern state: one cannot set the state conditions for paying taxes. Like – I only pay taxes if you don’t provide funding to this/that. First, one pays taxes like any other citizen. Secondly, the state, managed by elected officials, decides how funds are distributed for public policy. I suspect there are people who would say, ‘I’m anti-war, so I don’t want to pay for missiles, but I’ll pay for justice and street lighting.’ If anyone does that, paying taxes becomes an individual contract with individual clauses.
It’s the same with the right to marry. Someone who doesn’t believe in same-sex marriages may one day pay taxes, part of which will be used for the benefit of both other-sex marriages and same-sex marriages. At the same time, people who believe in same-sex marriages will pay for both. Thus, the state remains neutral to both types of partnership and to each person’s belief, by supporting both types of adult partnership and collecting taxes from both.
People who want to get into same-sex partnerships might not want to pay taxes to a state that only supports other-sex marriages, on the other hand. But the state is not asking them if they agree with other-sex marriages in order to pay taxes. Paying taxes is not an option, but both types of marriage/partnership should be.
I understand that, but people must be able to make their own choices (or changes, if they wish so). So the state will recognise both your beliefs and other people’s choices. It’s about inclusiveness for all taxpayers’ money and beliefs.
Comparing sexual identity to religious faith must have some limitations, however, I believe it is the stronger argument, rather than genetics, for civil rights…and it doesn’t allow the false comparison with interracial marriage or with slavery and African Americans.
I think, also, it allows people to tolerate without endorsing.
Says who, jayhuck? Christian gays aren’t having religious marriage ceremonies? Right. And three supreme courts against 50 states have said I must accept something I do not believe in. They cannot make me change my beliefs, nor did I say they could. Red herring. But my taxes must support it.
Jenn and Evan, all the arguments in the world can’t change a person’s mind unless they will it to change. Likewise, all the arguments in the world can’t dethrone God or his law.
As I said before, nothing has changed. Party hearty … while it is yet day.
Debbie,
No supreme court anywhere has said that you must change your beliefs. In fact, in the states that do allow gay marriage, no religious person is being asked to agree with gay marriage and no church is being forced to perform same-sex marriages. Where gay marriages are allowed it is a civil union – a civil marriage – not a religious one.
If I believe that the earth is flat, do I need to pay taxes to a state which invests in space agencies that promote the “belief” that the earth is a spheroid? If that is the case, the state works to impose a belief that runs counter to mine. Here’s another one: If I don’t believe in capitalism do I have to pay taxes to a capitalistic state?
I think it’s not the state’s business what beliefs taxpayers support. The state provides public goods in return for levied taxes. So if some adult citizens need to enter some form of partnership that grants them some benefits that other citizens have, then there should be no other people to decide for them, unless they want to copy a cultural institution that is protected and defined in certain terms (ceremony, vows, a certain type of dyad, etc – all defined by a set of shared beliefs).
Marriage was originally a contract, only recently got all mixed up with beliefs, rights, and so on. I changed my mind on this subject. I think “gays” should be equal to “straights” on all accounts. The more you try to stop it, the more it becomes unstoppable.
As Jenn said:
That’s motivation.
Au contraire. Three states’ supreme courts have done just that — forced their definition of marriage on people who believe otherwise, and said so in statewide referenda. So, why don’t gay marriage advocates just hold their beliefs to themselves? There is not one state in the union where a majority supports same-sex marriage. I can pretty much guarantee you that the framers of their constitutions never once even conceived of it. This will also become a religious freedom issue. It’s already a child welfare issue.
Debbie,
People can still hold onto their beliefs regarding marriage without forcing it on those who don’t agree with them – I highly recommend you read the decision by the justices. They commented on religious liberty.
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/03-14
J
Jenn, minds are always subject to change. Ethnicity is not.
The people are free to define marriage as they see fit. Oh wait. No, they are not. Their will is overturned by judicial fiat. The people are too stupid to know what they believe.
Nothing has been changed.
You can read the decision from a PDF on Pam’s House Blend.
.
The section I posted above starts on the bottom of page 41.
🙂
From Tips-Q – I guess he is quoting the actual wording of the decision, but he does not provide a link to it.
Jenn,
That’s cool. My friend owns a Muslim grocery store where they sele halal meat and absolutely no pork. Across the street I can order a breakfast combo that comes with bacon and sausage. That’s America. We are not a homogenized soup of a culture and instead are a mixture of separate spices, entrees, tastes etc… And there are a lot of different people sitting at the table.
Mary…I think I misunderstood your thoughts upon rereading….
Mary –
Because our country is a place where many faiths co-exist and those “vices” you speak of…though they may not be something you would engage in, are allowed by law. We don’t abolish caffeine because Mormons don’t believe in drinking it..or hot chocolate. In fact, you have the right to have a cup of cocoa anytime you wish…even if it does go against the Mormon faith.
People in America are not under “christian rule,” they are under a law which protects multiple faiths and beliefs. My belief, as a christian woman, is that those of the same-sex should be allowed to marry. I am happy to see progress in their rights.
I think this is wonderful news as well – I was particularly happy to hear the attention the justices devoted to the idea of religious liberty in light of this decision as well. I hope its ok to post these quotes here:
As a conservative christian, I do support gay marriages on a constitutional basis. It does not mean I have to agree with the activities of others nor accept those activities as my moral standard. People drink, have sex outside of marriage, indulge in all sorts of vices etc… all legal and uncontested by the conservative christians. Why is gay marriage any different? I’m not sure. If I want to protect my right to practice my religion it means I will have to protect the rights of others to practice there religion – even when I disagree with that religion or belief.
oh…and Debbie..we protect people’s religion, don’t we? – and that seems pretty changeable, and most definitely a “choice.”
It’s an old argument.
This is fantastic news! I wonder how long will it be before we finally begin to treat all of our citizens equally. MA, CT both have same-sex marriage, others have civil unions, and places like NY and Rhode Island (I think) accept marriages from other states but do not perform them.
It’s coming, and it’s just a matter of time. There are many who will be on the “wrong side of history”…it is embarassing to witness America’s “struggle” around this issue, but I am sure we’ll end up in the right place. God bless the people who worked to make it happen. In the end, all the arguments in the world aren’t going to stop it.
Of course, the miscegenation law comparison seems compelling from a legal standpoint, but it strikes the same dissonant tone as the civil rights comparison to gay rights does. Racial groups qualify as “suspect classes” because race is unchangeable. Homosexuals don’t because there is no scientific basis for claiming sexual orientation is stable and unchangeable. A man is a man, regardless of race. Men and women have to be presumed as interchangeable for the gay marriage legal argument to use the miscegenation comparison.
Warren,
Here’s a table(s) on a Wikipedia page (scroll down a bit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
that shows a state by state summary. Some states, like my home Illinois, repealed its interracial marriage ban in 1874, others, CA famously, didn’t overturn laws until after WWII and still others were overturned by Loving v. Virginia (1967).
A scholarly article explores anti-miscegenation law history (and the inherent racism involved) in the US Southwest can be found here.
Of note in this article is that New Mexico didn’t have laws banning interracial marriage after 1854, the striking down the ban in CA in 1948, and conservative TX holding out until 1967. This neatly parallels the whole country.
@Scott:
I would be interested in a paper on that topic, Scott, if you can point one out. I am sure I could find one, but if you have something handy, please note the link. Thanks.
I believe there was a patchwork of laws regarding miscenegation for just shy of 100 years before Loving v. Virginia.
I absolutely agree that this issue has to eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Patchwork quilt is an accurate way of describing state-by-state judicial “legislating.” If gay rights advocates can’t win by pushing marriage, they will do it (and are doing it) via family courts when child custody/visitation cases come up in gay divorce cases. There are a number of those currently in a variety of states, the most infamous of which is here in Virginia with the Lisa Miller-Janet Jenkins case.
And yes, it is ironic that Richard Socarides was cited. As ironic as Madeline Murray O’hara’s son opposing her as a born-again Christian.