Deinonychus antirrhopus

From the clip I heard, it was to prevent the change without a vote on it saying yes. So we wind up with two words instead of one, if they come out the same in the end. If they're not in fact the same, then that will come out too.

Ron, I agree about the two-words issue. I honestly doubt that any gay couple who get "civil-unionized" won't call themselves "married" anyway.

However, the devil is in the details. Some of the proposed amendments include language that will effectively prevent states from passing civil union laws too.

Yes, more carbonated, caffienated beverages are a must in any situation.

As for the FMA, I think it is incredibly silly, and a sad thing. I'd love to hear a good argument against gay marriage.

I have seen the slippery slop argument, and that's fine, but I want to see the chain of reasoning that will lead us down that slope. Further, it strikes me that the line for what consitutes marriage is somewhat arbitrary, if so, then arbitrarily draw the line at two people getting married. This will effectively limit concerns with polygamy and polyandry.

Why stop it at two? Not that I'm dying to add on another wife, or share the one that I do have, mind you. Just curious. If you're going to restrict it at all, on what basis is two the right number?

Slari
One was too many for me. You be a better man than me.

Steve
I have an argument. It's not overwhelming, and it may not even be convincing (it hasn't convinced me) but I'll outline it. However, first I'll point out again that I care very little for or against gay marriage. I think the net impact on society will justify my indifference. On to the show.

1) Society recognizes that man-woman marriage is a benefit to society, because it results in the continuation of society. The gov't and business both 'subsidize' man-woman marriage to encourage it.

2) The arguments in favor of extending the subsidation to gay couples will also extend the subsidation to single people. The end result is that all marriage states are equally subsidized, or restating: that none of them are subsidized.

3) The end result is that society is no longer subsidizing that which results in the continuation of society.

After arguing this over at Kevin's, nobody was able to come up with another reason to subsidize man-woman marriages except for the continuation of society argument. No one was able to prevent the extension of marriage benefits to singles once they are allowed to gays. The only thing that was brought up that I found hard to refute was that we are nearly overpopulated and that it is not currently in society's interest to enlarge itself.

Don't you love it when someone constructs an argument about marriage that ignores human feeling?

Slarti
Sorry, my eyes read your comment faster than my brain processed it. I thought on first reading that you wanted another wife.

Q: Why stop at two?

A; I'll trot out one of my previous examples. Limiting marriage to two individuals simplifies intestate inheritance. 3+ people in a marriage make it more complicated.

Let me first note that I don't give a fig about marriage issues, one way or the other.

But FROM A PURELY POLITICAL VIEWPOINT, not only was Dubya's move probably necessary (to shore up his right-wing credentials), but it actually was probably the best, if not a pretty deft, maneuver.

Why?

Think about this:

If the Congress decided to pass a bill on gay marriage (say, banning it, most likely in this case), and it wound up on Bush's desk, what could he do? What would he do? Given McCain-Feingold as precedent, he'd sign it. (Indeed, given his marginal GOP creds, he'd probably have to.) That's w/o even wondering if he'd WANT to.

Dump it into the Constitutional process, however, and look at what happens:

Prez gets to comment (or not) on the topic, to no particular effect. He neither vetoes nor sponsors the legislation behind a Constitutional amendment. It's outta his hands.

The topic is drawn out. Let's assume that they decide to put this at the top of the legislative agenda. How soon will it make it through BOTH houses of Congress? 38 states? Long past November, I'd bet.

The topic is thrown to the states. Want bad guys who are anti-gay? Go fight it out down there. Want to shore up GOP creds in the states? Liberal GOP-ers can oppose it; conservative GOPers can support it. (The gay community could view this, in some ways, as a god-send. Focus your resources on 13-14 states, instead of going toe-to-toe w/ "god-fearin', family-protectin'" elements at the nat'l level. Defeat it in enough states, and the whole issue dies, Constitutionally-speaking.)

The topic remains a GOP lode-stone. "Hey, we're in support of the family!" BUT the topic effectively dies. When was the last time a Constitutional amendment passed? (Leaving aside the lost one of pay raises.) Late 1970s? How long has ERA stagnated? You really think that this will pass, when one for balanced budgets never made it even close?

Not to say Dubya necessarily considered any of these elements. But, IMHO, it defuses the topic rather neatly, in many ways.

Oh good, an actual discussion of this topic (apologies to Robin). Now lets keep it polite, these can too often degenerate.

Good argument Ron, I'll respond when I have a bit more time.

Oh...and Dave, no snide comments about Mark (inside joke).

Good argument? I don't know that it's a good argument, it's just the only one I could come up with. Since my interest lies in arguing anything, however, I would be honored to defend it.

Well okay how about this, you put some effort into coming up with something. Usually I don't get much of a response beyond, "Its tradition dammit!" So by comparison its good...hows that.

A; I'll trot out one of my previous examples. Limiting marriage to two individuals simplifies intestate inheritance. 3+ people in a marriage make it more complicated.

Since when has legal complexity caused lawmakers to pause and think? No, I think that sort of thing would be a boon to lawyers.

I should note again that I'm not lobbying for polygamy or polyandry. I'm just wondering on what basis you're going to restrict marriage, once the traditional and religious ones are removed.

Here in DC, there was a pundit show that included Evan Thomas, Nina Totenberg, and Charles Krauthammer.

When Krauthammer raised the idea that polygamy could come back, Thomas promptly dismissed it blithely by saying, "It'll never happen. People won't go that far."

I wanted to throw my drink through the screen.

Fifty years ago, who woulda thought that mixed marriages would be accepted? Twenty years ago, I'm sure that gay marriage would've been dismissed as unlikely. That anyone could so smoothly dismiss polygamy obviously has no sense of history or even irony.

And that's in agreeing w/ Slarti, insofar as I'm not advocating polygamy, just wondering how anyone could be so sure that THAT won't ever be acceptable....

Let me horn in on the slippery slope to polygamy argument.

Polygamy has been done, precedent you know. But is there any precedent for gay marriage? The ancient Greeks just took extramarital lovers as I recall.

Wouldn't that seem to make polygamy more 'traditional' than gay marriage?

This move by Bush has pushed me off the fence--I now openly support gay marriage, as opposed to my previous de facto indifference.

Actually, I think I finally understand why some lefties hate Bush so much--it's pure emotion.

Not only does the amendment process result in delaying the matter, but it means it will be decided on a political, not judicial fiat, basis. If you want an ugly situation, let the courts set the rules without any consultation of the people; if you want a peaceful settlement, let the people argue it over and come to a decision.

I'm sure someone will point to the civil rights era as an example of judicial action "gone right", but the reality is there were already laws (and Constitutional amendments!) around that just weren't being enforced. Even with that, the Civil Rights Acts went a huge distance towards generating a consensus.

And who's to say the consensus that comes out of the amendment process won't result in civil unions or marriage being legal for gay couples? Honestly, I think some of the people getting upset at Bush need to step back and think what has them upset -- the slim possibility it will pass or the idea of having to pay attention to what "those people" have to say?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why its a good idea for a court system to force gay marriage by fiat without any substantive constitutional or statutory basis for their decision.

For that's what Massachusetts S.Ct. is doing. It seems that the proposed amendment is simply pushing the issue back into the political arena where it belongs.

Consider the result if gay marriage is adopted nationwide by judicial fiat.

Our political process would be dominated by another Roe v. Wade. Every judicial nomination would become a partisan circus over whether or not the judicial nominee would defend / reverse the gay marriage decision. Perhaps the disaffected would bomb gay marriage chapels as a small hardcore of abortion opponents do.

Far better that the issue be one for resolution by ballot. If abortion had been handled this way, many people believe that the political furor would have gone away by now. Instead, judicial activism inflamed the issue.

Mmmmmm, Dr. Pepper.

This is pure election-year grandstanding. If a flag-burning amendment can't make it out of the Senate, then the FMA has less than no chance. Bush knows this.

Robin,

I agree that what you are saying is a very real possibility. And it is one reason I am very leery of the judicial solution. However, I don't think that is a good argument against gay marriage in general.

Steve
I've been doing some more thinking on my argument, because I've known all along that I've been leaving something out but just couldn't define it good enough to write it down. I think I have.

I am going to separate marriage bennies into 3 catagories (and feel free to argue this division):

1) The crass monetary stuff. Tax breaks, whatever.

2) I'll call this the contractual part. This next statement is probably not legally accurate but will get my idea across: you get some power of attorney over your partner. This stuff makes it easier to care for a sick or elderly partner.

3) The demonstration of commitment. And here you add in "before God and community" or whatever is appropriate for you.

It seems to me that the crass monetary stuff is addressed by my previous argument. This is how society is able to "reward" "desirable" behavior.

The contractual part could probably be accomplished with or without marriage. Because of this I do not see it a show stopper no matter what happens.

But the demonstration of commitment... Now my marriage didn't work out well at all and I've pretty much cooled on the idea, and this part is why. I have learned that this commitment is easier to say than do. However, I do remember it being important at the time. This is what remained unaddressed in my argument.

Ron,

Good idea break it down like that.

1. Crass money stuff.

I'm not sure of that many benefits. Save for the ones from employers the only thing I can think of are things such as child deductions. If a gay person (married or otherwise) has a child and is the guardian they get the deductions now, so I don't see this as an issue.

Let me put it this way, the only way for a gay couple to get the main benefit I see here is to actually reproduce and help assure the continuance of society...so why not give them the benefits.

As for other crass money benefits, marriage is anything comes with a penalty right now, in terms of taxes.

2. The contractural part.

I can see why many gay couples don't feel they should have to go to extra lengths to get what is given much easier to another group of people. Further, one that maybe much easier to contest in court. Sure it could be addressed by strengthening this option in a legal fashion, but it sounds quite reminiscent of the "seperate, but equal" language used during the segregation era.

3. Before God and comunity.

I imagine this is where there is a great deal of stickiness in the problem. Many regligious groups/people probably consider this the biggest problem. They don't like the idea of something they consider a sin to be given validity before God (and probably not so much community). This is where I tend to run into trouble. Not because I am a big believer in God, but because I think people should be allowed to do quite a bit so long as it does cause harm to another (putting it a bit simplisticly).

So I think a religious group should be allowed to say, "We wont marry, nor shall we honor marriages we object to." Further, I think that should be the right of every private citizen in their handling of their affairs/property. Of course, I also have a right to not associate or do business with people who hold views I find unpleasant. So if a guy says he wont rent an apartment to a gay couple (married or not) I think he should have that right. Just as I have a right to not rent from him or do any other business if I find his views disagreeable.

So on this one, I'd let each religious organization do what it wants to. If they want to marry homosexuals, great. If they don't, its sad, but I understand it is their right.

Robin,

Not only is it pushing the debate back into the political realm, everybody had to see this coming. Bush gave a very clear signal that going at this via the courts would trigger his support for an FMA. The Mass. Sp. Ct. and San Francisco have basically forced the issue. Bush drew a line in the sand and they stepped over it, and now there is the pay off for doing so. I'm a bit surprised everybody is so "stunned". This was like a semi-truck coming at 90 MPH with its headlights on and horn blaring.

Alright, we're rolling now.

1. Crass money stuff. I'm not sure of that many benefits...
I believe the count for the number of Federal benefits for marriage is 1047 items (I was looking this stuff up the other day). Capital gains tax on selling houses is better for married than single, etc. But at minimum I'll agree that this is probably not why couples get married. It is however the main carrot that gov't and business (as representatives of society) can provide.

it sounds quite reminiscent of the "seperate, but equal" language
Good point there, I missed that. I was envisioning the mechanics of getting it done and I saw some pretty universal boilerplate. But your point does make this more problematic than I thought. And I am reminded of someone else's argument that when you need to take advantage of this, you don't want to be running to the safe deposit box to find your contract.

But, since I'm arguing: legal contracts is legal contracts. We're not building separate outhouses here. The legal documents for gays would be the same as the legal documents for man-woman. The acceptance of society is a problem with society, not the documents.

Before God and comunity.
I also think this is the main point of controversy. And one of the beauties of my first argument for completely avoiding it :-)

The reason I think this is twofold: First, as you point out, the 70% that supported Judge Roy's rock are the same 70% that see marriage as being "before God" (percentage drug up from memory) and therefore gay marriages cannot be. Large popular objection on your "Its tradition dammit!" grounds.

Second, I think this is why people get married. And further, I remember watching a couple get married in front of a judge and I was thinking that they had somehow been cheated out of something. For that reason, I don't think calling them "civil unions" is going to completely cut it for the gay people. They may tolerate it as an interim step, but then we'll do this fight again.

And the $64,000 question is: how do you convince the 70%? (Just getting around them will cause hard feelings on both sides, one because they were bypassed the other because they had to settle for something less)

We are separate but equal in this country. Indians are a separate nation and some tribes try to use it to their advantage.

Possibly one reason the want to call it marriage is because it will convey legitimacy because the law says they are?

Adding some grist to the discussion:

1. Crass monetary reasons:
Nothing really to add to this.

2. Contractual stuff:
Using a couple I know as an example -- they've managed to accomplish the equivalent of marriage (wills, etc.) for the most part. They've spent a good chunk of change working with a lawyer to achieve this.

3. Before God and community:

I also think this is the major source of objections, though a lot of gay-marriage opponents won't admit it.

a. Religious objections. Using the argument "I don't want my church to be forced to recognize / perform gay marriages" is a bit of a strawman. Religions won't be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

The largest church in the US, Catholicism, doesn't sanctify marriage between divorced heterosexual couples. Since the state can't force them to do this, why would the state be able to force them to recognize gay marriage?

The two largest Protestant demoniations, Southern Baptist and Methodist, don't sanctify gay marriage, and also wouldn't be forced to by the state. (As I noted in a previous post, there are some people within the UMC trying to change this policy, but they're working from within, trying to persuade the church to change the position).

Other churches, such as the Metropolitan Communit CHurch, already perform religious ceremonies for gay couples, that for all intents and purposes are marriage ceremonies.

Regardless of the outcome of the current debate, churches' attitudes towards gay marriage won't be forced to change by anyone other than the members of the churches themselves.

b. Community:

This, IMHO, is the heart of the matter for a lot of people, but they won't admit it. The idea of public recognition of a gay couple's commitment to each other makes some people squeamish. It's a viceral and irrational reaction (exacerbated by the media's frequent focus on the, umm (what's a polite term for "freakish"?) non-average gay couple) that hopefully will fade with more exposure to "normal" gay families.

Dave

First of all, you can just simply state your agreement that my argument that the crass monetary benefits should be reserved to heterosexual marriages to promote the continuation of society :-) I gotta win something here.

On the contractual stuff, I'm glad to hear that can work. As more gay couples do this, it should start approaching my "boilerplate" thing and not be as difficult (and therefore expensive) to do.

But I think the religious objection would remain. Any church performing gay marriage is going to be seen as "going against God" and I suspect it will be hard on them in the court of public opinion. A mainstream church would stand to lose many members, and disuade new members.

And you say
I also think this is the major source of objections, though a lot of gay-marriage opponents won't admit it.
Is that statement limited to the "God and community" stuff or the general "demonstration of commitment". Because I can understand someone denying that God and community were reasons for marriage, but I can't see someone saying that the demonstration of commitment wasn't. In fact, this seems to me to be the main purpose of marriage.

As Will Rogers once observed, "The Supreme Court keeps an eye on the returns, like everrbuddy else."

I'd say that religion does as well.

Or, to put it differently, if the United States government were to formally recognize the validity of gay marriages, while this would not immediately result in churches, synagogues, etc., doing so, but it WOULD be a mighty powerful force pushing at those doors.

Which is one reason why I'm suspicious of all this: if the issue of gay marriage were primarily the crass financial and mundane contractual stuff, why has the gay community pushed for RELIGIOUS acceptance of gay marriage for so long? Andrew Sullivan (whose writings I usually read) has long lamented the Catholic Church's refusal to recognize gay marriage; ACT-UP was going after the churches long ago; the Episcopal decision was not predicated on either of the above. This is suggesting that governmental recognition is not an end, or at least not solely an end in and of itself, but also part of a larger intention to have gay marriage accepted, condoned, and indeed approved even by religious organizations.

I believe the count for the number of Federal benefits for marriage is 1047 items (I was looking this stuff up the other day). Capital gains tax on selling houses is better for married than single, etc. But at minimum I'll agree that this is probably not why couples get married. It is however the main carrot that gov't and business (as representatives of society) can provide.

Actually, not trying to be a jerk here, but I'd like to know what some of these are. Are they automatically given to married couples or does a married couple have to do something (e.g., crank out a kid)?

Possibly one reason the want to call it marriage is because it will convey legitimacy because the law says they are?

There is probably a lot of truth to this.

This, IMHO, is the heart of the matter for a lot of people, but they won't admit it. The idea of public recognition of a gay couple's commitment to each other makes some people squeamish. It's a viceral and irrational reaction (exacerbated by the media's frequent focus on the, umm (what's a polite term for "freakish"?) non-average gay couple) that hopefully will fade with more exposure to "normal" gay families.

Apparently I need to get outside CA more often. I wouldn't have thought this as being the problem.

I'm sure that is part of it. Doug and Joe will feel like their relationship has more legitimacy since it is on par with Bob and Mary's.

Steve addresses to me: " However, I don't think that is a good argument against gay marriage in general."

I wasn't presenting the discussion about the backlash against a judicial gay marriage decision ala Roe v. Wade was an argument against gay marriage itself. Just about that particular route.

Robin,

Seem my post from today about the FMA and gay marriage. I think there is indeed some serious confusing of issues going on here by many who favor gay marriage.

Steve says
Actually, not trying to be a jerk here, but I'd like to know what some of these are.
I had to quote that first part too :-) I also wanted to know what they were, but I dug a little and did not find them listed. I'm sure they are, but frankly I'm not going to spend the time.

I only started this line of reasoning to stir the pot over at Kevin's. My dedication level is not high enough. Sorry.

Apparently I need to get outside CA more often. I wouldn't have thought this as being the problem.
Oh yes it will be. I think the issue of gay marriage is unresolvable for that reason. The opponents of gay marriage are going to latch onto the idea of "demostration of commitment before God", and the Bible says homosexuality is abnormal behavior and not to be tolerated. The proponents of gay marriage are going to be talking social issues, and the opponents are going to be talking religious issues. Think of it as people arguing in two different languages. It will not be pretty.

Ron,

Contractual stuff -- there are a couple of issues that cannot be covered by contracts no matter how boilerplate they eventually become. E.G., Michael Demmons (www.discountblogger.com) is an immigrant from Canada, who doesn't have his greencard yet. If he were to lose his job, he could be deported rather rapidly. If his parter were actually his legal spouse, he wouldn't face that threat.

Is that statement limited to the "God and community" stuff or the general "demonstration of commitment". Because I can understand someone denying that God and community were reasons for marriage, but I can't see someone saying that the demonstration of commitment wasn't. In fact, this seems to me to be the main purpose of marriage.

I'm having a reading comprehension problem -- I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I just meant that the root source of some people's opposition to gay marriage is their uneasiness with something new. (I'm not talking about the active opponents, but rather the ones who answer polls with "oppose gay marriage" but don't really have strong feelings about the issue). Since we live in a relatively polite society (no, really), these people cover their visceral distaste with another justification (religion, crass financial reasons, etc.)

Just my opinion. I may be all wet (or living in a polyanna world).

who doesn't have his greencard yet. If he were to lose his job, he could be deported rather rapidly. If his parter were actually his legal spouse, he wouldn't face that threat.
All the possibilities could not be covered without actual gay marriage, and there would always be more work involved in doing this contractually. Imagine a couple moving to a different state with different laws. But, in a large sense, the contracts would be conceivable.

I'm having a reading comprehension problem -- I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Your clarification answered my question. It will probably get even more confusing with more clarification :-)

Study as though you will not reach, as if you may lose it.

Carrot Cake

Immigration Lawyer