Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[halplm]

Well, Nel, if I were king, I'd not have marriage in the law...

[nerdanel]

hal, this thread is about what is, not fantasy worlds. That's one forum up.

[Faramond]

The quote of great controversy:

This is really great news for anyone who cares about civil rights or human rights

To anyone who objects to Voronwë's clarification:

1. Do you think the statement is confrontational?

2. Would you use a similar statement in the ad campaign to defeat the amendment in November?

[Holbytla]

Prim - this case was deliberately brought only under California state law, so that it could not be appealed to the Supreme Court (the state high court is the arbiter of the state constitution - NOT the Supreme Court.) Nonetheless, idiot (from a legal perspective) opponents of same-sex marriage tried to pull this move in Massachusetts (to get the case to the 1st Circuit or SCOTUS, and the federal courts rejected the case, as they had to do - there was no issue over which they had jurisdiction.)

This was four years ago or so, so my memory is fuzzy on this. However IIRC some of the objections to this the first time around was that people believed the judge was circumventing lawmaking. I think a lot of people (myself included) felt that it is the legislature that should have been making the call and not a judge. I think from that stemmed all sorts of appeals and shenanigans. Obviously people objected for other reasons as well, but why allienate people that may be in favor of such a bill by apparent circumvention of lawmaking?

While we are on legalities and people's rights, perhaps at some point someone can start a thread on the extreme bias in the courts concerning men, divorces and custody. I really want to understand why that is acceptable practice.

[nerdanel]

Faramond - I think the statement is:

1 - highly rhetorical;
2 - would not be a persuasive choice of wording if the purpose of your statement was to convince someone "on the fence"; and
3 - only works within a paradigm in which you believe in gay equality and understand marriage in a particular way (i.e. it wouldn't work for someone who wants to define same-sex couples out of marriage, believes marriage is unnecessary, or believes that it is a privilege the state can dole out at will). Somebody outside that paradigm would likely experience the statement as confrontational; to someone within that paradigm, it is an expression of (their) truth.

In dialoguing with someone on the fence about this issue, however, you would attempt to illustrate the truth of V's statement to them WITHOUT using that phrasing. I've met few people who don't believe in civil/human rights in the abstract. Everyone wants to believe they support civil/human rights! So, the objective is to persuade people (with respect to this or any other issue) that there is only one stance on the issue that they can hold consistently with a pro-civil rights/pro-human rights (or pro-gay rights, if they're that progressive) stance. Usually this is done using the language of "fairness" and "equal dignity" - backed by specific examples (there are myriad examples to choose from!) of the ways in which denial of equal civil marriage rights continues to harm gay people. But people need to make the final leap - "Support for this issue is something incumbent on me as a supporter of civil rights" on their own, or not at all. If you try to force someone into that paradigm before they've gotten there themselves, they'll just be offended.

ETA Holby - the California legislature has made this decision. TWICE. And the reason the Governor vetoed it is that he felt that there remained a legal issue for the courts to decide (the effect of 2000's Prop. 22) and he was concerned that the LEGISLATURE was circumventing law making. So at this point, in California - the three branches of government are now unanimous. Nothing has been circumvented.

Incidentally: an issue of unequal treatment under the state Constitution is for the judiciary to decide in any case, not the legislature. But it would be difficult to contend at this point that any branch of California government has not had an opportunity to weigh in.

And btw, the Massachusetts legislature at long last spectacularly weighed in on this issue, in a referendum defeat that was truly incredible to watch on this coast.

[Jnyusa]

Faramond,

I don't think that the statement was intended to be confrontational, but I can also see how it might be viewed that way.

Though this is not the position I hold personally, I think it is quite possible for someone who believes that gays should enjoy all the legal rights associated with marriage to nevertheless feel that our debates about the nature of marriage are poorly addressed within the purely legal realm. Denying that particular designation to gay unions is not the only way one might remove the 'religious' aspects of marriage from the legal realm. We plainly have the right to determine as a society what a legal union is going to be, but if there is a sizeable portion of the population that believes marriage as such has religious dimensions that need to be acknowledged, then it makes sense to me to consider whether any couple should receive from the state, as such, an imprimatur of marriage, as such, or whether the state should be restricted to determining for all what constitutes legal union and nothing more.

In other words, rather than interpreting Cerin to mean that gays cannot be united, I would be inclined to ask her whether it would be equally satisfactory if she and her husband were not 'married' by the state either, but given leave to be legally united by the state and then be free to also be 'married' by their church if that was what they wished.

[River]

holby, it's acceptable because enough people believe that women are better nurturers and children therefore belong with their mothers that the rights of fathers is still being neglected. I am not convinced that this is true.

What is marriage, anyone? If it's about love, why can't homosexuals call themselves married? If it's about making babies, why can childless heterosexual couples remain married? If it's about something written in a religious text, why are couples that don't subscribe to that religion allowed to marry? What's so threatening about homosexual marriage?

[nerdanel]

Jn - if Cerin took that position (civil unions for all + marriage from religious institution) I would find that consistent with concern for civil rights, although perhaps somewhat questionable on support for gay rights (remember, full support for gay rights means in all venues, not only the legal ones.) I remember a previous discussion - I think on b77 - where I raised that question, and I think Cerin's response at that time (please correct me if I am remembering wrong or this is outdated) was that it would be fine to do it that way (civil unions for all) if we were creating a new legal system, but since opposite-sex couples are now accustomed to getting married, we should just leave well enough alone in that realm.

THAT is what seemed inconsistent with a position of equality under the law to me. But I could be remembering wrong, of course.

[yovargas]

In other words, rather than interpreting Cerin to mean that gays cannot be united, I would be inclined to ask her whether it would be equally satisfactory if she and her husband were not 'married' by the state either, but given leave to be legally united by the state and then be free to also be 'married' by their church if that was what they wished.

That would be ideal, imo. But with that being enormously unlikely, I'm perfectly fine with legal marriages for all.

[nerdanel]

I'm the opposite - I have no problem with the government being involved in the marriage business, I believe in the legal (and social and spiritual) institution of marriage, and I want it to be available to all couples who fall in love and desire it - while still respecting the relationships of couples who don't need or want that particular form of legal protection + social support.

[Primula Baggins]

What is marriage, anyone? If it's about love, why can't homosexuals call themselves married? If it's about making babies, why can childless heterosexual couples remain married? If it's about something written in a religious text, why are couples that don't subscribe to that religion allowed to marry? What's so threatening about homosexual marriage?

This is something I don't get, either. I see the fundamental quality of marriage as involving commitment to life together (which includes working on a troubled relationship until it's clear it can't be repaired) and mutual respect (which includes honesty and fidelity as both parties understand it).

It can't be about love, because a troubled marriage that both parties are fighting to save may not contain a single shred of romantic love. There's more to it than that: the stubborn feeling of "we are in this, and we are going to make it work." If that's mutual, it's still a marriage.

Making babies is irrelevant. It can be essential and precious to both partners, but it can also not be a factor at all, and the marriage is no less a marriage.

Religious definitions and expectations of marriage shouldn't be applied to people who aren't part of that religion, and indeed in California and Massachusetts they aren't. Now.

[yovargas]

Whichever way it goes, I'm still planning on donning a tux and smooching my future babe-of-a-husband in front of all my friends.

[nerdanel]

yov - can I come?

[yovargas]

Only if I can come to yours.

[Holbytla]

edit:

Nope. That was a failed attempt at humor that didn't come off as I intended.

[Cerin]

When you get into what marriage really is ( which is a very complicated subject ) gender ends up being irrelevant. Not irrelevant to the individuals involved, perhaps, but irrelevant to what is universally true about marriage.

This is the point of disagreement. There are people, such as myself, who believe that gender is not only relevant but fundamental to the essential meaning of marriage, because we regard marriage as a completing union, which brings together the two gender aspects of humanity into a representative whole. We find this significant. A man alone does not represent a complete picture of humankind. A woman alone does not represent a complete picture of humankind. Two men together, two women together, do not represent a complete picture of humankind. A man and a woman together represent a complete picture of humankind. Naturally, people who view it this way and find it significant believe the language should continue to acknowledge this distinction.

It wasn't my intention to hijack this thread. There is already an existing thread for discussing the issue of same-sex marriage, for those who want to do that.

[yovargas]

This is the point of disagreement. There are people, such as myself, who believe that gender is not only relevant but fundamental to the essential meaning of marriage, because we regard marriage as a completing union, which brings together the two gender aspects of humanity into a representative whole. We find this significant. A man alone does not represent a complete picture of humankind. A woman alone does not represent a complete picture of humankind. Two men together, two women together, do not represent a complete picture of humankind. A man and a woman together represent a complete picture of humankind. Naturally, people who view it this way and find it significant believe the language should continue to acknowledge this distinction.

None of which has jack-of-squat to do with the law.

[Jnyusa]

although perhaps somewhat questionable on support for gay rights (remember, full support for gay rights means in all venues, not only the legal ones.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I don't want to get involved arguing someone else's position here, first of all because Cerin can argue her own position perfectly well, and second because I am unlikely to argue well a position that I don't hold.

However, I think it unlikely that we will be able to dictate as a society which churches will be willing to confer sacramental unions on gays and which will not, any more than we could dictate as a society what the position of any particular church will be with regards to other religions. (I see that Hagee has just apologized to all Catholics for his comments about them - that was a very politic move, but not one that we could have used state power to enforce upon him.) I think it will continue to be up to gay couples to create the institutions of individual validation that they desire, pretty much as the rest of us minorities must do.

None of which has jack-of-squat to do with the law.

I quite agree, yov. I don't think that the law as such is the issue here, which is why I don't think that conclusions about one's overall position on civil rights as such are necessarily self-evident from discomfort with modern definitions of 'marriage.'

The guys at that ranch down in Texas would no doubt like their sexual relations with multiple children to be considered 'marriage' but we hesitate as a society to confer that status upon them ... we refuse to do it, in fact ... and I think that there is a lot of confusion in our society right now as to what should or should not be given social approbration. It seems self-evident to me that gay unions between consenting adults are equal to straight unions in meaningfulness and in status, and that pedophilic unions are not equivalent to either of them. But when I attempt to define this for myself by investigating the arguments of subcultures, I find that there is a whole sub-society out there which claims legitimacy for pedophilia. Shall I decide off the cuff that if they say so it must be true? Or off the cuff that they are all nuts and need to be imprisoned? Or do I continue to discuss this with others in the society, attempting to fasion a logical consensus based on what we know of human nature, power relationships, sexuality, and so forth?

It is never obvious to me that one side is all right and the other all wrong until I have heard the arguments from both.

[nerdanel]

However, I think it unlikely that we will be able to dictate as a society which churches will be willing to confer sacramental unions on gays and which will not, any more than we could dictate as a society what the position of any particular church will be with regards to other religions. (I see that Hagee has just apologized to all Catholics for his comments about them - that was a very politic move, but not one that we could have used state power to enforce upon him.) I think it will continue to be up to gay couples to create the institutions of individual validation that they desire, pretty much as the rest of us minorities must do.

I absolutely agree with this, nor do I have any wish to have societal edicts or decrees beyond those which the constitution demands.

However, my point is simply this - I have encountered people who tell me quite openly, "Look, I'm not really comfortable with gays, I don't know that any of my friends are gay, and I wouldn't be comfortable if I knew something like that. I get that that's *my* problem, and I support anti-discrimination protections for gays and think gay people should be allowed to marry even if I don't feel internally fully comfortable with those marriages. I think they should be able to choose how to live like anyone else. But I don't really want them in my church/school/etc."

Someone who holds this position, I think, can legitimately claim they are concerned about civil rights - both in terms of gay equality and in terms of their personal right not to associate with people they find distasteful.

However, I don't think they can claim they fully support gay rights. To me, full support for gay rights does mean supporting gay equality in your church or your school or your country club or your sports team. Not because "society" or "the courts" or "the government" or "the gay agenda" can or should force those things on you, but because you've concluded that equality/acceptance is the right thing to do - and you want to see that of the venues you frequent.

IOW, I don't think society should dictate which churches must confer sacramental unions on gays. However, I think that members of those churches who support gay equality should search their consciences re: religious inclusion of gay people. I have not the slightest interest in imposing this from the outside, and frankly, I care little what most churches do except when it interferes with the secular world. But as a casual bystander, I'd like to see straight and gay Christians of goodwill come together to create religious spaces in which people (and couples) of different sexual identities stand equally before their god. Same for Jews; I participate in one such synagogue that I think has been a fabulous success for thirty years. Can't speak to other religions about which I know less, but the same general principle would be nice.

[Primula Baggins]

IOW, I don't think society should dictate which churches must confer sacramental unions on gays. However, I think that members of those churches who support gay equality should search their consciences re: religious inclusion of gay people. I have not the slightest interest in imposing this from the outside, and frankly, I care little what most churches do except when it interferes with the secular world. But as a casual bystander, I'd like to see straight and gay Christians of goodwill come together to create religious spaces in which people (and couples) of different sexual identities stand equally before their god. Same for Jews; I participate in one such synagogue that I think has been a fabulous success for thirty years. Can't speak to other religions about which I know less, but the same general principle would be nice.

It's happening, Nel. Not everywhere, but it's happening.

Here's a page from my local church's Web site:

http://www.unitedlutheran.org/ric.html