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

[solicitr]

It's not polite to call people 'nutbars' just because of their religious beliefs.

[Ellienor]

Nel, thank you for the lucid explanation for why polyamorous marriage would be evaluated under "rational basis" and not strict scrutiny. Con law was never my strong point anyways Although if I had more time and energy, it's a fascinating area of law.

I know that polygamous marriage is one of the "parade of horribles" that is trotted out about gay marriage and I have not ever sat down to think about the exact ways they could be differentiated.

[axordil]

For polyamorists, there's always incorporation.

[MithLuin]

When people refer to 'biblical' ideas of marriage, they generally are referencing the institution of marriage in Genesis (ie, Adam and Eve), and Jesus' references to the same thing.

The man said,

• "This is now bone of my bones
  and flesh of my flesh;
  she shall be called 'woman,'
  for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. Genesis 2: 23-25

"Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matthew 19: 4-6

The mystery of two people becoming one, and this unity overriding family-of-origin is the emphasis here. It is not a legal concept, and as such, there is no room for a concept like divorce here.

To be totally flippant, God will join whom he wishes, and there is little we can do about that. Biblical marriage expects the recognition of the community, but is not tied to a piece of paper. I am not belittling marriage contracts or marriage licences, merely stating that Adam and Eve hardly had a need for one. So, as Ellienor pointed out earlier, it really is a completely different discussion.

[nerdanel]

The mystery of two people becoming one, and this unity overriding family-of-origin is the emphasis here. It is not a legal concept, and as such, there is no room for a concept like divorce here.

To be totally flippant, God will join whom he wishes, and there is little we can do about that. Biblical marriage expects the recognition of the community, but is not tied to a piece of paper. I am not belittling marriage contracts or marriage licences, merely stating that Adam and Eve hardly had a need for one. So, as Ellienor pointed out earlier, it really is a completely different discussion.

Mith - this is the first time in a marriage discussion where I'm delighted to agree with something you're saying.

"Biblical marriage" (or I'll say, "religious marriage" to include other religions' conceptions of the spiritual uniting of two people) is really quite a separate matter than a legal marriage contract or marriage license. Too, whether the flip-side of "divorce" exists also depends on the particular religion's understanding (e.g. Orthodox Judaism provides for the notion of divorce, as recognized by the community and by God - but not really tied to what happens in Family Court.)

I suppose ... as and when I am lucky enough to find a mate, I want to be united in marriage in both the religious and civil senses. But they are two completely separate ideas to me. If I had only a religious ceremony, I would consider myself "married." If I had only a civil ceremony, I would also consider myself "married." Definitely, though, in two different senses of the word. (Here's where we probably are going to disagree again ) - to the extent it now seems possible for me, I don't think I would experience any difference in standing before God, community, family, and friends and committing to a soulmate of either male or female gender. At every point in my past, I have seen a difference - first preferring opposite-sex and then preferring same-sex. But I am fortunate to live in a place where couples of all kinds live and love and play out their varied paths ... and I simply can't distinguish loving, lifetime commitment in any direction based on sex, "gender identity," or genitalia. In my understanding of the Divine, God too does not make any distinctions.

I understand you feel differently, but I suppose I am just looking for a civil framework in which your understanding and mine can coexist - in which our civil society does not privilege certain understandings of marriage based on certain religious understandings of God, and in which our religious traditions hold to their own understandings of marriage. As for the rest, I suppose that what marriages, what joinings are divinely recognized (if any) will become clearer to all of us if there exists an afterlife. And if not, then it seems all the more ideal to me that couples should forge their own paths based on their own conceptions of love and religion (if applicable.)

[Faramond]

The Chief Justice Speaks

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

*****

Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said.

*****

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.

"His change from where I thought he would be is baffling," said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.

[Hachimitsu]

Also, maybe getting married will come seriously back in style, to the benefit of hovering parents everywhere.

Uh I just wanted to say yay!! That is how I felt when gay marriage became legal in Canada (some time ago. Here is hoping the rest of the US follows on legalizing gay marriage (I don't understand US politics and how this even became leagal and I don't understand how it can be overturned, but anyway yay!! Basically in Canada it was deemed that denying gay marriage violated the Canadian constitution, some part about equality and how Gays were being discriminated against. Basically not really much wiggle room to over turn it unless someone wanted to change the constitution and open a whole heap of trouble)

*confused about US state law and federal law*

[themary]

It's been a very happy Pride (I'm sure) in Long Beach this year. I must admit that I'm actually proud to be a Californian. It even gave me hope that I might actually be able to make it out here because Cali isn't all that bad right? But then I saw a roach and rent prices and said "I'm so outta here". Hey Illinois needs to get on the ball with their same sex marriage legislature anyhow, so I'm needed back home .

Hooray for progress! Hooray for gays *waves rainbow flag proudly* But I swear if my gay friends decide to move out here after I leave I'll be peeved .

[Pippin4242]

I didn't really realise that it was a big deal to me until I read this thread and started to feel all glowy and loved-up. I had no idea that the provision for "same-sex unions" had left a mark on my subconscious - considering my feelings 'less' on some level than those in a heterosexual relationship. It's great to see that there are people out there fighting for this.

*~Pips~*

[Frelga]

Hey, Pips! Long time no see!

[MithLuin]

Yes, nel, we have fairly different understandings. But, thinking about it...if I were to get a civil marriage, with no accompanying religious marriage...I'm not sure I'd consider myself to be actually married. I mean, yes, I know that what makes a marriage is consent and consummation, but still, I just have an expectation of sacramental matrimony when I think about marriage. Because of who I am, I wouldn't be married if went outside the Church to do that. But I also would never consent to a civil marriage with no intent of 'really' marrying the person - I mean, I know stories of people who got 'married' to avoid deportation, but there was no actual relationship there. To me, that would be abusing the system, but also fooling around with something that shouldn't be trifled with. So, I do consider civil marriage to be real.

To consider it the other way...what if I could have a religious marriage, while forgoing the civil marriage...would that 'count'? As far as I know, my church won't marry people without the accompanying civil paperwork, so it's a moot point. But, theoretically...would it count? I think moreso to me. Marriage is not about being able to file my taxes jointly. It would be foolish to do this, perhaps, because I'd have no legal recourse to claim that I was ever married. But, as far as my personal take on it, I would really be married, even if the gov't didn't recognize it. But maybe I'm just saying this because it is theoretical. I know of one story of a couple who mas married by some preacher without getting a marriage license, and the girl's family was upset because they didn't consider her to have been 'really' married. But I never met her and have no idea how that turned out - it just seemed weird to me.

I think the problem here is that even though our lives have different aspects to them (and civil and religious authority is quite distinct in this country!), it's still only one life. You live your marriage no matter how it started, and most people would get the paperwork from both groups at once (assuming they are part of a religious community). A one-or-the-other approach seems needlessly divided.


Technically, a couple could also be married without any recognition from civil or religious communities. But such a 'private' marriage would defeat the purpose of being married before the community. So, I'm not sure how I feel about that, and wouldn't really consider a 'secret' marriage to be a real marriage, even if the two people engaged in it were sincere in their commitment to one another. So, again, not something I could go through with except maybe in really extreme circumstances (stranded-on-a-desert-island scenarios spring to mind). I suppose common law marriage was meant to deal with just such a scenario, though I don't know the details.


In the third world, no one gets married, because no one can afford the state-issued marriage licenses. So, I guess there are all sorts of problems with marriage law that I haven't really considered much...never having been at a point in my life where I was interested in getting married .

[nerdanel]

A one-or-the-other approach seems needlessly divided.

Not "needlessly," where the religious authority would otherwise be an excuse for excluding groups from the protections and dignity they are owed by our civil government under secular law.

[Túrin Turambar]

Yesterday, Professor Volokh speculated on what would happen to gay marriages if the State Constitution was ammended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. On another legal note, the U.S. now has a case where a marriage will be recognised by the state government but not the federal - a type of limping marriage. If enough states legalise gay marriage, are there likely to be federal implications?

[Primula Baggins]

I really think (hope, but also think) that this will be a temporary, interim period.

My prediction is that someone will launch a federal no-gay-marriage Constitutional amendment, which will firm up the opposition, dribble off to nothing, and end in de facto national gay marriage that will eventually become de jure. My grandkids will be unable to imagine that it had ever not happened. Yes, there are haters who want to block it, but most people aren't haters—most people want other people to have the rights and pleasures they enjoy themselves. And as more and more people meet gay couples and gay parents in the ordinary course of life, resisting gay marriage will seem sillier and sillier.

Then an equal rights amendment for women will pass at last, and then I'll get my trip to the moon on those gossamer wings.

But paragraph 2 will happen. I'm a science fiction writer; if I don't know the future, who does?

Edit: I do not mean to say that only "haters" oppose gay marriage; I know many people oppose gay marriage for religious reasons. But the activists, the people who are seriously working to thwart the possibility, seem to me to be doing so out of dislike for gays rather than religious principle.

[yovargas]

Did people try this kind of stuff back when interracial marriages were controversial?

[Túrin Turambar]

As usual, wiki has some interesting information.

[Primula Baggins]

A fascinating link as always, Lord_M.

Bolding mine:

Arendt's analysis of the centrality of laws against interracial marriage to white supremacy echoed the conclusions of Gunnar Myrdal. In his essay Social Trends in America and Strategic Approaches to the Negro Problem (1948), Myrdal ranked the social areas where restrictions were imposed by Southern whites on the freedom of African-Americans through racial segregation from the least to the most important: jobs, courts and police, politics, basic public facilities, "social equality" including dancing and handshaking, and most importantly, marriage. This ranking was indeed reflective of the way in which the barriers against desegregation fell under the pressure of the protests of the emerging Civil Rights movement. First legal segregation in the army, in education and in basic public services fell, then restrictions on the voting rights of African-Americans were lifted. These victories were ensured by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the bans on interracial marriage were the last to go, in 1967.

And this:

Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. However, attitudes towards bans on interracial marriage quickly changed in the 1960s.

As a supporter of gay marriage, I find that encouraging—nine years after that poll, a Supreme Court ruling overturned anti-miscegenation laws, and there were no riots in the streets.

Of course, with the initiative process, activists against gay marriage can and have put up roadblocks that will eventually have to be removed somehow.

[Erunáme]

I don't think the same will happen for gay marriage. With segregation, it was just one group (whites) that was oppressing others. But in regards to gay marriage, members of every skin colour and all sorts of religions have a problem with it. I think the road will be even harder in regards to accepting homosexuality.

[Primula Baggins]

Still, that 96% poll number is pretty chilling, and yet the world did change. Some kinds of social changes seem to be widely regarded as impossible until suddenly people realize that they've happened (because, of course, other people worked and sacrificed to bring them about).

It also helps that it's going to be happening in California. When people see Hollywood figures they know and like getting married, that will probably erode some of the barriers in their minds.

[nerdanel]

Eru, I wonder if it's fair to say that the percentage of people who have issues with gay rights (of all races, backgrounds, etc.) is less than or equal to the percentage of (white) people who formerly had issues with black people's (and other minorities') rights.

L_M - the "limping marriage" issue you describe has existed for four years in Massachusetts. It's a huge issue thanks to DOMA - especially when it comes time for married same-sex couples to file tax returns, travel out of state, etc. Still, I am a big believer in incrementalism, and state "limping marriages" need to exist before federally-recognized (+ full faith and credit, i.e. other states will recognize as well) marriages can exist in this case. My personal forecast for how this will play out is that 10-20 states need to legalize same-sex marriage (likely those without constitutional amendments, though some of those may need to be repealed), as much of DOMA as possible needs to be legislatively repealed, and then (particularly when the SCOTUS membership shifts to the left) SCOTUS needs to come in and knock out the rest of DOMA + the state constitutional amendments. I am very clear that this will ultimately happen nationwide through SCOTUS, or not at all (even as the coasts change, except for the south, it will remain political suicide in other parts of the country for federal legislators to support SSM even if they don't personally mind it). However, Furman and Roe pose valuable lessons to the left re: not forcing SCOTUS's hand, even favorably, too soon.