In which ariyanakylstram makes an excellent point

[unixronin]

As ariyanakylstram pointed out about California Proposition 8,

If marriage is so damned sacred, get rid of divorce, not the right to marry.

Ah, but that would impact those who think they have a god-given right to say who may and may not marry and divorce as they please, wouldn't it?  Whereas banning gay marriage only impacts, you know, them.

Look, folks, it's this simple:  If you disapprove of gays marrying, DON'T MARRY ONE.  If your marriage is in such jeopardy that two people marrying several states away can put it at risk, maybe you should be paying more attention to your own marriage instead of worrying about who else is doing it.

You know, mote, eye, beam, all that jazz?  . . . You did actually read that book, right?

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Do a google search on the term "covenant marriage". There are some people trying to do exactly this: create an alternate form of marriage that's not dissoluble by no-fault divorce.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

And if they want to do so, for themselves, that's their right and privilege. But they shouldn't be trying to force their choice on everyone else.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I don't see this as a restriction of anyone's rights. (I don't, as a rule, understand or acknowledge what rights are.)

I see this as a social interaction. A minority is attempting to change what society will accept faster than society is willing to be pushed. The end run was to the courts, because the legislature and executive would not provide the privilege demanded. As a response, society changed the law that the courts must follow, because they derive their authority from that source. Heinlein called it, "Thumbing your nose at Mrs. Grundy." The backlash tends to be severe.

I am most disturbed by this because it is more difficult to amend a constitution than to change legislative direction. The group trying to force change is being locked out far tighter than would normally happen, and opening the door later is more difficult. An appeal to the federal level, if acted upon, will result in President Obama dealing with a Republican congress. There is no region in the country where a clear majority is in support of the new privileges demanded. It needs to simmer and society needs time to process the benefits to society of allowing the new reading of the law.

Be fair, many churches and social groups already support gay marriage. It is legal support that is being demanded. Until that happens at the federal level, nothing satisfactory will happen. With 48% voting for McCain, most Democrats will not risk electoral ire. We are stuck for the time being. The sensible thing would be to let it rest and show the rest of the country that it will not cause pillars of salt.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Ultimately, I see the issue as one of the secular government refusing to treat all of its citizens equally before the law.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I cannot see that. The government is a reflection of the society that it serves. If the society will not accept it, the government cannot. It is not a denial of rights, it is withholding privilege for something not qualified for. Attempting to redefine the understanding of marriage to mean something else does not make it so.

I have no horse in this race. I simply do not care. This is a blatant attempt to change definitions, and then claim discrimination based on the new definition. If that is a useful and beneficial direction for our society to pursue is the question that needs to be addressed. Make a case directed to answer that question, discrimination is a red herring.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. The government may be a reflection of the society it rules in practice, but it should strive for impartiality. Disallowing citizens of a given $ATTRIBUTE to engage in contracts about $RELATION simply due to $ATTRIBUTE is a violation of the equal treatment of the citizens. If nothing else, paying taxes should qualify one for non-discriminatory treatment.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Now I cry nonsense. It is all about the contract. If I tell my children that they will get a reward for cleaning their room, and one child cleans the bathroom instead, is that child eligible for the reward? I claim the answer is no. Even if the child reasons that the bathroom and their room are both part of the house, and what I meant was that they were to clean the house, so it is the same thing.

If I enter into a contract with someone, I provide some good or service in exchange for some good or service. If the other party then comes up with a nonstandard definition of their obligation so that they can do nothing and I am still bound by the contract, I would call it fraud. Those who scream discrimination are guilty of exactly such fraud.

The question remains: What benefit do same sex marriages bring to society? Are those benefits worthy of being granted the same privileges as a normally defined marriage? I honestly have no opinion either way on those answers. I have yet to hear them addressed. Until then, I see no obligation for the government to provide privilege when the conditions for such privilege have not been met. I am happy to discuss whether such privilege should be extended, I suspect that it should, but claiming discrimination is like the con man claiming injustice when he is caught and arrested.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

What benefit does heterosexual marriage bring to society that same-sex marriage does not? What benefit does divorce bring to society that same-sex marriage does not? By your logic, if divorce does not bring a societal benefit that heterosexual marriage does not, it should not be legal.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Valid questions. Correct questions, based on how the issue fits in my head. All I really want is a stop to the meaningless refrain of "discrimination." If we want a discussion, those are the questions to discuss.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

To clarify, would you consider laws against blacks marrying whites "discrimination"?

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Laws against blacks are discrimination. Laws against blacks marrying whites is not. The first is something that the person involved can never change. The second involves choices and behavior, that a person can control.

(Yes, that does mean that I am willing to discuss changing the rules to be more inclusive. It has been done before, and should probably be done again. It is just not discrimination to say, I am not going to follow the rules, but you need to reward me anyway.)

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

What benefit do same sex marriages bring to society?

Clearly, the same benefits that opposite sex marriages bring to society. I don't quite get the question?

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

See my response to

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj=unixronin>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

See my response to <lj=unixronin>. The biggest difference I can see is the expectation of children in a marriage. Please note, I am not arguing that same sex couples should not get the same legal privileges that marriages have. I am arguing against the unilateral redefinition of terms to extend privilege by judicial coup. (Plus, the refrain of "discrimination" is simply incorrect.)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that's a reasonable correlation of expectation any more, given the number of childless marriages and single parents. I also point out that there is a dual standard in saying "Gay marriages don't result in children", refusing to allow gays to marry on that basis, then refusing to allow them to adopt children because they're, you know, unmarried. (And of course because gay parents will raise gay children, because after all there's NEVER been a gay child who came from a straight family.)

[anda.livejournal.com]

And I would specifically point out childless marriages in which the lack of children is not a choice, such as those which occur post-menopause.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am not saying there is any reasonable correlation anymore. I am not arguing for withholding privileges from same sex couples. I merely state that discrimination is an incorrect term to apply to the current situation, for a number of reasons.

I keep hearing that it is no big deal, call it a marriage and be done with it, what does it hurt? Based on just the response to my posts on this blog, it is a very big deal. And I am not arguing against extending privilege, just incorrect rhetoric. Emotions are very high on the subject. I see it as an observer only, I don't have a position on the issue. From a social observer point of view, the courts are part of the government. The government power derives from the consent of the governed. If the courts go further than most of the governed want to go, the people have the power to restrict what the courts can do. People can only be pushed so fast. It is really interesting how things are shaping out.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

If marriage benefits society only when there are children, then what about my marriage to Woof? We do not intend to have children.

My sister and her husband adopted their daughter, just as many same sex couple adopt children. Is there no benefit to their marriage, simply because their daughter is not their biological child?

On the other hand, Woof's parents divorced shortly after his birth, and his father was not involved at all in raising him (never sent any child support, either). Did any benefit accrue to society from his parents' brief marriage?

I think that the expectation that children and marriage go together is no longer valid. If a child is married when its parents are born, that is no guarantee that they will raise the child together. On the other hand, reliable birth control makes it possible for fertile opposite sex couples to have regular sex without expecting children.

I think that human beings do best when partnered. I think that humans will choose partners, whether they can legally marry them or not.

Society benefits when these partnerships are registered/licensed, so that there's no confusion over who is "next of kin" for hospital visits, who automatically inherits, who can be covered by your family health plan, etc.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the "marriage" business, a word so full of religious connotations. All our government should concern itself with is registering partnerships -- civil union -- no matter what the sex of the people involved.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. And, outside of the church/religion/sect in which it is performed, a religious marriage ceremony should carry no civil weight whatsoever.
"You want to keep this to yourself? Fine, but it'll become a purely religious act that does not convey any secular benefits or privileges, because you do not have the requisite authority to grant them."

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Total agreement!

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

But that is basically what we have now. Marriages must be registered by the state, for a fee, and can only be performed by authorities licensed by the state. Often the authority is religious, but the civil part of the marriage comes from state regulation.

Are you saying that religious authorities should no longer be able to gain state licenses to perform marriages?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, they can perform all the marriages they want. Just if they insist on restricting their ceremony to members in good standing of their particular faith and deny it to others, then they cannot demand that it carry any secular weight outside of their faith. If the State accepts their private, restricted ceremony as having special meaning, granting a special privilege that the state must recognize, then the establishment clause comes into play. While if they offer it freely to anyone who asks for it, then they are not demanding any special privilege, and instead become simply an agent of the state in that regard.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The ability to perform marriages is licensed by the state. Any registered clergy can perform any marriage for anybody that the state allows to marry. A couple that wants to marry must but a license, and may then go to anyone the state has granted authority to perform the ceremony. That signature and two witnesses and it is done. It sounds like you are saying that the state should no longer authorize clergy to act on behalf of the state to perform marriages. Why? It will just increase the cost to the couple getting married as they then need two services instead of one. In general, people do not go to a person they do not like to ask them to perform the marriage. You are saying that because people can't do what they generally won't do anyway, that an entire class of people should be denied the right to perform marriages. I am losing the reason behind the proposed restriction.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

We have had this discussion before. Please note that I am not arguing against extending government privileges to same sex couples. I am objecting to incorrect rhetoric. I see this as a social experiment, attempting to push social norms beyond what a substantial majority are willing to tolerate. In this case, the minority are not going to get what they want. The big question is: Are they going to take it away from everyone else in the process of fighting?

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I find it telling that you analogize the relationship between government and citizen to that of parent and child.

It would appear that we have radically different views of what government should be.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Perhaps we do have differing views on government. I work from the premise that governments work based on the consent of the governed. I find the actions of the minority pushing a unilateral redefinition of the word, marriage, to be most childish. Using the word "discrimination" to describe the situation is no better. That is the spark for the analogy used.

Please note the volume of responses on the blog for simply objecting to the rhetoric used. I have not advanced any argument for the retention of the status quo. Passions are very high on the subject, from both sides. I honestly do not understand it.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Then perhaps the problem is that you failed to make it clear it was the rhetoric you were objecting to, not the concept.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I thought I had. I apologize for not being clear. I lose enough in normal conversation, this text type of exchange is difficult.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

eh. I know all too well how that one works.....

[drdemure.livejournal.com]

It's sad. My sister voted for the referendum in Florida, but when I quizzed her about it, she couldn't tell me why.

She agrees that people who love each other and are commited to each other should be able to have the same rights everyone else has. She is just so confused about what it means to stick you nose in your neighbors business means.

Things are going to change. I told her that the only sex life I'm interested is my own, and if you aren't hurting anyone, well, then you should be able to draw on the benefits of your spouse.

Ick, anyway, ick, it's a little bit of tarnish on this historic day, but it ain't over yet.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Nope. I understand the No On 8 folks have already filed lawsuits (three, in fact) asking the California Supreme Court to overturn it. Which I fully believe it should. As ilcylic pointed out, it is an issue of the secular government failing — or actively refusing — to treat all of its citizens equally before the law. Proposition 8 is as Constitutionally unsupportable as would be a ballot initiative to deny women, blacks or gays the vote.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to understand the logic of the legal challenge. I thought that Prop. 8 amended the constitution. The courts derive their authority from the constitution. How can the courts dictate what goes into the constitution? Would that not be a rule without law?

[anda.livejournal.com]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/5/112542/197/624/654318

Might be relevant.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Also check out maradydd, who just posted a detailed analysis and explanation of the basis for the suits.

exact URLs:

http://maradydd.livejournal.com/402688.html
http://maradydd.livejournal.com/402996.html

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

My opinion on anything touching gay rights is the same.

1) It's downright creepy to care that much what other people are doing sexually behind their own closed doors, when those other people are folks who wouldn't want you sitting there and pondering on their sex lives. It's not the same thing as sticking a hidden camera in other people's bedrooms so you can watch, but it has an unpleasant whiff of non-consensual voyeurism.

2) If you don't like it, don't lick it.

My opinion on marriage:

It should be a contract and a matter of contract law. The state has no business in it except to enforce things like where they say a contract is unenforceable for some big reason--i.e. with a minor, or an over-broad employment non-compete clause, or in other cases where one party was in some way unduly pressured to make a contract patently overwhelmingly to their disadvantage.

I'm thinking in this case of sharia-type marriages. That's the kind of "agreement" that if you treated marriage as a contractual matter would have many provisions fit within the present legal framework defining unenforceable contracts.

Yes, this would effectively legalize long-term prostitution. Arguably, pre-nuptual agreements have already done that. (In places where prostitution isn't already otherwise legal.)

Let each state have a default contract kind of like the provisions for if you die without a will, let different religions or social organizations come up with boilerplate recommended contracts, let individual couples or groups hash out their own, and otherwise leave the state out of it.

I have strong personal feelings about this because of a bad experience when James and I got married. We had the ceremony we wanted--a handfasting performed by my then High Priest and High Priestess. The part missing was we had friends but not family, because we had family members who would have had religious issues attending. We solved the problem by, for extended family purposes, eloping.

Then we had to get married again at the registrar's office because we hadn't arranged the paperwork.

The judge or whatever read from the Christian Bible and used traditional Christian marriage vows, which I was extremely uncomfortable with but, hello, like I want to raise a fuss when I'm getting married?

It's not just gays who suffer from the government sticking its nose into personal, romantic, religious, and contractual matters.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

You won't hear any argument from me on any of that.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I claim that marriage is an activity that the state wants to actively encourage, because it's failure is more costly. To encourage marriage, the state provides incentives and privileges. I think your definition bypasses that function of the state intent. It is not really different from tax breaks to encourage activities that are beneficial to the state.

The root question is: Should the state provide incentives to encourage activities that benefit the state? (That is a major issue with a flat tax.) If yes, what activities need to be encouraged? (and Why?)

[fatcook.livejournal.com]

The legal rights granted by marriage (IMHO) are what really most gays are looking for. If you are married, you can make legal, monetary and medical decisions with and for your partner that un-marrieds (of both sexes) need at least 3 separate documents for and even those don't give all the rights that a married couple has.
The far right needs something or someone to point and say "We are right! Because the Bible says so!", because they need to feel superior.