In 2003, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law against sodomy. “Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court.
Justice Atonin Scalia disagreed with the decision — and even more so with the reasoning behind it. The court wrote the ruling so broadly, he argued, that the current social order would be massively disrupted. Since the court didn’t “cabin the scope of its decision,” state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would also be attacked, Scalia predicted.
High-profile efforts to introduce same-sex marriage have been covered frequently. Jon Pomfet, writing for the Washington Post, looked at what progress has been made on the first of Scalia’s list: bigamy. He talks to various polygamists, including “Valerie” about their efforts to legalize polygamy.
I like GetReligion because the writers spend time examining the way stories get covered as opposed to just what the stories say. Of course, they also point out what gets left out of stories.
If you’re going to say the Mormon Church was able to get law enforcement officers to stop enforcing the law in order to bolster the church, you need some support. Also, if you have that information, that would make a fantastic story. But no one from the LDS is quoted.
Sometimes, the story isn't just the story; it's about how certain issues should be discussed but aren't.
Whether or not polygamists are successful in using the Lawrence decision to help legalize bigamy, their efforts need to be covered. In general it would be helpful for reporters to look down the road at more marriage stories.
If fundamentalist Mormons succeed in overturning laws against bigamy based on the First Amendment instead of the Fourteenth Amendment as in Lawrence, what would be some of the unintended — or intended — consequences of such a decision?
If gay marriage is legalized, will that help formally sanction families such as the ones profiled in the New York Times last week — with multiple female and male partners? How might that affect family law, the tax code and inheritance laws?
If barriers to marriage are lowered, would there be an incentive for non-intimate couples or groupings to marry for benefits? If so, would that change how companies confer benefits? If companies cease offering benefits for partners, would that affect whether or not — for instance — one spouse is able to stay home and raise offspring?
Writing, as many reporters do, stories about how arcane our marriage laws are fine. But it would be nice to see more in-depth reporting about the consequences of changes to marriage laws.
To me, it is particularly important that the consequences of changing marriage laws get covered, considering the number of "it doesn't affect my marriage, so why should I care?" people out there.
If gay marriage is legalized, will that help formally sanction families such as the ones profiled in the New York Times last week — with multiple female and male partners?
ReplyDeleteNo. And why would it?
Extending equal civil rights to same-sex partners as mixed-sex partners doesn't change the legal structure of marriage in the US, as Massachusetts has already demonstrated: and as Canada, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, and South Africa have also demonstrated.
Whereas arguing that marriage ought to be able to consist of as many people as you want to include - that does change the legal structure of marriage.
A better pattern for that might be the Dutch model of the cohabitation contract - which can include multiple partners living together, and is legally binding on everyone who's signed the contract, but does not impose any legal obligations on anyone outside the multi-marriage.
Oops: that should be: Extending equal civil rights to same-sex partners as to mixed-sex partners .
ReplyDeleteBecause once you change the definition of marriage, it will probably cause other changes in family structures, as well. Also, you are assuming because things hav been one way in other countries that same sex marriage would have the same effects here. But there's no way to predict that. For one thing, our legal structure is different than most other countries (ours is based on common law), and that could cause different outcomes than other countries.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from my understanding of gay marriage, it isn't about legal contracts between family members. It's about societal recognition of the relationship, including tax structure, inheritance rights, and benefits provided by companies.
Because once you change the definition of marriage
ReplyDeleteThe definition of marriage has already been changed for decades, so you must now be able to point to concrete examples of the changes you envisage, and explain why they're bad.
it will probably cause other changes in family structures, as well.
Or else at least think through your notion. Marriage between two equals, both of whom have identical rights and obligations towards each other - that's the definition of marriage that enables marriage to mean either two men, two women, or a man and a woman. That is a change in the definition of marriage - a vast change from the way marriage was once perceived - and it's a change that was made decades ago in the US and elsewhere. Too late to put the genie back in the bottle and pretend that marriage is not about two equal partners: legislatively, that's what marriage is in the US.
If you think about it (there's a discussion going on at Pandagon on this very topic) what people who support the right of lesbians and gays to get married are doing is accepting that marriage is about two equal partners.
What Mormon polygamists want is for marriage to be redefined back to a marriage of non-equals, where one man may marry multiple women, and where men have a different set of rights and obligations in marriage than women do. If you object to polygamy Mormon-style, you must (unless you are just homophobic) support the marriage of equals that embraces same-sex marriage.
I think you're being selective about marital obligations and rights to suit the definition you want. And it is understandable if you are in favor of gay marriage why you would frame everything in the "two equal partners" parameters.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is about more than just what "two equal partners," or, for that matter, what "two not equal partners" do and don't do. It is about a series of benefits and obligations which society bestows on people in recognition of that relationship.
There are, of course, all kinds of relationships that people have, but only marriage is recognized as something different. That's why gay people want it. And it's also why polygamists want it.
I don't think it naturally follows that just because we grant the right of marriage to same-sex relationships involving two equal partners that we must extend the right to polygamists. Why can't we draw the line at two equal partners who marry under an informed consent type of stipulation. Maybe even set a national age limit where one can get married (though I'm not so sure about this one...also, you seem to think that because we want to allow abortion for underage girls that we also want marriage for them, which is non sequitur). Come to think of it, have you made an argument here that isn't a slippery slope fallacy? There are lines that can be drawn that aren't bigoted towards same-sex couples, but also recognize that
ReplyDelete1) Polygamy is not based on two equal partners (I understand that you think that marriage isn't about being equal, so here is where we diverge.)
2) Pedophilia is also not based on an equal relationship where both constituents are informed and can consent. You may not be satisfied with this definition, but, as it is, I find it extremely hateful to imply that same-sex couples who love each other are in the same boat as pedophiles.
Same-sex couples, in the end, love each other, want to have that love recognized and affirmed by the society they live in. Pedophiles want to participate in an unequal relationship that is unhealthy and abusive towards one partner. Same with polygamists. Same-sex couples do not have this problem. That is why their relationships should be recognized by the state.
Then again, you've argued that marriage isn't about love or equality, but about whether the state recognizes a relationship to be worthy of special status. So tell me, why, specifically, are same-sex relationships not worthy of the same special status as hetero-relationships? Is it because same-sex couples are "less-than" hetero-couples?
You miss the point when I asked about pedophiles and bigamists. It isn't that homosexuals are like pedophiles. It's that the reasons given for same-sex marriage can be used just as well by advocates of other marriage forms and why should we "discriminate" in a way that favors homosexuals and disfavors polygamists?
ReplyDeleteBTW, marriage is an issue traditionally dealt with on a state level. That's why different states have different ages of consent and other requirements for marriage.
Please see the post "Why Marriage?" to answer your question about why the state recognizes heterosexual marriage and not other forms.
BTW, marriage is an issue traditionally dealt with on a state level. That's why different states have different ages of consent and other requirements for marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why Article IV of the Constitution says that all states are required to recognize civil marriages entered into legally in any other state in the Union - and why DOMA is flagrantly unConstitutional and needs to be repealed now that it actively discriminates against couples who get legally married in Massachusetts.
Marriage is about more than just what "two equal partners," or, for that matter, what "two not equal partners" do and don't do. It is about a series of benefits and obligations which society bestows on people in recognition of that relationship.
Indeed. But there's no reason except homophobia to argue that the benefits and obligations of marriage should be denied to lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.
It's that the reasons given for same-sex marriage can be used just as well by advocates of other marriage forms and why should we "discriminate" in a way that favors homosexuals and disfavors polygamists?
ReplyDeleteUm, because a polygamist relationship is unequal, whereas a same-sex relationship between two people is not. You are implying that both are the same (just like polygamists). I find both your argument and polygamist arguments distasteful. Polygamists want the state to accept an unequal relationship as equal. You want marriage to not be defined as an equal relationship (see your "Why Marriage?" post). This is where you and polygamists differ from liberals and people who want same-sex marriages to be legalized. You want same-sex marriage between two of-age adults to be equivalent to marriages between multiple people who are not consenting to the relationship they enter into. I find that the only people who want to argue that polygamy is equal to same-sex marriage between two people are polygamists and people who want to discriminate against same-sex marriage. Corelation? Hmmm.
And that's why Article IV of the Constitution says that all states are required to recognize civil marriages entered into legally in any other state in the Union - and why DOMA is flagrantly unConstitutional and needs to be repealed now that it actively discriminates against couples who get legally married in Massachusetts.
ReplyDeleteBut that's exactly why DOMA exists. Not every state wants same sex marriage. What you're saying is that if one state decides to allow something then every state must allow it. That's certainly not the intent of the Constitution.
Indeed. But there's no reason except homophobia to argue that the benefits and obligations of marriage should be denied to lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.
Can't the polygamists say the same thing?
Um, because a polygamist relationship is unequal, whereas a same-sex relationship between two people is not. You are implying that both are the same (just like polygamists).
Have you ever talked to polygamists or read what they say about their relationships? They don't consider them unequal at all. They love each other. Why shouldn't they be married, too? Why discriminate against them?
You want same-sex marriage between two of-age adults to be equivalent to marriages between multiple people who are not consenting to the relationship they enter into. I find that the only people who want to argue that polygamy is equal to same-sex marriage between two people are polygamists and people who want to discriminate against same-sex marriage. Corelation? Hmmm.
People who uphold traditional marriage use polygamy (or bestiality or pedophiles or whatever) because all of those relationships are offensive to people advocating same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates see what they perceive as REAL differences between what they are advocating and what polygamists advocate, but refuse to see that the exact same arguments can be made for polygamists and for homosexuals. Once you determine that marriage as it has been defined for generations is no longer the standard, it's difficult to make good arguments against all other groups. Why not let consenting adults marry each other in large groups? Why not let two guys marry for the insurance benefits? Why not let a dad marry his daughter so she can use his military benefits? Why not let a woman marry her cat?
When the basis becomes "these people love each other," it becomes difficult to exclude others.
it's difficult to make good arguments against all other groups.
ReplyDeleteNot at all, unless you want to argue that marriage between two people is the same as marriage between more than two people. Okay, so you will not admit the polygamy is an unequal, abusive relationship (not surpised, since you and polygamists have an almost symbiotic relationship), why can't we say that marriage between more than two people is an unequal (because it always involves marriage between one person and multiple other people who are not equally represented in the relationship) and abusive relationship. Same with pedophilia (because it involves a person who has the ability, for multiple reasons, to delude the person they are in their pedophilic relationship with into thinking the relationship is loving and beneficial to both, when, in fact, it subjugates the younger one through pederastic hierarchy). You;ve argued before that you do not want marriage defined as an equal institution, however, would you say, or do you think that a majority of people who knew about what a same-sex relationship entails, would say that that relationship, between two of-age people, is an unequal relationship? You, like the polygamists and pedophiles you agree with, are arguing the slippery slpe fallacy, which says that to say two consenting adults who love each other and multiple consenting adults or and adult who loves a non-adult, are the same thing and deserve the same rights. As I've said, polygamists use their religion or lies to create an unequal and abusive relationship for people they wish to marry. Pedophiles use lies and their own position of authority over an underage child to do the same.
Can you argue that same sex couple (two of-age, adult people who wish to marry) do the same thing? I feel you see the difference, you just want to keep using pedophiles and polygamists to further your bigotry.
Not at all, unless you want to argue that marriage between two people is the same as marriage between more than two people.
ReplyDeleteI don't argue that. That's what polygamists argue. But it is similar to the argument made by same-sex marriage advocates that marriage between a man and a woman is the same as marriage between two men or two women.
Okay, so you will not admit the polygamy is an unequal, abusive relationship (not surpised, since you and polygamists have an almost symbiotic relationship), why can't we say that marriage between more than two people is an unequal (because it always involves marriage between one person and multiple other people who are not equally represented in the relationship) and abusive relationship.
Does it matter if it is unequal as long as the people in the relationship love each other? Why?
You;ve argued before that you do not want marriage defined as an equal institution, however, would you say, or do you think that a majority of people who knew about what a same-sex relationship entails, would say that that relationship, between two of-age people, is an unequal relationship?
I would say that to most people whether it was an "unequal relationship" wasn't the most important aspect of marriage. And most people that have been married know that marriage isn't always equal in any aspect of it. Sometimes it is, but each partner, say, doing 50% of the housework or providing 50% of the income is neither practical nor probable.
You, like the polygamists and pedophiles you agree with, are arguing the slippery slpe fallacy, which says that to say two consenting adults who love each other and multiple consenting adults or and adult who loves a non-adult, are the same thing and deserve the same rights.
I don't support polygamists and pedophiles. I said they can use the same arguments. You've tried very hard to make an argument based on something other than what homosexual marriage activists have said: that they love each other. Why shouldn't others be able to do that?
Can you argue that same sex couple (two of-age, adult people who wish to marry) do the same thing? I feel you see the difference, you just want to keep using pedophiles and polygamists to further your bigotry.
I think you see the similarities but your own bigotry and hatred are keeping you from admitting them.
But let's use a few other examples since you don't like the comparison to polygamy. What about an elderly man marrying his daughter so she could use his military benefits (hospital, commisary, etc.)? Or two guys marrying to get insurance benefits? Should they be stopped? What if a woman wants to marry her cat?
Not every state wants same sex marriage. What you're saying is that if one state decides to allow something then every state must allow it. That's certainly not the intent of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly the intent of the Article IV of the Constitution - that if you enter into a marriage that's legal in the state in which you married, all other states in the union are required to recognize you as legally married, even those in which you would not have been allowed to marry your chosen partner.
So, while it's certainly up to all other states in the union to decide whether or not they will allow same-sex couples to marry in those states, it is required by the US Constitution that they recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states (well, just Massachusetts, right now). DOMA is unConstitutional because it denies this.
It's also a legal disaster waiting to happen - I discussed one possible test case here. Would be interested to see your response to my test case as a lawyer.
That's why people are fighting same sex marriage. You want it fine. Other people do not.
ReplyDeleteOther people do not.
ReplyDeleteFine - let those people avoid getting married to someone of the same gender as themselves, then.
They aren't. But they don't want to be compelled to condone same sex marriage either. That's what making it legal does. I guess if you really want same sex marriage, you're going to have to convince more people that it's a good thing or at the very least, a harmless thing.
ReplyDelete