Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Our broken national media
Next Post: This just in… Versace campaign shakeup *** CFL announces endorsements *** Guv raids wrong funds *** Daley gives thumbs up to “deal,” says gaming can wait ***
Posted in:
* Stephanie Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,” penned this interesting and eye-opening Op-Ed in the New York Times the other day….
Why do people — gay or straight — need the state’s permission to marry? For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married. […]
Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.
And her conclusion…
Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
* Question: Do you agree with this reasoning? Explain. And try to stay civil. Thanks.
[Hat tip: Governing.com]
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:10 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Our broken national media
Next Post: This just in… Versace campaign shakeup *** CFL announces endorsements *** Guv raids wrong funds *** Daley gives thumbs up to “deal,” says gaming can wait ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A seductive idea, but faulty in this day and age. And here’s why. Society helps to underwrite many of the goodies and subsidies available only to married couples. These include IRS rules and social security benefits. It is only fitting, in the essence of democracy, that society, through its elected officials and the laws they adopt, sanction these unions.
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:20 am
She does a very good job in making the point that government has no place in keeping gay couples from being just as unhappy as the rest of us
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:24 am
The First Amendment should mean that churches can recognize which marriages are licit in the eyes of that religion. However, this does not mean that churches get final say over which marriages are recognized under civil law.
For example, it’s commonly accepted that a state can ban polygamous marriages, even in the face of some sects claiming a religious mandate for polygamy. Similarly, just because some religions — MCC, certain Reform Jewish synagogues, Unitarians — perform and sanction same-sex marriages, the state is not obligated to give civil recognition to those unions.
The secular issue over same-sex unions is simple: there are couples who have made a serious commitment to each other, and that commitment involves taking on financial and social rights and responsibilities. Such a committed relationship benefits society in general by increasing self-sufficiency.
It really doesn’t matter much whether initially we recognize same-sex commitments as a Vermont-style civil union or a marriage. The reality is — and rightly so — that eventually the distinctions between “civil unions” and marriages under civil law will disappear regardless of what we call it. Of course, to repeat, the First Amendment should provide protection to those religions which decide to that same-sex unions are not sanctioned.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:37 am
I would support this faster than I could support a constitutional amendment federal or state to ban gay marriages. I would like it if we could redefine the role of civil marriages or at least define what that means. I don’t think the state should offer actual marriage licenses but the state must have a means to recognize a marriage or I could call these civil unions. Other than that it’s a church that should determine who is or isn’t married.
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:44 am
Why not simply remove all the benefits and goodies available to couples under the law? They were originally put in place because it was recognized that the usual married couple would have children and the state wanted to encourage this practice. However, with at least a third of children born out of wedlock and many married couples choosing not to bear children, it seems this is out of whack with today’s reality. Perhaps we as a society need to take another look at the bennies of marriage and determine if there’s a different way to deliver them or if they need to be delivered.
Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:45 am
She takes too many leaps. Publicly recognized marriages were introduced under the Roman Republic in order to enforce heredity laws which were quite prescriptive for those times. “Certified” marriages meant “certified” heirs– no big judicial nightmare…bring in your IDs(a-fid-a- vit) and you get title. The Roman Republic represented an extensive numbers of Citizens of the State… and therefor lots of due process eligible individuals. When Heraldry swept across Europe in the 8-10 centuries…(the 11th Irish Ward
) there was no longer a large citizen base, hence inheritance meant nothing. From that point on there was no need for legally recognized marriages among the masses. Until the 16th century (actually Renaisance) which gave rise to the Guilds (freemen/tradesmen) who needed laws for commerce and property and …by consequence heredity. WOW
Comment by Anono Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:45 am
I agree in part and disagree in part. In our soceity, marriage invokes a number of legal rights the society has created. Everything from inhertance rules, rule on child support and visitation, the ability to purse a wrongful death suit or make a loss of consortium claim for injury to your spouse, to the ability to make medical decisions etc.
In order to apply these laws (making a medical decisions, property rights etc) we need a system which clearly identifies the psouse. Imagine somone dies, all of a sudden you have x number of women show up cliaming a right to inheritance or to set aside the will, saying they are all spouses based upon unrecorded marriages. The system would fall a part and is ripe for dishonest claism etc.
Coontz I think is right that the decision to marry should be regualted solely to the invidiuals involved. The only caveat is that there should be a requirement that the marriage be recorded. The State should be required to record all marriages.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 10:53 am
You might also have X number of men showing up as well..eh?
Comment by Anono Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:00 am
One word: Divorce
Comment by 42nd Ward Resident Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:05 am
I am a pro-life, very happily married Catholic and usually conservative on issues. However, I think civil unions are a no-brainer. The Catholic Church and any others who deem it improper should not have to marry gay people, but I think the state should recognize the legal desire of a gay couple to be a legal couple for next of kin, inheritance, etc. decisions.
Comment by suburbs Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:17 am
I agree with suburbs. I’ve never understood how gay marriage is a “threat to marriage”, “threat to the family” or “threat to children.” I’m married, have children and don’t feel the least bit threatened if two men or two women want to marry or enter into a civil-union “equivalent.” Where’s the “threat”? I would better understand it if opponents just said - we don’t like gay people, so we don’t want the state to do anything that suggests that gay people are ok - and dropped all the threat to marriage, family and kids rhetoric.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:26 am
I agree with you guys too, but take the logic out one more step, how about among 3 people or more? Don’t believe it? Check Utah or Arizona or Quatar and Yemen.
Comment by Anono Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:32 am
The main problem with the article is that it’s conflating two seperate issues. Those two issues are: 1) Should gays and lesbians have the same rights afforded under the law? 2) What role should the government play, if any, in the civil institution of marriage?
The second question is obviously incredibly complex. Ghost brings up a number of legal benefits. The government provides economic incentives that make it more beneficial to be married instead of single. Why? Is it ultimately good for society? Who does it affect adversely? The most common incentive is domestic partner benefits for health insurance. If we had universal, single-payer health insurance, then that becomes a non-issue. This second issue is a BIG one, and probably too big for QOTD.
What’s very simple to answer is the first question. Yes, gays and lesbians should absolutely have equal rights under the law. And the only way to do that is to allow them marriage. Civil unions have been excellent devices for allowing for shared health insurance and inheritance, but what do we really have here? Marriages for hetereosexual couples and civil unions for gay people. Schools for white kids, and schools for black kids. Everybody’s happy right? Sorry, but seperate but equal is inherently unequal, so says the Supreme Court.
Comment by Sacks Romana Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:35 am
I couldn’t agree more. The government should only provide civil unions and get completely out of the business of “marriage.” One important point Coontz doesn’t make is that this separation of Church and state would also be good for the Church. With the definition of marriage now tied up in the government, the Church is getting pulled along with whatever the government decides. They’ve basically handed over a sacrament to the secular world. Very likely, gays will eventually be able to marry, and the cultural implications of the change in the definition of that word will ultimately change the Church (whether for better or worse is anyone’s opinion). Mennonites already understand this, which is why they’ve also separated themselves in other ways. The flip side of course is that as long as the word marriage is tied to the Church’s traditional definition, gays don’t have equal rights.
I believe it would be to both sides’ mutual benefit to abolish “marriage” from the government. If people want to get married, they can go see their priest or pastor. If they want special rights under law, they can get a civil union, whether they’re gay or straight. As a gay man who grew up in a conservative christian community, this solution seems glaringly obvious.
Comment by Lee Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:35 am
There is an important distinction in terms of civil laws that affect marriage. For lack of another term
I’ll call that distinction rights versus benefits. By rights I mean those items that an individual can already assign to another person, items like inheritance and power of attorney. By benefits I include laws that provide additional resources to others in a family due to their status, items like insurance.
It seems to me that marriage grants both these rights and benefits to a spouse in a single action. In principle, it would be possible for an individual to separately handle all the rights items under the law, and one can argue for a civil procedure to consolidate those tasks. OTOH, the benefits are not now transferable to others, and it is here that society has an appropriate role in determining which people with what status should get those benefits.
Comment by muon Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:43 am
Muon keep in mind that inheritance rights and powers of attorneys are subject to attacks and being set aside. When they are set aside the spouse retains right to inheritance or decision making for a spouse regardless of the status of a document. The rights which can be conferred by legal document are noit nearly as strong as the ones automatically conferred by marriage.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:52 am
I want to make this clear. Gays and lesbians are not demanding marriage rights from any church or religous institution. They’re demanding it from their government.
It’s easy to say that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with marriage, but it has lots to do with civil marriage. There are hundreds, if not thousands of laws accross all states that use the word “marriage.” They mean CIVIL marriage. The government already knows it has nothing to do with religious marriage. I can’t believe some people here don’t.
Many well meaning people posting on this message board say they support gay civil unions, but not gay marriage.
If we create two parallel legal structures, civil marriage and civil unions, then we have a “seperate but equal” situation.
With regards to Anono’s comment about extending the logic to 3 people or, it’s a disengenous analogy. The goverment already affords rights and economic incentives to two committed people, not three. The government in providing these rights shouldn’t care if Pat and Ashleigh are a man and woman, two men, or two women.
Comment by Sacks Romana Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:55 am
My religious and political leanings are like those of “Suburbs.”
I believe the state should drop civil marriage altogether, and replace it with a simple legal procedure whereby any two consenting adults can become one another’s legal next of kin for all purposes including inheritance, insurance coverage, etc.
This procedure could be used by traditionally married couples, same-sex couples or by friends, neighbors or distant relatives — a sexual relationship would not have to be involved or presumed. The relationship could be dissolved at any time, with property and child custody issues, if relevant, being decided by divorce/family courts as they are now.
Couples who want to marry according to the tradition of their faith or culture could still do so. They could choose whether or not to register as next of kin — most probably would, but some might not (i.e. widows who want to remarry without losing pension benefits inherited from a previous spouse). Those who chose not to register would be legally in the same boat as cohabiting unmarried couples or roomates are today.
Although I do believe family and marriage are important to society and indeed its basic building blocks, the fact is that civil marriage as we know it today no longer presumes or requires any of the traditional “pillars” of Judeo-Christian marriage, i.e. fidelity, permanence or having children. Therefore, there really isn’t anything left for traditional marriage defenders to defend. So, why not just face this fact and leave marriage in the hands of the church and cultural institutions best equipped to defend it?
The system I propose would treat all couples or partners equally under civil law without compromising the definition of marriage, or requiring anyone to participate in or endorse practices in which they do not believe.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:57 am
Muon ..is right-on. All you guys on the Religious slant should put it down ..it is a diversion and a dead end. If a religion says it is ok for you to marry your golf clubs than so be it.. who cares, religious affiliation is voluntary. Not so with citizenry and the rights and protections upon which it is based…I heard a guy in northern California in the sixties married a mountain…but not the sheep…had to set up his own church…
Comment by Anono Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 11:57 am
I do think there has to be some record of marriage so it is clear who heirs are, who can make medical decisions etc. However, the state should be the RECORDING authority, not the PERMITTING authority. If two people want to be considered married for legal reasons they should have to register that fact. Who any church recognizes as married is a different matter entirely and has no bearing on the legal definition of a married couple. Each church can choose to recognize anyone they want, can choose to perform ceremonies or whatever. However, even if a priest/minister/religious authority performs a “marriage ceremony” that should not be considered legal for inheritance, tax and other civil purposes unless it is registered with the state.
Comment by Way Northsider Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:21 pm
Postscript:
…claimed that the sheep were his…flock…
Comment by Anono Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:22 pm
It is nice to hear that folks are beginning to differentiate between the civil rights and the religious duties associated with marriage. I always have had a bad feeling about the “gay marriage” debate because it implies marriage instead of the civil rights. I don’t want to walk down the aisle with my partner in the Catholic Church in which I was baptized. I don’t want the state to demand that this happen. It is the civil rights associated with marriage that I want so that I can see my partner when he is sick in the hospital or take care of his estate when he dies …
Comment by CG Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:33 pm
Times have changed, societies have changed, and our institutions have stayed the same…so therefor…
Comment by Anono Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:35 pm
The open up marriage to anyone and anything logic expressed by the passages you cite by this author has its own pitfalls. Under that logic, first cousins can also marry each other. So can a brother and a sister. Or an aunt and a nephew. Or a mother to her child. A man can marry his dog. Just go behind the haystack and utter a few vows and presto! As you can see, I clearly disagree with this author’s logic.
The law says “no” to these types unions for a reason based on social mores and other reasons. So does my church (Greek Orthodox) based on its canon laws and our beliefs. Can two brothers marry two sisters of another family? My church says no. Can I marry my sister-in-law after her divorce? My church says no. The law in the last two examples says “yes.”
Gay couples can be protected by statute as to their property rights, insurance and relationships and by constitutional amendments. And I believe that they are entitled to such protections.
Trying to redefine marriage by denigrating it using some lame history is something else. Historically it was also taken pretty seriously. In today’s society we should as well.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:44 pm
I would tend to agree with her reasoning…but, since there is a cost (as stated previously) to the ’state’ to provide benny’s and there is a cost to ‘buy’ a marrage license. It becomes clear in this day and age at the loss of revenue based on this event (marrage)…and besides just look how much those divirce lawyers will lose if they cannot charge their fees to do all that paper work. Any way in a ‘gay’ marrage who will get all the wealth when the divorce is done? Or will the laws be ajusted to ‘accomodate’ this type of relationship? Hum?
Comment by siyotanka Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:51 pm
I was going to post a long, rambling comment, but it’s all been said above and it looks like there is a broad agreement.
Government should record civil marriages between two consenting adults. The government view is akin to that of recording a business relationship. The courts are responsible for resolving dissolution disputes.
Religious sanction of marriage is up to the religious sect.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 12:58 pm
Another thought I have had on this issue is that the whole same-sex marriage debate is not framed properly right now. We ought to be debating constitutional amendments to LEGALIZE same-sex marriages or civil unions, not ban them.
No one can honestly argue that the founding fathers intended to permit same-sex marriage, any more than they intended to outlaw slavery, let women vote, levy income taxes or ban alcohol. All those things had to be accomplished by constitutional amendment. I believe the same is true of same-sex unions.
The notion of traditional marriage advocates having to pass “amendments” to state something that the founding fathers would have regarded as obvious (marriage is between a man and a woman) strikes me as ludicrous.
Granted, such an amendment would be hugely controversial and would probably not gain approval for years or decades (I myself would hesitate to vote for it). However, the debate would be properly framed, and if such an amendment passed, it would be done “fair and square” through the democratic process, and have a stronger foundation than court rulings by unelected judges.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 1:06 pm
To Mr. Atsaves, that’s one reason I believe the whole notion of civil marriage should be abolished.
The law should concern itself simply with who is recognized as one’s next of kin — not endorsement or sanction of a sexual relationship (which the very concept of marriage implies and indeed requires).
Under the system I propose, there would be nothing to prevent a person from having a close relative who is not their next of kin by blood (first cousin, sibling, aunt/uncle, former in-law, etc.) become their next of kin legally.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 1:17 pm
Doesn’t a “traditional” marriage include multiple wives? That’s the Bible’s take on it.
Comment by Pot calling Kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 1:25 pm
The opinion expressed by the author is wrong. It is based on a slanted, biased history created to support the author’s preconceived views. It fails to understand marriage beyond the emotional commitment being made. The author fails to understand the very subject the opinion is based upon.
How poorly done!
Instead the author gives us a bunch of half-baked pop notions that deny reality. An utterly stupid opinion from a utterly stupid person passing as an expert.
Typical crap!
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 1:30 pm
Why should marriage be between two consenting adults?
As one poster noted earlier, go to Utah, Arizona, Qatar or Yemen. Man is not inherently monogamous and the current marriage laws represent a Christian understanding of marriage.
This inherently discriminates against Muslims, Mormons, and many Animists who practice polygamy.
Since we have a strong and justified Feminist movement than Polyamory would be justified also.
It may seem radical explicitly or in writing but is not that what we have today anyway with conservative Republican well educated candidates swinging, cheating, multiple partners, promiscuity.
We already have serial polygamy or maybe it should be called serial monogamy with divorce and multiple (even if at different times) spouses.
If there is a Separation of Church and State that should disallow heterosexual exclusivity in government sanctioned marriages and benefits than why should there be monogamy or permanence or any other Christian influenced aspect of marriage.
Polygamy existed in human civilization for millenia. Polygamy was more accepted than homosexuality in Arab pre-Islamic, African, Islamic, much of pre-Christian Europe, and modern US at least with Mormons and other sects.
There is no intrinsic reason outside of religion to make marriage only for two adults.
In fact, an established polygamy may stabilize families and provide institutionalized support greater than the current flawed child support process. Of all races and cultures, but especially in the African American community you have a high rate of out of wedlock births (as established by statistics not stereotype and without conclusion per se) with many males who have babies through different women (creating a pop culture phenomenon that is called even in some academic research “my baby’s mama”) There is not a tie nor financial support outside government coercion or the perhaps more important (or at least important) father figure role in the life of the child–thus polygamy could establish a family tie with multiple women (in Islam it is up to 4 at any given time)and thus necesitate involvement in their family.
Many males, especially in lower income and minority divorce or non married situations do not feel involved (perhaps by choice no doubt) as it is not their family and the care of the child is taken outside the male and separate from him. If the male, allowing his natural inclinations, could have that child’s mother in a relationship but also other women–that would be good for the child by establishing a formalized relationship.
Comment by Randall Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 1:37 pm
gosh VM, just say what you feel…I think this is how people deal with their relationships for the most part anyway …I think common law marriage should be on the books across the US…it protects both parties and will avoid costly trials where the attorneys make a ton of dough from other people’s relationships that have gone south…I cannot let anyone say a bad thing about anything printed my beloved liberal rag the NYT and get away with it…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 1:41 pm
“Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,”
That is her title. What does it say?
First off it says that her book is recognized by her as not being authoritative. What she is saying is based on a belief that marriage should be reviewed based because the emotional ties of love as being more important than all the other reasons supporting the institution.
So all you people debating every form of marriage are doing so free from completely understanding the entire picture. She has given you license to do so by claiming that all that matter is the love, not the commitments or the institution itself. She conveniently ignors the families created, the civil foundations established, the traditions honored, the costs and penalties, the long-term benefits, the fiscal stability, and the very basic benefits marriage has towards survival.
To her, it’s all about “Love”!
Utter crap and nonsense. And she knows it. Her premise is a faulty way of viewing the subject her opinion is based upon. It is unworthy of supporting most of the arguments I am reading on this web page.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 2:08 pm
===She conveniently ignors the families created, the civil foundations established, the traditions honored, the costs and penalties, the long-term benefits, the fiscal stability, and the very basic benefits marriage has towards survival.===
Except for the “traditions” part, I don’t see how any of this would disprove the notion that gays should be allowed to marry. Just sayin’
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 2:11 pm
Under the system I proposed, there would be nothing stopping Mormons, Muslims, etc. from having more than one wife if they chose; but they would have to choose one to be the official, legal next of kin.
Also, such registration would be open only to adults (18 and over) who are NOT already one another’s next of kin by blood. There would be no legal approval or sanction for child marriages, and all current criminal laws against sexual abuse and incest would remain in effect.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 2:15 pm
I was married the first time (didn’t work out) in Germany. We were both in the Army. The chaplain couldn’t marry us legally as he could have in the States (by the power vested in me by God and the State of Illinois, I now pronounce you man and wife)
In Germany, the bride and groom are married in a civil ceremony (the clerk wears robes, it’s very nice) and then the bride and groom are married in the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Whatever on another day (generally the next day).
Like in the United States, Bride and Groom don’t have to be married in the Church. Unlike in the United States, Bride and Groom can’t legally be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Whatever…
Comment by kimsch Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 2:28 pm
I agree with VANILLAMAN on this one. The author’s view works i we are talking about matters of the heart, but it fails to make clear what is to be done with matters of property.
Not to mention, we live in a day and age where you don’t trust no one at there word. Even the dollar bill we use as currency proclaims in “God We Trust.” Not man!
If this is a play to say legalize gay/lesbian marriage, I think more case studies and statistics would be credible than ideology at this point. The author just sounds like a “love-struck” idealist on this one.
Comment by YouNeverSawMe Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 2:44 pm
There is nothing new under the sun. We have tried a variety of marriages over the course of mankind and society. There is a reason we have monogamous heterosexual marriages legally recognized by governments. I find it unbelievable that we are so arrogant that we believe we can just change our societal underpinnings because we have this mythical belief in a governmental Santa Claus to bail us out when we screw up. We are so rich and have been rich for so long as a society, we have forgotten the basic reasons behind why we are so successful.
Gay marriage is not a new concept. There is a reason it has died out. If we only recognize the “love” part of the institution, we are blinding ourselve to the other reasons marriage exists in the traditional form it has taken in western society.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 2:56 pm
Actually I do agree with VM on this one. I am NOT personally in favor of same-sex or multiple marriage. Traditional marriages and families exist for a reason and are important building blocks of society, alongside churches and other private associations. That should not be lightly tossed aside because it doesn’t agree with our current notions of “freedom” (primarily sexual freedom).
But… given the current state of our civil law and court system, which places individual rights above all else AND has taken over many of the functions families, religious organizations, neighborhoods, fraternal clubs, etc. used to perform (assisting the poor, teaching children, caring for the elderly, etc.), I personally think that maybe it is time to re-privatize marriage. It may be the only way to balance the protection of individual rights with the need for social order and the rights of religious and cultural groups to their own beliefs.
The government hasn’t done a very good job of defending marriage and family these days. Maybe it should just get out of the way and let other institutions handle that job. I would think a lot of social conservatives would agree with that sentiment and maybe consider it a step in the right direction.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 3:23 pm
Support of a form of civil marriage is good policy for many of the reason above and one more that has not been mentioned. There are two same-sex households on my street that have children. Letting their parents into civil marriage protects those children in ways that only marriage can.
Comment by Profamily Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 3:45 pm
I keep hearing this “Traditional marriages and families exist for a reason and are important building blocks of society…,” but I don’t get how that rules out same sex couples. What is the reason? Don’t beat around the bush, be short and specific.
Recognizing a legal bond between two adults benefits society; by making a commitment, the two partners accept mutual legal responsibility for debts, medical decisions, child rearing, etc. How does that rule out same sex partners? Please clearly express the benefit society derives from limiting this to man-woman and excluding man-man or woman-woman.
(I think most everyone agrees that a minor cannot enter into this type of legal relationship and multiple partners could, arguably, confuse the legal relationship. So stay focused. Why do the two partners need to be of the opposite sex?)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 3:49 pm
I can’t stop thinking about this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 4:29 pm
I agree with several other posters that the legal relationship the government offers two people should not be called marriage, and that marriage should be reserved for religious institutions to decide.
I also agree that the historical argument the author makes is weak to misleading. There is no historical example of a state offering the legal benefits we associate with marriage without calling it marriage.
Not all good ideas for modern society existed in Ancient Greece or Medeival Europe.
Comment by Lyrl Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 6:54 pm
As Gene Simmons of Kiss has said…and I quote…marriage is a financial arrangement that primarily benefits the woman.
The average marriage burns out after seven years (the itch? It relates to the fact that children no longer need total supervision at age 7, plus our biblical obsession with the number 7.)
They say that 50% of marriages end in divorce; go to the Domestic Relations courtrooms any morning…it has to be 80% at least.
The women’s movement did more to kill the institution of marriage than all the perceived bogeymen referred to here and elsewhere combined.
Comment by King of the Night Time World Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 7:48 pm
I have a child with my partner that is not allowed to get the benefits of married parents. One day when she’s older she’ll want to know why?
Comment by Gay parent Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 8:07 pm
Absolutely no intelligent reason. Sorry.
WWJD? He’d probably say the vows for you. Love is sacred.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 9:22 pm
Pot calling kettle,
The reason you are looking for (although may not agree with) is that homosexual behavior is immoral and homosexual attraction may be intrinsically disordered. This may not be politically correct but it does answer your question and is the reason that there is an objection to same sex marriage.
There is a belief that is no considered by an assumption by many as a-priori that homosexuality is natural, good and equal to heterosexuality in orientation and act.
This belief assumes that homosexuality is inherent, intrinsic and biological. It also assumes that as a basic assumption that previous beliefs stating homosexual acts are immoral are just plain wrong. The final conclusion is that homosexual marriage is a civil right and is the same or should be the same legally as heterosexual marriage.
To discuss this issue rationally is very difficult as there is a core belief by those supporting homosexual marriage that those that oppose homosexual marriage are inherently bigots and that homosexual marriage is inherently the right thing to do and a matter of civil rights and equality. There is a Blogger on the linked site to this named “Dan L” who calls people insane, nuts, f-ck-ng nuts, Homophobes, Cristo-faciscts etc. There is an assumption that those who are against homosexual marriage do not have any valid arguments and are equal to Nazis or at least to those who opposed civil rights based on race in the South and should be excluded from civil discourse or maybe society.
Advocates of homosexual marriage should at least recognize that many of those who oppose gay marriage (and most polls indicate that is a majority of Americans at least at this time)are sincere and are based on spiritual and logical beliefs. There is a legitimate danger in demonizing those with a traditional religious viewpoint on issues of human sexuality and even limiting their free speech or role in deciding issues based on a-priori assumptions on human sexuality. Basically, there is an underlying belief that is taken as absolute that these traditional religious viewpoints are wrong. These traditional religious viewpoints should be changed or at least these traditional religious viewpoints should not be taken into account concerning public policy.
If marriage is (or supposed to be): 1) Monogamous 2) Permanent 3) Heterosexual and 4) (at least in most cases) for the purposes of reproduction, a mechansim for raising children, and love and mutual support of both the couple and the family–than should any of that be reflected in the law? is it even right? What role does religion or tradition play if any? What role should it play?
The first issue that underlies this is: Is Homosexual behavior immoral? But to some to even ask this question is wrong and bigoted and the answer is obvious and inherent. Homosexual behavior is not wrong (according to advocates) and the individual has an absolute right to do what he or she pleases so long as it is with consenting adults and it does not hurt others including but not necessarily limited to homosexuality. Is any sexual behavior immoral or wrong? Should any sexual behavior be limited?
But if marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman than there cannot be marriage between a man and a man by definition. The definition of marriage needs to be changed. Marriage is not and has not been defined as anything other than between a man and a woman thus to have a same sex marriage would be inherently impossible based on the definition both in substance and semantics. You need to change the elements of marriage both in law and by definition.
One reason cited as demonstrating why homosexual behavior is not wrong is stating that homosexuality is inherent based on genetics. Now, even if homosexuality is genetic that does not necessarily mean that homosexual behavior is right. Many inherent characterestics may be wrong (eg pedophilia, necrophilia–not to say they are equal to homosexuality but to demonstrate that an inherent charaterestic may not be moral and may at least possibly be regulated by law) Also, if it is inherent it may not be genetic or biological per se. The scientific evidence that homosexuality is inherent is not as clear as some advocates claim and that it seems more as propaganda than science. No gene has been isolated (at least not as of yet) There are logical and scientific arguments against a homosexual gene. This does not mean that there is not an argument that homosexuality is genetic but that the conclusion is far from made based on science.
The reasons from logic, history, tradition will be viewed as a bigoted way to deny rights from a certain class of people by some. However, it is interesting to note that until the modern age that almost every society had prohibitions in varying degrees against homosexual behaviors and in some cases against homoexuals themselves. There is evidence of widespread homosexuality and even pedophilia or more accurate ebophilia in some cultures in the South Pacific and no doubt homosexuality has been present in society since early civilization but besides the higher levels of society there has never been widespread acceptance of homosexuality in any civilization outside some elite circles and an isolated example in the South Pacific. This does not mean that there were not homosexuals or homosexual behavior or hypocrites in these societies but that it was not accepted and curtailed by culture and law. To wit:
1) Old Testament Jewish culture prohibits homosexuality.
2) Modern Orthodox Jews still subscribe to those prohibitions.
3) While some will argue that ancient Greeks and the great philosophers like Socrates and Plato were homosexual that was not true as a universal practice and certainly Aristolte was not and condemned it. Without debating this question, the homosexuality was young boys and older men in an initiatic homosexual relationship and was not present in every level of society but was fairly proscribed to the higher classes.
4) Roman society did not allow it and Roman (non and pre-Christian and certainly Christian) writers contemporaneous at the time viewed it as decadent although certainly some Emporers “married” multiple eunuchs and gay partners but again it was not a wide spread practice nor common or accepted but viewed as decadent and indulging in an unhealthy side.
5) Christian civilization clearly condemns homosexual acts and the Catholic catechsim still calls the orientation disordered. This does not contradict that many priests etc are homosexual as the practice or even orientation does not preclude Christian participation per se. The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc) and Oriental Orthodox (Copt, Armenian etc–non Chalcedon)all condemn homosexual behavior. Most mainline Protestant demonintations did until the last 50 years or less. So there is a consensus in Christian thought against homosexuality even with some modern permutations and historical and theological justifications by writers like Boswell.
6) Islamic civilization from the Qu’ran to the Hadiths, Sunni and Shia (notwithstanding some practice of homosexuality in some very repressed socieities and an allegation that the great Sufi mystic and poet Rumi was gay) all do not allow homosexuality.
7) Oriental civilization of the three great civilizations of China, Korea and Japan (and their permutations) including dissertations on human sexuality in Confucian and Taoist treatises beleive that homosexuality is unnatural and disordered. Even the now popular Kundun Tibetan Dalai Lama stated that homosexuality was a spiritual and psychological disorder much to the dismay of his Hollywood followers.
8) I am not as familiar with Indian (primarily Hindu) culture but there are laws on the books and one Hindu Raj (prince) who came out the closet was disowned by his parents and was technically violating Indian laws in his region.
9) Communism, many liberals had a strained relationship with Cuba because of persecution of homosexuals. Yeltsin decried the state of his great mother Russia because of the increase of prostitution, homosexuality, crime etc as a result of a liberalization of social mores in the post heavy handed communist era.
10) Until recently, the Anglo-American quasi Protestant (with strong secular and Diestic influences) had a strong consensus against homosexual behavior with laws still on the books against sodomy in many states and until recently Supreme Court decisions upholding those laws.
This was not the Catholic Church but a patchwork of a common value system with a myriad of Churches and philosophical influences that did not allow homosexual behavior.
The advocates of homosexual marriage will respond that many things were allowed in other cultures: slavery, torture, child labor, forced women labor, and even today there is stoning of adultering women in Nigeria, or honor killings in Jordan, slavery in the Sudan etc.
So, just because every religion and culture historically and traditionally has had some prohibition on homosexuality and had restrictions on sexuality does not necessarily make it right (or wrong). However, it is interesting and at least instructive as the various philosophical premises of these societies are the basis of culture and law.
Is there not a common thread regarding homosexuality in all cultures on the planet?
Is this merely a negative heritage and residual issue like oppression of women?
Or maybe it is more?
This debate raises a lot of passion and uncivil discourse. However, I think it is possible to present evidence (and contrary evidence) that could possibly demonstrate that homosexuality is not natural nor positive. Also, that homosexual acts have negative consequences by statistic(s).
Underlying the homosexual “movement” seems to be a “pansexual” and very hedonistic philosophy that directly contradicts traditional spiritual views and at least possibly could be dangerous for society and the lack of restraint on issues of human sexuality that do affect human life in the biological aspect of reproduction and society through the family unit in a sociological aspect.
Maybe Homosexual behavior is wrong? Is that not at least possible?
Maybe Marriage inherently be definition is between a man and woman? That would not be that crazy to state in absolute terms just 10 or 20 years ago.
Maybe the homosexual orientation is disordered or unnatural? Maybe, just at least possibly?
Maybe homosexuality can be developed through non biological means like early sexual activity, or lack of male father figure, or warping the mind through sexual materials? The position of the Medical Psychiatric/Psychological established community a mere 40 years ago was that homosexuality was a psychological disorder–why did they change? for medical or political reasons? If psychiatrists believed that orientation could be changed and was psychological what changed that that is heresy today?
Maybe the changing social morality has lead to more divorce, out of wedlock early births, and other problems?
What if homosexual marriage did radically change the definition of the family and caused a breakdown of the nuclear family as we know it in society?
What if traditional religious views are right?
Comment by Michael Tanze Tuesday, Nov 27, 07 @ 9:40 pm
Did you take a post down?
Comment by Robert Goellner Wednesday, Nov 28, 07 @ 12:05 am
Gay parent,
Are you speaking of
inheritance rights
health insurance reciprocity like with married couples
The tax system does not necessarily favor married couples.
Many governmental agencies and corporations give benefits for same sex and heterosexual partners/significant others even non married heterosexuals were children are involved and same sex.
The inheritance and visitation while sick and not cognizant could be dealt with in a will or living will.
although I certainly believe that adults should give whatever benefits, inheritance to who they wish and not just blood relatives eg partner, lover, friend etc.
Comment by Robert Goellner Wednesday, Nov 28, 07 @ 12:12 am
Robert Goellner writes:
The inheritance and visitation while sick and not cognizant could be dealt with in a will or living will.
This concept that gay couples can have all the rights of married couples through contracts, wills, etc., is somewhat inaccurate.
In addition to the burden and expense it creates on gay couple, there is a qualitative difference between the two. Take, for example, a medical emergency. The magic words, “That’s my husband” or “That’s my wife” are immediately understood to entail a series of rights and responsibilities.
Saying, “I have a contractual arrangement/power of attorney/legal documents” does not open the same doors.
The same concept applies to financial dealings, parent-teacher conferences, and hundreds of other daily transactions.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Nov 28, 07 @ 8:09 am
Robert..thank you for asking…I am a State worker with great insurance and a pension. I can’t cover our child on my insurance nor if something happens to me will she get my pension benefits. Just to name a few things that worry our family .
Comment by Gay parent Wednesday, Nov 28, 07 @ 4:58 pm