Ya I know it’s an old line but this topic actually interests me on many levels. Mark my words, the Supreme Court won’t settle this with this ruling, whenever it comes down…But there is a lesson here for all to see.
First of all when you have the so called “institution” of marriage being defiled with shams like the Kardashian wedding, or Britney Spears or any of hundreds of others, it’s pretty hard to make a case that straight couples aren’t doing enough to damage it for gay people too.
Then you have the religious right who are the most adamant about this whole definition of marriage thing, but they also have only themselves to blame.
When they allowed government to legislate marriage in the first place they gave up any religious meaning it may have had. You see it is not the providence of our republic to recognize religious institutions. When the government decided to treat married people differently than any other people marriage became a legal contract and not an ideological one. the church handed the Government marriage and now the government can define marriage as anything it wants to, and it will.
Had the church simply said no you may not legislate this institution because if we allow you to do that what is to stop you from changing it’s meaning or from allowing two men or two women to marry?
The United States of America is founded on a principle of equal protection under the law, the government has no business being in the marriage business in the first place, leave that to the church.
The lesson here is be careful what power you give to the government, because when you give that power to the government, you will never get it back except through the barrel of a gun.
20 Responses
Should Gay People Be Allowed To Be As Miserable as Straight People http://t.co/CaKqj1fuTo
Al Goldstein said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zb86bRaN6k
Marriage is wonderful. The research says you get security, great sex, and a distinct financial advantage. I was skeptical too but marriage is hella awesome…IF you are middle class or rich.
It must also be said that government MUST be involved in the recognition of marriage as marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of the community. Most libertarians agree with this–only Randians and anarchists disagree.
So many issues are settled through a state-sanctioned marriage–issues regarding shared property, inheritance, legitimacy & family name, alimony & child support arrangements, privacy & medical information sharing…
Leave all these things in the hands of private institutions and confusion would abound. A great example of government-free marriage is Sub-Saharan Africa where polygamy and legitimacy disputes are common occurrences (my father is a victim of this). In many cultures, a man can divorce his wife simply by saying so three consecutive times!
Robert Lombard liked this on Facebook.
I think you’re right, Mike, that the Court will probably not even reach these cases on the merits. Standing is not just some technical procedural rule–it is a constitutionally prescribed limit on the jurisdiction of federal courts. They simply may not hear a case unless the party bringing it is in fact the properly aggrieved party. The right wing lunatics fighting to prevent California from recognizing gay marriage (on the theory that this somehow hurts them), or the idiotic legislators fighting to defend DOMA (even though members of congress have never done anything like that before), simply don’t have the proper legal standing to complain.
If that happens, then the ball will be sent back to Obama–he should require agencies to start paying benefits to same sex couples, stop discriminating against gay marriages, etc. It will be up to him to show the courage of his convictions. We’ll see.
Rebecca Pena liked this on Facebook.
actually IIRC marriage was originally concieved exactly for the purposes you mentioned, settling property issues and what not. IMO the government has to treat everyone the same married or not and simply recognize the legal issues surrounding it. I have no problem with the government recognizing marriage but I do have a problem when it is not applied equally, including in cases of polygamy. The legal mechanisms are already in place this whole argument at this point is simply an ideological one….and not to get off topic but it sure makes a nice smoke screen doesnt it…
Alright Mike, let me put an end to this. I put through a call to the invisible man living among the clouds. Voicemail. Bastard is always off fucking around whenever you really need him. So I called downstairs to the man with the red spray tan. He didn’t have time to talk since all the straight people who got married and cheated on their spouse apparently are clogging up the system down there. I tried to get a hold of Jesus, and he was busy banging some black chick in Alabama and needed to be on the down low. He sent me a text to get with his Dad on this. I told him he wasn’t answering. He said he does that. So I thought about it for a bit and what came to mind is, I really need to get my nails done. I’m sorry. What were we talking about?
Now that was just plain awesome Brooke
I had a conversation about this issue with my brother-in-law one day. We live in California and this was during the Prop 8 election cycle. My bro-in-law was all in favor of Prop 8 so I asked him. “Would you ever tell my sister that you think your relationship with her is no different that the relationship between two homosexual men, on any level, sexually, mentally, emotionally.?” You can cali it what ever you want, it is not the same. And just out of curiosity, how do you consumate a homosexual marriage? Needless to say, our little debate ended when I asked that question. So, to all the heteros married couples I ask, is your relationship no different than the relationships of homosexual couples? Ask your spouse, it wil make an interesting conversation over dinner.
Great post Mike! What society really needs is Registered Domestic Partnerships for all and leave the marriage part for the churches.
@artwilliams
You hit the nail right on the head. Only problem is, your solution is brilliant, and simple, therefore the politicians wont touch it with a ten foot pole.
Art that is exactly right its simple and it works while you might argue that there is some difference there should be NO legal difference. Thats why I love my readers…yall are smart. let the church get mired up in the whole marriage thing, our government has much more important issues at hand.
Fuck the right to marriage, these people need to be forced to the pain of divorce, bad taxation, and custody agreements. It would be a wakeup call for many who have gone through their lives with a few different “partners” – having to actually divorce them instead of just walking away would certainly change their views of the world.
For whatever it’s worth–probably little–I can say without any hesitation that I feel that my heterosexual relationships with women are no different than the relationships between homosexual men. If, that is, by “different” you mean different in terms of the *validity* of the sexual, mental, and emotional connections. Of course, every relationship is different–some are deep and meaningful, some are not. But sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.
You seem so sure homosexual relationships are different (in some non-trivial way) from heterosexual ones. What makes you such an expert on homosexual relationships anyway?
Imagine someone you have been with for 25 yrs, they are rushed to the hospital. They are in the icu dying , you arent allowed in or talk to the doctor about their care because you arent family. Its not simple. The government has to be in the business of marriage because who else is going to license it. You are going to have churches control it? If you dont believe in our god then sorry for you no wedding for you. There are also legal documents, when you think rationally it makes sense.
Actually all of those things are already addressed in our legal system, medical power of attorneys, DNRs, Been in a hospital lately? They actually ask you for all that stuff, you may also have a patient advocate with you and its anyone you appoint. and yes if marriage is an ideological construct then churches may administer it as they see fit.
Yes, ultimately the very notion of trying to incentivize certain behaviors through things like the tax code (e.g., by giving tax benefits to married persons not available to single individuals) is just pure folly. Probably the government should have little if any business trying to incentivize ANY behaviors. Just punish criminal behavior and leave everything else up to the people.
Well, we can dream at least.
I am straight but I would like to take a guess at how homosexual marriage is consumated. I think men fuck each other up the ass while women eat each other out. For the record I am against same sex marriage on the grounds that marriage is a Christian sacrament and we have no business interfering with religious matters. Give them civil unions but don’t change the definition of marriage. Same sex couples should receive the same benefits that married couples receive and each state should have a mechanism to prove that they are loving couples and intend to be in a civil union. Civil unions should also be an option for opposite sex couples that do not believe in the Christian God.
The problem with that, Mike, (as Brenda alluded to below) is that marriage is fundamentally a CIVIC institution and not a religious one. Atheists believe in marriage too and want their marriage recognized–not simply by their fellow atheistic sectarians but by society as a whole.
As for taking away the right to marriage from everyone and replacing them with titles of domestic partnerships–that’s just backward.
There some “marriages” that need to be restricted because of negative social effects. Incest and polygamy fall into those categories. Gay marriage does not. Show me the research that most polygamous unions are not correlated with higher levels of female subjugation and emotional abuse and they’ll be next in line to be given the right.