The entire purpose of the different branches of government is so that there is a system of checks and balances. I’m not intimately familiar with the legal processes that resulted in legalization of gay marriage, but from what I know it sounds like what the State Supreme Court did was say that it was illegal to deny gays the right to marry one another. And that is absolutely within their jurisdiction.
[hijack]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Quint Essence state a while ago that he had a lesbian daughter? I feel desperately sad for her. [/hijack]
Not only is that specious, it’s not correct under the law or within the bounds of reality.
A marriage is a contract between two parties, the spouses. Marriage as a contract between spouses does not change when there are or are not children.
But, if our interest is in protecting families, then we need to protect all families. If you believe that all kids need to have two parents who are married to one another, it is entirely at odds with that stated ideal to suggest that kids whose parents happen to both be mommies or both be daddies don’t need that too. Pick your position, but realize when you do that the whole “marriage is about children” claptrap is contradictory and false on its face.
You’re right. It’s really going to shake things up and shell-shock a whole bunch of kids when their moms or dads are finally able to have legal recognition of their relationships.
100? Loving v. Virginia was 1967. That’s in my lifetime, and that of a large number of Dopers. That’s just 2 years before Stonewall, the real birth of the modern gay rights movement in the U.S. We’re not even 40 years out from a time when it was codified into the law in one-quarter of American states that people of different races were barred from marrying. Now, the idea that interracial marriage should be barred or illegal boggles the minds of all but the most obvious of racists, for the obvious reason – where there is no potential for harm to a third party (i.e. children born from partners of excessive consanguinity) it is anathema to individual liberty to interfere with the autonomy of consenting, competent adults on such an intimate level.
Ummm… yeah. It may be true that children who grow up in stable two parent households do better than children in unstable single parent households. However, I would be most suprised if you can find a study showing me that children whose parents stay in unhappy marriages are better off than if a divorce was had.
I personally know a person who would have been drastically better off if her parents had divorced sooner. Many divorces lead to much happier second marriages. Isn’t THAT better for the kids?
The idea that forcing people to stay together makes things better for the kids is right up there with believing “a good whuppin will teach that boy some manners!”
Gay marriage has not affected our marriage one single bit.
Jack Ketch, a little background on my own union:
My beloved wife of 29 years come April and I were high school friends but drifted apart while I was away at college. She dated and ended up sleeping with a … well, a creature who apparently had the proper Homo sapiens genetic complement, but I refuse to acknowledge anything more human about him than that. He got her pregnant, then beat her up.
She was able to carry the kid to term, but suffered polycystic ovarian syndrome. We knew from the start of our marriage that our odds of having a child were well below the norm, and in fact we never did.
For years, we used our freedom from raising children to enable us to do volunteer work in the community. Then a teenage neighbor boy became homeless, and we ended in taking him and two other boys in and fostering them until they came of age.
My relationship with Barb is very, very meaningful to me and affects quite literally nearly every minute of my day. We take very seriously the “to death do us part” vows that we made. And we have found deep fulfillment in what we have with each other, and used that to try to help make the world around us a better place.
And I will thank you not to make any further comments about what “the purpose of marriage” might be that suggest that our (childless) marriage is meaningless. I am trying very, very hard to keep the tone of this post to a level appropriate for GD. And I do understand your point that a part of the reason behind why society as a whole ought to support and validate marriage as an institution is for the sake of the minor children produced by many if not most marriages. But your comments are only one step up, in my estimation, from those that regard marriage as nothing more than a license to screw with state approval.
BoringDad, you’re arguing from the specific, the anecdotal, and I’m arguing from the general. When you’re writing policy that’ll affect 280 million people, you want to take into account how they’ll generally behave.
Sure, we can all find cases where there is abuse and neglect, where divorce is the best option. Sure, many divorces lead to much happier second marriages. I won’t dispute that.
But you also can’t dispute the fact that the happy husbands and wives in those marriages can pursue their happiness sometimes at the expense of some very unhappy and troubled children. I’ve seen it many times. I’ll bet you have, too.
I’ll bet we all have, in a country with a 50% divorce rate, and an out-of-wedlock birth rate of a third. Can you honestly say you’re particularly sanguine about these numbers, and their effect on kids?
It’s late, and I’ll hunt up a study tomorrow. But I’ll take my turn at arguing from the anecdote. My parents had rocky patches in their marriage. Though there was never abuse, I believe there was infidelity, and there were also sone financial rough times.
My parents, though, did not divorce. They weathered the tough times, rebuilt their relationship and are together today to enjoy their grandchildren. I really think this has helped me to take the longer view in my own relationship, and not take the easy way out.
Norway has had same-sex marriage *) since 1993, and it hasn’t affected my marriage at all, except that it has, to some slight extent, made it easier to teach my children the responsibilities of raising a family, and other important aspects of morals. I believe (but have no cites for this) that this has a positive cumulative effect on society.
The main effect it has had for me personally is that it has made it easier for me to brag about my country on international message boards. 
We had a recent discussion about the effect - or lack of it - of same-sex marriage on straight marriage in Scandinavia here.
*) The legalese term is “registered partnership”. It’s legally equal to marriage, except no right to be married in a state church, and very limited right to adoption.
Polycarp may be able to relate to this. I was married hearing the following words:
“The union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity, and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”
-BCP, ECUSA.
The emphasis is on the relationship first, and children, according to God’s will. For me, marriage was not and is not about procreation. When I was getting ready to be married, our priest asked us to describe our parents marriages, as they were the models we would emulate in our marriage, both the good and the bad. The children we raise are most affected by the relationship in theor home, and as much as we may try to teach them about the rest of the world, they silently observe us at every moment. The idea that gay marriages would make it harder to teach children about a proper family is an empty argument as it teaches them that what other people do is more important than what goes on at home.
The definitions of marriage and the relationship between two people overlap a lot, and I’m guilty of that. I use the word marriage to refer to my state of cohabitation and committment, when I’m really talking about the relationship. In reality for me, there is a definite distinction and disconnect between the civil or religious ceremony and the relationship (this was brought into focus for me when I worked with an christian Asian Indian woman who told me about her arranged marriage).
On other threads, I’ve seen comments expressing dismay that gay marriage would change the definition of marriage, or that those who support gay marriage are changing the definition of the word. My wife, who is a liguist by education, has always made a point that words are defined only by consensus, and that any meaning can be assigned to a word. While the concept of marriage has not changed much, the condition it describes has, to the point that marriage in 2004 refers to something very different than it did in 1954. You can’t change reality by insisting on a proper definition of a word, and conversely popular use of words change without much regard for reality. In, say, 1944, the phrase “A gay man collecting fags” had a very different meaning than it does today, and would not have offended anyone.
They prayer I started this post with has a distinct meaning, and carries an inclusive message to everyone who hears it. The words we debate today are much more fluid, and more easily bent to exclude. I would rather include gay marriage than exclude it based on sematics.
Vlad/Igor
Compared to the “reality” marriage shows being thrown out to millions of people weekly on TV for corporate gain and some bimbos 15 minutes of fame/shame, I’d say that having a couple that really actually loves each other and wants to be married because, you know, they actually know one another but happen to be the same sex is one hell of a step up.
So, the idea of gay people marrying hasn’t affected my marriage one bit, TYVM.*
[sub]*: all the standard arguments involving 1) the “institution” of marriage being what it is these days, with 50% or better divorce rates, 2) people who are worried about gays marrying somehow making their own marriage less valuable must not have that must invested in their own life-choices in the first place, 3) separation of church and state, yeah, all these apply, too.[/sub]
I think gay marriage is a great idea. If only because then my parents could get married.
For many years I have been personally opposed to marrying at all (man or woman). If my mom and her girlfriend (who is a fantastic woman, loves my mother unconditionally and basically raised us kids while my mom went back to college) can’t get married, then there is something wrong with the whole idea of the sanctity of marrige in general.
I have several relatives who won’t accept my mother and her girlfriend as a couple because they “aren’t married”. I would love to see what excuse they would come up with once mom and momma-lady are allowed to marry.
It has had no effect on mine. Why would I care? In fact, how do all of the lousy hetero marriages out there affect mine? Not at all.
I think this is the real crux of the issue, here. This isn’t so much about marriage vs. civil unions but rather that acknowledgement of the legitimacy of homosexuality compared to heterosexuality. Personally, I don’t care what your beliefs are, Quint Essence. They’re your beliefs and you’re entitled to follow them. Personally, I think they’re abysmally ignorant, but you probably think the same of mine.
The problem occurs when people such as yourself attempt to encode your beliefs into secular law. That’s the real issue here. You’ve said that homosexuality is unequal to heterosexuality, but offer no reason as to why. And I doubt you can come up with any rational reason that doesn’t fall back on some form of Christian moralizing.
You’d change you tune pretty quickly if you ever lost your job or were denied custody of your children simply because you practiced oral sex.
And maybe, someday, you could come live in the 21st century instead of the 19th.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means you don’t love your wife at all, you simply see her as breeding stock. Have you ever told her that?
Please explain, in precise detail how this happens. I don’t follow your logic.
Again, what are the precise details of this? Where did you get this information? Has this ever been tested in any sort of scientific way?
Well, obviously we should just go back to marrying our daughters off at the age of 14 (hell, even 12 or 13…as long as they bleed, they can breed, right?) to some 30+ year old man with the offer of some cattle or horses as dowry, maybe even some acres of land, if her father is especially rich.
After all, that’s what marriage was about for hundreds of years, and everything we’ve done since has ruined…I tell you, RUINED, the sanctity of marriage! :rolleyes:
Wow, I never realized I was a burden on the institution of marriage as I’m heterosexual and married to a woman. TheLadyLion and I got married somewhat later in life. We will have no children together by choice and by biology as she was forced to have a hysterectomy just before we met due to utirine cancer. Sorry for everyone whose marriage we have burdended.
She has a son, now 25 but did not marry his father as that would have been far worse than raising him by herself. He’s not perfect but we both love him very much and do what we can to help him succeed in life.
Gay rights, including marriage, is a big issue at our church. We are evangelical Lutheran, ELCA, and a Reconciled in Christ congregation listed with Lutherans Concerned (Lutherans in comfortable shoes if you didn’t figure that out). The RIC desginations means we welcome anyone who wishes to worship with us regardless of among other things sexual orientation and gender identity.
A good portion of our congregation is gay and lesbian, many committed couples. I see couples take communion together as a couple and I know their relationship means as much to them as that of my wife and I. Unfortunately the law in Arizona and the full body of the ELCA church doesn’t see it the same.
The ELCA’s official stance on gay marriage is that they have no position. The church is taking a study now and is scheduled to vote on the issue in 2005. Gay clergy are another matter. The ELCA has a document called Visions and Expectations that says straight clergy must be chaste. Self aware gay clergy must remain celibate. This rule has caused much controversy as it is absolutely not applied equally. Straight clergy who have affairs rarely face consequences but gay clergy have often been delisted.
It’s an uphill battle and the outcome may not look good but I know where I stand.