Marriage is between a male and a female.
Sex is between a male and a female.
These are the definitions I know. I am old fashioned I guess. But I feel that any other union is just living together. And any other physical contact is just mutual masterbation.
I’d love for gay marriage to be legal and rampant.
Because I suspect their weddings would be FABULOUS.
jar
Otto: Bowers v. Hardwick is probably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever written – whether or not you agree with the contentions of either side in it. But effectively, it does not deny gay people or anyone else the right to privacy; the majority decision contented itself with denying Mike Hardwick’s claim that there was a constitutionally protected right to engage in “sodomy” – i.e., anal or oral sex.
The case is interesting: a cop, apparently anti-gay, issued a traffic ticket (parking IIRC) to Hardwick outside the gay bar at which he worked. Hardwick paid the ticket. The cop nonetheless went and got an arrest warrant from a judge to make Hardwick appear in court to pay the ticket. Armed with this (invalid) warrant, he appeared at the door of Hardwick’s apartment to serve it. Hardwick was inside, having sex with another guy. A friend admitted the cop to the apartment (I believe this is contrary to Fourth Amendment practice; right, Sua?) and he proceeded to arrest Hardwick under Georgia’s sodomy law. The D.A. wisely refused to prosecute, and dropped charges. Then Hardwick sued the D.A. under his contention that the sodomy law was unconstitutional. The Supremes declined to see it that way.
Given that assortment of things, I can very easily see a case for a privacy violation, and would argue Hardwick’s case along those lines. But Hardwick asserted his right to engage in sexual conduct per se and the Court took the extreme narrow view that, no, nothing in the Constitution can be construed to give an individual the right to engage in a given oral or anal sexual practice.
The commentator who remarked that “*Bowers v. Hardwick is a real pain in the ass” was not merely being witty but profound. Almost everyone who argues about it does not seem to have looked at the actual case.
Justin: Certainly you have the right to your opinion about what marriage and sex ought to be. But the question before the house is, why should your opinion (and that of millions of others) be enforced, as opposed to that of gay people who wish to make a marital commitment to each other and have it recognized by the state and those of us who, not being particularly interested in contracting a gay marriage ourselves, see the prohibition of their wishes as discrimination against them.
At rock bottom, the only sound arguments against gay marriage that I have seen found it either on the concept that marriage is for the purpose of having children or on religious beliefs. Neither seems to me valid in our society.
Although it’s been alluded to, it’s worth noting the wide variety of legal rights spouses have vis-a-vis each other. My wife Barb is my legal next of kin; she has absolute right to at least a large portion of my estate (this varies from state to state); she may consent to medical treatment which I may need if I am incapable of doing so; she may act in my behalf at least in certain circumstances without formal power of attorney in some jurisdictions; no one is in position to contest my will leaving my entire estate to her. Whatever powers she has with regard to me in North Carolina will be automatically honored in other states, and are constitutionally protected under Article IV. Now consider Fred and Ed, who love each other and have formed a civil union. None of these rights is valid in 49 states. When Fred gets into a severe accident and is comatose, his mother or brother becomes next of kin. When he dies while they’re attempting to contact them, Ma and Bro contest his will leaving everything to Ed, and end up having Ed thrown out of the house they owned together.
Obviously God hates Ed for being gay, and the courts need to enforce this. :rolleyes:
Polycarp,
The problem is I just don’t get it. I have male friends that I love but if they need a medical notice or approval then only their family or wife can give it. Not me or any other friend.
That, exactly, is the point, Justin. I love my wife, so do you. We married because we wanted to commit to spending the rest of our lives with our wives, to care for them and have them care for us, come richer or poorer, for better or for worse, till death do us part.
So did Ed and Fred.
They aren’t friends; they see each other as spouses. Suppose the court said, “Your wife cannot consent to your surgery; we’ll have to contact your 85-year-old great aunt who is your sole living blood relative and see if she’s lucid enough to make a decision, and hope she gets lucid before you die. Oh, and after you die, the Court will decide whether your will leaving everything to your wife is valid, or whether it should go 50% to Great Aunt Tillie and 50% to the State Judges’ Retirement Fund. But I guarantee I’ll be objective about it.” I trust you’d be a bit peeved.
Now look at Otto or Hastur’s situation. Effectively, that’s what the legislature and courts are saying to them.
Sex is only a minor part of it, as it is with any marriage. Life together, with all its ups and downs, is the gist of the matter.
The primary argument for gay marriage is the legal perks that go along w/married status. Stuff like visting your partner of twenty years in the hospital ICU, which a gay person can’t do now because they’re not legally family.
Not all gay activists agree that marriage is the primary goal of the gay rights movement. Personally, I’d much rather have sexual orientation added to the list of groups protected under civil rights & employment non-discrimination law. When people get confused about this, I make sure to point out to them that unless I live in one of the very few states/jurisdictions that bans anti-gay discrimination, I can be denied housing, lose my job, or get kicked out of a public place for being gay. But this may be due to the fact that I’m single & don’t foresee getting involved in an LTR anytime soon…
The entire idea of “marriage” between two folks – one male and one female – is archaic and outdated. If N consenting adults want to shack up together and give each other the special benefits of being married (hospital visits, inheritance, etc.), then that should be their business. If the church/synagogue/mosque/temple objects, that’s an issue of faith and should be settled in that arena – but as a matter of secular law, the marriage laws IMO should be rewritten to allow this flexibility.
I believe Star Trek occassionally discusses “marriage contracts,” where two folks are legally bound for five- or ten-year increments, with an option to renew as they see fit. Perhaps something like that could be used instead, and extended to same-sex and multipartner groupings. And if there are clear-cut provisions for ownership, dividing of property, and visitation rights once a contract expires, messy divorces could be a thing of the past.
Saying that something is true doesn’t make it true.
They have the same amount of information, yet Groucho is funnier.
Since Sua Sponte hasn’t dropped by to answer, I’ll take a stab at it, Poly. There’s probably no Fourth Amendment problem there. Under the well-established doctrine of “apparent authority,” the police are entitled to conduct a search upon receiving the consent of a person who appears to be authorized to give it. In other words, if Hardwick’s friend ('tho I recall it was a housemate) appears to be a resident of the home and consents to the search, it doesn’t matter that he had no authority to act on behalf of the actual resident.
Well, I’d say that Bowers v. Hardwick does effectively deny everyone–gay or straight–the right to privacy; or at any rate, it knocks a pretty big hole in the right to privacy, since I would think any “right to privacy” would include “the right of adults to have consensual sex with other adults in their own homes without being charged with a felony”.
**justinh wrote:
Marriage is between a male and a female.
Sex is between a male and a female.**
That’s great for a personal definition. But as statutory law, it’s pretty bad. For a country that prides itself on equal treatment under the law, it flies in the face of one of our basic principles of justice.
These are the definitions I know. I am old fashioned I guess. But I feel that any other union is just living together. And any other physical contact is just mutual masterbation.
So, masturbation isn’t sex? Hrm… shades of Bill Clinton.
**rjung wrote:
If the church/synagogue/mosque/temple objects, that’s an issue of faith and should be settled in that arena – but as a matter of secular law, the marriage laws IMO should be rewritten to allow this flexibility.**
That’s exactly the point. The marriage laws do need to be reconsidered and re-written. Exactly how is the REAL point of the debate.
**booklover wrote:
Not all gay activists agree that marriage is the primary goal of the gay rights movement. Personally, I’d much rather have sexual orientation added to the list of groups protected under civil rights & employment non-discrimination law.**
This may sound somewhat simplistic, but I feel that the main thrust of the whole “gay rights” movement is to ensure equal treatment under the law, which would include BOTH marriage rights and protection of various civil rights thru non-discrimination clauses.
Okay, so why exactly is it that “marriage rights” are not discimination against the unmarried?
And before anyone goes off on the “marriage tax,” be sure to include the fact that’s two folks claiming standard exemption for the same house.
Oh, yeah; don’t forget about the whole subsidized marriage bit in the Armed Forces either.
rjung, the problem with eleminating civil marrige nad having couples negotiate contracts that cover situations case-by-case is the sheer mass of laws involving married couples (see MrVisible’s list, which is just a start). Any contract that attempted to spell out the details of exactly which right were being shared would fail to cover many situations–courts have to struggle to apply family law to new situations every day. That’s why we have a general catagory of “spouse” which we can stretch to fit over new situations as they arise.
I agree that multi-partnerships are kind of screwed because they have no established social institution to fall back on–IMHO, this is one of hte reasons why they so often fall apart, becaues all the boring dyads out there have the inertia of social convention to halp them work out the details.
I can understand the concern in the OP – at a time when the rest of the world is giving up on marriage, we seem to be leaping for it. Like we’re picking up a toy that some other child, bored with it, has dropped.
Some of it is a sort of over-compensation – a lot of us want to prove we can be as boring and conservative as straight people, contrary to stereotypes. Some of it is that we’ve wanted this right for so long, that we’re still pursuing it even as it slowly seems to be losing its meaning.
But marriage does have a practical side. I spent a year in an un-official marriage with an American. He was my spouse in all meanings of the word except the legal. And if he had been deported, there wouldn’t have been much I could have done about it.
At the same time, there are other issues that constantly pushed aside that are important, particularly things like gaybashing and teen suicide. And I find that when I try to discuss things in gay activist circles, they get pushed off the table for the all-important gay marriage issue.
I was just wondering, is there anyone besides Justin who thinks marriage should be for straight couples only? I’m getting alot of analysis and no opinion, which is the fire of debate!
Monty-
I’m not going to bring up the marriage penalty (yet), but could you explain this ?
. If you’re talking about itemized deductions, they’re not both taking the deduction for the same house, they’re *sharing *the deduction. If you’re talking about the standard deduction, the standard deduction for a joint return is less than twice that of a single (one example of a marriage penalty)
I am just stating what my definitions are. Now where I got them could be a good point of debate. But the fact that they are my definitions is not debateable. I would argue that it is the definition of a majority of our society.
What I am saying is that there should be another legal term defined to recognize the union. That should please everybody, since it could be defined to address the particulars of the arrangement. It could also address the adoption issue (another thread topic).
Although it probably doesn’t apply, I believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman that “no man can break apart”. But that is another thread topic.
To me the argument is the same as
“I want to have a baby”
“what?”
“I want to have a baby”
“But Stan you cant have a baby”
“Dont you oppress me”
"But you dont have a womb, where are you going to gestate it ? in a basket? "
So it’s simply using the term “marriage” that is the problem here ?
If the US were to pass a law on same-sex “registered partnership” and in clause 2 of the law stated, “All rights and responsibilities associated with marriage are directly applicable to same-sex registered partnership”, you’d be OK ?
S. Norman