Despite news reports, Maine has continued its policy of maintaining discrimination against marriages by consensual adults. The state has continued the false assertion that marriage is primarily about procreation. It has sustained this discrimination for only one reason: cultural and societal bias.
I am, of course, talking about incestuous marriage. Most news reports have falsely stated that Maine's newly signed law allows marriage between "any two persons." But there's a big exception (other than minor and mentally disabled persons): "A person may not marry that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle or first cousin."
If the intent of this were only to prevent procreation, then it would add, "... if there is any chance of the couple procreating." So same-sex incestuous marriage, or incestuous marriage where the female has reached menopause, should be allowed. So clearly, the intent is not about preventing such procreation.
So the bill itself, in maintaining discrimination against incestuous marriage, undermines the claim of the gay marriage proponents that social stigma is an insufficient reason to maintain discrimination.
This is not about the principle of equal rights. People who do things for the sake of principles are consistent in the application of those principles whenever possible, and there can be no doubt that the principles apply here to incestuous marriages just as much as gay marriages, as long as procreation is taken out of the equation.
Abigail Adams, in the late 1700s, pointed out to her husband John the hypocrisy of claiming all people inherently have liberty, while maintaining the enslavement of a race of people, and subjugating the rights of women. Of course, to the extent her husband agreed, the Union hung in the balance. No such danger faces us today: so where are the gay marriage proponents speaking up for the rights of same-sex siblings to marry?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 09, 2009 09:54 AM | Email ThisPractically all the states prohibit uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages (not to mention uncle-nephew and aunt-niece marriages). There are some states, including Washington, which do not criminalize such relationships as incest.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 9, 2009 10:08 AMI also think we should look at allowing plural marriages, but that would have to mean women having multiple husbands, also, not just men having multiple wives. Of course, this is DEFINITELY not an endorsement of having under-age girls (or boys) married to older men (or women). That kind of shennanigans needs to stop, and I mean RIGHT NOW! I DO NOT support the Warren Jeffs of the world!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on May 9, 2009 10:12 AMscottd: do you support gay marriage? If so, do you support incestuous marriage? If not, why not? Can you logically reconcile the two views?
Yes, I do.
No, I don't.
Pass...
Maybe I can't, but I'm not going to discriminate against my gay friends and relatives while I ponder life's inconsistencies.
BTW, will you be campaigning for bestiality?
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 12:29 PMThe argument goes like this: "If we allow gay marriage, what about polygamy, incest, bestiality, marriage between a man and his piano, etc. etc?"
Guess what? This is about gay marriage. Not incestuous marriage. Not polygamous marriage. Not marriage between a man and his dog. If you want to go advocate for those things, be my guest.
When an uneducated right-wing sheep (such as this author) uses the slippery argument, it is because they don't have any legitimate arguments against gay marriage ITSELF.
Nice try.
Next.
Posted by: homophobe_gets_smacked on May 9, 2009 12:43 PMThe EDUCATED of society, from legal scholars to social scientists (AKA people with brains), overwhelmingly support gay marriage. That includes everyone from the American Psychological Association to the American Anthropological Association. That includes over 300 pediatricians and countless law professors. Surveys keep showing the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay marriage.
Clearly there is some kind of correlation here: the dumber/less educated they are, the more anti-gay they tend to be.
If these uneducated religious/conservative/homophobic sheep would spend just a little more time in school (where they can learn some science and logic) and less time sticking their noses into other people's personal lives (which don't affect them one bit), maybe they'll earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.
Posted by: homophobe_gets_smacked on May 9, 2009 12:49 PMBut is it not about the larger issue of equality? If it were only about gay marriage & not equality, advocates would never think to compare their cause to the 60's civil rights cause for racial equality, now would they?
Posted by: travs t on May 9, 2009 01:03 PMBTW, marriage to some minors who cannot otherwise enter into contracts is legal.
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 01:22 PMDon't assume you know my position on the issue, however. I'm not honestly necessarily against gay marriage in a particular. I'm just against selective changing of the marriage laws for "popular" minorities. I'd have no problem with a law that eliminates marriage as a legal institution and grants civil unions for everyone and marriage to be a purely religious commitment. But I object to "popular" minorities being exempted from centuries old tradition. It should be for everybody or it should be the traditional, thousands of years old definition.
Posted by: cliff on May 9, 2009 01:37 PMI mean, you need someone to speak up for incest... right? And there can't be TOO many reasons for your feelings on the matter.
Posted by: Hinton on May 9, 2009 02:09 PMCliff, I think you are on to something. Law is basically a social construct and it appears that society is growing more accepting of gay rights, so it's not surprising that the law is starting to follow.
As a society, we frown on incest -- at least until pudge convinces us otherwise. So, no incestous marriage. I honestly don't spend much time worrying about incest, but I know plenty of gay people who would like the same social recognition and legal rights my wife and I have enjoyed for 25 years, so I think things are moving in the right direction. It may not be logical, but there is a lot about humanity that isn't. Maybe pudge is a Vulcan...
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 02:11 PMBut you have me wrong on incest. I'm against it. Pudge is the guy making that case.
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 02:18 PMOutstanding! Then work to change that part of the law if you think it is unfair.
No such danger faces us today: so where are the gay marriage proponents speaking up for the rights of same-sex siblings to marry?
Do you expect them to do everything? If you think that this is important, then work to change it. This is an incremental change.
@2: I personally don't care if men want to marry men or women want to marry women. They have to accept the responsibilities that go with marriage, however, and not just plan to benefit from the favorable laws governing marriage.
Because, of course, straight people never, ever, ever get married just for the benefits.
@3: The easiest way to solve this whole problem is the easiest way to solve most problems: less government. Government should get out of the marriage business.
There are reasonable reasons why marriage should exist. If you and a partner form a household for the long-term, why shouldn't it be easy to deal with community property, powers of attorney, joint medical coverage, and so forth? "Getting out of the marriage business" is a cop-out.
This, of course, is already possible by going to an attorney and is actually quite simple (with the sole exception of social security survivor benefits) so gay people are really just fighting for social acceptance which can't be forced by government anyway.
Paying an attorney to get the rights that other folks get for less than $100 and a trip to the courthouse is not equal under the law if you're assuming that they are equivalent.
@4: Can you logically reconcile the two views?
Power relationships. Marriage should be a contract between two consenting adults, and a familial relationship that implies a power difference should disqualify someone. Otherwise, aside from the squick factor, what is the reason for having anti-incest laws on the books with the advent of genetic testing? If it was good enough for Abraham...
@14: I'm just against selective changing of the marriage laws for "popular" minorities. I'd have no problem with a law that eliminates marriage as a legal institution and grants civil unions for everyone and marriage to be a purely religious commitment. But I object to "popular" minorities being exempted from centuries old tradition
Bet you cried when antimiscegenation laws were passed.
So? That justifies discriminating against the LOVE two people share? In light of the arguments for gay marriage, you really think that's a good response?
cliff: exactly.
Exactly.
BTW, will you be campaigning for bestiality?
You're saying siblings are of different races?
Cliff, I think you are on to something. Law is basically a social construct and it appears that society is growing more accepting of gay rights, so it's not surprising that the law is starting to follow.
scottd: exactly my point. Gay marriage proponents are NOT following actual principles for liberty and love and against discrimination. And we should stop pretending otherwise. Especially in our courts. You surely realize, scottd, you are arguing for a legislative, not judicial, approach. And you're basically agreeing with the minority in Lawrence v. Texas, too.
WHERE?!?! Let's kill him!
This is just another variation of the slippery slope
It certainly is not a slippery slope FALLACY. There's nothing necessarily fallacious about the slippery slope argument. It is only fallacious when the slippery slope isn't proven. If one wished to make that argument, I think it could be proven. However, I am not making that argument (so in fact, you're making the straw man fallacy here ... oops!): I am not saying "we should not have gay marriage because it will lead to incest," I am saying "the proponents of gay marriage are not as principled as they would like us to believe."
The argument goes like this: "If we allow gay marriage, what about polygamy, incest, bestiality, marriage between a man and his piano, etc. etc?"
Except that while arguments for gay marriage DO apply to incestuous relationships, they do NOT necessarily apply to marriage to inanimate objects or other species. They mostly apply to polygamy, but not entirely.
Guess what? This is about gay marriage. Not incestuous marriage.
Right. That is what I said. There is no principle involved. It's just something you want. Proponents hide behind the principle of equality, the hide behind the principle of liberty, they hide behind the principle of love. But in the end, all of those things also say incestuous marriage should be legal, too. So it's not about the principle, it's just about getting gay marriage, regardless of the principles.
they don't have any legitimate arguments against gay marriage ITSELF.
Actually, I have many. But I am not arguing against gay marriage, I am arguing against the illogic of saying you're against discrimination while pushing discrimination.
Nice try.
I wish I could say the same to you!
The EDUCATED of society, from legal scholars to social scientists (AKA people with brains), overwhelmingly support gay marriage.
Wow. So you falsely attack me for making a slippery slope fallacy, and now you conjure up the argument-from-authority and ad hominem fallacies.
Again: not a very good try. Seriously, try a lot harder.
See, I am not the one saying current marriage law is unfair because it discriminates based only on societal preferences, the gay marriage proponents are saying that. I am merely pointing out they don't really believe that.
Marriage should be a contract between two consenting adults, and a familial relationship that implies a power difference should disqualify someone.
Hm, so according to you, if I can prove that a gay couple has one dominant person and one submissive person, they should not get married? Regardless, I explicitly mentioned gay siblings marrying each other. Heck, if you're still concerned about power relationships with an older sibling, then make them gay twins.
As a society, we frown on incest... So, no incestous marriage.
Good, then you'll fully support that, as a society we frown on gay marriage, so no gay marriage.
Right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 9, 2009 04:34 PMI'd say the benefits of marriage are part of the motivation for straight people, and, assuming gays and lesbians have similar motivations as straight people when it comes to love and marriage, the legal benefits that accrue to wedlock are possible minor motivators for gays and lesbians to marry as well.
I think my main point it to determine, in advance, how far we go with "marriage." I'm assuming gay and lesbians will be allowed to marry people of the same sex, but do we now modify marriage to make it a plural arrangement? Should we condone plural marriage? Should we condone two men being married to each other and two other women, all at the same time? What do you percieve the limits will be on this endeavor?
I'm not being a smart ass about this either. I think these are valid points that should be considered and decided upon in advance. As Bill O'Reilly says, what say you?
We do?
That used to be true, but it's becoming far less clear. Many of us feel strongly that gay marriage is wonderful, and many others have mixed feelings but are becoming willing to allow it. And the trend is strongly toward growing acceptance.
Posted by: Bruce on May 9, 2009 05:11 PMBut the main reason the slippery slope argument cannot be used. We'll take polygamy as an example of this. Gay marriage has only been legal recently, as society advances forward. However, throughout much of history, polygamy has been widely observed among many times and countries, usually men with multiple wives. Therefore, it can be said that heterosexual marriages tend to lead to polygamy, and by your slippery slope logic, we should therefore eliminate heterosexual marriages. Also, if you are against gay marriage using the slippery slope argument, then you can also deduce that heterosexual marriage has led to gay marriage, and again, agree that heterosexual marriage must be eliminated. See why your logic fails? If you want to use the slippery slope argument, you have to eliminate marriage altogether, because past history shows that straight marriage has led to polygamy in the past, and leads to other things.
Posted by: Shadow_Man on May 9, 2009 05:17 PMdan: as a society we frown on gay marriage
Doesn't seem to be going that way... try to get over it.
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 05:26 PMYou haven't proven that they "don't believe that", simply because they haven't been marching for incest rights. These are fundamentally different issues, related (if you'll pardon the pun) but not the same, and you can work on one aspect of discrimination without dealing with all others at the same time.
Hm, so according to you, if I can prove that a gay couple has one dominant person and one submissive person, they should not get married? Regardless, I explicitly mentioned gay siblings marrying each other. Heck, if you're still concerned about power relationships with an older sibling, then make them gay twins.
Gay twins? Hmmm... I think that many people have built successful businesses on that.
Alright... I'll admit that it is a weak argument. But that is, in effect, the nature of the taboo on incest: justification of an societal squick factor by any means necessary. There are plenty of reasons why it isn't relevant now as it was before. Genetic diseases are not as much of an issue with the rise of relatively inexpensive testing, for example, and genetic diversity is not as much of a risk with a larger global population than it was when small populations of people needed to keep a healthy gene pool. (Although many genetic arguments are not correct in the first place.) So looking at it from that perspective, there is no fundamental reason why the government shouldn't relax certain restrictions. I'd maintain that for direct descendents, though, the power argument is relevant.
But in some ways the bans that do exist now are not exactly relevant either. Some places have bans on marriage for relations through marriage or adoption. Are these fair? I'm sure that you could come up with any one of a number of stories that would suggest otherwise.
@26: I'm assuming gay and lesbians will be allowed to marry people of the same sex, but do we now modify marriage to make it a plural arrangement?
The plural marriage argument is a bogus one, mainly because it creates a completely new institution instead of allowing equal access to an existing one. How, pray tell, would community property work in a plural marriage? Divorce? Power of attorney? These questions would need to be answered on a fundamental level, and at this point there is no pressing reason why they would need to be addressed right now if this isn't the debate that's going on. Seriously... plural marriage isn't quite the same as simply changing "husband" and "wife" to "spouse 1" and "spouse 2" on the marriage license.
Posted by: demo kid on May 9, 2009 05:36 PMBut let's not forget the most important reason: reality. I know many gay couples with strong relationships, and some of them have children. Most of you probably do, too. Many of these people feel their lives would be enhanced if society gave their relationships the same recognition that it gives my marriage. Many of them are deeply hurt that they can't get that recognition. And such recognition would do absolutely no harm to me or anyone else.
I simply can't point to a large number of stepbrother/stepsister, man/horse, etc. couples in similar situations. Perhaps there are some, somewhere, just like perhaps there are 6-year-olds somewhere who are mature enough to make a responsibile decision to get married (or drink alcohol, or work in a factory....). But as someone suggested, law cannot be made by Vulcans. We are diverse, imperfect human beings, and we need to consider reality. Virtually everyone realizes this, and if pudge doesn't, that's his problem, not ours.
Posted by: Bruce on May 9, 2009 05:45 PMBruce,
How about tri-marriage? Three people getting married? Is that OK? Why not polygamy? It's practiced world-wide, even here in the US, and in many countries it's not only encouraged it's considered mandatory if you're going to be a good citizen/person!
Shall we open up marriage to polygamy? Is that OK?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 9, 2009 06:16 PMHowever, if he wants to push for polygamist's rights, that's fine with me -- I don't think he'll get far. Pudge is already on the case for legalizing incest. Still not clear on where he stands on marriage to animals...
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 06:57 PMFurther, as mentioned in another comment, I am not making any slippery slope argument. I am not saying that gay marriage will lead to incestuous marriage so therefore we shouldn't do it. I am saying the principled arguments for gay marriage DO necessarily lead also to incestuous marriage and therefore the principled arguments for gay marriage are undermined when they explicitly discriminate against incestuous marriage.
That is, I am merely pointing out the fact that gay marriage proponents are not following the principles embodied in their own arguments.
Actually, no, YOU made my point: you don't base your views for gay marriage on universal principles of love and equality, but on what you simply want, regardless of those universal principles.
The law from Maine *explicitly* discriminates against incestuous marriages (see "Prohibitions based on degrees of consanguinity"). It's not an absence of standing up for their rights, it is actively denying their rights. It actually modifies the existing anti-incest part of the law (apparently to make it simpler), so it's not like you can argue they just left that part alone and are not responsible for it.
But that is, in effect, the nature of the taboo on incest ...
OK, fine. But you're just conceding my point, that this is not about equality and rights, and rather it is about changing "taboos." (In which case, for starters, this is a matter for legislatures, not courts, which justifies Prop 8 down in California.)
I'd maintain that for direct descendents, though, the power argument is relevant.
Shrug. Again, what place is it of government to say that, any more than it is the place of government to -- for whatever reasons it can justify it -- maintain a prohibition on recognition of gay marriage? Should we have psychological examinations of every couple before they are allowed to be married to make sure they are compatible, for whatever they government takes that to mean? That's basically what you're saying.
Some places have bans on marriage for relations through marriage or adoption. Are these fair?
According to the arguments pushed by gay marriage proponents, no, they are not.
Bruce, thank you for making my point: ALL of this can also apply to the families of incestuous marriages, except for the "many" part.
So what you're saying is that it is OK to deny equality, rights, "life enhancement," lack of "deep hurt," and so on just because they are a smaller minority.
Some principles you've got there. I don't know about you, but my 14th Amendment -- which gay marriage proponents often use to justify courts enforcing gay marriage on their states -- says equal protection of laws are for ALL people, not just majorities or visible/vocal/otherwise significant minorities.
Again, you're just making my point that this is not about any principles, it is just about feelings.
The right is losing ground on this issue because the culture we live in today is not within the thrall of religion. Some may wish otherwise, but reality is what it is.
So long as gays and lesbians don't demand that churches, synagogues, and mosques bless their unions, they will, in my opinion, keep clear of breaking the 1st Amendment. They will also, again so long as they don't push their fight into the religious realm, be perfectly within their rights as Americans, as I and many (most?) others see them.
And Pudge, before you call hypocrisy on me, I don't have problems with polygamy either. Although that taboo originates from Roman (and new testament to some degree) rather than old testament sources. There do however appear to be valid medical reasons for barring marriages within families (regardless of bogus arguments about procreation).
The religious right is no longer ascendant in America and the Republican party can no longer allow it set the party's agenda if the party wishes to have any chance of taking this country back from the brink of socialism. That is the real issue today and for the next four years, not gay marriage.
Posted by: deadwood on May 9, 2009 07:45 PMIncestuous Sex is not legal.
Homosexual Sex IS legal.
If you want to talk institutions that don't involve sex? Like Domestic Partnerships, Contractual Caretakers, etc? Then yes, siblings can have those too, because some people need someone to take care of them, especially when they get older.
Marriage however, is about a loving, consentual, generally sexual relationship. You want to use this argument? You go try to overturn Lawrence V. Texas.
Let us all know how that goes, dirtbag.
Posted by: Pudge Is A Moron on May 9, 2009 08:56 PMIt's modifying what already existed. Again, you haven't addressed the idea that this was pretty much already there, and that this bill wasn't quite about making incestuous relationships legal. If this bill did that, it wouldn't pass. Political expediency is more important than nitpicking the finer philosophical details.
OK, fine. But you're just conceding my point, that this is not about equality and rights, and rather it is about changing "taboos." (In which case, for starters, this is a matter for legislatures, not courts, which justifies Prop 8 down in California.)
I'm not conceding your point. I'm stating that there are different taboos and issues involved, and you cannot do everything at once. Likewise, I'm not quite sure that this is the best use of time or energy of a movement directed at a very specific part of marriage.
Shrug. Again, what place is it of government to say that, any more than it is the place of government to -- for whatever reasons it can justify it -- maintain a prohibition on recognition of gay marriage? Should we have psychological examinations of every couple before they are allowed to be married to make sure they are compatible, for whatever they government takes that to mean? That's basically what you're saying.
My point is that there are NO objective standards. However, there are situations where the notion of "consent" is of issue. You can't "consent" when you're 12 years old. I'ld argue that when you have a parent and a child, that "consent" doesn't exist either.
According to the arguments pushed by gay marriage proponents, no, they are not.
Then great! You'll be at the forefront of a new movement.
@39: Some principles you've got there. I don't know about you, but my 14th Amendment -- which gay marriage proponents often use to justify courts enforcing gay marriage on their states -- says equal protection of laws are for ALL people, not just majorities or visible/vocal/otherwise significant minorities.
Sorry, but this is where equal protection bites back against anti-gay marriage folks. The law is specific regardless of whether it is a man or a woman. In fact, one could argue that this is exactly why familial relationships are restricted for both straight and gay couples.
This sums it up: "I'm not going to discriminate against my gay friends and relatives while I ponder life's inconsistencies."
You don't care if you discriminate against incestuous couples because you find incest to be distasteful. But if someone finds homosexuality to be distasteful, well, they are homophobes and who cares what they think because GAYS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
Believe what you want -- gay marriage yes, incestuous marriage no -- but you realize that if you ever try to argue equal rights or equal protection in regards to gay marriage, no one here will believe you are serious.
Hmmm... that has to be the most selective reading of a poll I've ever seen. Let's see:
- By 56-37%, voters said the ban on "don't ask don't tell" should be repealed.
- By 57 to 38%, they supported civil unions.
- 53 to 40% they supported allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.
So then YOU support the will of the people, right?
Posted by: demo kid on May 9, 2009 10:02 PMAlso sex with animals is wrong because it bothers the animal.
Posted by: Outis on May 9, 2009 10:03 PMI'm not sure that "no one here" will believe I am serious, but it's pretty clear you won't. I'll get over it. Will you be able to get over it as more states recognize gay marriages? It seems to bother you -- a lot...
Posted by: scottd on May 9, 2009 10:12 PMYou are trying to make the case that the people who wrote this law might actually want to make incestuous marriage legal, but now's simply not the time. Too many eggs in one basket. Gotta fight the fights you can win.
If the bill did not mention incestuous marriage, and merely left that part of the law alone, you would have a reasonable argument. And I'd not have made this post. But that's not what happened. They MODIFIED that part of the law, EXPLICITLY reaffirming it. There's no question here: these people wrote a bill that OPPOSES incestuous marriage. Taking them at their word, that means THEY oppose incestuous marriage. They are not saving that fight for a rainy day, as they are on the other side: they oppose incestuous marriage (as defined in the law). Period.
Again, you haven't addressed the idea that this was pretty much already there
I absolutely and explicitly did. I noted before you did that this was in the bill, and that they modified it and reaffirmed it.
Sorry, but this is where equal protection bites back against anti-gay marriage folks.
Only in precisely the same way as it "bites back" against anti-incestuous marriage folks. This is the point you're not getting, and no one here has even begun to raise a serious point against it. Including you. The "power" thing -- the only argument you've brought up -- is even weaker, and more arbitrary, than the arguments against gay marriage.
Further, if you're going to argue taboos and lack of objective standards, this argues AGAINST equal protection, which exists specifically to DEFY such arbitrary laws as the anti-incestuous marriage provision of this Maine bill.
The law is specific regardless of whether it is a man or a woman.
And regardless of whether it is a brother or sister. Why are you making this argument so easy on me?
Um ... no. The poll said a clear majority of Americans are against government recognition of gay marriage. Everything else you mentioned was about things that are NOT gay marriage.
scottd: you sure add a lot of words I never used when you tell me what I'm thinking
I drew from what you said to the necessary logical conclusions.
[gay marriage] seems to bother you -- a lot...
No, there's nothing I said that could possibly draw you to such a conclusion, logically. I have said not one word nor given a single implication for or against gay marriage in this discussion. You need to learn to read better.
Outis: I meant one reason they disallow marriage between family members is to prevent tax-free transfers of wealth from one generation to another
And I don't believe that's true at all -- I cannot imagine this was ever a reason for it -- and if it is, it makes no sense whatsoever. It would make far more sense to tax that transfer of wealth ANYWAY, despite the marriage, than to disallow the marriage.
This isn't about incestuous marriage in the slightest. That is a separate discussion, and separate policy. Would this bill have passed with that in play? Hardly. There are distinct goals that different people have, and that was not one of them.
Does it mean that incest needs to be reexamined? I don't know. Does that mean that because marriage was not redefined completely to suit some expansive interpretation that this is invalid? Hardly. You're quibbling over a minor element here, and one that has pretty much been left alone for now. Maybe that will be changed later, maybe it won't be. But this has not been about widescale changes to marriage... merely about switching "Husband" and "Wife" to "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" on applications for marriage licenses.
Further, if you're going to argue taboos and lack of objective standards, this argues AGAINST equal protection, which exists specifically to DEFY such arbitrary laws as the anti-incestuous marriage provision of this Maine bill.
Again, you're missing the point. If you're keen on leading the charge to marry your sister, go right ahead. This was meant to focus on one part of the law, one part of policy, nothing more.
But equal protection applies in this case because no one is allowed to marry their siblings or direct ancestors/descendents (plus first cousins, aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews, and so forth) right now. Arbitrary? Maybe. That's not to say that these laws cannot be repealed, but that is not the point of this movement. If other folks want to take up that mantle and make changes to address that grave injustice, then they are free to do so.
@49: Um ... no. The poll said a clear majority of Americans are against government recognition of gay marriage. Everything else you mentioned was about things that are NOT gay marriage.
I specifically didn't say "marriage". I said "some sort of marriage equality", which includes civil unions, and that clearly won out at 57% in that poll. Same with the repeal of DADT and same-sex adoption, which aren't necessarily related to marriage but are related to gay rights. And if Danny boy is spouting off about "respecting the will of the people", then I guess that we have another supporter of civil unions and gay adoption!
Riiight...
When did I literally argue that prohibition on incestuous marriage is justified? If it was a literal argument, it shouldn't be too hard to point out where I've used those words or something very close.
@44 you went into quite a rant about things I never said. At one point, you even told me what I care about and what I don't -- funny thing is, I never said any of those things. I can only conclude that you think you can read minds and I can also tell you that you're not doing a very good job at it.
There's plenty you've said that could imply that you have a problem with gay marriage, but, you're right, you haven't explicitly said whether you approve or not. Let's just say you seem to be bothered with states recognizing gay marriage but not allowing incestuous ones. I'm not sure if that means you're unhappy with gay marriage or unhappy with incest -- perhaps you could let us know...
When you wrote, "As a society, we frown on incest. ... So, no incestous marriage."
@44 you went into quite a rant about things I never said
All of which were necessary conclusions from what you had already said, if what you said was an accurate reflection of your views, and you are the least bit consistent in those views.
demo kid: This isn't about incestuous marriage in the slightest.
False. The bill explicitly bans incestuous marriage. It didn't have to mention incestuous marriage. It did. You're simply wrong by claiming it didn't do this.
Again, you're missing the point.
No. The only thing I am "missing" is your false assertion that this bill was not intended to ban incestuous marriage, despite the fact that it explicitly banned incestuous marriage. And I don't mind missing things that are false.
But equal protection applies in this case because no one is allowed to marry their siblings or direct ancestors/descendents (plus first cousins, aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews, and so forth) right now.
No, sorry, this logic was the logic of the minority in Lawrence, which said that the 14th Amendment was satisfied because NO ONE was allowed to engage in sodomy: it wasn't specific to gays. The majority, and every single gay rights proponent, didn't buy that then, so don't try to sell it back to us now.
Arbitrary? Maybe.
Again, that is why these state courts have struck down anti-gay-marriage laws, and why the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence: because they were arbitrary.
That's not to say that these laws cannot be repealed
Yep, that was the argument of the minority in Lawrence.
Ugh. I'll repeat it again. It is not about incestuous marriage. That is a separate issue.
But how about if you, say, actually read the law, pudge?
This paragraph:
A. A man may not marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, the daughter of his father's brother or sister or the daughter of his mother's brother or sister. A woman may not marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, the son of her father's brother or sister or the son of her mother's brother or sister.
was changed to:
A. A person may not marry that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle or first cousin.
and this:
B. Notwithstanding paragraph A, a man may marry the daughter of his father's brother or sister or the daughter of his mother's brother or sister, and a woman may marry the son of her father's brother or sister or the son of her mother's brother or sister as long as, pursuant to sections 651 and 652, the person provides the physician's certificate of genetic counseling.
was changed to:
B. Notwithstanding paragraph A, a person may marry that person's first cousin as long as, pursuant to sections 651 and 652, the person provides the physician's certificate of genetic counseling.
The section on incest is merely revised to be gender-neutral. This would in fact be supported by the change to paragraph B that requires genetic counseling for first cousins of the same sex that want to marry, since it isn't changed in its new form (and would make no sense for same-sex couples). Do you see any other changes?
And I'm not arguing that this is right or consistent under the law per se. You do make a reasonable case for laws against incestuous marriage to be reviewed, actually. But the point is that changing the genders in the statutes with this law does not amount to taking *any* position on this issue, any more than it would amount to the state taking a position on marriage by the mentally impaired if a gender-specific pronoun needed to be changed in that section.
Posted by: demo kid on May 10, 2009 01:25 AMOK, so you're against polygamy, so you're going to support marriage discrimination against most Africans, Muslims, and lots of SE Asian cultures. Fair enough, if you're for intolerance and bigotry, go for it! Glad to know where you stand.
Slavery Party Failed Abortion,
Yes, let's talk selective reading! It's pretty explicit:
That's pretty conclusive, and the fact you completely ignored it shows your own selective reading!
The general public supports civil unions; it does NOT support gay marriage. So I suppose since you're a "will of the people" kind of guy you'll support that conclusion?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 10, 2009 03:23 AMOne's orientation is geared towards a gender, not an individual. ie, a lesbian man is attracted to other women (generally). The orientation does not specify individuals. If there were a class of people that claimed their sexual orientation left them only attracted to one other person on the whole planet, and that person also was their sibling, and they demanded rights based on that claim, then you'd have a point.
But that scenario is as absurd as your argument.
Posted by: AD on May 10, 2009 04:48 AMIs the disagreement purely over the words?
Posted by: BA on May 10, 2009 07:39 AMI was pointing out the three other things in that survey that you failed to mention. Address those.
Posted by: demo kid on May 10, 2009 08:05 AMWhen you wrote, "As a society, we frown on incest. ... So, no incestous marriage."
pudge: For a man who imagines he has such formidable skills in logic and linguistics, I'm surprised I should have to explain this to you. The above passage does not show me arguing that a prohibition on incestuous marriage is justified -- certainly not "literally" and neither by implication. It's part of an explanation of how the laws of our society represent our social mores.
I believe the statement "as a society, we frown on incest", is a statement of fact, although you are free to attempt to demonstrate otherwise. The conclusion "So, no incestuous marriage" is presented as a consequence of that fact -- our laws prohibit this because our society disapproves. My feelings on whether this is justified were never discussed and my statements are not a justification. In order to argue for the justification of this prohibition, I would need to explain why I felt it was just and proper. I haven't done that. This is just one example of you reading what you want into what I have written.
Just in case this is too subtle for you to follow, here's another statement: "In the early 20th century, many white southerners felt that it was improper for black people to marry white people." This is a statement of fact. Here's a consequence: "As a result, southern states had laws prohibiting marriage between blacks and whites." I can assure you that I don't think the first statement justifies the second, although it does explain it. These two statements have the same logical structure as what I have written regarding regarding social mores on incest and our laws prohibiting incestuous marriage.
dan: Is pudge your teacher? Kindly point out where I have expressed an opinion for or against polygamy. You're making this stuff up...
You first?
Posted by: demo kid on May 10, 2009 08:49 AMWhy?
Because they are all consenting adults and they might want to.
You gay monogomy folks are the real bigots.
Posted by: Andy on May 10, 2009 08:59 AMNothing I wrote could possibly have given you that impression. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
If there were a class of people that claimed their sexual orientation left them only attracted to one other person on the whole planet, and that person also was their sibling, and they demanded rights based on that claim, then you'd have a point.
So you're saying that people are only protected when they have no CHOICE in the matter. When their biology FORCES them one way or another, THEN they deserve protection. But if I CHOOSE to act a certain way, then I get no protection? So you don't believe in the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness?
Whether homosexuality is a "choice" is entirely irrelevant, from my perspective. It doesn't make any difference either way. If it is not a choice, it certainly doesn't justify it: many crimes are committed by people who have a genetic predisposition toward violence, and that certainly doesn't make their crimes acceptable. Similarly, if it is a choice, that doesn't mean it should be treated negatively, as we are creatures of liberty who have the right to make such choices.
The "choice" thing is a red herring no matter how you look at it.
At least, if you really believe in civil liberty, as gay rights proponents say they do. But as shown here, many of them really don't, or they wouldn't oppose incestuous marriage.
You can repeat it all you like, but the facts prove you're wrong.
But how about if you, say, actually read the law, pudge?
I did. That is how I know you're wrong. You're the one denying what the bill actually says.
The section on incest is merely revised to be gender-neutral.
Exactly: the gay marriage proponents who wrote this bill explicitly discriminate against incestuous marriage in their bill.
But the point is that changing the genders in the statutes with this law does not amount to taking *any* position on this issue
Actually, it does, in fact, amount to precisely that. It is in their bill. They wrote it, they pushed for it, and they vote for it. That means they favor it.
I was pointing out the three other things in that survey that you failed to mention. Address those.
This topic is about gay marriage, and therefore, those other items have no bearing on the topic.
Yes, it does.
It's part of an explanation of how the laws of our society represent our social mores.
And you clearly spoke of those laws as though they are acceptable to you; i.e., "justified." The words you used -- including, "it may not be logical, but there is a lot about humanity that isn't" -- quite clearly demonstrate that you have no problem with the situation.
I want to be clear here that I am not saying if you believe in civil liberty, you have to believe in incestuous marriage. I am saying that if you a. believe gay marriage is a "right" of some sort, that denying it violates equal protection, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and so on, and you -- as this first belief implies -- b. believe in civil liberty, then you must also favor the legal acceptance of incestuous marriage.
demo kid appears to be the only gay marriage proponent here who is prepared to concede this point.
That's the whole point - how would community property laws, power of attorney, etc. work under plural marriages? I don't know, and I'm not you enemy of the same-sex marriage issue. I'm just suggesting that we should open the door for other definitions of "marriage" that aren't just one man and one woman. Maybe plural marriages are OK, I don't know, and I don't know if society know either.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on May 10, 2009 09:29 AMLots of somewhat arbitrary laws are constitutional. Why should people under 18 (or any other arbitrary age) not be allowed to get married? Surely some 17.99 year olds are mature enough to decide for themselves.
You are simply incapable of allowing the real world to intrude on your theoretical model of the perfect, consistent, logical world. It must be frustrating to have to deal with real earthlings in some parts of your life.
Posted by: Bruce on May 10, 2009 09:31 AMLet's take another look at the excerpt you cited:
"As a society, we frown on incest. ... So, no incestous marriage."
This could have been written by someone who felt a prohibition on incestuous marriage was justified or by someone who felt it wasn't. In either case, it's true that we have laws against it because society as a whole finds the practice unacceptable. My personal feelings on whether this is justified were simply not addressed here. I've had enough experience with 5 year-olds to know that won't stop you from insisting otherwise, but I can't do anything about that.
Also, I haven't "clearly spoke[n]" of those laws as being acceptable to me. I've said I don't think legalizing incest is a good idea, but I also said I haven't spent much time thinking about it and offered the possibility that you might convince me otherwise. Taken together, that's not a justification of our current laws, that's a statement of indifference or, more accurately, inattention.
Here's another example of your inferential overreach:
The words you used -- including, "it may not be logical, but there is a lot about humanity that isn't" -- quite clearly demonstrate that you have no problem with the situation.
Again, this does not "quite clearly demonstrate" that I have no problem with the situation -- nor is it an argument justifying the situation. (BTW, having no problem with something is not equivalent to justifying it. The first is indifference, the second requires advocacy.) Let me show how this works. Many humans believe that illness or other misfortune is the result of divine retribution for some spiritual shortcoming. This is not logical, but it is a belief present in many human cultures. Yet, I disagree with this.
Pudge, you seem to enjoy arguing with an imaginary version of me that exists only in your mind. I can't stop you from doing this, but don't expect me to defend the views of this imaginary antagonist.
Posted by: scottd on May 10, 2009 09:45 AMThe bill changes genders in the law only. How is NOT changing the unrelated elements of that section considered to be intention?
Actually, it does, in fact, amount to precisely that. It is in their bill. They wrote it, they pushed for it, and they vote for it. That means they favor it.
Changing the genders in a statute is fundamentally different than rewriting it. They were looking for one objective: eliminating restrictions on same-sex marriage. If they did "favor bans on incest" and they were keen on rewriting the law completely to reflect that, then why bother with the genetic counseling for same-sex cousins?
This topic is about gay marriage, and therefore, those other items have no bearing on the topic.
Talking to Dan. He seemed quite keen on pointing out a majority opinion against gay marriage, but was willing to ignore majority opinions FOR civil unions.
@66: demo kid appears to be the only gay marriage proponent here who is prepared to concede this point.
I'm conceding it in part because many of the reasons are flawed. There is the squick factor against it (that I share) and a very large majority of people wouldn't see the point, but if you're going to make a case against it, the genetic arguments are flimsy, and almost everything else boils down to "it's wrong because it's wrong".
Power relationships and consent would be the primary concern here for me: a dad divorcing his wife and marrying his daughter when she turned 18 would be exploitation, while first cousins marrying probably would not. (I actually have a friend who is involved with her first cousin... which is an interesting situation in Catholic Italy, to say the least, but doesn't seem to herald the apocalypse.) Writing arbitrary laws to handle these would be difficult, and you could almost certainly come up with exceptions to any rule. (Gay brothers would be much different than a 30-year-old marrying a 17-year-old sibling.)
But while we cannot prove that an unhealthy power dynamic (and an implied lack of consent) exists in any but the most extreme cases according to the law (mental disability, usually), this is a situation where it is more likely to happen and there are objective standards that can be implied to identify them. I have no problems keeping this on the books for that reason.
Posted by: demo kid on May 10, 2009 10:41 AMWe know why. We can conclude that pudge doesn't want gay men and lesbian women to be able to marry. Instead of focusing his energy on allowing these gay couples to exist on an equal plane in this country, he spends his energy riling up the base over straw men and hints of a slippery slope.
There are many differences between gay couples and incestuous relationships, which have been mentioned here before but unaddressed by pudge. (He ignores arguments he doesn't like.) The most common form of incestuous encounter, however, is molestation or rape. It is nearly impossible to evoke the word without that obvious emotional link. I wonder if pudge and other Republicans have a reason for using such a loaded concept so closely linked with molestation in their "logical" arguments against extending equal rights to gay couples? Is it fear?
One loving gay couple I know well has one of the most beautiful, happy little girls I've met. They deserve to be married, and it's an issue that doesn't need pudge's unnecessary distractions. The folks who think pudge's argument is sound are those working against equal rights for gay people. Their days are numbered and their time in the limelight has ended. This generation simply sees no problem with gay relationships and we never will: gay marriage is going to happen eventually, strawmen or not. Prop. 8 failed by 2 percentage points. It's coming and the moral outrage no longer extends to homosexuality.
Pudge, if you do have no problem with gay marriage, why are you so partisan that you have to argue "the other side" and present relatively stupid, completely unrelated arguments about language? If you think gays should be allowed to marry, and that the state shouldn't prevent a religious institution from marrying a gay couple, why don't you present reasons why that is a good conservative philosophy instead of justifying the rest of your party's bigotry?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 10, 2009 12:46 PM1. Deregulate marriage by striking all laws from the books that contain the word "marriage".
2. Set up a simple, single page, legal contract that sets up durable power of attorney, shared custody, shared liability, shared property, inheritance rights, and an agreement to probate upon dissolution of the contract (a.k.a. divorce).
This creates a single system for all pairs of people who wish to set up a legal partnership in life. If you are religious and want to have a marriage before God, well, go to your church and have your church marry you. But as far as the state is concerned, you just have to sign the partnership contract.
It is consistent. It would increase liberty. It would eliminate a huge area that politicians use to play favorites and to abuse for re-election.
Posted by: blindman on May 10, 2009 01:53 PMShanghai Dan, ignoring the labels themselves - "civil union" and "marriage" what's the practical difference between the two?
Very little that I can see.
Is the disagreement purely over the words?
Pretty much. It appears that the gay marriage supporters want to change the meaning of the word to satisfy their own innate feelings of inadequacy? Why else push for even more than they have right now - which is essentially the same as marriage?
Slavery Party Failed Abortion wrote:
I was pointing out the three other things in that survey that you failed to mention. Address those.
Umm, no. See the title of this thread? It's called "Marriage Discrimination". So we'll talk about marriage.
Now, if you want to jump off and start your own sub-thread, go ahead. But don't be surprised when you're ignored...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 10, 2009 02:47 PMWe know why. We can conclude that pudge doesn't want gay men and lesbian women to be able to marry. Instead of focusing his energy on allowing these gay couples to exist on an equal plane in this country, he spends his energy riling up the base over straw men and hints of a slippery slope.
It's not just pudge. It's a pretty conclusive majority of the American population who do not want gay marriage.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 10, 2009 02:51 PMWhat he says is that Maine has continued what he labels as the "false assertion" that marriage is primarily about procreation.
Instead he asserts "So same-sex incestuous marriage, or incestuous marriage where the female has reached menopause, should be allowed. So clearly, the intent is not about preventing such procreation."
And he goes on to say "People who do things for the sake of principles are consistent in the application of those principles whenever possible, and there can be no doubt that the principles apply here to incestuous marriages just as much as gay marriages, as long as procreation is taken out of the equation."
On the presumption that Pudge intends to be principled - his logic is pretty good on this one. I wonder if anyone made this assertion when racial barriers to marriage were removed?
I'm trying to decide if I'm surprised or not that he supports incestuous marriages.
Posted by: BA on May 10, 2009 04:07 PMSounds good to me. However, given that three Southern states have started up "covenant marriages", I think that you're going to get a lot of pushback from religious conservatives with that kind of plan.
@73: Why else push for even more than they have right now - which is essentially the same as marriage?
Why not call it "marriage" if it is essentially the same thing? Are we to believe that conservatives care about the semantics in this case?
Umm, no. See the title of this thread? It's called "Marriage Discrimination". So we'll talk about marriage.
You just said that there was no difference between marriage and civil unions, and the story you linked to, quoted a poll where a majority of people support civil unions. I think that's relevant to the discussion, especially when you try to prove that America is overwhelmingly on your side. Reality is more nuanced.
@74: It's a pretty conclusive majority of the American population who do not want gay marriage.
But support civil unions. Not to mention that the gap is closing fast, and 58% of younger people (18-34) support gay marriage.
It's not just pudge. It's a pretty conclusive majority of the American population who do not want gay marriage.
People who do not support gay marriage should argue about its merits, and not create straw men or distractions like incestuous relationships.
As for your polls, given the choice between Civil Unions, Marriage Rights, and no recognition, by far the country prefers some form of recognition (source). I disagree with the implication that the majority is the best arbiter of rights and equality, but I also assert that it is only a matter of time until gay marriage is accepted. And if there are civil unions that mean everything that marriage does, then it becomes a semantics argument that would be hard for the right to win on.
Americans don't like games. They don't like semantics disagreements and they don't like keeping their friends (and sometimes family) away from equal rights. Pudge knows this, so he changes the argument toward the absurd and unrelated.
Demo kid
Why not call it "marriage" if it is essentially the same thing? Are we to believe that conservatives care about the semantics in this case?
The sad truth is that they do not. It isn't about a word, it is really about how many conservatives simply find it to be icky. Most state amendments that ban gay marriage also ban civil unions. That isn't protecting traditional marriage, that is codifying bigotry and it is mean-spirited. This country is not a mean-spirited nation and bigotry does not survive under the glaring light of the stars & stripes. I sincerely believe that conservatives have lost this battle.
58% of younger people (18-34) support gay marriage.
And that number will not go down. This is an issue that the Republican party needs to drop outside of the deep south if it expects to turn the tide on its recent electoral failures.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 10, 2009 06:54 PMThere is nothing incongruous with gay rights activists supporting marriage rights for gay people, while still refusing it to people who wish to enter into incestuous marriages (none of whom exist in our shared reality as far as I can tell; but pudge can present us with multiple examples, I trust). Society has an understandable interest in trying to prevent incestuous relationships, for a variety of reasons. None of these reasons would justify outlawing gay marriage in general. Fairly simple.
But pudge should get a little gold star for thinking outside of the box, even though the argument he came up with is truly odd, doesn't make much sense and is a little disturbing.
Posted by: AD on May 10, 2009 09:07 PMYes, it was not.
I'm trying to decide if I'm surprised or not that he supports incestuous marriages.
I am trying to figure out where you think I ever did that. Using your own analysis of what I wrote: I was comparing gay marriage to incestuous marriage; I was saying that to support one for principled, rather than arbitrary, reasons, means you should support the latter if you support the former. So if you say my post is not pro gay marriage, then how could it be pro incestuous marriage?
Pudge, the distinction between gay marriage and incestuous marriage is that there are legitimate reasons for government to disallow the latter -- the likelihood of abusive power relationships, genetic diseases, etc.
Please do me the courtesy of at least READING my post before responding to it. I already dismissed as irrelevant the genetic issue, because it is LITERALLY impossible to be relevant given how the gay marriage proponents explicitly modified this bill: they changed the anti-incest laws to include GAY incest, which obviously have nothing to do with genetic diseases. Also, government could simply forbid incestuous couples to procreate: gay marriage is not about procreation, so why does incestuous marriage need to be?
Futher, "abusive power relationships" is not only almost completely arbitrary, but it can apply just as much to ANY relationship. Indeed, some anti-gay marriage folks like to point out data that shows there's more domestic abuse with gay couples than straight couples. Is this a reason to outlaw gay marriage? If it's not, then neither are "abusive power relationships" reason to outlaw incestuous marriage.
Some would argue the same about gay marriages, but those arguments have been largely discredited in recent years.
Oh please, Bruce, how stupid do you think we are? Do you really think there is ANY valid study in existence about "abusive power relationships" in incestuous couples? Come on. Let's get this out of the intellectual gutter and have some respect for rationality.
Lots of somewhat arbitrary laws are constitutional.
Sure. The question is, however, how someone can say that it is NOT acceptable/constitutional to have an "arbitrary" law against gay marriage, and then defend the same sort of "arbitrary" law against incestuous marriage.
You are simply incapable of allowing the real world to intrude on your theoretical model of the perfect, consistent, logical world.
I am pointing out obviously illogical arguments and hypocrisy. Don't blame me for your problems.
They DID that. They rewrote the law explicitly to ban gay incestuous marriages.
[Dan] seemed quite keen on pointing out a majority opinion against gay marriage, but was willing to ignore majority opinions FOR civil unions.
socttd said, "we ban incestuous marriage because societ frowns on it." So Dan said, reasonably, "society also frowns on gay marriage." This has nothing to do with civil unions.
But while we cannot prove that an unhealthy power dynamic (and an implied lack of consent) exists in any but the most extreme cases according to the law (mental disability, usually), this is a situation where it is more likely to happen and there are objective standards that can be implied to identify them. I have no problems keeping this on the books for that reason.
Prove it is more likely to happen. I doubt you can. Is your supposition of what might happen sufficient to take away someone's liberty?
And if you can prove it, if I can prove that abuse is more likely in gay marriages, then does that mean you will favor keeping the prohibition on gay marriage on the books? I doubt you would.
Why not call it "marriage" if it is essentially the same thing? Are we to believe that conservatives care about the semantics in this case?
Absolutely they do. Realize that calling something "semantics" does not mean it is unimportant. "Marriage" has a meaning in our culture that predates government recognition of marriage, and I firmly believe it is Wrong for government to take a word from society and change that meaning against the clear will of society. Which is what is happening right now in our country.
Is it a greater wrong than denying people of their rights? Probably not. But it's still wrong. And yes, this matters to a lot of social conservatives. In fact, I've actually had vehemently anti-gay marriage social conservatives say they are more likely to support it if it is not called marriage. Where's the outcry in WA over fully coequal domestic partnerships that just passed? There's some, but it's not nearly what there would be for actual "gay marriage."
Further -- and far more importantly, to me -- the government has no business whatsoever caring about whether or not I love my wife. When gay people like Andrew Sullivan say they want to have their love recognized by the government, frankly, it really creeps me out, and not because he's gay, but because ... why the hell would you want government to do that?
Government's interest in "marriage" is not in whether I love anyone, it's whether I have made certain civil -- not romatic -- committments to another person. Government has an interest in protecting rights and enforcing obligations. It possibly even has an interest in encouraging cohabitation for the general benefit of society, in sharing resources and so on. None of this has anything to do with love.
So the best reason to call it something other than "marriage" is that it should not be exclusive to people who are "married" in the traditional sense (gay or straight), but ANY two people who want to share their lives, whether their motive is romantic or otherwise.
We should really have a break, a decoupling of the very IDEA of marriage from government. This concept should be defined by cultural institutions, while the legal rights/obligations system should be defined by government. They are actually two different things, and should be called different things.
No. I am saying their arguments for gay marriage can be primarily from the perspective of civil rights, or not. You can say "gay marriage must be allowed because of [these civil rights principles]," or you can say "gay marriage should be allowed because a majority of the people want it." If the latter, we have no problem. Incestuous marriage cannot be justified on the same grounds. But if the former, then incestuous marriage CAN be justified on those same grounds, and I argue, logically MUST be.
There is nothing incongruous with gay rights activists supporting marriage rights for gay people, while still refusing it to people who wish to enter into incestuous marriages
Yes, there is, depending on the reasons WHY they argue gay marriage should be legal.
Society has an understandable interest in trying to prevent incestuous relationships, for a variety of reasons.
One of those reasons -- genetics -- has nothing to do with gay incest (which, as I pointed out, is what this bill was written to EXPLICITLY ban). The only other reason offered here was "power relationships," which is, I think, a terribly weak argument.
However, I offered the example of "gay [identical] twins," which eliminates both of those reasons: genetics is not an issue, and there's no reason to think "power" abuse will be more present here than in any other marriage between any two people.
None of these reasons would justify outlawing gay marriage in general. Fairly simple.
Also, none of them justify outlawing marriage between gay twins.
Um. Right. That's my point. Where have you been?
We can conclude that pudge doesn't want gay men and lesbian women to be able to marry.
Only if you're an idiot. Hi Jensen!
There are many differences between gay couples and incestuous relationships, which have been mentioned here before but unaddressed by pudge.
As usual, you're lying. Only TWO differences have been brought up, and I directly addressed them both, several times. In fact, I addressed the main difference -- genetics -- in the original post. The only other difference brought up was about "power relationships" which I also directly addressed.
I wonder if pudge and other Republicans have a reason for using such a loaded concept so closely linked with molestation
I didn't bring up the concept, the Maine bill from the gay marriage proponents did.
... their "logical" arguments against extending equal rights to gay couples?
In fact, I never gave an argument against extending equal rights to gay couples. You read that into what I wrote, but it's not actually there. In fact, for years, I've argued for absoulte equality for gay couples.
it's an issue that doesn't need pudge's unnecessary distractions
Question-begging! Question-begging! You all saw it!
The folks who think pudge's argument is sound are those working against equal rights for gay people.
Genetic fallacy!
This generation simply sees no problem with gay relationships
False.
Prop. 8 failed by 2 percentage points.
No, it succeeded, actually. However, I think it WOULD have failed if only gay marriage had been created by the legislature and not the courts. Which actually speaks directly to the point I am making here. If you are arguing to create new rights for a group based on some universal principles -- which is how the CA courts acted, which most gay rights advocates agree with -- then you logically have to accept all other groups that the same logic can be applied to.
Pudge, if you do have no problem with gay marriage, why are you so partisan that you have to argue "the other side"
Um. What? I used that phrase once, and it was not in the context you imply. It had nothing to do with partisanship. All I said was that gay marriage proponents in Maine were not for incestuous marriage, but that they were on the "other side," against incestuous marriage.
... and present relatively stupid, completely unrelated arguments about language?
Question-begging!
People who do not support gay marriage should argue about its merits, and not create straw men or distractions like incestuous relationships.
Nothing I said was a straw man. As to whether it's a distraction, shrug, I think it's interesting and relevant. And I couldn't possibly care less that you disagree.
As for your polls
I offered none.
I disagree with the implication that the majority is the best arbiter of rights and equality
Exactly my point. If you are arguing from principle, rather than majorities, that gay marriage should be legal, because people have a RIGHT to it, then to exclude incestuous marriage you need to either make a principled argument that excludes incestuous marriage (which no one has even tried to do), or present additional principled reasons why those same principles do not apply to incestuous marriages.
And while people have tried to do that, they've failed, because none of their (two) principled arguments against incestuous marriages apply to gay twins.
Americans don't like games. They don't like semantics disagreements and they don't like keeping their friends (and sometimes family) away from equal rights.
Americans also hate hypocrisy and love consistency, especially when it comes to rights.
Guess what? The gay community does not have an obligation to defend incestuous marriage in order to make a case for gay marriage. Just as the black community did not have an obligation to defend gay marriage (or incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage, so on and so forth) at the time when they were making the case for interracial marriage.
Others have pointed out the difference between gay relationships and incestuous relationships to justify the different treatment. Your choice to ignore them is your problem.
In addition, here's why your underlying theory is stupid and illogical: a ban on incestuous marriage applies equally to both gays AND straights; i.e., a gay man cannot marry a bunch of his brothers anymore than a straight man can marry a bunch of his sisters. The same can be said about bans on polygamous marriage.
Bans on gay marriage, on the other hand, are uniquely discriminatory because they directly affect ONLY gay people, and have no effect on straight people. With gay marriage bans, straights are still freely able to marry the person they love, while gays cannot. (And don't even try to make the stupid argument that "gays can still marry someone of the opposite sex!" That's as stupid as saying the anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory because blacks could still marry someone of their own race)
So, yes, gay marriage is indeed more about equal protection than incestuous marriage. Your argument that gays are not sticking to our principles because we are not advocating for incestuous marriage is out the window.
But again, the gay community does not have an obligation to make a case for every single potential type of marriage out there. The issue here is gay marriage. When the incestuous people start demanding marriage rights, feel free to argue with them.
This whole "Oh, those gays are discriminating against incestuous marriage!" is just a desperate, futile, and embarrassing attempt on your part to bring in a totally unrelated issue because you don't have any sound arguments against gay marriage itself. If you do, try me.
Posted by: homophobe_gets_smacked on May 11, 2009 01:20 AMBy contrast, there is no evidence that anyone is innately and exclusively drawn to close relatives. Sure, an individual may be drawn to a particular close relative, but not to the exclusion of all other potential partners.
I suppose that, if you could show that some people are innately and exclusively drawn to close relatives, then you could argue that incestuous marriage was a civil right.
Posted by: Bruce on May 11, 2009 01:30 AMPudge, I don't disagree with this concept, but in practice it is less likely to happen than the simple full acceptance of gay marriage. I would prefer if everything were called civil unions, but there is simply no organized campaign to affect that change. In other words, republicans are more interested in denying homosexuals equal rights -- not changing the wording. You lead the fight on that one but there is only a small libertarian fringe interested in decoupling marriage from government (of which I am a part of) and it is simply unrealistic to expect it to occur. For example, while five or six states have gay marriage, none have removed "marriage" from their lexicon.
Given that, I would rather not deny homosexuals the right to equality in the eyes of the government (taxation, power of attorney, etc) simply because "marriage" has been inappropriately appropriated by the government.
In fact, I never gave an argument against extending equal rights to gay couples.
Yes, because there isn't one. I would have liked to see you spend your time writing how gay marriage is a conservative philosophy rather than taking unnecessary shots at the "other" side.
You've said yourself that shit like this isn't worth denying equal rights to other people. You simply wouldn't be writing posts like this if republicans weren't so instrumental in denying homosexuals equal rights. Instead of arguing what's for what's right, you're arguing for what scores partisan points. You're better than that, and homosexual couples could use your strong opinions.
And for such a logical guy -- annoyingly Spock like at times -- why does tradition matter if it isn't in this country's founding documents? The government is a government, not an enforcer of religious tradition.
However, I think it WOULD have failed if only gay marriage had been created by the legislature and not the courts.
At the end of the day is was about equality and not the source of it. Stuff like courts vs. legislature matters to you and me, but prop. 8 failing wasn't a response to the supreme court of CA but was really a judgment on gay rights. It was a shame to see it fail, but I cannot see history repeating itself.
My mother voted for prop. 8 because she felt that churches could be forced to conduct gay marriages. Of course, completely bullshit arguments like that were thrown out by prop. 8 supporters to scare voters. On the other hand, my very conservative brother-in-law and sister voted for gay marriage even though they disagreed with judges deciding upon those rights. Principles like legislature vs. courts matter, but much less so when you're directly voting on a constitutional amendment.
It would be a disastrous day when our civil rights are up for a vote. Good thing we're not in a minority group, right?
Nothing I said was a straw man. As to whether it's a distraction, shrug, I think it's interesting and relevant. And I couldn't possibly care less that you disagree.
Your post functions as a scare tactic: first they'll want gays to marry, and then sisters! That's not your intent but it is an obvious interpretation. Are we supposed to pretend that there isn't a history of bigots equating gay rights to incestuous rights, or bestiality rights, or pedophilia rights? It's impossible to ignore. The straw man is that you well know that 99% of Americans believe that incest is wrong, and you falsely link it to gay marriage when those folks don't mention it.
This is a distraction. Real families right now can't be wed and get all the benefits of marriage, and you think we should talk about incest? You're watching a civil rights movement pass you by and you're not standing up for a historically oppressed minority, but you expend the effort to write about incest? You have the wrong priority in this case, pudge. Which sucks, because I bet you have great views on gay rights. Instead, to score that partisan point you have to hammer on those actively fighting for gay rights. Bad show, though I appreciate that you sort of admit that it's a distraction with your shrug.
I have my beliefs independent of where you care, and I am proud to be principled on the side of more rights. I am no more proud of any political belief I have than the principled one that homosexual couples have a true, beautiful love that deserves legal recognition and the benefits and rights that come with it.
I won't call you an idiot even though I disagree with you, because that is petty.
Posted by: John Jensen on May 11, 2009 01:35 AMthis desperate, illogical, futile straw man/slippery slope argument about incestuous marriage?
You're wrong on all counts, as I've already proven. It is none of those things.
Let's see ... nothing in your post is an objection I haven't already disproven, so there's nothing here for me to respond to. It's weird that you obviously didn't read the comments, since I've already addressed every one of your points, and yet you still claim that I "ignored" arguments against me. But I directly addressed the two "differences" between gay and incestuous marriages, several times. Why lie and say I ignored them? It only hurts your credibility, which is waning quickly.
This whole "Oh, those gays are discriminating against incestuous marriage!" is ...
... absolutely true based on the facts.
... just a desperate, futile, and embarrassing attempt on your part to bring in a totally unrelated issue because you don't have any sound arguments against gay marriage itself. If you do, try me.
My argument is not against gay marriage ... it is against court-ordered government recognition of gay marriage, because that is done based on principles that are applied unequally, against a generally accepted view of constitutional principles (morphing them into something clearly beyond their intent). I am also against government recognition of MARRIAGE at all, as the government has no business in sanctioning relationships based on -- in your word -- whom people "love." And as such, I am against the expansion of marriage in a piecemeal and unequal manner.
here's another difference between gay marriage and incestuous marriage
Oh good! If true, that would make three!
Scientists generally believe that most people's sexual orientation is an innate trait ... not a choice.
Not true. But I'll allow you to say so for the sake of argument.
If you prohibit gay marriage, you're telling a group of people that they are forbidden to marry anyone to whom they are innately drawn.
Far MORE scientists believe that most people's tendency toward violence is often an innate trait. If you prohibit violent acts, you're telling a group of people they are forbidden from acting in a way in which they are innately drawn.
Sorry, this is not a good argument, even if one accepts the entirely unverified notion that homosexuality is innate, because there's no reason to think "innate" -- when it comes to feelings and behaviors, rather than physical features like skin color -- means "acceptable."
You're right that it is POSSIBLY a difference, I suppose, but it can't really be used to specially justify gay marriage without also demonstrating that "innate" means "acceptable," which just isn't true.
I suppose that, if you could show that some people are innately and exclusively drawn to close relatives, then you could argue that incestuous marriage was a civil right.
Well, you'd have to show that people are innately drawn to people of the same sex. Good luck with that; no one's done it yet. Oh, and BTW, yes, it does matter to your argument whether it is "nature versus nurture": if you are gay because of events that happen in your childhood, well, you could also be drawn to your siblings for similar reasons.
What pudge wants most of all is to be the last man standing in an argument. To accomplish this, he litters his posts with subtle traps built on trivial distinctions or he picks on imprecise writing in the response of others and takes the opportunity to fill that imprecision with meaning that he thinks supports his point. Failing that, he will make up things you've never written and then argue against his own fabrication. If all else fails, he will simply call your point false and declare you to be a liar. If these tactics are familiar, then you have probably worked with small children or maybe have taught in a junior high school.
The good news is, none of this really matters. While pudge plays with himself and with you, the trend is moving in favor of recognizing the rights of gay people, including the right to marry. This may not proceed as rapidly as many of us would like, and the inevitable delays represent a grave injustice. But, in the end, I'm pretty sure how this will play out.
In a way, we have the Republican Party to thank for this. 10 - 15 years ago, like most Americans, I did not give this issue much thought, nor did many others. If asked, I think most would have said they did not approve of the notion of recognizing gay marriages, but I think that is because most people never thought of it. I know the first time I ever thought about it was after I had received one of those constituent survey post cards from my friendly Republican legislator. One question asked me to rank the importance of various issues that should be addressed in the upcoming legislative session. Among the usual items (economy, jobs, national security, etc.) there was an item called "gay marriage". My first reaction was "You have to be kidding -- this is important?" I'll admit, aside from thinking this was trivial, part of my reaction was that this was ridiculous -- gays don't marry! That was my quick reaction, mainly because I hadn't given the issue any thought.
Thanks to the ensuing cultural war brought on by the Republicans, we've had lots of time to think about it. It did not take me long to reflect upon the legal, social, and financial benefits that were being denied to millions of Americans simply because they were gay. I also quickly realized that there was no reason for this. Acknowledging these rights for gay Americans would cost me nothing -- and it was the right thing to do. As time goes by, I see that many other Americans are coming to the same conclusion.
So thanks, Republicans!
Posted by: scottd on May 11, 2009 09:05 AMHmmm, I wonder if the morons in Maine are also descrimanating against adult farm animals and people marrying?
Posted by: juandos on May 11, 2009 09:16 AMIn fact, I never gave an argument against extending equal rights to gay couples.
Yes, because there isn't one.
False, of course. There's many. You just don't agree with them. I don't agree with many of them. But they exist. But your assertion that I am attacking gay marriage at all is simply a lie: there's no basis for the claim whatsoever.
I would have liked to see you spend your time ...
I could not possibly care less about how you, or anyone else who isn't my immediate family member or employer/coworker, think I should spend my time.
You simply wouldn't be writing posts like this if republicans weren't so instrumental in denying homosexuals equal rights. Instead of arguing what's for what's right, you're arguing for what scores partisan points.
Please stop lying about me. I am only writing this post because I see an illogical inconsistency, and I wanted to expose it as such. So I did. If I wanted to score partisan points, I wouldn't have said I was in favor of civil unions for all, and civil marriage for none. That's not a well-accepted view in Republican circles.
why does tradition matter if it isn't in this country's founding documents? The government is a government, not an enforcer of religious tradition.
I never said it should enforce tradition. I said it should not DESTROY tradition. There's a big difference there.
At the end of the day is was about equality and not the source of it.
Not for everyone who voted for it, no. I lived in California for nine years, and I still have many friends and family there. And I know for a fact that a significant number of people I know, in California, were angered more by the fact that the Court forced this on the state than they were by gay marriage itself.
prop. 8 failing
Again: no, you mean, succeeding.
wasn't a response to the supreme court of CA
Overall, no, of course. But enough to make the small difference between success and failure, just a few points? I think so.
Principles like legislature vs. courts matter, but much less so when you're directly voting on a constitutional amendment.
Yes, but I still probably would have voted for Prop 8 JUST BECAUSE of the Court. As you say, this "marriage equality" is going to come one way or another. The much more lasting negative effects are not in denying that equality now, but in allowing the Court to overstep its bounds.
It would be a disastrous day when our civil rights are up for a vote.
Well, that's what is happening with incestuous marriage. Which is my point. I do not believe government recognition of marriage IS a civil right, anyway. (And neither do you, since you believe in civil unions for all, and marriage for none, as I do.) You believe, I think, that it is, however, an equal protection issue: if some people are allowed to marry, then every two consenting adults should be allowed to. Which means, OK, then you also must allow gay twin incest marriage.
Your post functions as a scare tactic: first they'll want gays to marry, and then sisters! That's not your intent but it is an obvious interpretation.
It is not my intent, so I do not care.
Are we supposed to pretend that there isn't a history of bigots equating gay rights to incestuous rights, or bestiality rights, or pedophilia rights?
No. Rather, I assert that fear of how people will take my argument and run with it will not control what arguments I present.
The straw man is that you well know that 99% of Americans believe that incest is wrong, and you falsely link it to gay marriage when those folks don't mention it.
Again: they DID mention it. Right there in the bill. The gay rights proponents who wrote this bill in Maine explicitly modified the existing law to ban gay incestuous marriage.
This is a distraction.
Shrug. I find it interesting. If you don't, then don't bother with it.
Real families right now can't be wed and get all the benefits of marriage, and you think we should talk about incest?
I see illogical arguments and hypocritical inconsistencies being offered, and I want to expose them as such. If you don't wish to talk about it, I couldn't care less. But this is how bad laws happen, at both the legislative and judicial levels. This is how injustice happens. This sort of "pick-and-choose" approach to civil liberty has a long-term negative effect on all of us. Example: in order to protect races and religions and so on we invented the concept of the "protected class." This concept was expanded greatly to include "disabled" people. Now that concept is being used to sue airlines for not having seats that can fit morbidly obese people.
Getting things right is important, but using the right reasons matters too ... sometimes a lot more, in the long run.
You're watching a civil rights movement pass you by and you're not standing up for a historically oppressed minority
Again, you're lying about me. You know damned well -- because you said so -- that I favor fully equal civil unions for gay couples. Just because I am not making that argument RIGHT NOW doesn't mean I am not doing it.
You have the wrong priority in this case
No, I do not. It's precisely the right priority.
I am proud to be principled on the side of more rights
If you argue against marriage for gay twins, then I don't believe that you are following any principle other than "favoring the kind of marriage I agree with," which is no principle at all.
beautiful love that deserves legal recognition
NO love of ANY kind deserves ANY legal recognition. Ever.
I won't call you an idiot even though I disagree with you, because that is petty.
I did not call you an idiot because I disagreed with you: I called you an idiot because you made a false claim about my views. And you did so as a purported "conclusion" based on evidence that didn't exist.
he's careful to obfuscate his position whenever possible. That's because he's not interested in honest discourse. If he were, he would take care to be plain in his position and straightforward in his debate.
I don't talk much about my views on government recognition of gay marriage in this discussion because they are beside the point. Maybe it would help if you, I don't know, read the post? Naaaaah. Too much work.
It's so unshocking to me that you're attacking me for NOT engaging in red herring fallacies.
Pudge- you say it's "Not true" that most scientists think sexual orientation is innate. You must be listening to the same scientists who think climate change is not primarily man-made, that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and that the earth is 6000 years old.
You write, "Far MORE scientists believe that most people's tendency toward violence is often an innate trait. If you prohibit violent acts, you're telling a group of people they are forbidden from acting in a way in which they are innately drawn." But an elementary principle of justice -- which you surely know (and has been mentioned in this thread) -- is that government can restrict liberty if there is a legitimate purpose (and subject to some other conditions). Clearly there is a legitimate societal purpose in prohibiting violent acts.
And you write "if you are gay because of events that happen in your childhood, well, you could also be drawn to your siblings for similar reasons." Well, anything is possible, but you lack the slightest bit of evidence for such a civil rights claim.
On many issues your arguments are clever and I enjoy the challenge of finding the one logical flaw in them. On this issue you are more flaw than argument.
Posted by: Bruce on May 11, 2009 09:43 AMI have great respect for pudge's intellect, but this is a completely accurate description of what he does in this site's comments.
@pudge:
I do not believe government recognition of marriage IS a civil right, anyway. (And neither do you, since you believe in civil unions for all, and marriage for none, as I do.)
Yes, it is a civil right. "Civil marriage" is the term in this country that conveys full rights. I would prefer to change that term to "civil union," but the concept is the same and so far neither have been granted to homosexuals in states and no homosexuals at the federal level.
However, the status quo in WA of "civil unions" for gays and "civil marriage" for straights is wrong and a discriminatory alternative shaded by "separate but equal."
RE: Courts deciding on gay marriage gave prop. 8 a victory: But enough to make the small difference between success and failure, just a few points? I think so.
The amendment was not brought by the courts, it was brought by anti-gay marriage interest groups. If some voters were swung by a fringe issue like courts vs. legislature, then others were swung by amendments being offered by initiative. This has nothing to do with legislature vs. courts. Of course, the legislature in CA also supported gay marriage -- the governor vetoed it. So did people vote "yes" to spite the courts or the legislature, pudge?
Yes, but I still probably would have voted for Prop 8 JUST BECAUSE of the Court.
I suggest that is foolish but denying a group civil rights to prove a point is disgusting.
How did the court over-step its bounds? Because it didn't consult the majority? Did you read the decision?
Look, CA has an amendment saying that one cannot discriminate against homosexuals. Those justices interpreted the constitution of the state appropriately: denying marriage equality to a protected minority is unconstitutional. In addition, the legislature had already voted to legalize gay marriage.
Shrug. I find it interesting. If you don't, then don't bother with it.
It's a distraction with overt hints of bigotry. If you'd rather not hear my opinion, please disable comments for this entry.
You're watching a civil rights movement pass you by and you're not standing up for a historically oppressed minority
Again, you're lying about me. You know damned well -- because you said so -- that I favor fully equal civil unions for gay couples. Just because I am not making that argument RIGHT NOW doesn't mean I am not doing it.
When your "ideals" clash with reality, you choose partisanship over civil rights. You have argued repeatedly that it is worth denying homosexuals civil rights so that we get things "right." There is never a greater justification for withholding civil rights. The fight over gay equality and "civil marriage" vs. "civil union" are two separate battles. One impacts families routinely, the other is a matter of word choice. It's clear you favor the word choice, but what have you done for equal recognition regardless of name? You've written about incest. Men marrying their sons. Women marrying their uncles. How brave of you. Going right into the right wing's lions nest and... completely affirming bigoted views that homosexuals are an icky minority in the broad category as inter-generational rape and molestation.
beautiful love that deserves legal recognition
NO love of ANY kind deserves ANY legal recognition. Ever.
Wonderful job truncating my sentence. "...legal recognition and the benefits and rights that come with it." All couples deserve those benefits and rights, regardless of orientation.
I did not call you an idiot because I disagreed with you: I called you an idiot because you made a false claim about my views. And you did so as a purported "conclusion" based on evidence that didn't exist.
You make a sport out of misrepresenting the views of others. Such as your entire blog entry saying that homosexuals in Maine aren't in favor for equality. That makes you a dishonest broker, not an idiot.
I don't talk much about my views on government recognition of gay marriage in this discussion because they are beside the point.
Scottd is absolutely correct. You only obfuscate your position and have no interest in honest and straightforward discourse.
Gay marriage is the only serious topic actually contained in your blog entry yet you spend no time on its merits. Gay rights aren't besides the point -- they are a core issue in our political system and are worth having honest, thoughtful discussions about. Instead, you distract and invent hypocrisy and feign outrage. Where's your real outrage?
Posted by: John Jensen on May 11, 2009 10:23 AMNo, I said it is not true that "scientists generally believe" that. "Generally" implies significantly more than a mere majority. I don't know if a majority believes it, but it's not generally accepted, no.
You must be listening to the same scientists who think climate change is not primarily man-made
No. I listen to scientists who state the self-evident fact that there is no serious scientific evidence that it IS primarily man-made.
an elementary principle of justice -- which you surely know (and has been mentioned in this thread) -- is that government can restrict liberty if there is a legitimate purpose (and subject to some other conditions)
You're changing the argument. Innateness and liberty are not the same thing. I have liberty whether or not it's related to something innate. You'd have to show that something being innate grants some extra-special right to liberty.
What you're basically arguing now is that ANYTHING that does not hurt anyone else should be allowed -- that is, the libertarian principle of emphasis on the right to the pursuit of happiness -- regardless of whether it's innate. Which means that the difference from incestuous marriage ... isn't.
And you write "if you are gay because of events that happen in your childhood, well, you could also be drawn to your siblings for similar reasons." Well, anything is possible, but you lack the slightest bit of evidence for such a civil rights claim.
And neither is there any serious evidence along such lines for homosexual marriage. You certainly provided none, you just handwaved at "generally" and then reduced it to "majority." But even if it were "generally," that's not actual evidence anyway.
Of course they are, pudge. The point of this post is to lure the unsuspecting or careless into a pointless debate with you over the rights of incestuous couples so you can display your sophomoric debating skills. I get that.
Posted by: scottd on May 11, 2009 12:55 PMI already addressed this stupid argument above. A gay man cannot marry his brother any more than a straight man can marry his sister. Incestuous marriage bans, therefore, apply equally to gays and straights. Your argument is out the window. But nice try.
Wrong. I addressed the very heart of your uneducated argument: that gay marriage advocates, as a matter of equal protection principles, should also be advocating for incestuous marriage. Your failure to offer a rebuttal implies that you have none.
"My argument is not against gay marriage ... it is against court-ordered government recognition of gay marriage."
Dummy. Apparently you have no understanding of the role of the courts in this country. Refer to US Gov 101. When the highest courts in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa ruled that gay marriage must be recognized, they were merely doing their job: interpreting their state constitution and deciding whether the law in question is in violation of their state constitution. Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean they were legislating from the bench.
Instead of dismissing these court rulings with terms like "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench," maybe you uneducated right-wingers should spend some time actually READING these decisions, in which the courts explain, in detail, their rationale for ruling the way they did. (Of course, I know it's hard to read a 100-page decision that analytically rips your position to shreds.)
Was the Supreme Court legislating from the bench when it "mposed" desegregation (Brown v. Board of Ed.) and interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia) on an unwilling public?
This country is a democratic republic (or constitutional democracy, if you want to call it that). It is not a direct democracy or mobocracy, as uneducated right-wing sheep like to be believe. Not everything is voted on and decided by the majority. The courts are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As an attorney, I can assure you courts/judges don't ask themselves every time they make a decision: "Hmm, what would the majority do about this case?"
Again, refer to US Gov 101.
"Far MORE scientists believe that most people's tendency toward violence is often an innate trait. If you prohibit violent acts, you're telling a group of people they are forbidden from acting in a way in which they are innately drawn."
You officially have the IQ of a goldfish if you can't see the difference between violence and same-sex attraction. This monumentally stupid point isn't even worthy of a reply.
"Well, you'd have to show that people are innately drawn to people of the same sex. Good luck with that; no one's done it yet."
Unlucky you, the scientific community has pretty much come to a consensus that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is indeed innate and immutable. The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and even the health ministries in Russia and China ALL say homosexuality is not a mental disorder, isn't a choice, can't be changed and trying to change it is harmful.
Need I go on?
Seeing how these are EDUCATED scientists who actually STUDY these issues, something tells me their collective wisdom/intelligence is far more credible than a random, under-educated right-wing clown on the internet.
The next thing you're going to say is: "Well they haven't shown that there is a gay gene!"
To which I respond: As soon as you show us a straight gene, we will gladly show you a gay gene.
"I am only writing this post because I see an illogical inconsistency, and I wanted to expose it as such."
No. You only wrote this article because you do not have any legitimate arguments against gay marriage. There is a reason why the vast majority of legal scholars and social scientists (people who know a thing or two about the law and human sexuality) support gay marriage.
"I never said it should enforce tradition. I said it should not DESTROY tradition. There's a big difference there."
Dunce. Was the Supreme Court "destroying" tradition when it ruled that interracial marriage must be legalized? Or that schools must be desegregated with all deliberate speed?
Bad laws are not kept merely for the sake of "tradition." Otherwise, we would still have slavery, bans on women's suffrage, and anti-miscegenation laws clear to this day. Those things were also long-standing "traditions."
"A significant number of people I know, in California, were angered more by the fact that the Court forced this on the state than they were by gay marriage itself."
A significant number of people were also angered when the Supreme Court ruled on desegregation and interracial marriage. Guess what? Tough! At the time interracial marriage was legalized via Loving v. Virginia (1957), a Gallup poll showed that around 70% of the public were still AGAINST interracial marriage.
"You believe, I think, that it is, however, an equal protection issue: if some people are allowed to marry, then every two consenting adults should be allowed to. Which means, OK, then you also must allow gay twin incest marriage."
I already addressed this stupid argument above. A gay man cannot marry his brother any more than a straight man can marry his sister. Incestuous marriage bans, therefore, apply equally to gays and straights. Your argument is out the window. But nice try.
No. There is no right to this. Your argument necessarily means that if government decided to stop recognizing ALL marriages, that somehow this would violate anyone's rights. It's obviously not the case. No one has a right to have their union recognized by government: the right in question is one of equal protection, not of recognition.
However, the status quo in WA of "civil unions" for gays and "civil marriage" for straights is wrong and a discriminatory alternative shaded by "separate but equal."
No, it's not. This is an irrational conflation of completely unrelated concepts. That said, it's silly to have two systems, and it won't remain that way.
If some voters were swung by a fringe issue like courts vs. legislature ...
It's sad that a fundamental issue of separation of powers, of justice, of self-governance, of liberty, is a "fringe issue" to you.
I suggest that is foolish but denying a group civil rights to prove a point is disgusting.
I suggest that claiming the ends justifies the means is disgusting.
How did the court over-step its bounds?
Because it created a right to marriage that did not exist. This is the job of legislatures, not courts.
CA has an amendment saying that one cannot discriminate against homosexuals
No, in fact, it does not. The Court invented that interpretation. There is no implication in the state constitution that homosexuals are a protected class.
denying marriage equality to a protected minority is unconstitutional
And that's the other thing the Court invented. Even if they are a protected class, that does not automatically mean marriage must be given them.
It's a distraction with overt hints of bigotry.
False on both counts. "Distraction" is the question-begging fallacy, and "overt" implies intent you yourself admit I don't have.
If you'd rather not hear my opinion ...
Shrug, I am just pointing out you're wrong.
When your "ideals" clash with reality, you choose partisanship over civil rights.
First, you keep babbling about "partisanship" even though I've explicitly taken a position contrary to that of my own party. You're not winning points on that.
Second, no, I choose broad civil rights over specific ones. The right to legislate significant changes in our society, rather than having them forced on us by an appointed group of people in robes, is one of the most important civil rights. Far more important than the right to marry.
There is never a greater justification for withholding civil rights.
Which is why I would vote against gay marriage when it is forced upon us by a Court.
what have you done for equal recognition regardless of name?
I've talked and posted about it for many years.
Going right into the right wing's lions nest and... completely affirming bigoted views that homosexuals are an icky minority in the broad category as inter-generational rape and molestation.
Funny how you decry bigotry of others while expressing your own.
Wonderful job truncating my sentence.
I only cared to comment on that portion of it.
All couples deserve those benefits and rights, regardless of orientation.
And I don't disagree with that (basically); but I do disagree that they deserve government recognition of their love. So therefore I commented only on the part I cared to comment on.
You make a sport out of misrepresenting the views of others.
Tu quoque!
Such as your entire blog entry saying that homosexuals in Maine aren't in favor for equality.
No, I said the people who wrote this bill are not in favor of equality. Which is true. They extended the ban on incenstuous marriage to include same-sex incetuous marriage.
Scottd is absolutely correct. You only obfuscate your position and have no interest in honest and straightforward discourse.
Completely false. You think that because YOU find one topic more interesting than the one I wrote about, that therefore I really meant to discuss that. That's idiotic.
Gay marriage is the only serious topic actually contained in your blog entry yet you spend no time on its merits.
I DISAGREE WITH YOU that what I wrote about -- the inconsistency of the arguments from these gay marriage proponents -- is not a serious topic. I spent no time on the merits of gay marriage because that is NOT what I was talking about.
Listen to yourself for a minute. You're attacking me for not making an argument for or against something I am not talking about. That's idiotic.
Gay rights aren't besides the point
In fact, they are. I know this because it is MY point.
they are a core issue in our political system and are worth having honest, thoughtful discussions about
Sure. But EVERY discussion does not have to be about those things, and this discussion was not.
Instead, you distract
False.
and invent hypocrisy
False.
and feign outrage
False.
Bruce, I suggest you do it because pudge generally doesn't like backing up his guesses with evidence.
All I said was he is wrong. He's the one who made the assertion, and as such is the only one with any obligation to demonstrate it.
No, it is -- as clearly stated -- to demonstrate the irrationality of many of the arguments from principle FOR gay marriage. And this was demonstrated very well.
Posted by: pudge on May 12, 2009 11:30 AMNot seriously, no.
Your failure to offer a rebuttal ...
I rebutted every claim you made, in fact. It is THOSE rebuttals you are failing to respond to.
Apparently you have no understanding of the role of the courts in this country.
Riiiiiiight.
When the highest courts in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa ruled that gay marriage must be recognized, they were merely doing their job: interpreting their state constitution and deciding whether the law in question is in violation of their state constitution.
In the cases of Massachusetts and California -- which I know best as I've lived for many years in both states -- they did not do their job at all. They invented law that did not exist in their constitutions or in statute.
Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean they were legislating from the bench.
Just because you agree with them doesn't mean what they said the constitution says is actually what the constitution says.
Instead of dismissing these court rulings with terms like "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench"
I used no such terms. However, they did do this, yes.
maybe you uneducated right-wingers should spend some time actually READING these decisions, in which the courts explain, in detail, their rationale for ruling the way they did.
You first. (Well, not really, since I've already done it.)
Was the Supreme Court legislating from the bench when it "mposed" desegregation (Brown v. Board of Ed.)
The essential part of the ruling -- that the existing school system was unconstitutionally discriminatory as per the 14th Amendment -- was right on. It's unavoidably true: the law establishes a public school system obligated to serve all children, and the 14th Amendment requires that you can't treat a class of children unequally.
... and interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia) on an unwilling public?
Again, the 14th Amendment. Marriage is an institution defined as being between a man and a woman, and it is unconstitutional to deny consensual heterosexual couples from engaging in marriage.
This country is a democratic republic (or constitutional democracy, if you want to call it that). It is not a direct democracy or mobocracy, as uneducated right-wing sheep like to be believe. Not everything is voted on and decided by the majority. The courts are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Actually, you will find assertions that we are a republic, and not a democracy -- that the majority is limited from taking away the rights of individuals -- FAR more often on the right, than on the left. You apparently don't get out much, which probably explains your insane claims about people who disagree with you. Do you even KNOW anyone in your day-to-day life whom you disagree with significantly on political issues?
You officially have the IQ of a goldfish if you can't see the difference between violence and same-sex attraction.
You should be disbarred if you're ignorant enough to think I was making such an argument. I simply noted the fact that the claim that something "innate" is acceptable is nonsense.
This monumentally stupid point isn't even worthy of a reply.
Wow, you can create a straw man fallacy and then pile an ad hominem on top of it so you don't have to answer! Good for you!
Unlucky you, the scientific community has pretty much come to a consensus that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is indeed innate and immutable.
False.
... ALL say homosexuality is not a mental disorder, isn't a choice, can't be changed and trying to change it is harmful.
None of those institutions is an accurate representation of the scientific community they represent. The APA, for example, is controlled entirely by people who do believe what you say there, but a large number of psychiatrists within the APA disagree. (I covered this issue years ago in college, as the school of psychology at my university faced losing accreditation by the APA over the issue.) It's true that more and more, psychiatrists do not believe it is a mental disorder, but as to the rest? It's far from resolved.
Need I go on?
Nope, because, as a lawyer, you surely realize that your genetic fallacy is definitionally irrelevant.
The next thing you're going to say is: "Well they haven't shown that there is a gay gene!"
Nice straw man. But, no.
To which I respond: As soon as you show us a straight gene, we will gladly show you a gay gene.
Heh, even if I were going to make the argument you ascribed to me -- which I wouldn't -- your response is asinine. Quite obviously, we are a heterosexual species; if gayness is biological, then there would not need to be a "straight gene," but there would need to be some sort of gene, or combination of genes, for homosexuality.
I hope you know more about law than you do about biology. But given your penchant for logical fallacies -- in almost every paragraph you write -- I wouldn't bet on it.
You only wrote this article because you do not have any legitimate arguments against gay marriage.
You're a liar.
There is a reason why the vast majority of legal scholars and social scientists (people who know a thing or two about the law and human sexuality) support gay marriage.
Sure: because they were trained in liberal universities and brainwashed by hippie professors. (While nonserious, my argument here is more logical than your strict reliance on the genetic fallacy.)
Was the Supreme Court "destroying" tradition when it ruled that interracial marriage must be legalized? Or that schools must be desegregated with all deliberate speed?
Yes, of course it was. However, in those cases, that tradition was created explicitly TO violate the equal protection of laws of certain people, which is, obviously, not the case with anti-gay marriage laws.
A significant number of people were also angered when the Supreme Court ruled on desegregation and interracial marriage.
So? You really suck at this, man. You are attacking an argument I made for part of why Prop. 8 succeeded, and pretending that I made the argument against the Court ruling itself.
I already addressed this stupid argument above.
Poorly.
A gay man cannot marry his brother any more than a straight man can marry his sister. Incestuous marriage bans, therefore, apply equally to gays and straights. Your argument is out the window. But nice try.
Again: you are just reaffirming the MINORITY in Lawrence v. Texas.
I hope you don't argue cases in court. If I, an under-educated clown, can so effectively and easily destroy the bulk of your arguments, imagine what a real big-time city lawyah could do!