News is starting to get around that a lesbian couple from Evergreen State College obtained license to marry from an Oregon Indian Tribe:
Kitzen and Jeni Branting have been in a committed lesbian relationship since high school and plan to get legally married in Oregon next spring.
...
Kitzen Branting, 25, is a member of the Coquille Indian Tribe on the southern Oregon coast. - Coquille Tribe says yes to Gay marriage in Oregon, by Bill Graves, The Oregonian, Wednesday August 20, 2008, 9:00 PM
So they passed a law that will give license to the couple to wed.
The new law establishes tribal rules for recognizing marriage, whether for gay or heterosexual couples. It won't take effect until the tribe also creates laws for divorce and child custody, tribal attorney Brett Kenney says. The seven-member tribal council expects to adopt such laws next year. - Coquille Tribe says yes to Gay marriage in Oregon, by Bill Graves, The Oregonian, Wednesday August 20, 2008, 9:00 PM
Although one of them is a member of the Coquille Tribe, it is clear that the couple's motives have nothing to do with the Tribe, but are politically motivated. And their political manipulation may jeopardize the sovereignty of all tribes. Here's why:
Because the Coquilles have federal status, a marriage within the tribe would be federally recognized, Gilley says. And that would violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that says the federal government "may not treat same-sex elationships as marriages for any purpose." ... The federal government could challenge the Coquille law as a way of testing the limits of tribal independence. ... "This could be a test of sovereignty," he says. - Coquille Tribe says yes to Gay marriage in Oregon, by Bill Graves, The Oregonian, Wednesday August 20, 2008, 9:00 PM
It's not reservations per se that are the source of trouble in Indian Country. The Harvard Native American Program found that reservation tribes that act like nations--those that tend to be more conservative as conservatism was defined by Russell Kirk--fare quite well, while those that have succumbed to the welfare state mentality fostered by both political parties, exemplify all the worst stereotypes.
In addition, most people tend to forget or simply never knew that Indian reservations are not the only federal reservations. Forts, naval ports, air force bases, all are federal reservations. Puerto Rico, Guam and other American protectorates are essentially federal reservations writ large.
I do find it interesting, however, that if it meant ending Indian Reservations you would welcome the advancement of gay marriage.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 21, 2008 10:24 PMBy accident, the genius of a few leaders or through embracing traditional tribal values, virtues and principles (there's that conservatism-thing again), some tribes switched into "nation building" mode and began to improve their lot.
More than improve their lot, they began to improve the lot of the surrounding counties, too, literally becoming engines of prosperity.
I get what you're saying about liberals and dependency. But results count, and everybody has the capacity for rationalizing what they see to fit into their own mindset. A few weeks ago I took a vacation day from work to attend a forum on health issues at the Dept. of Health. During the discussion one person began to complain about how conservatives want to keep certain segments of the population dependent. When I challenged him on that, he told me that the liberals of today are those who have embraced the principles of our grandfathers.
In other words, the left is beginning to stamp the liberal label on conservatism. Which may explain why Democratic candidate Paul Richmond is complaining that the left has swung to the right:
Although a fellow Democrat, Richmond said he opposed Dicks' support of the Iraq War, and he felt the Democratic Party has swung too far to the right. ... "You have many Democrats who have tilted to the right of where Richard Nixon was at," he said. -- Rep. Dicks to face Republican foe Cloud for third straight time, By Tom Callis, Peninsula Daily News, August 19. 2008 9:00PM
Would you vote for the party dominated by people who want to steal the last vestiges of your inheritance?
The past is what it is. We cannot change it. But reservations represent our inheritance. Property is property rights, and Republicans should be championing the conservative American Indian view that wants to hold onto those tiny bits of property.
As long as Democrats can portray Republicans as the boogeyman who wants to take away the last bit of our inheritance, most Indians will vote Democrat. Republicans need to counter that by encouraging the "nation building" mindset that turns tribes from wards of the state into engines of prosperity.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 22, 2008 05:40 AMRod, sorry about that above. You have proven yourself to talk about a subject and in such a manner I have not heard before. I really enjoy your writing and discussions.
I had planned on responding to your post, but waited till this morning, so I could think of what you had to say. My first thought was that you agreed with same sex marriage, then I realized you were pointing out that tribal sovereignty was at stake, which I couldn't see the nexxus.
I'm glad some of the other posters have brought your well-thought out opinions into the light.
For your answer, I doubt any non-tribal legal body of the USA will interfere with tribal rights. It would be so unlike them. From the Boldt decision to the latest allowing the tribes to control all the storm drains, the judicial system has been quite unanimous in their interpretation of tribal rights.
I may not like the unlevel playing field, but it is here to stay and I assume the judicial system will continue to legislate the same (yes, they supposedly judicate, but the courts seem to legislate more).
Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2008 07:39 AMRelationships (marriage) between men and women are pretty well defined in the navajo culture and it aint two men and it aint two women.
Posted by: Andy on August 22, 2008 09:03 AMYou're right, here I see the essential issues as being tribal sovereignty and the hijacking of tribal culture to advance a non-tribal political agenda, so I didn't address the marriage issue directly. Perhaps I should have.
Tradition evolves over a very long time out of experienced wisdom. It's what mostly works. Traditional marriage is what mostly works. Exceptions always exist, but communities that give priority to the exceptions rather than the community soon crumble.
Wise communities have wiggle room to accommodate both the exceptional and not-so-exceptional exceptions, and are generally better for it. But in the main, the rules of community must put the needs of the community first.
"Equal marriage" puts the needs, wants and desires of a certain class of exceptions above the needs of the community. They argue that there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that traditional is not working, but do not acknowledge the part that the anti-family agenda has played in tearing down the traditional institution.
So I favor traditional marriage. But I think equal marriage is inevitable: the trend in support of it looks strong. Hence, while my personal preference is "never," my formal position is "probably eventually."
You (or anyone for that matter) has done little to prove that this will signal the end of civilization. Don't go confusing your whiny, pathetic desire for enshrining homophobia in the law with a need to maintain stability in society.
And heck, if this woman applied for a marriage license from a tribe that she belonged to and she got it, calling their motives into question is crap. It's much more reasonable than out-of-state couples traveling to Massachusetts to be married... at least in this woman's case, she had connections to the community.
Posted by: demo kid on August 22, 2008 03:35 PM
The rhetoric on both sides is often overblown. Equal marriage would not presage the end of the world. Other nations have survived it.-Traditional Marriage: Granny would agree, by Rod Van Mechelen
Not always. Sometimes they are simply sick with frustration, exhausted with the effort to explain, or indoctrinated by imbeciles.
I do not call the women's motives into question but flatly accuse them of gleefully abusing the Tribe for personal and political purposes. They are graduating from Evergreen State College. At the undergrad level the school is a bastion of politically-motivated pedagogy, as they demonstrate--literally--every May the first.
Had they flown to Massachusetts to wed I would be well. Had one of them dressed as a man and they stood on the steps of the State Capitol Building to wed, State-issued marriage license in hand, I would be well. Had they undertaken by subterfuge or in the light of day any nonviolent means to marry that touched none of the tribes, I would be well. Disappointed, of course, and also amused that an institution which such a short while ago feminists like Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin viciously attacked as oppressive and tantamount to rape is now so passionately sought by their fellow leftists.
But they abused their relationship to a Tribe and thereby put that Tribe and all tribes at risk, and this I cannot countenance, neither with a resigned shrug nor an exasperated roll of my eyes but must call it was it is: a self-indulgent, politically-motivated act with consequences that may be very harmful for all tribes.
We cannot expect all members of all tribes to put the safety and security of their tribe first. That takes maturity and wisdom, which come swiftly for some, much slower for others. Nor, when a member of another tribe puts their tribe at risk is it always appropriate to say so in public; the seemly course is to bring it to the attention of their tribal leaders. But when a member of a tribe puts all tribes at risk, then the responsible thing is to stand in the circle and cry out.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 22, 2008 04:59 PMGarbage. The next phrase in that post:
But America is not like other nations. Their uniformity and rigid legal structures allow them to make even radical changes without inviting chaos. By contrast, our uniquely flexible system is constantly tested and strained by our dynamic youth and frothy diversity. The resulting flux such freedom affords invigorates our society, but too much too soon invites ruin.
But perhaps I'm just imagining that you're stating that this would "invite ruin"?
But they abused their relationship to a Tribe and thereby put that Tribe and all tribes at risk, and this I cannot countenance, neither with a resigned shrug nor an exasperated roll of my eyes but must call it was it is: a self-indulgent, politically-motivated act with consequences that may be very harmful for all tribes.
Again, garbage. If one (or both) of the members of the couple is a tribal member in good standing, if marriage is allowed under tribal law, and the tribal government agrees that these two people can get married, they are exercising their rights under that government.
Or perhaps you think that people should actually subvert their own rights in favor of the good of the government?
We cannot expect all members of all tribes to put the safety and security of their tribe first. That takes maturity and wisdom, which come swiftly for some, much slower for others.
That's crap.
Seriously.
So let me get this straight. First, you think that this is going to completely end the sovereignty of tribes as it exists?
Second, you actually think that people should surrender rights to the government for convenience???
Finally, you think that a very limited number of same-sex couples marrying is going to destroy the social networks in these tribes?
And hell yeah I'm going to call you a homophobe. If you were standing up for anti-miscegenation laws, I'd call you a racist, too.
Posted by: demo kid on August 23, 2008 02:40 PMTribal Sovereignty
Do I think that the Coquille Tribe's new law will "completely end the sovereignty of tribes as it exists?" You don't understand tribal sovereignty. The following is from American Indians, Time, and the Law, by Charles F. Wilkinson
Sole Purpose to Defy Federal Law
You stated that "if marriage is allowed under tribal law, and the tribal government agrees that these two people can get married, they are exercising their rights under that government." The tribe had no law recognizing marriage of any sort. None. In the source article for this discussion they made note of that. Most tribes don't have laws recognizing marriage, including mine. Jurisdiction over marriage is generally left to the states. The tribe's new law was passed for one purpose only: to defy federal law on the "equal marriage" issue.
Marriage Is Not the Issue
Remember, same-sex couples can and routinely do get married. Moreover in the State of Washington where this couple makes their home, same-sex couples can enter into domestic partnerships. There is no practical purpose served by this. More to the point, however, this invites federal action against all tribes. Does that make this a matter of "convenience"? Do I, as you put it, "actually think that people should surrender rights to the government for convenience???"
First, this isn't about convenience. You don't understand tribal membership. As Prof. Wilkinson wrote, "One cannot completely reconcile classic political rights, as enjoyed by citizens in other political units in the United States, with the kind of rights that exist within Indian tribal governments for the fundamental reason that Indian tribal governments are literally foreign: they exist outside of the Constitution." Tribes do not exist to serve the convenience of one, two or a few members. The tribe is a community comprised of all members, and this new law of theirs not only puts the safety and security of their tribe at risk, but of all tribes.
Second, this couple was not surrendering any rights to the Tribe. The issue of "equal marriage" is between American citizens and the federal and state governments. This couple dragged the tribes into a state and federal controversy that has nothing to do with the tribes. Some tribes that already had laws about marriage passed laws that agreed with the federal law. That had no impact on any other tribe. This new law, however, may have serious repercussions for all tribes.
License Is The Issue
Finally, you asked if I "think that a very limited number of same-sex couples marrying is going to destroy the social networks in these tribes?" There you go again, ignoring the fact that same-sex couples can and routinely do get married throughout the United States. This is a common ploy; confuse the issue to make it sound like there is some great injustice afoot. But there is not. Same-sex couples can and do have religious, spiritual and cultural marriage ceremonies all the time. Church Weddings, cake and all. There's no law against it and it's been going on since the seventies.
The issue has to do with one thing: license. Those who support "equal marriage" want the state to sanction those marriages. Why, for the rights? No. In states like Washington with domestic-partnership laws, same-sex couples already enjoy most of those rights. Ironically, however, it does not appear to impose any of the responsibilities that go with the marriage license.
The Hate Ploy
Proponents of "equal marriage" have a right to their opinion. They have a right to hold and advocate that position. Some people, homophobes, hate them for it; most, however, do not. Demo Kid accuses anybody who disagrees with them of hate. The term "homophobe" means fear of gays and lesbians, but in practical usage it denotes hate. And obviously, such an absurd accusation is motivated by hate. Thus, Demo Kid differs from actual homophobes only by the side of the issue on which they fall.
Anyway, all of these arguments are presupposed on the idea that one case where a sovereign tribal government recognized a lesbian wedding will result in a widescale crackdown on the sovereignty of all tribes, and that gays and lesbians should be content with having their fake marriages that provide them with no fundamental rights under the law.
First of all, what I will agree on is that this is largely symbolic outside of the tribe that this has taken place, just as it would be if this couple were to have been married in Canada. I have no idea whether this couple plans to settle in an area controlled by the tribe, or if this will have any practical purpose in their day-to-day domestic affairs. But if all of the requirements for marriage defined by the tribe are met, there is no reason to deny a licence here, just like in any other jurisdiction.
On the other hand, you do a wonderful job outlining the structure of tribal sovereignty on one hand, and then completely neglect it when making your arguments. As much as you might invoke threats on tribal sovereignty, the legalization of gay marriage in Canada, California and Massachusetts did not result in efforts by the federal government to compromise the sovereignty of these governments in a broader way. DOMA still applies, and there are efforts to get a marriage amendment into the Constitution, but there is no "defiance" of federal law here. So, the idea that the federal government survived these challenges to gay marriage from states and foreign countries, but would take the legalization of gay marriage by tribes as a reason to compromise their sovereignty in other areas is absolutely ludicrous.
Additionally, you make the case that governments do not exist to serve the convenience of one or two of its members, and that there are times when greater risks to safety and security need to be considered. However, not only have you not made the case that the "safety and security" of tribes are in question here, you are suggesting that a tribe should decide to suppress the rights of its members to have their relationships legally recognized for the sake of convenience, so that the federal government won't get mad and spiteful. Furthermore, you are also asking a completely different sovereign government to give up its rights to govern its citizens at it sees fit for your own benefit, a benefit that, again, you have not proved to exist. Make the case that this is for the greater good all you want, but as a conservative you should be willing to see that individual liberty is an important thing that should not be handed away so easily.
Finally, you make the case that gays and lesbians have been getting "married" for years. If you believe that this is sufficient to recognize a domestic partnership, then why exactly have *any* civil recognition of marriage? If having a cake and a big party and a signature in a church book is enough, then why not get everyone out of the marriage business?
Posted by: demo kid on August 24, 2008 01:47 PMProve it. Which arguments would that be?
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 24, 2008 01:57 PMYou're being argumentative: I did not "suggest that same-sex marriages do not have the responsibilities of marriage."
I did note that in Washington State the Domestic-partnership laws do "not appear to impose any of the responsibilities that go with the marriage license." This is not an opinion about same-sex marriage but an observation about the law.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 24, 2008 02:06 PMThere you go again. I already addressed this with my quote from Prof. Wilkinson. States exist within the framework of the Constitution and, as such, are protected by it. Indian Tribes are not protected by the US Constitution, but are subject to the plenary power of Congress. It's a completely different set of circumstances.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 24, 2008 02:13 PMThat's a lie.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 24, 2008 02:16 PMNo, I don't "make the case." It's an observation of demonstrable fact. Gay and Lesbian couples in America can and routinely do have religious, spiritual, and cultural marriage ceremonies. It's not a case, but a fact.
Quoting Demo Kid: "If you believe that this is sufficient to recognize a domestic partnership, then why exactly have *any* civil recognition of marriage? If having a cake and a big party and a signature in a church book is enough, then why not get everyone out of the marriage business?"
If, by "everyone," you mean the state, then I agree. The state should not be in the marriage business at all.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 24, 2008 02:23 PMA place where we both agree.
Posted by: demo kid on August 24, 2008 06:00 PMOne valid argument put forward by proponents of traditional marriage that proponents of "equal marriage" reject is that same-sex couples already have the same rights as the rest of us. That is, gay or straight all women and men have the same legal right to obtain a license to marry a member of the opposite sex. The counter is that it's not the same because (1) they can't get licensed to marry someone to whom they are sexually attracted, and (2) they can't get licensed to marry the one (of the same sex) they love.
These are irrelevant. How many straight couples remain sexually attracted and "in love"? Not a lot. Sexual attraction and romantic love as a basis for marriage are luxuries of recent vintage. They seldom endure, although most of us aspire otherwise. But if sexual attraction is a legitimate argument to demand passage of a law requiring the state to issue licenses to marry, then let me be the first in line to support this so I can get a license to marry Amanda Peet. (Unless she smokes. I don't think she smokes, but if she does then forget it; smokers stink. Not to mention that, in general, they age a lot faster than us non-smokers.)
Amanda Peet is married to David Benioff, you say, so I can't marry her? But I think she's one of the sexiest women (not to mention an incredibly talented comedic actress, on par with Sarah Paulson), and if sexual attraction is a legitimate basis...what, consent you say? There has to be consent, too, as in mutual consent? And if I press the issue then the Law, as in community, society, the State, will intervene? Because in any agreement there are at least 3 parties involved: the grantor, the grantee and the agency of enforcement, which represents community interests such as maintenance of the conditions of survival.
In a conservative community those conditions are predicated upon the values, virtues and principles tested by time and codified in tradition, like progress. Yes, but progress is a liberal value, too. True, but progress needs to be balanced with conservation, tempered by prudence, and weighed against the costs. And the costs of "equal marriage" are very high.
The Costs
The costs include the violent threat posed by the 7th century Islamic extremists that 21st century America has to deal with. The Islamic extremists are not known for their tolerance toward homosexuality, let alone "equal marriage." The threat is real, as 9/11 proved. By itself, however, a threat from a bunch of America-hating barbarians is not a reason to refrain from doing something. If it's right, then we should do it. But is it right?
Is granting special rights to a self-identified segment of society right? Most Americans think it is not. Yet that is what proponents of "equal marriage" demand. Currently all women and all men have the right to obtain a license to marry a (consenting) member of the opposite sex. Proponents of "equal marriage" want the law to include the homosexual minority, but what about the other sexual minorities?
Uh-oh, there I go using the same arguments as the supporters of anti-miscegenation laws! No, it's not the same because currently we all have the same rights: all women and all men of all races in America have the legal right to obtain a license to marry a member of the opposite sex. This is the same right, and I've already addressed the "yea-buts" above.
The Slippery Slope
Proponents of "equal marriage" want to expand that right so all women and all men have the right to get a license to marry a (consenting) person of either the same or opposite sex. But, so I've heard, all proponents of "equal marriage" want to exclude all the other sexual minorities. What's "equal" about that? On what basis would they preclude other sexual minorities, that it's immoral? A lot of people think homosexuality is immoral, too. So where do you draw the line, at "well it's what I want and so it's okay"? That's what their argument boils down to, and it's the oldest slippery slope of all.