I guess I simply don’t understand why all the young gay couples are rushingto San Francisco to get married– and not because I don’t understand why anyone would want to get married, either. I just simply do not understand what the point of it is, other than a wasted trip to the Bay Area.
According to everything I have read, state law prohibits same-sex marriages. Thus, the mayor issuing all of these permits is not issuing documents either in accordance to the law, or in good faith to the intent of the law. By my understanding, that would seem to make the documents worthless at any level. I guess it just boils down to a PR stunt, which always seem like a waste of time to me.
BTW- I do think this statement by the Calpundit is a little off the mark:
But that’s exactly what marriage is: it’s whatever we as a society decide it is. Unless you have a specifically Bible-centric view of what marriage is, you need to accept this simple reality: marriage is not a natural law, it is a human institution that’s defined by humans and subject to change by humans.
Clearly, marriage is not just what society decides it is- at least not in the sense that it is some malleable man-made construct that can be whimsically changed. That kinda was the point of the Defense of Marriage Act- to codify exactly what marriage is and is not. Some of us thought the DOMA was a little overboard, because it is pretty clear to most of us what exactly a marriage is- and I would argue the vast majority of us would agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You can disagree with me all you want, but I will not cede that point. It is so entrenched in our society what marriage is that our language betrays those that argue otherwise. If we did not all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, why do we call any other type of union ‘gay marriages’ or ‘homosexual marriages’ or ‘same-sex marriages?’ Because if you didn’t, everyone would be thinking man and wife. Period.
And before I get called an old fart- I am perfectly in favor of civil unions. I just don’t understand why the institution of marriage, which has stood esentially unchanged for years, needs to be adapted. I see no reason why civil unions, which could offer the same legal status as a traditional marriage, could not be instituted and both sides of the issue could be made happy.
*** Update ***
I should have figured Sully would have 9 bazillion posts on this issue.
Josh
“If we did not all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, why do we call any other type of union ‘gay marriages’ or ‘homosexual marriages’ or ‘same-sex marriages?’ Because if you didn’t, everyone would be thinking man and wife. Period.”
Well, yeah, that’s what marriage means at this point in time. But language changes all the time; as the notion that two people of the same sex can marry becomes more accepted, you’ll see the language change to reflect that.
Dave
I just want to be allowed to let it change naturally, y’know?
martin
How could it change “naturally” when religious and social conservative nutties fight tooth and nail, every inch of the way, against it (and, of course, any other move toward acceptance and equality for gays)?
Steve
Methinks you prove Kevin’s point right here. It is what our society (or what a segment of our society) says marriage should be. In, for example, Islamic law you can have what…three wives? Doesn’t sound like that man-woman thing, more like man-women.
Further, the whole discussion of gay marriage is pretty much a discussion of what “we as a society” want. Currently the traditionalists might have the dominant advantage, but if enough people change their minds or the demographics change then the definition of marriage could change.
JKC
50 years ago, 90% of Americans thought mixed-race marriages were as immoral as some Americans believe gay marriage is today.
Think about it.
John Cole
I am fine if it changes- I just think it makes much more sense to persue civil unions than it does to attempt to change the meaning of marriage and to award illegal marriage certificates.
M. Scott Eiland
“50 years ago, 90% of Americans thought mixed-race marriages were as immoral as some Americans believe gay marriage is today.
Think about it.”
And if a court decision had come down back then that said that mixed-race marriage had to be allowed under the Constitution–before the Civil Rights Movement had time to work on the conscience of the nation–we might well have seen a constitutional amendment nullifying the decision and even outright banning mixed-race marriage. Twenty years made a hell of a lot of difference in the attitude of the country–those numbers weren’t anywhere near that level when Loving v. Virginia was decided.
M. Scott Eiland
As this guy (link via Instapundit) suggested, I wonder how those who are cheering the issuance of illegal marriage licenses would feel if some other city in California started issuing concealed weapons permits in violation of the standards established by state law.
Michelle
Hi, two points.
First, I would think they would want to get married because they’re in love. In America, when you really, really love someone, you get married.
Secondly, I would wonder if this would allow these couples to challenge hospitals and such–if they are married, and have a marriage certificate, then the hospital should have to honor that certificate and allow one partner to be involved with the health of another partner.
Same for funerals.
It’s not something most people consider, but if a couple (hetero or homosexual) is not married, then they have no rights if their partner falls ill or dies. It means even if the individual is estranged from their family, the family makes all the decisions.
I saw something similar happen to a hetersexual couple I knew. He was estranged from his family, he died unexpectedly, and his family came in and did *everything* against his wishes, and she had no say in the matter at all. (No, he didn’t have a will. He was under 30. You just don’t expect to have a heart attack and drop dead when you’re that young) Now this couple had the choice–they could have been married, but weren’t. A homosexual couples don’t have that option.
In theory that paper would give a couple the right to be involved–at least it’s a far better chance than they have currently.
That is what I think many homosexual couples may be considering as they run to SF to get married.
But I could be wrong.
Michelle
“I wonder how those who are cheering the issuance of illegal marriage licenses would feel if some other city in California started issuing concealed weapons permits in violation of the standards established by state law.”
Good for them! That’s what I would say.
caleb
well,
If Bush reeaallyy wants to go the amendment route(which I hate because I don’t think this realy rises to the level of something which should change the constitution.) I would rather he remove all notions of “marriage” from state hands.
Put marriage back into religion, and leave it there. Completely seperate the notion of being married in the eyes of religion, and being “married” in the eyes of the state.
Make all non religious “marriages” civil unions. If you are “married” outside of a religious institution(justice of peace/ships captian/Vegas etc.), then you have officially entered a “civil union”. There would be no restrictions between man/woman, man/man, woman/woman.
All current benefits/rights bestoed upon “married” couples will apply to both marriages and civil unions equally.
The only difference will be the connotation of having gone thru a religious ceremony.
Jon H
It may be against the law, but the law may be unconstitutional according to the CA state constitution.
According to Mr. Volokh, it’s common practice to view an unconstitutional law as being null and void.
“Clearly, marriage is not just what society decides it is- at least not in the sense that it is some malleable man-made construct that can be whimsically changed.”
Whimsically? What’s whimsical about people losing their kids because they aren’t able to get married? What’s whimsical about being kept out of a loved one’s hospital room because you’re not married?
There are people who think marriage has to involve God, and that non-Christians are not married. There are people who frown on marriages between people of different faiths. If our system can handle these issues of differing beliegs, then surely it can encompass same-sex marriages.
Jon H
caleb writes “Make all non religious “marriages” civil unions. If you are “married” outside of a religious institution(justice of peace/ships captian/Vegas etc.), then you have officially entered a “civil union”. There would be no restrictions between man/woman, man/man, woman/woman.”
Note that there are, in fact, religious institutions which perform same-sex ceremonies.
Ralph Gizzip
“In theory that paper would give a couple the right to be involved–at least it’s a far better chance than they have currently.
That is what I think many homosexual couples may be considering as they run to SF to get married.”
If you’re talking about property or inheiritance rights under Probate just file a will. You don’t have to be married to have a will. You can bequeath anything you’ve got to whomever you want. You can name anyone the benficiary of your life insurance, too. There’re more than a few million-fucking-aire cats out there because some old spinster biddie kicked the bucket. You don’t have to be married to buy property jointly, either.
You don’t have to be married to have a Living Will or to sign a Power of Attorney. You can designate anyone you want to have those rights over you in case of incapacitation. Just make sure they’re not gonna pull your plug too early (or maybe you WANT them to pull your plug!)
I’ve never had an insurance company ask for my marriage license, either. All they ask is the name of your spouse. If Pat “marries” Chris I guess they’ll get by with it but if Jessica “marries” Jennifer it might raise the red flag.
The way I see it the Gay community is pushing this for two reasons. One, they want to “cherry pick” insurance coverage (which I’d disagree with even for working “traditional” couples) and two, they want to throw “marriage” up in the face of Middle America.
If you want to play Rump Ranger Rick, be my guest. Just keep it in the closet where it belongs.
ray
Funny funny funny.
While we’re at it, let’s say that it’s unconstitional that only women can have babies. If that’s not a violation of equal rights, I don’t know what it is.
There will never be homosexual marriage for the same reason that males won’t bear young. Marriage — or whatever you choose to call the bonding of a man with a (or more) woman—is dictated by the nature of human beings. Why the heck do you think that EVERY known society in ALL of recorded history has marriage. And that its ALWAYS between man and woman.
The reason that government is involved in it has nothing to do with religion. It’s because the family is the basis for society.
caleb
“Note that there are, in fact, religious institutions which perform same-sex ceremonies.”
And as such they would be married. It is up to that particular religious institution to decide that.
I never said there would be any limitations on marriage. That would be church/state violation.
I am saying seperate church (marriage) from state (civil unions) in all cases, not just depending on the sexual make up of the couple.
Tatterdemalian
50 years ago, 90% of Americans thought mixed-race marriages were as immoral as some Americans believe raping children is today.
Think about it.
JKC
So, Tatterdemalian, you believe that homosexuality is the same thing as child abuse?
Don’t hide your idiocy under a barrel, boy. Come on out and say it, you twit. Show the whole class how stupid you really are.
But first, go back and review the difference between a child and a consenting ADULT.
Tatterdemalian
My comparison is as valid as yours, JKC, which is to say, not very damn valid at all.
Maybe you should practice what you preach when it comes to thinking.
Random Numbers
Throughout all of human history, marriage has always been defined by the male/female bond. Not by race; not by religion; but by the male/female bond. The purpose for it has been to secure inheritance and to conserve capital for the benefit of children. Sully seems to think that because some couples don’t or can’t have children and yet marry, that the failure in purpose changes the fundimental defenition of marriage. It does not. A can opener is still a can opener even if you use it only as a paperweight.
There is no such thing as a same-sex marriage. That word is taken. Use or invent something else.
Random Numbers
BTW. I really hate the term “civil union”. I still think a different term, a one word term, is needed. I’m pushing for the law to recognize “espousal” in place of “marriage”.
Jimmy Huck
Is there EVER a wasted trip to the Bay Area. I think not – no matter what the occasion.
Hermit
If you’re OK with “civil union”, why not call it “civil marriage”? What’s the big deal?
I’ve been (heterosexually) married for twenty years now. In no way is my relationship with my wife threatened by the prospect of my Great Aunt being “married” to her female partner of thirty five years.
If a thirty-five year relationship based on commited, exclusive mutual love and support isn’t a marriage, what is it????
JKC
Sorry, Tatterdamalian, you’re wrong.
You may personally disapprove of homosexuality on moral or esthetic gorounds: that is your right. But to imply that a consensual relationship between two adults is equal to rape is either intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. You pick.
And BTW, between 75-95%+ of all child molesters self-identify as heterosexual. So cut the pedophilia crap, boy-o.
Tatterdemalian
Actually, JKC, I don’t disapprove of homosexuality on any ground. I do, however, disapprove of flawed logic, which you seem to have set yourself up as a champion of.
As for comparing homosexuality to child rape, it seems you are the one desperately trying to steer the argument in that direction. They are your words, not mine.
Rick W.
I’ve been married now for 18 years. Before any of you gay folks rush off to tie the knot, talk to me first, please. At least now you can split up with your “partner” and not support them for the rest of your life. But hey, more power to you. Enjoy your “right”, suckers (no pun intended).
Andrew J. Lazarus
John, I agree with you on this one, including the irresponsibility of the new mayor of SF. I think there were internal political reasons he wanted to make up to the left, but that doesn’t outweigh the likelihood that gay couples who are counting on legal validity of the marriage will be SOL later. I’ll leave some Bush-bashing comments elsewhere as penance for agreeing with you…
On the other hand, Ralph G., let me give you an example where a will DOESN’T help. IRA tax law. A non-spouse can’t use the rollover provision when the IRA holder dies. And I thought that one up in ten seconds, I’m sure there are many, many more NOT EVEN COUNTING the examples Rick W. snidely refers to that involve protection of the economically-weaker spouse if the relationship crumbles.
JBL
Ray said: Why the heck do you think that EVERY known society in ALL of recorded history has marriage. And that its ALWAYS between man and woman.
Go tell that to the Mormons. Or the ancient Shahs. Or, well, any of the hundreds of societies that have historically had marriage not between “just a man and a woman.”
Just because you want something to be true doesn’t mean it is.
JBL
Tatterdamalian: the point of the logic is not that “our views have liberalized on some issue, so they have liberalized on all issues.” With respect to child raping, societies views have not in fact changed very much. The point of the argument is that, WITH RESPECT TO LIMITING MARRIAGE TO CERTAIN PAIRS OF PEOPLE, our views have liberalized. And are continuing to do so. And within 20 years will almost certainly have done so to the point that we will have homosexual marriage.
(sorry for the caps — don’t know how else to make emphasis)