Found to be unconstitutional:
A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California’s same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, putting the bitterly contested, voter-approved law on track for likely consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
The court said gay marriages cannot resume in the state until the deadline passes for Proposition 8 sponsors to appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit. If such an appeal is filed, gay marriages will remain on hold until it’s resolved.
Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors have repeatedly said they would consider appealing to a larger panel of the court and then the U.S. Supreme Court if they did not receive a favorable ruling from the 9th Circuit.
“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.
Supremes next.
Baud
In case anyone’s wondering, no chance the Supremes will decide this before the election.
pragmatism
cue the wingnut poutrage. OMG why do the courts (packed with libs and homoqueers) get to override the will of the people!? what do you mean that voting for something doesn’t cure it’s constitutional deficiencies?
kindness
Sweet. Now I only hope the Supreme Court doesn’t line up with another Citizens United ruling against it.
Andrew Abshier
Cue primal scream of, “activist judges!” from the usual suspects in 3….2….1….
ABL 2.0
A copy of the ruling for those who want to read it.
pragmatism
also, too, nice work dougj getting a moore award.
Brachiator
This will also be a challenging to the snarling dogs of the GOP. Librul Judges! Librul Judges! Newt will go nuclear, demanding that the 9th circuit be exiled to Gitmo. Mitt will ask them to self deport. Santorum, well, Santorum will always be frothing.
Conservatives will be asked to make sure to vote the ghey loving sozhulists out in November.
Get ready to rumble.
maye
do we get to see olson and boise (sp?) on tv for the next day or two? i like that pair.
GregB
The whole wingnut world is crumbling around them.
This is another chunk of stone falling from that edifice.
They are entering their desperate days.
They won’t even be able to suit up for the second half of the game.
Bob2
First news about Wall Street regs seeming to be working? then Handel? and now this?
and voter suppression actually making it into the mainstream media on occasion now?
pretty good day for liberal causes.
Brachiator
Tell it:
From the decision.
Satanicpanic
Excellent, it’s actually been a good couple weeks to be a liberal.
Legalize
No sense in going before the full panel. 1 adverse ruling is better than 2.
pseudonymous in nc
@Andrew Abshier: and cue standard wingnut “9th Circuit full of pinkos” whine.
scav
OK, I’ll allow myself a repost as this seems to be a good news thread, FBI investigates News Corp over corrupt foreign payments, so that’s bribery, not US-based phone-hacking, but this issue continues to bubble along nicely (if with fewer dancing yetis).
slag
@Baud: In compensation, liberals will have a constant reminder of the importance of the Supreme Court this election.
300baud
For those who’d rather have the ruling in PDF form:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf
trollhattan
I can’t wait to find out Clarence Thomas’ thinking about marriage equality. (Better still, Ginny’s.)
jibeaux
If Carolina beats Duke, this is going to be a helluva week.
Biff Longbotham
Errr…It would be wrong for me to wish that one or two certain Supreme Court judges slip on banana peels (or maybe a ravioli or a coke can) and have to retire to tend to their convalescence. Very wrong. Bad Biff!
trollhattan
@scav:
Why can’t they uncork a RICO investigation on Newscorp’s ass?
eric
I look forward to the request for expedited hearing before the Supremes. As for the reason……..to defeat the dark one.
pseudonymous in nc
It’s a deliberately narrowly-drawn ruling, helped by the very narrow ground that Prop 8 had to work with.
It’s been prepared very much with an eye on making the usual suspects on SCOTUS — who are all about the narrowly-drawn ruling these days — have to tie themselves in pretzels.
Legalize
@trollhattan:
Looks like the FBI is gearing up for a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation – which is similar to RICO, but for stuff done overseas. It’s no joke.
300baud
I like this quote:
JGabriel
From the Department of Fine Ironies:
Karen Handel announced a press conference for this afternoon to discuss her resignation from SGK and bask in a wingnut martyr publicity spotlight.
Now Handel’s conference is going to be overshadowed by all the discussion about the 9th circuit decision that, having given gays the right to marry, it is unconstitutional for California to take it away.
It’s turning into a delightfully shitty (or merdey?) month for wingnut causes célèbres.
.
The Moar You Know
@Legalize: The base will demand that no stone be left unturned. It will go all the way. 5-4. But which way?
It doesn’t matter, after all, Roe v. Wade is settled law and look at how that’s turned out.
askew
I’ve read that because the ruling was so narrow and only applied to California that the Supremes will likely refuse to hear it.
Any legal experts know if that is true?
jl
Good news, as commenter one says, is that timing not right for this thing to explode in middle of 2012 campaign, unless something outlandish happens.
I am sick of the whole issue. IMHO, the word ‘marriage’ has become so contaminated with religious overtones imputed to it by various religious sects that any government in the US issuing a marriage license is violating the separation of church and state.
So, do away with it. Governments should issue certificates of civil unions that establish rights and responsibilities based on good of society. Gay, lesbian, straight, whatever all treated on equal basis.
If people want to get married, they can find a church that will do it. I have confidence that sooner rather than later, anyone who wants to get married can find some kind of local church that will marry them.
A few of my straight and gay friends like my idea. But most don’t, for some reason.
Edit: Also too, I recommend the very Madisonian term ‘relgious sect’, or ‘Christian sect’ to describe all these Xtianist groups. Since that is what they are: weird hermetic intolerant sects. Also, the word sounds like ‘sex’ which is a bonus.
quannlace
And this would be different from any other way he’s behaved these days?
So, just as he claimed the rule that Catholic hospitals have to cover birth control for non-Catholic employees is ‘the worst assault on religion EVER!’
Now he can shriek this decision is ‘the worst assault on marriage EVER!’
*******
John may have mentioned it in previous threads, but has he said anything about how his dad is doing?
Gus
@pragmatism: Yeah, but it’s from Sully’s minions not from the Pooh himself, so it’s tainted.
Elizabelle
@JGabriel:
Yup. It’s a big news day.
trollhattan
@Legalize:
Excellent! Between that and what’s happening to them in the UK, there could be lasting damage to the Dark Side. Nothing equal to the damage they’ve caused, but I’ll take it.
pragmatism
@Gus: also, too, it’s just a nomination, not the award itself. reading phail on my part. back to hooked on fonics for me.
Nancy
@maye: Good on Olson for doing this, but it doesn’t undo all the other things he has done. If you are a woman, Bill Clinton, or an endangered species and are planning to spend time with him, you need to arm yourself with a crucifix, garlic, a vial of holy water, and a wooden stake to drive through his heart when he attacks you.
Bobby Thomson
@Legalize:
No, they’ll go en banc. Why not take another bite at the apple? The Supreme Court is just as free to tell the full panel to stick it and will give an en banc affirmation the same deference; i.e., zero.
Mark S.
I look forward to Scalia’s dissenting opinion, where he accuses the lavendar mafia of destroying the Constitution. I think this might kill him. Poor soul, he was just too high strung. I’m afraid the strain was too much for him to bear.
J. Michael Neal
@scav: As Legalize pointed out, a FCPA investigation is a big deal. Quite frankly, it’s a *lot* more dangerous for Newscorp than an investigation into domestic phone hacking would be. The FCPA explicitly attaches culpability to individuals as well as the company itself. It is also connected to Sarbanes-Oxley. Being found guilty can really fuck a firm.
Legalize
@The Moar You Know:
I mean they’ll try to go straight to the Supremes without getting an eb banc decision from the Ninth Circuit. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supremes refused to grant cert. I think they have gotten over fucking over the gays; they’ve moved on.
trollhattan
@Mark S.:
I’m guessing Scalia’s won’t be the dissenting opinion.
JGabriel
Legalize:
The Moar You Know:
Right, but do the Prop H8 supporters have to go to the full 9th Circuit panel before applying to SCOTUS? I didn’t think that was required, but I could be wrong.
Lawyers? Bueller? Anyone?
.
scav
@J. Michael Neal: only get’s better, doesn’t it?
(I admit, I’m always getting the two inquiries, elvden? and tweedlesomething? mixed up when reading the Guard — doing my best.) ETA: and I’ll also come clean that I really thought it would be the corporate hacking that would get them in the US. I’m more than happy to be wrong on that if the current issue is as nasty as you say.
Cat Lady
The surface of the wingnut bubble is hard, but it is being bombarded by justice.
jibeaux
@jl:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think it’s because people in general want to get married.
Stillwater
@Bobby Thomson: But why think the SC will even hear the case? The 9th decided the case on the merits: initiatives can’t take away already granted rights.
I don’t see this as a case the court would want to hear, since the only way a reversal could be justified is by permitting initiatives to repeal already granted rights.
Would the SC really want to go down that road?
Litlebritdifrnt
@quannlace: This is a GOS link but a poll says that the majority of Catholics agree with POTUS.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/07/1062505/-Sorry-GOP-Poll-of-Catholics-finds-majority-supports-birth-control-coverage-
Legalize
@Bobby Thomson:
Right, but do they want TWO adverse rulings in the news right now? Isn’t public opinion pretty much irrevocably against them at this point? Maybe they do want to keep it going; maybe they’ll count on such a thing getting the rubes all frothy. I don’t know. But my guess is that they want this to get before the Supremes as soon as possible. Can’t let the poutrage wear out between now and the election.
middlewest
Page 38 of the decision:
This is a fun read.
fasteddie9318
Yet another big government assault on the Freedom of Some Approved Religions to dehumanize, debase, oppress and condemn large swaths of the populace. When will this War on Some Approved Religions end?
JGabriel
@pragmatism:
It’s a nomination, not an award, but I’m sure DougJ feels it’s an honor just to be nominated.
DougJ, DUDE! {high five} Congratulations.
.
gex
@The Moar You Know: What we’ve seen in the states with SSM is that people actually get over it mostly. As it really doesn’t effect them, they only care when they can prevent it. They care a lot less after. Not all of ’em. But enough. At least, that was the MA experience.
Betsy
@pseudonymous in nc: Oh, do, do say more! How so?
Hawes
If they appeal to the full 9th circuit, I think it’s upheld. Given how narrow the ruling is: namely with regards to Prop 8 in California and not marriage equality in general, I could actually see the Supremes take a pass on this.
Scalia is actually on shaky ideological grounds here, Kennedy is mushy and Roberts, of course, is a closet case. Better to let this sleeping dog lie.
jl
@jibeaux:
People could still get married, they just would have to go to a church to a get a piece of paper with the word ‘marriage’ on it.
Governments would give them a piece of paper with the word ‘civil union’ on it.
Problem solved. I am just sick of the whole silly debate, and especially sick of religious crazies who perpetuate the nonsense.
And I have decided that marriage licenses are unconstitutional.
If this nonsense drags on much longer, I will start writing deranged letters to the muslin dictador potentate in chief to decree a universal free sex policy. That would solve the problem too.
pragmatism
@JGabriel: yeah, i acknowledged this upthread. me no read gud.
Culture of Truth
If what you want is adverse rulings from a court, then yes, 2 is better than 1.
Tractarian
@JGabriel:
You don’t have to seek en banc consideration before petitioning for cert to SCOTUS. See FRAP 35.
Butch
@Andrew Abshier: Actually the phrase from the Family Research Council (Perkins) turned out to be “judicial tyranny.” Close.
Loneoak
@jl:
Oh, that’s good to know. Thanks for sorting that one out for us.
Jennifer
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.
burnspbesq
@Legalize:
It’s still only one ruling. If the case is reheard en banc, the en banc opinion supersedes the panel opinion.
jl
Did Deranged Self Apellattioner DougJ Spooferama really get a Moore Award?
Congratulations to DougJ, then.
I hope it was for something really silly. That would be icing on the cake for DougJ.
jl
@Loneoak: You are welcome.
burnspbesq
@jibeaux:
Bwahahaha. 96-56, Tarholes.
JGabriel
Bobby Thomson:
Why? What’s the advantage to going en banc if both sides intend to go to the Supreme Court anyway. It adds time and cost to the action, without any discernible benefit, unless I’m missing something?
.
Culture of Truth
Justice Anthony Kennedy:
“Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”
gex
@Legalize: My guess is they will want this to be the last statement on SSM until November, so they can get whatever mileage they can about the evil secularists attack on all that is good and decent or however they decide to frame it.
Bobby Thomson
They give as much of a shit about public opinion as does the Supreme Court. Nada. Only the opinions of five people in this country matter.
gex
@jibeaux: More like: as a gay person, it is really frustrating to see interfaith marriages and non-believer marriages and have NO ONE have a problem. Not even the libertarians who now just want government out of marriage.
The fact is, no one thought about doing any of these things about marriage until we wanted it. And they act like we’re so contaminated we need to do something completely different now.
ETA: Further, if we indeed did decide that marriage is a religious thing, I believe SSM would be instantly legal. There is at least one Christian or Jewish sect that endorses SSM. Yet, to some, we need to change the whole system because of gays.
Villago Delenda Est
@Butch:
Yeah, well Tony can sit on it and spin.
Maus
I’m sure the self-ascripted “constitutional experts” and greater Paultardia will accept this gracefully.
chopper
full panel next, maybe supremes, maybe not.
the ruling was relatively narrow. it didn’t weigh in on whether or not gay marriage should be legal (tho they did in a sidebar say they’d like to weigh in on that). rather it was limited to the CA situation, which was where the state legislature decided to legalize it then prop 8 took it away.
taking away a right already ‘granted’ should have a higher bar in terms of the state’s compelling interest vs continuing to deny such right from the beginning.
prop 8 supporters painted themselves into a corner. they gave the court an easy pitch and now, assuming the full panel agrees, gay marriage is straight-up legal in CA. and where CA goes the rest of the country will eventually go.
Quincy
Because of the judicial stay, gay marriage still won’t be allowed in CA while this is being appealed. The reasoning behind requesting a hearing by the full 9th Circuit would be to keep things that way for as long as possible. If SCOTUS does hear it, I expect they’ll uphold it. The ruling is narrow, I’m not sure it would affect any state other than CA, and I can’t see how Kennedy could possibly distinguish this from Romer v Evans. Again, that wouldn’t be the definitive ruling on same-sex marriage nationwide, but it would be a pretty large symbolic victory and of course wonderful for the people of CA.
JGabriel
pragmatism: Oops, sorry for the redundacy then.
Tractarian:
Thanks, Tractarian. That’s what I thought.
.
Mark S.
@trollhattan:
I think it’s more likely than not Scalia will be in the minority. As Culture of Truth noted, the 9th Circuit based their opinion largely on Romer, a Kennedy opinion.
RedKitten
@jl:
You know what? No. Problem NOT solved. I don’t like that “separate but equal” shit, and neither should anybody else.
Marriage has been around, as a social construct, since LONG before Christianity has existed. So why the fuck should the Bible-thumpers have dibs on the word?
Let me tell you right now: if we did it the way you suggest, it would absolutely give the religious nuts fuel to think that THEIR marriages are so much more superior to those godless civil unions. And how much easier would it then be for legislation/policies/procedures to subtly screw over people who don’t have “marriages”, if the political climate became favourable to that sort of thing?
No. Fuck that. The word “marriage” holds a lot more societal, historical, and yes, romantic meaning than the words “civil union”, and I will be damned if I’m going to give the churchies fodder to refer to non-religious marriages as “just” civil unions.
In Canada, the way we do it is that if you get married, you ARE married. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight. It doesn’t matter if you got married in a cathedral or a cornfield. You are JUST as married as the next couple. No differences. All perfectly equal and the same, under the eyes of the law and society.
THAT is “problem solved”.
Marcelo
@Culture of Truth:
Exactly. The brilliance of this legal challenge is that it is crafted expertly to appeal specifically to Kennedy’s own rulings and his own arguments in other cases. If the SCOTUS decides to overturn the ruling and legalize Prop 8 it will have to throw down a steaming pile of confused logic so twisted that it’ll make Bush v. Gore look like Brown v. Board.
Not that SCOTUS members aren’t crazy enough to try to thread that needle, but it’s a pretty heavy thumb on the scale.
pragmatism
@JGabriel: nah, my bad. i started laughing because the nomination is for dougjarvus green-ellis and in my giddiness conflated the nomination with the award itself. we’ll freep the award voting when the time comes.
Bobby Thomson
@JGabriel:
Because the Supreme Court may not take it. You always want to be the party that doesn’t need the Supreme Court to hear it.
Villago Delenda Est
@Maus:
Well, if you’re a “Constitutional Scholar” like, say Anne Coulter, then I’m sure you’ll nod sagely and agree that this ruling makes perfect sense.
Gosh, I crack myself up sometimes.
gex
@Legalize: They are fueled by a persecution complex. The Christianists that have been infusing our government with religion have always been in the minority but they wordsmith their bullshit to dupe other Christians and generally do pretty well fighting when they thing they are under siege.
Emma
@RedKitten: Amen, sister.
Villago Delenda Est
@RedKitten:
Yup, I used to be a “call it a ‘Civil Union’ and end this shit” person, but you’re right on in your assessment.
Quincy
@middlewest:
I really enjoyed that line as well. It amuses me that the opinion included so many marriage cracks as if to point out that it is equally unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to complain about marriage as it is to deny them the right to enjoy marriage.
Legalize
@Bobby Thomson:
Hmm, not really true. They have an outsized concern over what the mouth-breathers think. Without constant poutrage from them, they have very little.
gex
@RedKitten: WOOT! Thanks! So many well meaning people try to “help” gays by offering to let us be the ones that took the ball and went home if we didn’t get our way. All the straight people that can’t marry anymore can be pissed off at us. That won’t get ugly.
jibeaux
@gex: Yeah, that too. Civil unions started as a “separate but equal” proposition, and even talking about them with good intentions, as a sort of secular marriage, will have that tinge to it. Plus I think it seems unnecessary. If your marriage is informed by religion, fine, but plenty of people have secular marriages. Hell, if just for the nomenclature alone. Who wants to talk about their life partner all the time or life partner’s mother or their cousin by life partnership?
JGabriel
@Bobby Thomson:
My question was badly worded. If the groups taking action against Prop 8 had lost, I assume they would have appealed, up to SCOTUS if necessary.
In the current situation, with the Prop 8 defenders as the losers, I can see why proponents of gay marriage might prefer goining en banc first, but they aren’t the ones bringing the appeal.
Why would the Prop H8’ers want to go en banc first, before going to SCOTUS? Especially since the 9th is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits, particularly by the type of wingnuts bringing and funding the appeal.
.
chopper
@Mark S.:
yeh, one of the 3 judges really pushed romer. wink and a nod, i guess.
Paul in KY
@JGabriel: Way to go, Doug! I even went to the freaking site to read it.
Cat Lady
Watching these proceedings from Mass. is just so much meh. It’s just a big nothingburger for everyone other than people of the same sex who want to get married. I will never understand why anyone else would remotely care about how some random strangers want to live together, never mind taking it up as a life’s cause.
Butch
I was just going to mention the reliance on Romer vs. Evans, but I see I was beat to it….
Martin
For our lawyerly folk:
Do they really want to appeal this? Wouldn’t this argument:
set a precedent that would apply to every state? Wouldn’t this be a direct parallel to Loving and strip every state of the ability to ban gay marriage?
chopper
@RedKitten:
it’s only ‘separate but equal’ if the gummint hands one group a paper saying ‘marriage’ and one group a paper saying ‘civil unions’. if the government is only in the business of handing out secular civil unions (and those benefits) to everyone and religions call it whatever they want for religious reasons in religious ceremonies it isn’t really ‘separate but equal’.
how do you stop religions from having ceremonies only for straight people and calling it ‘marriage’?
they already do that in states where gay marriage is legal. they’re never going to stop thinking ‘their marriages’ are superior to the gay ones even if they’re both called ‘marriages’.
Villago Delenda Est
@Cat Lady:
That’s the thing. Why they hell should you care about what random strangers are doing in a matter like this? It doesn’t impact you in any material way.
No, it’s the old impulse that ZOMG someone, somewhere is having fun. Nooooooooooooooooo!
KG
There’s no requirement for them to go en banc. Usually you do that when you think the panel messed up and it’s not the kind of case the Supremes would take. If this goes anywhere from here it’ll go to the Supremes.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Supremes take it. There is a wider issue of ballot initiatives on civil rights issues. From what I’ve read of the decision, it says: voters can’t use initiatives to take away rights of minorities, that’s a violation of the equal protection clause. That’ll be very hard for any of the justices to go against, in part because it’ll basically require overturning at least 50 years worth of precedent on the equal protection clause.
kindness
None of it matters to the fundies. Something in them demands they feel they are being persecuted because of their faith. Of course they would prefer to be persecuted by heathen liberals, but in a pinch they’ll take anyone. It’s how they motivate themselves.
For myself, I don’t get that. Here you have a group of people who insist ‘their’ god is the most awesome everything yet at the same time ‘their’ god is so small and impotent that their god can’t change the minds of humans.
Thank the FSM for salvation. Pass the parmisian.
ShadeTail
@jl:
Fuck that noise. The reason so many people disagree with you on this is because you aren’t proposing to give gays equal rights, you’re proposing to downgrade everyone else. My husband and I are not in some shitty “civil union”, we’re *married*. And my lesbian sister-in-law should be able to marry also.
Also, you’re giving up the argument, letting those religious crazies win, by allowing them to frame the issue. It has always been called marriage throughout human history, and they want to own it. Congratulations, you’re letting them have what they want. And they won’t stop there. They’re going to keep fighting equality even if you let them have the word “marriage” for themselves. Again, fuck that noise.
Villago Delenda Est
@chopper:
You don’t, but you make it so it doesn’t matter in the eyes of the law. The Catholic Church doesn’t formally acknowledge marriages performed outside of it. So, Newt Gingrich can convert and marry “within the Church” to his third wife because as far as the Church is concerned, the first two marriages don’t exist.
If the state calls something a “marriage”, though, and all the legal benefits accrue regardless of male/female, male/male, or female/female (or, in the case of Rick Santorum, man on dog) that’s what most of us see as a marriage, without regard to what the Catholic Church considers to be one. In this country, the Catholic Church does not dictate social policy.
KG
@chopper: marriage isn’t just a religious institution. It’s been a civil institution since Ancient Greece (where magistrates, government employees, would conduct marriage ceremonies). Changing the name to “civil unions” is asinine because it’s still marriage, that is what we’ve known it as for a few thousand years now. And I refuse to kowtow to a bunch of reactionary cretins who would plunge us into the dark ages if they had their way.
Legalize
@Martin:
They don’t see it in those terms. Precedent does not apply to their particular set of petty grievances.
Martin
@Villago Delenda Est:
What country do you live in? It sounds nice. I might like to move there.
JGabriel
@Martin:
Not really. It’s an argument that a right, already granted by the state, cannot be be revoked merely by popular vote. That means it only applies to states where gays were given the right to marry, and then had it revoked by a voting initiative.
So, yes, it applies to every state (or, more precisely, every state covered by the 9th Circuit), but California is currently the only state that meets those circumstances and criteria.
.
Dave
What a no-brainer. Marriage is a civil institution, which is why clerks give out licenses to marry and not priests. It’s why the federal government hands out tax breaks based on marriage status and not churches. And it’s why we shouldn’t put civil rights to a popular vote.
The only surprise is that it took a court this long to fucking recognize the fact.
RedKitten
Do you really think that the fundies would be happy to receive a “civil union certificate” from the government after they get hitched? Sure, they could receive a non-legally-binding, just-for-show “marriage certificate” from their church, but they are NOT going to agree to the legal paper being called a “civil union certificate”. No way, no how.
how do you stop religions from having ceremonies only for straight people and calling it ‘marriage’?
You don’t. You just make sure that you call secular ceremonies for straight people, and secular ceremonies for gay people “marriage” as well.
If the religious folk want to have a special magical ceremony to make themselves feel superior to the atheists and the gays, then they’re free to do that. But they can make up their OWN word for that. They didn’t invent “marriage”, and I’ll be damned if I let them take it all for themselves.
RedKitten
But why encourage that thinking by letting them have sole dibs on a word with so much cultural and historical significance?
gex
@ShadeTail: And setting up the gays to be scape goated by the people who got downgraded. They had a marriage til those gays had to go get uppity.
Villago Delenda Est
@Martin:
I didn’t say they don’t try to dictate social policy (see current dustup over ACA) but that they don’t get to.
jl
@RedKitten:
OK, if we can disinfect the word ‘marriage’ from sectarian religious connotations, that would be problem solved too. Not sure how that can be done in a reasonable time frame.
And in meantime a lot of people get discriminated against in terms of legal rights.
I am a liberal Christian, and I have absolutely no interest at all in a piece of paper from the gummint that has the word ‘marriage’ on it. I do have an interest in everyone getting equal treatment before the law, and sooner the better.
But, i realize others may disagree.
Maybe I am just so pissed at various Christian sects for their nonsense, that my attitude is “OK, if you bigots are so worried about the government messing up your holy matrimony gig, we will just get the government out of it altogether. As far as the government is concerned, you are not married anymore, you are ‘civil unioned’. Congratulations and get out of my effing face about it.”
scav
Furthermore, those are both my uncles and I can visit either one in hospital, the one with the shared mitochondria and my really really favorite one that gets Dr. Who, no matter that they had to be carted off to a Catholic-run hospital that doesn’t like their committed relationship. My. Uncles. Both.
Martin
@Legalize: Let me put it another way:
What’s the distinction between a case like this and Loving, where the former wouldn’t apply to other states, but the latter does? Is it that the latter was brought by people disenfranchised and run up to the top, where this is not – it’s a squabble between courts, mainly?
IOW, it would require someone to sue the state of Oklahoma, for instance, for not allowing them to marry and getting that same argument quoted above? And would that yield a different result than someone suing the US government for not recognizing their legal MA marriage due to DOMA?
gex
@RedKitten: Because it is not his/her fight and he/she don’t give a fuck. Our struggle for equality is apparently irritating to some.
RedKitten
@ShadeTail:
This. Exactly this. I got married in the U.S., and I will be damned if I’m going to let a bunch of homophobic crotch-weasels try to downgrade my marriage to the cold and loveless-sounding “civil union”.
Martin
@JGabriel: Got it. So it’d prevent IA from overturning their own gay marriage ruling (and MA, etc.), but not create a new right in Alabama, for instance.
Culture of Truth
Yes, but they want to lose. They want to whine about the Scotus for the next 40 years.
scav
and GSD, there were parallel systems of getting married, socially recognized and church recognized in the bloody 1500s in Europe. It was been a freaking power play by the Church run then and it is again.
chopper
@Villago Delenda Est:
you have the government call it all ‘marriage’ and the fundies are just going to start calling theirs ‘real marriage’ and being sanctimonious pricks about it, as they’ve always been.
i’m a big fan of ‘marriage’ being secular and most importantly completely open. i think a woman or a dude should be able to have as many partners as they want. i think a mom and her daughter should be able to enter a civil union to make sure one of them is taken care of or gets benefits. if a dude wants to enter a union with his brother to make sure he’s taken care of cause he has huntington’s disease, that’s great.
ShadeTail
Actually, you’re dead wrong. The concept of “separate but equal” came from arguments for and against Jim Crow segregation, which was about *everything*, both public and private. And “marriage” has plenty of different meanings, both social and legal. The very idea of “civil unions” has always been a matter of separate but equal. Codifying it into law does not change the fact that most people want to get *married*, not civil-unioned, and your idea would prevent that.
Beside the point. This is about what people want from their government, not what religious institutions decide to do.
Which is an argument *against* ceding the point to them. You don’t let bigots and bullies write the law for you.
piratedan
so why not sell the wingnuts on Premium Marriage, since everyone and anyone can get married, but only religious fundies of the opposite sex can get Premium Marriages….damn, there’s a business opportunity just begging to be filled. :-)
gelfling545
@gex: Much of what you say is true but in part because raising the issue of marriage rights has led many to examine what marriage may be and what interest the state may have in it. Marriage (for anyone) is not what it was 100, or even 50, years ago and it may be that the state’s interest (support of children, transference of property, enforcement of contracts, whatever) can be safeguarded by means other that certifying marriage. Churches see a moral commitment, a religious vow, etc. and that would be (can only be, really)certified by the sect itself.
Philosophically, I don’t see marriage as being terribly useful in out society anymore. Frankly, when I stood listening to my brother-in-law saying marriage vows for the 3rd time in 10 years I decided the whole thing was a farce. I do, however, understand that there is a great weight of symbolism, social acceptability and, under our current laws, financial benefit to the condition of being “married”.
Martin
@RedKitten:
But I don’t see how it downgrades it. The Catholic Church doesn’t get exclusive rights to marriage, and the UUs and a zillion others are happy to call a gay union a marriage. What it does it divorce the word ‘marriage’ from it’s legal implications and confer all of the legal rights on the term ‘civil union’, which you would still have. And even if the state retained the use of ‘marriage’, you’re never going to get the Catholic (or any other church) to recognize your marriage under their tenets, so that part doesn’t change either.
I mean, if the church says you are married, you are married – and if the church wants to revoke your marriage they’ll do that too, and that’s how it is now. If you want to file one tax return instead of two, then you need this other document, and who fucking cares what the church says about that?
chopper
@RedKitten:
they’ll never be happy, fuck em. the religious side of this shit is a non-starter for me, cause they’ll come up with whatever they want just to be spiteful dicks.
in fact, let’s have the government give them a ‘civil union certificate’ just to fuck with them. in bold letters, it also says ‘JUST LIKE WE GIVE THE GAYS’.
@gex:
GFY.
Villago Delenda Est
@chopper:
So what if the fundies do? They’ve lost the fight. The state calls two lesbians “married” and there is not a single thing the fundies can do about it. They can call their marriages “real marriage” all they want, but they’ll just be further oppressed by our laughing at it.
JGabriel
@Martin:
Pretty much, with the caveat that it wouldn’t necessarily apply in IA or MA, because they’re covered by different Federal Circuit Courts, and it would only apply to gay marriage being overturned by popular vote.
But if SCOTUS adopted that reasoning, then it would apply in IA, MA, NY, etc. as well.
At least that’s how I understand it, but I’m not a lawyer. As others have noted, however, it’s a pretty narrow ruling.
.
geg6
@Biff Longbotham:
The only thing wrong with that is that you don’t go far enough. I’d be fine if they choked on one of them and nobody around knew the Heimlich.
But then, I’m nasty like that.
jl
@RedKitten: You do make a good point about the concept of marriage not being an ‘Xtianist thang’. In principle, I agree with you.
But I want the damned problem solved as quickly as possible, and get people access to civilized treatment, whoever they are.
I guess there is no way to solve this problem. I am a straight liberal Christian who does not give a moldy fig what word the government puts down on paper, as long as everyone is treated fairly. But others disagree, so there is no easy or quick solution.
Legalize
@Martin:
Oh I don’t disagree with your assessment of the thorniness of the legal questions involved. I’m not sure how’d they’d work out as precedential value. My guess is that lawyers in ever other state would try their best to analogize the 9th’s decision to a set of facts and law in their own state. Some courts would say, “yeah, we’d apply that reasoning too.” Some wouldn’t. And we’d work it up the flagpole some day – or we wouldn’t. The question would likely become moot simply because states tend to follow suit eventually. Things just get worked out.
But my point is, wingers don’t give a shit about generally applicable precedent. They’ll argue that their particular set of prejudices and superstitions deserve to be recognized above all others. To them, their petty grievances are special and cannot be analogized to anything else. They are the most best upon victims on earth, ya know.
RedKitten
It doesn’t necessarily have to be disinfected, per se. Just shared. Up here in Canuckistan, there are still plenty of church weddings, and religious folks still see marriage as one of God’s sacraments. They might be pissed about gays being allowed to call themselves “married”, but they know that they’re in the minority on this.
And I think that’s the key — taking advantage of the fact that most people in the US ARE for same-sex marriage, and reminding your elected representatives of this fact on a regular basis.
Think about it — back in ’96, only a quarter of Americans were for same-sex marriage. Now, 53% are. That’s a huge change in just one generation.
MOST Americans favour legal same-sex marriage. You already have the power to solve the problem. You just have to act like it, tell your reps to smarten up, and stop sitting on your collective thumbs and acting as though the anti-gays are outnumbering you. They’re not.
Martin
@Culture of Truth:
Don’t they already have that? I mean, Roe V Wade keeps paying benefits on that front. And they’re happy to go back to Griswold when that collection plate starts to look bare, and they’ll go back to Plessy if they have to.
Do they really need more manufactured reasons to be pissed at SCOTUS?
chopper
@Martin:
exactly. why do the government and religious organizations own the term ‘marriage’? in religious terms ‘marriage’ connotes all sorts of religious shit. in front of uncle sam it implies all sorts of contractual shit.
why let those two groups tell you what you call your relationship? call it fucking marriage if you want to. if you want the nice gummint benefits, get the piece of paper with all the secular mumbo-jumbo on it. if you want to feel all special in front of baby jesus get a ‘catholic extra-super marriage’ in front of your priest.
Quincy
@Martin:
This decision didn’t hold that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, or even that a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay couples from getting married, along with the other rights associated with marriage (related adoption, visitation, etc.) would be unconstitutional. All it held was that where a state has granted gay couples the ability to get married and all of the associated rights, and then that state takes away gay couples’ ability to use the term “marriage” despite not taking away any of the associated rights, there can be no reason for the state doing so other than to discriminate against gay couples, and that is unconstitutional.
The opinion leaves open the possibility that states might have some legitimate constitutional reason outside of discrimination for denying gay couples the ability to marry where the couples are also being denied some of the rights that go along with marriage. Also, in states where civil unions grant gay couples all of the same rights as marriage without the right to use the term “marriage” but where the state has never granted and taken away the right to use that term, it isn’t clear from this opinion that not granting the right to use the term is unconstitutional. Taking away that right once its been granted is the discriminatory act in question here.
Villago Delenda Est
@Legalize:
Madison had these dipshits’ number over two centuries ago.
Princess
Vienna Teng, “City Hall” in honour of the decision:
RedKitten
I can totally sympathize with that. Seriously. I guess I just worry that if SS couples settle for less than completely equal footing, it makes it way too easy for them to continue to get screwed over in a million subtle ways. “Oh whoops, your insurance policy wasn’t updated to include coverage for partners of civil unions, just married spouses. We can change it going forward, but I’m afraid we can’t grandfather anything in, so that cancer treatment for your partner? We won’t be able to cover that…”
ShadeTail
@chopper:
OK, this proves that you really don’t get it. We’re not letting anyone tell us what to call marriage. The entire point here is: *that’s what we want to call it*. It is *our* word, not theirs.
Culture of Truth
Yes! Waiter, bring me some FRESH whine!!
jl
@RedKitten:
Well, one important angle of my thinking is that I am pretty absolutist regarding separation of church and state.
And I am very old school Madisonian about it.
So, the more bigoted groups harp on the religious aspect of marriage the more my gut instinct tells me that the right thing to do is just trashcan the word ‘marriage’, governmentwise. As far as the government is concerned, EVERYONE IS EXACTLY EQUAL civil unioned, and NO ONE is government ‘married’.
But, I realize that feelings get hurt with that approach. I honestly do not understand why, since I sincerely do not give a damn what word is used on government documents for me or my sig oth, or whether any nonessential religious or sentimental BS is imputed to the government words. But I realize that others disagree deeply.
And that is what makes the situation so intractable. But as, I think, you pointed out, the side of reason is winning, I just wish there was a way to get it done quicker.
middlewest
Wow, the dissent basically argues that if you bash your head into a brick wall and squint, you might see something that vaguely resembles a rational basis for Prop 8, and that’s good enough.
pseudonymous in nc
@askew:
I’m not a legal expert, but the usual reasons for granting cert. are that the opinions coming out of different federal circuits on the same issue are sufficiently different that they need to be resolved, or that SCOTUS thinks the circuit court of appeals completely overreached.
Looking at the dissent, though, it reads a little bit like a roadmap for Scalia.
giltay
@pragmatism:
They don’t seem to mind going to the courts to override the will of the voters on constitutional grounds if they think the President is a secret Kenyan.
@RedKitten: What’s more, Canadian law won’t recognize mere civil unions as marriages, precisely because they aren’t the same. You may recall in the furor over denying that married-in-Canada couple the right to divorce, there was another couple who were denied the right to divorce since they only had a civil partnership from the UK, not a full marriage.
(You can argue about whether that’s just, since they would have married if they could, but it does show that it isn’t equal.)
Martin
OT: But can I just say, as middle class white guy who looks like he should have ‘Republican’ written all over him, how much I love the first lady and the first family in general. I really, really value work. I’m way too Catholic Irish that way, but I am just overjoyed to see a garden at the White House and a first lady that does push-ups and so on – and doesn’t just advocate for things, but actively leads by example. No objections to the Bush families or the Clintons – this isn’t a opinion based on substance – but this first family really resonates with what I envision as an ideal American family, and what I value in my own family, and every time I see what they’re doing, it makes me happy.
I don’t know how widely shared that view is, but when the GOP attacks this family, I can’t help but feel like it’s my family being attacked because other than the color of our skin and the fact that their house is fucktons nicer than mine, I don’t think my family is really any different from theirs or that our values are any different from theirs. I don’t think the GOP realizes just how deep that cost is.
Calouste
@JGabriel:
Washington will be the next state pretty soon. The bill has gone through the Senate and is now in the House. And after that, there will be an initiative to repeal it. I assume the opinion was written with that particular case in mind as well.
Mouse Tolliver
In other good gay news, JC Penney just told 1 million homophobic rightwing moms to go frak themselves. It’s not 1997 anymore.
pete
@jl: As noted above, it’s a Moore Award nomination only so far [do not click this link] but I like to think it reflects appreciation of Doug’s entire body of work. Applause.
Legalize
@Villago Delenda Est:
A historical fact (like many others) that is permanently lost on them. Madison didn’t mean THEM, after all.
Interrobang
They might be pissed about gays being allowed to call themselves “married”, but they know that they’re in the minority on this.
And it’s kind of amazing how many people who might have been against same-sex marriage suddenly found themselves either in the “for it” or “what do I care, how does it affect me?” categories when their sibling/coworker/cousin/child/Member of Parliament etc. etc. etc. got married to someone of the same sex, and not only did the world not end, but the happy couple looked cute and blushy in their wedding pictures, lots of wine was consumed at the reception, and a good (and remarkably normative) time was had by all.
Funny how that works.
The Moar You Know
Guys, this is not hard:
That I can go visit my wife in the hospital anytime I want, while my buddy can’t visit his spouse in the hospital anytime he wants, just because they’ve got a different pair of organs, is insane.
That I can draw up a will and leave my vast guitar collection to my wife, while my buddy can’t leave, oh I don’t know, his furniture to his spouse, just because they’ve got a different pair of organs, is insane.
That I can check into any hotel in this country with my wife, while my buddy and his spouse will, at best, get a hard time about it just because they’ve got a different pair of organs if they stop in the wrong fucking place is beyond insane.
Civil unions for all? An insult. It cedes the language battle, the legal battle, and hands the conservatives what they want. The time for compromising with these people is over. They were never interested in any solution to any of our nation’s problems, including this one, that didn’t involve all people of a reasonable bent of mind being bulldozed into trenches. So stop pretending they can be negotiated with and start demanding everything. There is no such thing as compromise anymore.
pragmatism
@giltay: or a fat al gore.
Mnemosyne
@jl:
I’m guessing that you’ve either never been married or haven’t been married recently, because you just spelled out the exact system that we have right now as a brand-new innovation.
Seriously. In order to get married, you file paperwork with the state, and the state says, “Okay, neither one of you is currently in a marriage contract with anyone else, so you’re legally cleared to get married.” Once you have that, you can walk across the hallway and have a clerk sign off on it, or you can take it to whoever your state designates as an official signer-offer (often clergy, but not only clergy) and have them do the ceremony.
This is why the whole “OMG gays getting married!” thing is so stupid: we already have civil marriage in the US. The religious piece is optional. And, frankly, the religious assholes know that.
gex
All the people who don’t understand why marriage is a civil institution, here’s this.
Family is the first stop for social services. Then government. Because my company is good enough to give me partner benefits, and my partner is unemployed, the taxpayers of Minnesota are saved the expense of covering her medical care under MNCare. It is a public policy/social policy sort of thing.
All anyone else can think of it as is a religious rite or conflates it with just sex, judging by the debate we are having over SSM. No one has brought up the point I just made.
FlipYrWhig
@chopper: Re: your example of union-ing between brothers, I had a similar idea. In France, IIRC, they have a pacte de civile solidarité, I think it’s spelled. From a secular/civil perspective, what the state needs to know is who has opted to organize as a household. So why not open that up to scenarios like adult siblings living together, Two and a Half Men and Kate and Allie type arrangements, whatever? You have a civil solidarity pact, you share responsibilities and benefits, done. You can also Get Married if you want to do that, however you like — civil ceremony, no ceremony, church ceremony, whatever floats your proverbial boat.
Bobby Thomson
@JGabriel:
Here’s why. Let me set up the following decision tree.
Scenario One: No en banc rehearing. Possible outcomes: (1) cert. denied. Proposition Eight proponents lose.
(2) cert. granted. 2-1 decision is affirmed. Proposition Eight proponents lose.
(3) cert. granted. 2-1 decision is reversed. Proposition Eight proponents win – at least temporarily, depending on how the decision is reversed.
Scenario Two: En banc rehearing. Possible outcomes: (1) Full panel reverses. Prop 8 opponents go to Supremes. cert. denied. Proposition Eight proponents win.
(2) Full panel reverses. Prop 8 opponents go to Supremes. cert. granted. Supreme Court affirms the full ninth circuit. Proposition Eight proponents win.
(3) Full panel reverses. Prop 8 opponents go to Supremes. cert. granted. Supreme Court reverses the full ninth circuit. Proposition Eight proponents lose.
(4) Full panel affirms. Prop 8 defenders go to Supremes. cert. denied. Prop 8 defenders lose.
(5) Full panel affirms. Prop 8 defenders go to Supremes. cert granted. Supreme Court affirms. Prop 8 defenders lose.
(6) Full panel affirm. Prop 8 defenders go to Supremes. Supreme Court reverses. Prop 8 defenders win.
By going en banc, prop 8 defenders go from being behind the eight ball to giving themselves two additional ways to win. More importantly, there is no downside for them. It’s not as though they have any worse chance with Kennedy after going en banc.
gex
@jl: Well, it’s quick and easy if we just let you dictate it the way you seem to want to because you are tired of the debate.
I’m sorry that you as a liberal straight Christian have been put out by the whole issue. Sheesh. Tune out if you are sick of it, instead of offering me up for separate but equal treatment.
Mnemosyne
Also, too — people who get all teary-eyed over how religious their marriage is seem to have forgotten the whole part where they stood in line at the county clerk’s office to get their license.
And when you get your official marriage certificate in the mail, it’s printed on the same paper as the title to your car.
ETA: For our wedding, the officiant was very careful to remind us (multiple times) to BRING THE DAMN LICENSE when we came to the church, because otherwise we weren’t going to be married at the end of it no matter what she said during the ceremony.
AxelFoley
@jibeaux:
Fuckin’ A!
slag
@Martin:
Indeed.
I don’t actually like the word “marriage” because I loathe all of the historical/cultural baggage that goes with it. To me “marriage” says nothing about romance or commitment or partnership and everything about property rights.
But the Obamas, and the many families I know just like them, do make the word somewhat endearing. Somewhat.
jl
@Mnemosyne: Yes, I understand the process.
I guess I am just tired of the debate, and want it solved for everyone.
And after deep reflection, of my inner inmost being, I have to admit that I would savor the butt hurt of the Xtianists if the majority said to them
“Yeahhh, you know, we been thinking about all the problems this equal marriage for all causes you on religious grounds, so we got rid of the word ‘marriage’ as far as the government is concerned. Everyone is civil unioned now, including you people. Congratulations, why not take a second civil union moon? You people want to dither over your (edit Xtianist notions of) holy matrimony thing, do it in the church of your choice.”
jl
@gex: I’m not offering a separate but equal treatment. But I will tune out, as you suggest. I did not mean to hurt anyone’s feelings.
les
@chopper:
Another reason not to do the “marriage/civil union” split, and let churches have marriage–currently, marriage is a purely civil status. You’re only married if you have a state marriage license, signed by someone authorized by the state. There is no purely religious event or status that constitutes marriage; the only reason a priest or minister or such can officially sign a marriage certificate is because they’re authorized by the state. Fuck the churches; if they don’t like equal rights for gays in marriage, let them get a law passed recognizing their skydaddy fest as some kind of civil union.
Same sex couples should, and have to, get the same deal that all the other couples do–fully secular, state sanctioned marriage.
slag
@gex: jl wasn’t making the case for separate but equal. Separate but equal would be straight people getting to use the term “marriage” while gay people get to use the term “civil unions”. That’s not what jl was advocating.
giltay
@pragmatism: Truth!
les
@jl:
Dude: no matter what your church did or didn’t do, if you don’t have that piece of paper, you ain’t married.
Mnemosyne
@jl:
After so many years of this debate, I’ve gone the opposite direction — I started out saying, “Civil unions are good enough,” but now I am a firm believer that the simplest solution is to take the gender restrictions off the existing system. There’s no need to build something brand new from the ground up when we have a perfectly functional system in place already.
@slag:
Oddly, I do think that one of our best arguments is to emphasize the legal aspects of marriage rather than the emotional/religious ones. There really is a whole package of rights and responsibilities that go along with forming that contract that people need to be reminded of when they start to go off into the weeds of emotionalism.
(Edited ’cause I felt like it.)
Mouse Tolliver
@Interrobang: And the sales lady at the bridal shop was happy because she got two commissions of a single wedding.
ShadeTail
@slag:
That’s not what jl intended, but, even so, that *is* what jl was advocating. Marriage is more than just a word, it is a concept with a lot of social and emotional baggage. People, in the general sense, do not want civil unions, they want marriage. Limiting such an important social concept to a strictly religious context is discriminatory.
And that’s not even getting into the massive number of laws, both federal and state, that are explicitly tied to “marriage” and therefore would not apply to a “civil union”.
les
@Martin:
Actually not so, unless the priest/minister who did the ceremony had state authorization. And no church can independently absolve you of the obligations you have as a married person. You’ve got it backwards–religion doesn’t own marriage, the state does; and you seem to want to give it to the churches instead.
Barry
@trollhattan: “I can’t wait to find out Clarence Thomas’ thinking about marriage equality. (Better still, Ginny’s.)”
Simple – I’ve Got Mine, F*** You.
jl
@Mnemosyne: Good point. I guess I am getting desperate in looking for ways to get it solved more quickly.
And, I am getting vindictive. As I noted in previous comment, at this point I would take pleasure in the government ‘de marrying’ all the Christians so concerned about a word, and ‘civil unioning’ them instead.
Mike E
When I go to cast my vote for Newt in the May NC primary, I will have the distinct honor in voting no on the anti-gay marriage amendment referendum, knowing full-well that when it passes it will be struck down or rendered moot. WIN!
gwangung
Yeah. Pretty much this.
burnspbesq
@chopper:
That’s not ever going to happen, and I’m sure you know it’s not ever going to happen.
Mnemosyne
@Martin:
Sorry, Martin, but les is right — you have it backwards. That piece of paper is issued by the state, not the church, and the church can’t do a thing to affect your marital status.
So, to use a hypothetical, if the Catholic Church decided tomorrow that only marriages between two confirmed Catholics were valid and the marriages of every mixed couple who had been married in the Church would no longer be recognized by the Church, that wouldn’t mean a thing to the state of California. As far as they are concerned, you would still be a married couple with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails.
Sad_Dem
askew: I’ve read that because the ruling was so narrow and only applied to California that the Supremes will likely refuse to hear it.
Any legal experts know if that is true?
askew, I’d go with pseudonymous in nc’s answer: The Ninth did everything it could to make things difficult for the Supremes. This case is as political as can be.
chopper
@ShadeTail:
yes you are. you’re asking the government to redefine the term. of course, that term would exclude others, such as multiple partners, even though there’s no rational reason to exclude them too.
why does the government have any say at all as to the propriety of anyone’s romantic relationship?
burnspbesq
@jl:
That’s just nonsensical. The word carries millenia of baggage, baggage that people want, and to pretend that it doesn’t carry that baggage for others just because you don’t like that baggage … “silly” is the politest word I can think of.
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
exactly. if the state is going to be involved in this, it should be open enough that it isn’t just two people. if two brothers decide to partner up for tax or insurance reasons, should we call it ‘marriage’? if not, what should it be called?
personally i don’t think there should be any ‘marriage’ benefits in this country, nor should there have to be ones like sharing insurance. but the latter exists.
burnspbesq
@AxelFoley:
So you, too, are pretending that last night’s 40-point beatdown didn’t happen?
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
I don’t see that this is either possible or desirable. In another nod to one of the observations in the Prop 8 opinion, I can’t imagine people lining up to see My Big Fat Greek Contractual Union.
I’m not a big marriage person myself, but I recognize the legal, social, religious and even mystical aspects that are important to many people.
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Because the government administers property law. Marriage simplifies how property should be distributed after someone dies.
Your argument is basically that Terri Schiavo’s parents should have been allowed to overrule her husband because, really, who was he? Just some guy that she decided to marry.
Triassic Sands
I would add, and I think they should have, that the reason can never — never — be religious, or primarily religious, which the ban on same sex marriage is.
Limiting the rights of some people in order to further the agenda of religion is not acceptable in a non-theocracy. I know that deep-down many Republican fundamentalists yearn for a Christian theocracy, but that is, and always has been, one of the worst impulses in this country.
chopper
@les:
it shouldn’t be. two people should be able to just go in front of a priest and say they’re ‘married’. shit, three consenting adults should be able to go in front of a fundie mormon bishop and say they’re ‘married’. 5 dudes should be able to have a ceremony in their basement by themselves and call themselves ‘married’.
as long as ‘marriage’ is a civil status bequeathed by the government it should be open to every relationship. that’s not just gay or straight, but anybody else. but ‘marriage’ has enough religious/cultural/social implications that the government shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near defining it.
surely, if the government only does ‘civil unions’ for any and all comers, it isn’t ‘separate but equal’ any more than your private boss firing you for the shit you say on the internet is ‘violating your 1st amendment rights’.
les
@chopper:
It doesn’t; but it has a legitimate interest in your legal relationship, and despite all the blathering by religionistas, that’s what marriage is.
slag
@ShadeTail:
I’ll have to take your word for this. When I say the word “marriage” indicates “property rights” to me, what I mean is that married women were (and still are in some cases) viewed as property. And this notion is still embedded in several of those laws you mention.
To some extent, I perceive jl’s advocacy for a reboot of the entire institution to be far more revolutionary and equality-advancing than the advocacy for simply broadening the application of the term “marriage”. But then, I’m not a huge fan of the institution, and those who are obviously differ with that opinion.
ShadeTail
@chopper:
No, we aren’t. We’re demanding (not asking, *demanding*) that the government live up to its promise of equal rights. The word will continue to mean what it means.
Then start making your own perfectly rational demands of the government. But stop pretending that the equality movement is something other than what it is.
Strawman. Insisting on equal recognition before the law is not about letting them decide on “romantic propriety”.
JGabriel
@Bobby Thomson: That’s the kind of analysis I was looking for. I’m not sure I agree with this part though:
I would think the 8’ers would still need to weigh the extra cost and time of going en banc before SCOTUS as a disadvantage against the advantages you lay out, but now I can see what some of the advantages of going en banc would be, which I didn’t before. Thanks.
.
jl
@burnspbesq:
I cannot figure out what you are trying to say.
What I tried to say is that, if, because of the historical use of a particular word, religious sects try, and largely succeed, in foisting sectarian religious practices on what should be a purely civil function in a society that has separation of church and state, then I think measures should be taken to expunge the religious interference with that civil function.
As people have pointed out ‘marriage’ ‘civil union’ whatever you want to call it, is legally a nonreligious civil institution. It is also traditionally, a religious institution. I want to find a way to separate those two notions very clearly. And make it clear that, legally, the civil institution trumps the religious institutions, at least in this country.
I do not see how that is silly.
Many very good arguments have been made against my particular proposal, so, I am rethinking the best way to get the civil and religious institutions separated, but I stand by my general point.
Maus
@slag: The problem here is that the main people fighting back are demanding something separate and inequal (if at all.)
Work on equality before you “dismantle the institution”, because what you want is causing more harm than good trying to dismantle the institution before proper rights are granted.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
we don’t need ‘marriage’ to simplify property law or power of attorney. regular civil relationships can do the same thing, and should be more open so that other types of partners can have the same rights and dignity in death that terri schiavo did.
Brachiator
@chopper:
What would you do about the marriage responsibilities? A married couple have a kid, and both decide they really don’t want to be bothered taking care of or providing for the kid. This is OK with you?
I suppose we could do ancient Sparta one better: a hook up nation, with nobody owing anybody anything, and all children belong to the state.
The Moar You Know
@jl: I get this, but as you’ve found out the hard way on this thread, to most folks the very word “marriage” is sacred, as is the institution.
Trying to “trashcan” the term “marriage” is like trying to tell a woman that she’s not getting anything for Valentine’s Day because you don’t believe in the marketing hype. She isn’t going to stay your woman for long if you pull a stunt like that :)
EDIT: I don’t think decoupling the terms is possible, although I agree with the reasons you put forth for doing it. I think the religious loonies are just going to have to suck it up, they’ll probably end up doing what the Mormons do (call it “temple marriage” or some such magical bullshit name) and share the term with us heathens.
chopper
@ShadeTail:
yes, you are asking the government to redefine the term. the government has a definition of the term, and you’re asking them to change it. that isn’t for the worse, mind you, but you are.
and you’re asking them to determine what suffices a ‘proper’ romantic relationship in their eyes, in terms of being granted benefits.
FlipYrWhig
@chopper:
If I had the ability to redefine society, I’d say there ought to be arrangements available to declare that your material interests were now merged with someone else’s. You could be brothers, or roommates, or a spinster aunt, the widowed husband of her sister, and an unwanted kid from down the street who just happen to be sharing a living space. Basically broaden the idea of “family” to go beyond marriages and parent-child ties: “we’re together, we’re a unit, we trust each other, and we look out for one another — until we decide to opt out, or into something else.” We already can do this sort of thing in wills, but there ought to be a structure to make it easier to do in life, IMHO.
burnspbesq
@jl:
It’s silly because nobody wants that you’re proposing, other than you. It’s also silly because what you are proposing is utterly at variance with the reality on the ground. People want to marry. The song lyrics don’t say “Goin’ to the chapel and we’re gonna sign the civil union papers.”
jl
@The Moar You Know: Yes. the word ‘trashcan’ was not apt.
Also, thanks to legal types on this thread, who gave very useful info on this decision.
ShadeTail
@slag:
Please do, because it is true.
OK, that’s what it means to you. Here in North America, the vast majority, to say the least, feel otherwise.
Your point being? That is still a reason why “civil union” is a discriminatory concept when compared to “marriage”.
Well, all I’ve seen is a stubborn insistence on changing which word gets used to describe the practice. But if you’re correct about what jl is aiming for, then for all practical purposes, I don’t see any difference anyway. Either you’re for broadening who is granted marriage rights or you’re against. I’m for.
chopper
@jl:
this is exactly where i stand.
the whole idea of the government telling me that my romantic relationship fits some profile of ‘appropriateness’ sufficient to get their stamp of approval is just fuckin’ bonkers.
Maus
@jl:
Yeah, it’s a real shame that people are forced to get gay married in a church, by priests.
les
@burnspbesq:
‘Course not. Doesn’t scan for shit.
ShadeTail
@chopper:
It doesn’t matter how often you keep repeating this wrongness, you’ll still be wrong. My previous response to you stands.
And, again, no matter how often you keep repeating this strawman, it won’t stop being a strawman.
Rob
@pragmatism: We’re all just the same, now, you snooty old smarties! And now we can go to your frankfurter parties!
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
exactly. and given gaps in insurance coverage etc those sort of relationships would be very useful. i guess you could call them all ‘civil unions’. in a much better world those wouldn’t even be necessary but they are.
gwangung
Yes, we do.
God, you’re being silly, naive and uninformed.
slag
@Maus:
Ummm…okay?
Seriously, is this some sort of argument? We’ve got to perfect the institution before we destroy it? That’s like saying that the rebellion should have waited until the Death Star was finished before they blew it up. For the good of the rebellion!
Honestly, I have no qualms with people picking and choosing their battles, and if they want to broaden the word marriage rather than destroy it altogether, I’m all for it. Whatever. That’s their thing, and who am I to get in the way? I’m just saying that the hostility directed toward jl seems–when viewed in a certain light–misplaced.
chopper
@ShadeTail:
do you believe that the government has a definition of the term ‘marriage’? do you believe that you are asking the government to change that so as to include people it doesn’t currently include? seems to me the answer to both is ‘yes’.
les
@chopper:
If you want to make a point in this discussion, you really need to learn to distinguish between “romantic” and “legal.” Nobody can tell you anything about your romantic relationship; shit, religion has basically lost the “living in sin” fight already. Gays and lesbians have every right to, and are rightfully demanding, the same legal relationship that “opposites” have. They will no doubt bring to marriage the same romantic load, or lack thereof, that anyone else does; but for this discussion, it’s beside the point.
jl
@burnspbesq:
You seem a bit confused, and overly excited, and gratuitously cranky.
I said that my specific proposal, in view of several comments, to clarify the distinction between the civil and religious institutions by getting rid of the legal term ‘marriage’ was, to put it mildly, was not a very good idea. (Edit: in other words, my idea was not a ‘slam dunk’)
So, are you disagreeing with my general point? Are you saying that the government should discriminate against certain groups of people in terms of their financial arrangement, etc, based on sentimentality, traditional sectarian religious beliefs, and song lyrics?
Are you saying that it is NOT a good idea to find a way to clearly distinguish between the civil and religious institutions that, due to historical accident, go by the same name of ‘marriage’?
gwangung
Marriage is NOT primarily a romantic relationship. It never HAS been.
It belonged to the government before it ever belonged to romance. Stop trying to redefine terms. You look extremely silly doing so.
Maus
@jl:
I on some level sympathize, but you’re looking to reshape thousands of years of entrenched culture. There’s no reason to pretend that the fastest way is the most successful. People see “marriage” as legitimate couplehood, and not necessarily “property” and “ownership”. It’s certainly not as much of a power dynamic issue with same sex marriage. If it’s “not a big deal for you”, why is it such a problem that it’s “not a big deal” for others?
The change you seek will come, but language is a lot more fluid than human rights.
pragmatism
@Rob: rhyming skillz, check. frankfurter as a euphemism, check. well done, Rob.
chopper
@gwangung:
no, we don’t need ‘marriage’ to simplify property law. we need some sort of construct, some sort of ‘civil union’, but we don’t need ‘marriage’. shit, why exclude all sorts of other people from the simplification of property law? why exclude two brothers who live together and have pledged to take care of each other from the process because they’ll never be able to get the easy ‘marriage’ their neighbors have access to?
why should such simplification of property law be only accessible to two people in a romantic relationship? why not three? why not a mom and her daughter?
Maus
@les:
Perhaps they’re trying to throw the polyamorous wrench in the discussion.
John D
@chopper: You are wrong.
You are wrong because states like Virginia pass Constitutional amendments that say
There is a perfectly good word for the entangling of two lives that occurs when they exchange wedding vows, and that word is marriage. Trying to set up something else when almost every scrap of legislation dealing with this entanglement specifically references “marriage” is a fool’s game.
Maus
@chopper:
Ah, you’re just babbling at this point. That or concern trolling.
gwangung
You’re trying to reinvent the wheel when there is all those centuries of established, settled case law.
Ah. I get it. You’re for more employment for lawyers, hammering out in suits (in parallel, for all 50 states) the limits and extent of this new legal institution, thereby driving up costs for everyone.
chopper
@Maus:
i’m serious. why be so exclusive? if ‘marriage’ is so useful in simplifying property law (and providing all sorts of necessary benefits) why limit it so much?
chopper
@gwangung:
actually i’m for other people having access to the rights and benefits you and i have access to, and not just gay people.
FlipYrWhig
@burnspbesq: But jl’s point was that anything you did at a chapel would be a “marriage,” just that what you did at the town hall would be a “civil union,” and you could either do both or only the latter. (No one ever wrote a romantic ditty about dropping off your paperwork with the town clerk, either.)
The way I sketched it out, the distinction would be not religious marriage vs. secular civil unions, but the civil solidarity pact for non-romantic household ties and marriage for romantic ones. I know nothing like this will ever happen, but ISTM that the relevant distinction is not straight/gay or secular/religious but rather that people who see their union as intimate and romantic would have “marriages” neither the state nor any church would control, in addition to a “civil solidarity pact” stipulating all the legal obligations and benefits of their partnership (which need not be romantic at all).
Martin
@Mnemosyne:
No, I get that fully. You’re married as soon as the paperwork is signed, not when the I do’s take place. That said, I think people connect more with the I do’s than with the paperwork. They don’t consider themselves married until the ‘I hereby declare you’ part, which is why you can walk off the alter in the movies and the audience accepts that you never got married, even though we all know you guy signed the form before the ceremony started.
I’m struggling to resolve the tradition that we have culturally internalized, which is almost exclusively church driven (in it’s many various forms) with the legal benefits conferred by the state which are not just independent, but almost completely neglected as being independent by the public. Coming at this from the opposite side of what is commonly accepted by society strikes me as a losing battle. We view marriage (whether gay or straight or whatever) as owned, if not by the church, owned by national tradition and trying to divorce the word from that tradition strikes me as, well, unrealistic.
Honestly, I’m not clear on how to go about this, so don’t take my argument too strongly as an advocate of one or the other. I just don’t find either ideological stand to be particularly convincing. I agree that it’s silly that there’s even an issue here at all, but at the same time, it seems like we asking people to tear away something so strongly defended and culturally ingrained, that you can’t help but lose, and that the damage done winning that fight isn’t enough to make up for the cost over the alternative view.
Put another way, I think it’s reasonable to give the church something here that they can own, because you can’t possibly take that away from them completely. If you take marriage at high cost, they’ll adopt a new term, a new distinction and use that and you’re right back where you started. They’re going to insist on something that is theirs because they need that tradition. Part of being in a religion is adopting certain conducts, certain traditions – and you can’t take that from them without significant damage. From their viewpoint, you’re trying to take their tradition. That’s a losing battle. Guaranteed.
You don’t want separate but equal, but the whole point of being in a religion is that you are inviting separate. That’s the point and that’s the goal. But it’s opt-in, whereas being black never was. So the standard here can be different without being inconsistent with civil rights. The goal has always been ‘how do we get the same legal rights to gays’, not ‘how do we get the church to accept these marriages’. And it’s impossible to talk about gay marriage without the church taking a stand because everyone claims ownership to the term. The point of failure was when the government embraced a colloquial term and gave it legal meaning. They never should have done that.
Maus
@chopper: Ok, yeah. Definitely concern trolling at this point. If you don’t believe there’s any difference at all between platonic lifemates, family ties, and a committed relationship, why do you give a shit about gay marriage?
How about you start fighting for those rights after gay marriage passes, nationwide? Nobody’s stopping you from doing so, but your attempts to latch “platonic lifemate” tax and property benefits necessarily onto gay marriage are rolleyesworthy.
slag
@chopper:
That’s just another way of being discriminatory and mean. Or haven’t you figured that out by now?
FWIW, I agree with you. But then, I also thought Apple made the right choice when they switched to OS X. Everybody’s got their preferences.
FlipYrWhig
@Maus: I don’t get why chopper’s point was “babbling.” I think it’s a good point about household arrangements and shared responsibilities. “Marriage” is a subset of that, the romantic subset.
chopper
@Maus:
i give a shit about gay marriage because i think gay people should have the same property/insurance/visitation/tax rights i do. i just don’t think it ends with gay people.
FlipYrWhig
@chopper: @Maus: The state doesn’t need to know anything about who feels romantic about whom. The state just needs to know who has decided to share protections, rights, and benefits with one another, because that has effects on enforcing the law. Some of the people who “unify” in such a way may do it out of romantic love, in which case it would be a “marriage,” and some others may do it out of platonic sympathy or even pure self-interest. Whatever feelings drive the union are not the business of the government. I’m all for same-sex marriage and calling it “marriage,” and then in addition there’s a set of issues arising from thinking about why the government should care at all, and that’s I think what a lot of the other people on the thread want to talk about as well.
pragmatism
@pragmatism: best poutrage so far: Maggie Gallagher at NRO. Ninth circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You are Irrational Bigots
real world title: Ninth Circuit to 7 Million Voters: You voted for something that was unconstitutional, regardless of whether you may be irrational or a bigot.
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
my question is, if there should be some sort of arrangement that allows other types of couples (the brothers example we brought up above) to have access to those benefits, what would it be? should those two brothers or a mom and her daughter get a marriage certificate?
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Martin:
Well, yeah, except that all the ministers I know (scads, since my dad was one) don’t sign the paperwork until the ceremony is over. In NC, at least, you apply for a license, but the license only means that a minister or magistrate can solemnize the marriage. The marriage isn’t official until that happens. So if I were to leave my intended at the altar before the “I do”s, I ain’t married.
Rafer Janders
@burnspbesq:
The song lyrics don’t say “Goin’ to the chapel and we’re gonna sign the civil union papers.”
Under his proposal, people would still get married IN A CHAPEL — because that’s the religious institution. From the state, though, they’d received a civil union.
FlipYrWhig
@chopper: Right now it’s probably just a power-of-attorney thing with a will backing it up. I think it’s true that getting same-sex marriage passed and codified is the first order of political business. And I can imagine that a civil solidarity pact that goes wrong would lead to something like “civil divorce” and maybe even “civil alimony,” which would be a fine can of worms to open…
FlipYrWhig
@FlipYrWhig: Or, in other words, permitting same-sex committed romantic couples to marry in the eyes of the state is very important. It may be also important to permit groups of two or more individuals to establish official, protected, legal bonds in the eyes of the state, regardless of whether or not they’re Doin’ It, have Done It, or even want to Do It, and that’s the kind of thing I was kicking around, and I think chopper and jl were in that same line but using different terms.
Martin
@Comrade Scrutinizer: Here in fruits and nuts California, every ceremony I’ve attended did the paperwork up front so you didn’t have to get distracted with paperwork between the happy moment and the photos. Sometimes I forget that in some places marriage is all about the power of the minister and not at all about the two folks getting hitched.
Maus
@chopper:
What can’t they do under normal circumstances? Do you want tax breaks for their nonsexual lifecoupling?
Darkrose
@pragmatism: Ninth circuit to 7 Million California Voters: You are Irrational Bigots
I’d say that yes, that’s exactly what the 9th Circuit said. And they’re right.
slag
@Rafer Janders:
You mean the one where Elvis officiates? Uhhhhuh.
Seriously, religious institutions don’t own marriage–we only let them think they do. And nothing about changing the legal process would change that. If you have someone besides Elvis marry you, no one’s going to think any different of you when you tell them you’re “married”. And that’s true even if you’re “civil unionized” before a Marie Antoinette impersonator joins you in “eternal bondage” (or whatever captures your fancy).
FlipYrWhig
@Maus: Let’s say I’m a gay man without a partner, and my straight brother knocks up a woman and abandons her, and I feel bad about that and take in the woman and her child, because they have no family. I have great benefits from my job. Why can’t I share them with my cohabitors? I guess under current law I could adopt them, but why should I have to do that? I don’t want to force the whole thing into the shape of a marriage or a family, I just want to look out for people who need help.
Maus
@FlipYrWhig:
Why do only your family members and friends get health care benefits? Why do you have to live with them to care about them? Why can’t I not-marry everyone I know who lacks proper health care?
Maus
@Darkrose: Yeah, when the NRO gets called a bunch of bigots, those calling names are always right.
jl
@slag: Don’t worry. I have given up on my apparently not so fine idea of replacing the legal term ‘marriage’ with some other name as far as civil law goes.
I still want sectarian religion out of legal arrangements in the US, in an attempt to speed the process of removing harmful and hurtful discrimination, for no good reason at all, against certain groups. And prevent further meddling by religious sects in civil government, and potentially anyone’s private affairs in the future.
(Edit: better expression is “I want an end to sectarian religious groups forcing their beliefs into civil arrangements in the U.S.”)
The idea of tax breaks has come up. If we could sell ending discrimination in marriage as a scheme to lowering everyone’s taxes, maybe it could find its way into the GOP platform.
pragmatism
@Maus: i sure hope they stocked up on fainting couches and pearls to clutch over at the NRO offices. klo has a california king fainting couch, i’d wager.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
we should put a proposition on the ballots outlawing asexual marriages. make marriage licenses renewable on the basis of a continuous pattern of fornication. proof will have to be submitted with a nominal fee to the office of copulation management.
Maus
@jl:
I don’t think anyone’s arguing with *that*.
But this sounds like even more folly than the original idea!
jl
@Maus: That last bit about scheming to get it into the GOP platform as a tax dodge was a joke, son, a joke, I say.
burnspbesq
@les:
I surrender.
burnspbesq
@jl:
Of course not. That strawman won’t hunt.
I’m saying it’s a fool’s errand to try and force upon people a distinction that they do not want to recognize. If the bundle of rights connoted by the term “marriage” is substantially identical to the bundle of rights connoted by the term” civil union,” and the people entering into that relationship prefer to call it “marriage,” who am I (or you) to argue? Words have power, and “marriage” has a lot of it.
slag
@jl: Ha! Personally, I want tax breaks out of the marriage business also. Along with a lot of other things.
So, obviously, the world would look a whole lot different if I were in charge of it. Which is probably just one of many reasons why I’m not in charge of it.
chopper
@Maus:
can you put your brother on your health insurance?
come on, there are tons of government benefits to marriage.
Maus
@chopper: You should be pushing for UHC and not trying to go about this all halfassed.
FlipYrWhig
@Maus: If you want to “not-marry” someone for the health insurance, that suits me just fine. (Of course true national health care fixes that.) If you “not-marry” someone and then stop fulfilling what you promised, you should be legally on the hook for that too. It has aspects of co-signing a loan or a lease, power of attorney, adoption/fostering, and marriage, without asking questions about the nature of the particular intimate behaviors of the parties to it.
My idea is that groups of people should be able to declare themselves… something, and that something would confer benefits of the sort traditionally linked to families and marriages. I don’t see how that could be objectionable. You shouldn’t _have_ to be family-like or couple-like, although there’d be nothing stopping you from taking that route either.
chopper
@Maus:
yeah, cause health insurance is the only marriage benefit.
you think the government should only hand out tax breaks for sexual lifecoupling? people who form a family unit but aren’t into doing it with each other don’t get shit?
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
and the benefits should be the same in the eyes of uncle sam. which means to me, it should be the same thing with the same name for everyone who hooks it up whether it’s a traditional couple or something unorthodox. i’d call them ‘civil unions’ as a non-sexual or non-romantic lifecoupling (like two brothers for example) really doesn’t scream ‘marriage’.
which goes back to my original point, that the government should be in the business of giving out civil unions (if it gives out anything at all), and ‘marriage’ is whatever the rest of society wants to call it.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@burnspbesq:
i agree you can’t have two drinking fountains
once you create even a sliver of daylight between “marriage” and “civil union”, you create an endless exploitable for the right wing to manipulate and wedge whatever agenda they have into distinguishing between the two.
Maus
@chopper:
Aren’t they called “dependents”? Generally, people don’t “partner” up with family for any other reason but financial, as it is.
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Huh? Brothers are already legal relatives and each other’s next of kin. So are a mother and daughter. There’s no need to add in an extra layer of legal process.
What marriage does is take two unrelated people and make them relatives. Everything you claim you want to have for brothers is already in the law and has been for centuries.
You really should educate yourself about property and family law since you seem to be 100 percent clueless about how these things actually work and you’re really starting to sound like an idiot when you wonder why the law doesn’t cover things that it actually covers, and has covered for centuries.
chopper
@Maus:
unless your brother brings in less than $3800 a year, you aint claiming him as a dependent. come on, man.
Mnemosyne
@Martin:
The problem, IMO, is that the church is laying claim to something that doesn’t actually belong to them. They are trying to claim that they are the sole owners of the civil institution of marriage, which they never have been in pretty much the entire history of this country. And (also IMO) they’re deliberately confusing people about the difference between “marriage” and “wedding.”
Maus
@Mnemosyne:
Right, this is what’s been so confusing to me about chopper’s argument. Straight friends can and do already set these arrangements up, and now same-sex friends can do the same.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
so i can put my brother on my health insurance? tell me how.
Maus
@chopper: There are options when you list him as a necessary dependent.
Then aim for UHC. Everything else is exclusionary.
chopper
@Maus:
my brother isn’t dead broke. he can’t be a dependent and i don’t provide more than half his aid. i do have insurance and he doesn’t.
what do i do?
Maus
@chopper: UHC is far more of a realistic goal than whatever it is that you’re describing.
Socialized medicine exists in several nations. What you’re offering does not exist anywhere.
chopper
@Maus:
so, how do i get my brother on my insurance?
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
He needs to be your dependent, like your child would be. Are you proposing that we remove children from insurance eligibility? After all, it’s unfair that your children have legal rights that your brother doesn’t just because they were born to you.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
as i just said above, he makes more than $3800 a year and i don’t provide half or more of his aid. he can’t possibly be my dependent.
so…? how do i do it? it’s “been in the law for hundreds of years”, it’s gotta be there.
Maus
@chopper: You give everybody insurance.
I don’t understand what you want people to tell you, what you want is exclusionary and counterproductive.
chopper
@Maus:
the correct answer which you keep avoiding is “you can’t”.
what i want is not exclusionary at all. what i want is to remove any and all benefits for ‘marriage’ and make everybody’s relationship completely equal in the law. barring that, i’ll take an open civil union that is far more open and available to way more than the people who enjoy it today.
Maus
@chopper:
Of course you fucking can’t, that’s what UHC exists to provide.
Except that exists nowhere in the world, as far as I’m aware. If you’re not trolling, I’m interested if you can find anything relatively analogous.
Not examples of “friends” gaming the marriage system, I mean anyone being able to “marry” another (especially family) without declaring them as dependent and achieving the same exact benefits.
Bonus points for being in an area where UHC does not exist already.
chopper
@Maus:
France has it going on. see FlipYrWig at 151.
chopper
i mean seriously, we have domestic partnership laws in various states in the US. in some places they’re practically the same as marriage tho with some big, notable gaps.
i’m not talking about some huge change that’s so earthshattering. make domestic partnership legal at the federal level. beef them up and make them universal (and include insurance).
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Health insurance has been in the law for hundreds of years? Oookay.
The only way to do that is to not only remove all benefits for “marriage,” but to remove all benefits for any automatic blood relationship at all. So, parents have no responsibility to their children, siblings have no more claim to their other siblings’ property than the next door neighbor who got there first. If your grandmother is in the hospital, you have to pull out a piece of paper proving that you have a legally signed document saying she wants to see you before they’ll let you in.
You want to dissolve all current family relationships under the law and make everyone sign a contract saying that, yes, they agree that their legal next of kin should be their mother. If they don’t sign that, too bad, everything goes to court because their mother has no more legal right to their property than the co-worker in the next cubicle.
Mnemosyne
@chopper:
Sorry, no. France has the same two-tiered system we do — legally married spouses have more rights than civil union partners.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
I was making fun of your bit about how everything I wanted for the ‘two brothers’ I mentioned above had been codified in law for hundreds of years.
As to the rest it’s pretty clear I’m talking about relationships between consenting adults. I’m not talking about eliminating parental responsibilities or rights. Come on.
chopper
relationships consenting adults enter into, that is. Dumb no-editing.
Maus
@69: Yup. Try again, chopper.
Gromit
@RedKitten:
And the worst part is that ceasing to call civil marriage “marriage” hands the straight supremacists the sense of victimhood they so desperately crave. They have been saying all along that the gays are out to destroy “traditional” marriage, and the misguided “get government out of the marriage business” proponents would have us do essentially that.
The bottom line is the names of things matter. Pretending they don’t does no one any favors.
chopper
@Maus:
you don’t think that what France has is more open and available to way more people than what we have here? if so you’re deluded.
les
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
Dude, your local county clerk will, as a matter of your right and her/his duty, sign the license. You been head by the religionistas, as have so many.
FlipYrWhig
I’m not sure why there are so many insults flying around on this. I know nothing like what I’m talking about has a chance of being implemented anywhere. But, look, if the discussion that arises from the question of why the government has anything to do with marriage in the first place takes one small turn, we end up here: what kinds of relationships and partnerships should people be able to form and get the government to sanction? Do they all have to be “marriages” and “families,” or are there other possibilities? I started to think about it when two single middle-aged gay friends, one male and one female, started joking about how they should just get married so that they could be sure someone they liked could get their 401k after they died. IANAL so it got me thinking. Sure, you can set up someone as a beneficiary, or give them power of attorney, etc., but that’s all ad hoc and piecemeal. What if there was a pact you could strike that conferred at one fell swoop the kinds of rights and protections married people and family members get by default? You can rig up something similar, but why should it be work? Yes, it’s all abstract and won’t happen. But if we thought in terms of households and friendships rather than marriages and families, it’s what a gender-blind, sex-having blind social alternative might look like.
FlipYrWhig
@chopper: Don’t cite me — I was jumping off from the name of the concept rather than its actual legal existence.
maus
@chopper: It’s not only not what you were suggesting, but inequal to “marriage”.
Xenos
@Martin:
There are lots to choose from. Some of them even are explicitly Catholic, yet allow contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.
chopper
@maus:
it’s certainly not the same as marriage because it’s more open. far, far more open.
the thing that people don’t want to admit is that marriage itself is discriminatory. the government offers all sorts of great benefits, but only to relationships that it agrees with. adding gays to the mix is a start, but marriage will still be unfair.
i’m not one of the people who want to see gay marriage merely so that gays can get on the gravy train too and pull up the gangway behind them.
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
if they live in a really good state a domestic partnership could work, but it’s still usually limited and of course wouldn’t be recognized at the federal level.
if not they could move to a place with strong DP rights like DC. of course, that’s like telling a gay couple ‘you can get married, just move to DC’ which is hogwash.
chopper
@FlipYrWhig:
also, the whole argument regarding gay marriage is one of ‘fairness’. well, this is the road you end up going down when you start arguing about ‘fairness’. because even if you add gays in marriage still won’t be ‘fair’. it’ll be more fair and evidently to many here it’ll be fair enough, mostly because they or their friends will now have access to all those benefits.
Maus
@chopper:
Uh, no? It’s separate and inequal.
http://www.buddybuddy.com/d-p-fran.html
You may not need all these, but it’s not equal to marriage, nor does it contain the ideas you were stating.
Maus
Interesting the conclusion of that site as well-
chopper
@Maus:
are you still arguing that it isn’t more open than marriage? the fact that it’s open to far more than are allowed to marry proves it. that’s my point.
the french example is that, an example. as i pointed out upthread, various states have DP laws. all of these are examples of secular, non-sexual/romantic partnerships. are they broad enough? i would think you’d agree with me when i say ‘no’.
i think they should be made broader and universal so as to include far more people than are allowed to marry, even in states with gay marriage. and in that case, civil marriage is an anachronism, which it really already is.
chopper
@Maus:
interesting, since numerous states already have DP laws that didn’t foul up the whole works. not that they offer as much as marriage, but it wouldn’t be that difficult to craft state or federal laws that do so. come on, the ACA is like 3 inches thick.
chopper
@Maus:
also:
isn’t this just as true with regards to gay marriage? and isn’t the solution the same, fix it at the federal level just as I said upthread? your arguments against DP rights are the same ones people use to shoot down gay marriage!
FlipYrWhig
@Maus: I’d actually want a PACS status that was _more_ encompassing than marriage. Is it impractical? Obvs. But this is a blue-sky discussion in the first place. You’re right that limiting marriage to “opposite marriage” is discriminatory; there should be same-sex marriage called “marriage.” But it’s kind of odd that the government particularly cares about marriage qua marriage; what the government should care about is who’s responsible for whom, because that has bearing on how the law is enforced.
So one idea might be to have a PACS/togetherness/domestic partnership/head of household with dependents/beneficiary kind of legal structure that extended the benefits associated with straight and gay marriage to other kinds of elective partnerships and care arrangements. That’s the kind of thing that would be in the interests of the government. In a utopian and technocratic kind of way, I realize.