Andrew Cory | June 5, 2006 10:23 PM

Why can’t you just come out and admit that you want the terrorists to win {/irony}. More seriously, until it can be shown how legal marriage between two adults in any way causes me harm, I say let love rule. Until then, they should just follow the bible on this...

Steve | June 5, 2006 10:26 PM

Didn't polygamous marriages exist in the US somewhere before they were outlawed? I'm not from the country, so I'm unsure of this.

Gary Boyd | June 5, 2006 10:33 PM

Come on John, you want common sense, these are the same folks who fell women are still property. That's really what the debate is all about, how can two men or two women possibly have a legitimate relationship much less a marriage if one doesn’t have the god given right to subjugate the other, and how could that work between two men (even girly men, you know...liberals)

Ron | June 5, 2006 10:37 PM

And while we're at it, all those people who think that same-sex marriages are an affront to God need to be confronted with the fact that several Christian denominations, the Quakers preeminent among them, are perfectly happy to sanction such unions.

John Scalzi | June 5, 2006 10:37 PM

Steve:

No. Members of the LDS church in the Utah territory were polygamists prior to the territory becoming a state, but the US government never condoned it and in fact fought a war with LDS church members at least partially over their polygamist ways.

Bill the Splut | June 5, 2006 10:53 PM

Half of all American marriages end in divorce. Isn't that the biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage?

Why aren't Republicans trying to ban divorce? That'll save the Institution of Marriage right there!

mythago | June 5, 2006 11:34 PM

Plenty of people are saying these things to the marriage bigots. But c'mon, these are people dumb enough be marriage bigots in the first place.

It doesn't help that there's a large, wimpy middle of people who aren't overtly marriage bigots, but who whine about how They should just call it something other than marriage.

John Scalzi | June 5, 2006 11:52 PM

Mythago:

"But c'mon, these are people dumb enough be marriage bigots in the first place."

Well, two things. First, it's a good thing to rub their nose unavoidably in their bigotry and to make them admit their blowing up of people's marriages. Second, just in case there are any non-bigot bystanders who through lack of knowledge or credulity have swallowed the bigots' line of crap, it helps reframe the argument for them.

mythago | June 5, 2006 11:53 PM

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you that people should call the marriage bigots on their bigotry--just noting that the actual effect on marriage bigots themselves is likely to be nothing more than their arguments growing increasingly outlandish.

Brad Selbst | June 5, 2006 11:54 PM

Marriage, as it is conventionally defined, is between a man and a woman. And that's OK. It doesn't make everybody who believes that a bigot. It is a word associated with a certain function and associated behaviors with that function.

Civil Unions are commonly defined as between same-sex couples (although heteros can use it).

There is nothing wrong with having Civil Unions for the gay people and Marriage for the heteros, as long as the same rights are extended.

Currently, civil unions do not enjoy the same rights but in the future it could. This should eliminate the "separate but unequal" argument.

It is unfair for the minority to impose its value system on the majority, but it is similary unfair for the majority to penalize the minority viewpoint.

Having civil unions seems a fair compromise.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 12:03 AM

Brad Selbst:

"Marriage, as it is conventionally defined, is between a man and a woman."

So what? The "conventional" definition is wrong, since, as noted, same-sex couples can and do get married right here in the US of A.

"And that's OK."

Well, no, it's not. Because it's incorrect.

"It doesn't make everybody who believes that a bigot."

Indeed it does not. But it does mean they are misinformed as to what marriage means in the US. And those people who believe that people who are married should stop being married simply because their marriage does not fit a "conventional" definition most definitely are bigots.

"Having civil unions seems a fair compromise."

To whom? Given that same-sex couples are legally getting married, telling them that there's this "separate but equal" thing that's just like the real thing isn't going to fly. We've been down that road before, and it didn't work out all that great then.

Prior to Masschusetts allowing same-sex couples to marry, I thought civil unions were a fine idea, too. But, see, now that people can have same-sex marriages, I think it's contemptuous to tell them that they can't, or to deprive them of rights they already have.

Jon | June 6, 2006 12:18 AM

Andrew, it is not correct to say "Until then, we can just follow the Bible." The constitution is the fundamental law of the US, not the Bible. As someone in congress put it, correcting a senator who said the government should be upholding the bible, "Senator, when you took your oath of office you put your hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution. You did not put your hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible."

Bobarino | June 6, 2006 12:43 AM

No need for separate-but-equal: let the government grant civil unions to both straight and gay couples, and let churches handle marriage. If nothing else, the fact that some churches will deny marriage to gays will serve as a useful indicator of which churches are too dumb to join.

By the way, once we get beyond this nonsense of denying civil union to gays, we can do away with domestic partnerships; you want the benefits of civil union, you make a legal commitment to your partner. And that would strengthen the institution of civil union. Ironic, no?

Darkhawk | June 6, 2006 01:20 AM

No need for separate-but-equal: let the government grant civil unions to both straight and gay couples, and let churches handle marriage.

I'm not interested in having my marriage legally obliterated just because I don't have a religion with sacramental marriage. I'm married, not uncivilly onionised.

Replacing discrimination against same-sex couples with favoritism for a subset of religious organisations does not strike me as an improvement.

Chris Sullins | June 6, 2006 01:28 AM

John, I agree with you on most of the points here. But when you say that the marriage bigots' definition of marriage doesn't actually exist, I'd have to disagree. Their definition does exist, and it is very prevalent, and that's precisely why we're having so much trouble. Perhaps it's not the working legal definition right now, but it certainly exists. What it comes down to is that your views are going to be require them to change their personal definition of marriage (but I'm not saying that's a bad thing).

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

You'll find a similar but more blatant entry in the American Heritage Dictionary.

That's my point, and that's all that it is. I agree with you in the other respects. I hadn't thought of it in terms of invalidating currently legal marriages, and that was a good new insight.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 01:39 AM

Chris Sullins:

"But when you say that the marriage bigots' definition of marriage doesn't actually exist, I'd have to disagree."

You can disagree all you want, of course. However, here in the United States, legally a man can marry a man, and a woman can marry a woman, and no number of dictionaries will change that fact. Defining marriage in the US as being between a man and a woman is incomplete from a legal point of view, and therefore misleading (and as used by some people, disingenuous).

And more to the point, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is a definition that legally doesn't actually exist here in the US (although one must note it is correct in any number of states where marriage bigots have passed laws or amendment to that effect, including the state in which I live).

Brad Selbst | June 6, 2006 01:43 AM

1) It's not what marriage is in the U.S., it is what marriage is in Mass., which is 1/50 of the U.S. state-wise, and is 2.3% of the U.S. population.

2) Being intolerant of those who differ from one's viewpoint makes a person a bigot. You are not tolerant of their viewpoints, thus calling them bigots, is in itself bigoted.

3) Unrolling their newly granted rights would be cruel. But calling it marriage was a mistake, because that is not the definition of the word. I wouldn't call you Jewish if you worshipped Jesus as the Son of God, and I wouldn't call you Catholic if you said Jesus was merely a prophet. What if you suddenly started a sect that denied the divinity of Jesus but you insisted on being called Catholic. That would be silly. (Or, if you suddenly demanded all triangles must be called circles, to use a non-religious example- to eliminate the Reformation argument).

4) Expanding the definition of Marriage is damaging to your cause because it is hard for people to accept. Far easier to legalize civil unions across the board, wait ten years, and then raise the marriage question again, no?

Chris Gabel | June 6, 2006 02:01 AM

If you truly want homosexual "marriage" to ever have true legitimacy, quit depending on courts to award it. The law in this area (everywhere but Massachusetts) came about naturally in response to human behavior. The idea of homosexual "marriage" as a serious concept is so recent, it's not realistic to expect the law to have caught up.

But the answer to all this is quite simple. If homosexuals keep getting married (whether legally recognized or not), and it becomes as common practice as among straights, it truly won't take all that long for the law to follow. I think we're well down that path right now.

I'm quite tired of this discussion being about "rights". By and large, marriage has a heckuva lot more to do with obligations and responsibilities than rights. Every time a subgroup of our society starts screaming about their "rights," I grab hold of my wallet. Just do what you think is right (go for it if you want to marry) and quit telling me what to think about it.

By the way, if you want the right to marry in order to save $$$ on taxes, I advise you to meet with a tax advisor first. Chances are, he'll tell you to stay single. (Disclaimer: I am a CPA) In 99+% of cases, a dual income couple pays HIGHER taxes after they marry. If you have Turbo Tax, try a sample case.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 02:13 AM

Brad Selbst:

"1) It's not what marriage is in the U.S., it is what marriage is in Mass., which is 1/50 of the U.S. state-wise, and is 2.3% of the U.S. population."

Are you under the impression that American are fenced into the states in which they currently live? Any American can move to Massachusetts any time he or she chooses and establish residency; therefore any American may avail him or herself of the benefits of same-sex marriage. Hell, I could do it myself were I willing to divorce my wife, move to Massachusetts and find a guy who thought it was a fine idea, none of which I am prepared to do. However, whether this is impractical is neither here nor there -- as a matter of legal fact, there is no bar to any American getting him or herself a same-sex marriage.

"Being intolerant of those who differ from one's viewpoint makes a person a bigot. You are not tolerant of their viewpoints, thus calling them bigots, is in itself bigoted."

Bullshit. I invite you to find one place where I say that these jackass bigots should not be allowed to say what they want to say or live their lives how they wish to live them. In contrast, these marriage bigots are actively campaigning to strip Americans of rights they already have and tear apart marriages that already exist. You may attempt to suggest there's some sort of equivalence between me noting bigotry, and their attempting to amend legal marriages out of existence, but that simply means you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, nor am I obliged to treat such a dumbassed comparison with anything more than contempt.

You're apparently under the impression that tolerance means "meekly accepting whatever sort of nonsense the jackass bigoted say or do." To hell with that. These people are bigots, and I'll happily say so. And as far as I'm concerned they can be as jackassed bigoted as they like, so long as they don't try to curtail the rights of others while they're doing it. I'd say that's pretty damn tolerant of me.

"Unrolling their newly granted rights would be cruel. But calling it marriage was a mistake, because that is not the definition of the word."

Oh, well, too late now. Even if once were toaccept the premise that "marriage" shouldn't have expanded to include same-sex couples -- which personally I don't -- the point is moot because same-sex couples are getting married here in the US. And if they are getting married, then -- axiomatically -- the definition of "marriage" has expanded to include what they are doing. Why is this so hard to grasp? They're married. They've been provided the rights and obligations of marriage by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which by law is able to do just that. Whether you like that word "marriage" now encompasses same-sex relationships is neither here nor there. The definition has expanded legally. It's too late to close this particular barn door; the deed is done.

"Far easier to legalize civil unions across the board, wait ten years, and then raise the marriage question again, no?"

Good Lord, this is like talking to slow children. How many times must this be repeated: Same-sex marriage already exists. There is no cause, there's the simple inalienable fact that thousands of same-sex marriages have occured in the United States and will continue to occur for the forseeable future. Perhaps other states will allow same-sex marriage in time, perhaps not. That's immaterial because it already exists. You appear to be having a hard time wrapping your head around it, but I'm entirely sure why this should be the problem of the men and women in same-sex married couples.

And no, it would not be "far easier" to push for civil unions, because -- all together now -- same-sex marriage already exists in the United States. Why on earth would people who are already allowed the rights and obligations of marriage be content with some lesser status just because some other people aren't comfortable with it? You know, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission to marry my spouse; I was an adult, my spouse was an adult, and we both consented to the marriage. Done and done. Why two other consenting adults should have to jump through more hoops to get hitched is beyond me.

And you know what? They don't have to. Far easier just to deal with that, Brad.

Chris Gabel:

"If you truly want homosexual 'marriage' to ever have true legitimacy, quit depending on courts to award it."

First: what's up with the "quotes," there, Chris? Are you under the impression that same-sex marriages are not real or something? Surprise! They are.

Second: This "don't depend on the courts" line is the biggest sack of crap around. News flash: the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts have the same legitimacy as any other marriage performed in Massachusetts. Check with the Commonwealth; I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you the same thing.

What I find really interesting is how some people recently have gotten brain damage regarding the role of the judiciary in our governments, which is to interpret the law. In this particular case that's exactly what the court did, determining that the state's marriage laws were inviolation of the state's equal protection clause. Then -- it should be noted -- it gave the legislature time to do its job, which was to create laws that conformed to the Commonwealth's constitution. So each of the branches did what they were supposed to do, all square and legit and in the best practices of American government and law. So in my personal and humble opinion, people who want to say none of this is legitimate because the court was somehow involved show either ignorance of or contempt for an entire branch of government, and therefore I'm not entirely sure their opinion is valid in this particular case.

"If homosexuals keep getting married (whether legally recognized or not), and it becomes as common practice as among straights, it truly won't take all that long for the law to follow. I think we're well down that path right now."

We sure are! You know why? Because same-sex marriages are legal in the US! Ah, how far we've come.

Ron | June 6, 2006 02:48 AM

"They've been provided the rights and obligations of marriage by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which by law is able to do just that...News flash: the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts have the same legitimacy as any other marriage performed in Massachusetts."

And for all you people who try to refute that by saying, "Well, that's just the People's Republic of Massachusetts," the funny thing about the Constitution is that if you get married in one state, you're married in all of them. The same way a Massachusetts driver's license lets you drive a car through any of the other states.

Bobarino | June 6, 2006 02:49 AM

I'm not interested in having my marriage legally obliterated just because I don't have a religion with sacramental marriage. I'm married, not uncivilly onionised.

Nothing would be obliterated. Under civil union, your rights and resposibilities would be exactly the same as they are now under marriage.

Civilly onionised, now, that would be a problem.

Hijackqueen | June 6, 2006 02:51 AM

If they (same sex marriage) think they will be happy together, why not? I know it's against one religion but somehow God has his own reason as to why these ppl are here.

dan dragna | June 6, 2006 02:51 AM

John, i swear you're gonna give me ideological whiplash. No one can accuse you of being just another boring blogger. (I for one prefer reading Whatever over so many other "author blogs" exactly because you're so promiscuous with your opinions. I'd think I'd be pissed at you if you didn't piss me off now and then.)

First I get my gay feathers all in ruff over your weirdly amiable response to reader Greg's ick question suggesting that merely talking about gay issues too much is, shiver, gay. (About which: does my melanin increase whenever I mention the NAACP? Do my nipples swell whenever I accidentally click over to The View? Does discussing Issac Bashevis Singer's short fiction somehow put me off pork? Like I said: ick. I agree with you, by the way, that far too many self-styled "regular guys" do suspect you're an "irregular guy" if you talk about gay stuff too much. I differ from you, apparently, in thinking that they'll keep right on doing so until enough other guys--even happily “irregular guys” like yourself--make a point of reminding them that they're being dickheads. Anyway...)

Now you're making me itch to dig out my musty old Log Cabin Republican baseball cap and defend supporters of the odious "Defense of Marriage Amendment." (I put that hat back in the closet after good ole Dubya got, er, kinda sorta, elected back in 2000.)

The DMA is odious because, among other things--and like many of the 11,000 or so other other constitutional amendments proposed over the last two hundred years (I'm thinking especially here of the short-lived Prohibition Amendment)--it attempts to enshrine the social policy of a smug, transitory majority into our nation's founding document.

That said, not everyone who supports the Defense of Marriage Amendment is a bigot--including those who continue to find it attractive despite the fact that a number of gay couples have been granted marriage licenses in its absence. "Massachusetts" didn't grant marriage licenses to gay couples. That state's highest judicial body did. This is a distinction without a difference only if you're content to substitute the dirty democratic process for the opinions of judges--whether you approve of the consequences of those opinions or don’t. (The current fashion for favoring judicial jugments over knuckle-dragging democratic ones alarms me more today than it did yesterday. Yesterday, much so-called "judicial activism" had the benefit of progressive motives and outcomes to recommend it. Today, the courts are becoming increasingly conservative and deferential to executive privilege. Haven’t you noticed? And I'm not sure how one can principally argue against conservative courts brushing aside agreeable democratic sentiments after years and years of advocating that liberal judges brush aside disagreeable democratic sentiments.) Whether we like it or not, judicially created "rights" aren't as legitimate to most citizens as democratically agreed-upon ones. Especially in the area of social policy. People don't like to be left so casually out of the loop of their own lives.

You seem to be arguing here that anyone who fails to agree with you that judicially discovered "rights" are equivalent to painstaking and consensually agreed-upon "rights" must be at best a butt-scratching troglodyte, and at worst a brazen bigot. (And in too many cases, you'd probably turn out to be right. Believe me, I know.)

I, on the other hand, think it's much more complicated than that. This isn’t a battle between bigots and the enlightened elect. The DMA introduces all manner of vexing social and legal and constitutional issues. Favoring one position over the other might make someone wrong, but I don't think it necessarily brands them as a bigot. (As you may have noticed, I reserve that charged epithet for people, whatever their “politics,” who reflexively over-generalize and negatively stereotype other people.)

I'm not, of course, unsympathetic to gay couples who've been granted marriage licenses by various well-intentioned judges. But the final dispensation of this issue, including a full and bloody debate about the merits and (I think considerable) demerits of the DMA itself, cannot be held hostage to their feelings about the matter. If their marriage licenses are, in the end, judged to have been issued illegitimately, those licenses are moot. The legality of any contract, in other words, can’t reasonably be founded upon the feelings of those who entered into it. I'd prefer that those licenses weren't mooted, myself. But then no one's paying me the big bucks to put on a sexy sackcloth dress and decide such controversies.

In any event, I hope you'll tone down the vituperative rhetoric on this one. Just because many pro-DMA folks are claiming, however dubiously, the “moral high ground,” doesn't mean their opponents ought to start playing that sordid game. There are more than enough commonsensical and Constitutional reasons to oppose the Defense of Marriage Amendment. Condemning its supporters as backward bigots is neither necessary, nor even necessarily true.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 02:53 AM

Ron:

Well, there is the Defense of Marriage Act, which is specifically designed to allow states not to have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. It's an open question as to whether DoMA is constitutional; it would need to be challenged.

Dan Dragna:

"There are more than enough commonsensical and Constitutional reasons to oppose the Defense of Marriage Amendment. Condemning its supporters as backward bigots is neither necessary, nor even necessarily true."

Well, I'm not sure I agree with this. Is it not bigotry to attempt to deny a class of people rights that they already have? All this fiddle-faddle about some rights being more "righty" than others depending on whether they come from the judiciary or the legislature is ultimately nonsense: At the end of the day a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is just as legal and as legitimate as one between people of the opposite sex. Yes, it's shame people don't understand their own system of government well enough to grasp this concept, but I'm not sure why people whose rights are secured in this manner should be obliged to live under a cloud because of it. They have rights, and those rights ought to be respected.

There is no doubt that the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts are entirely legal; at this point the only way to void them would be to change the Massachusetts Constitution, and because of the various twists and turns of Massachusetts law, the earliest voters could choose to amend the Massachusetts Constitution on this matter is 2008. There's time for a lot of entirely legal marriages between now and then.

So again: If people say other people should not be allowed rights they already have -- rights every other person of legal age may enjoy -- how is this not bigotry?

I'm am perfectly willing to believe that many of these people are people of good will, who have strongly held beliefs, and who would categorize themselves quite accurately as good people. But being a good person in every other respect does not mitigate or excuse an act of rank bigotry. I suspect that some people may not be aware that they're engaging in bigotry, possibly because the argument has, as noted in the original entry, been framed to avoid noting the real-life consequences of such an amendment (and of the general position against same-sex married couples). As I said, I believe part of the solution is to put the argument in a more accurate frame.

Do people like being called bigots? Certainly not. But if one performs an action that is ultimately bigoted -- in this case supporting an action that would annihilate thousands of legal marriages -- what should one be called? In this thing, we are what we do. What my hope would be is that by hauling the word "bigot" out onto the rug, it would cause some of the more thoughtful people out there to consider the real-world implications of that they have believed was a largely theoretical arguement.

Because, truth to be told, many of these folks aren't bigots and would seek to avoid being labeled so. There is a difference between saying one has a moral issue with same-sex marriages -- which I think is fine -- and actively working to make thousands of marriages disappear -- which I think isn't fine at all.

Now, in conversation, the word "bigot" wouldn't be the first thing out of my mouth when talking to people who oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds; it probably wouldn't be the second or third thing, either. But if it came to it, I wouldn't avoid it, either. I wouldn't spit it in their face, I'd simply tell them that it's a possible consequence. Which is to say I'm pretty well socialized in person.

However, make no mistake: In my opinion those who are spearheading this amendment and the anti-same-sex marriage movement are bigots, and are of course fully aware of the implications of what they're attempting to do. I don't see any reason to play nice with them.

dan dragna | June 6, 2006 05:20 AM

In my opinion those who are spearheading this amendment and the anti-same-sex marriage movement are bigots, and are of course fully aware of the implications of what they're attempting to do.

Heh. I suspect that those “spearheading this amendment” actually haven’t anticipated all “of the implications of what they’re attempting to do.” The remarkably loose language of the DMA is susceptible to all sorts of unanticipated judicial interpretations. The rejection of claims of child visitation by grandparents representing just one possible unanticipated outcome. (Grandparents, along with other relatives, are obviously excluded from the various “incidents of marriage” enshrined in the DMA.)

All this fiddle-faddle about some rights being more "righty" than others depending on whether they come from the judiciary or the legislature is ultimately nonsense…

I recognize that that’s your position, John. I’ve tried to persuade you that, for many Americans, the difference between rights bequeathed by well-intentioned judges, and rights bequeathed by their elected representatives, is anything but “fiddle-faddle”.

Your argument presupposes that everyone who isn’t a bigot shares your “fiddle-faddle” premise. I’m suggesting--apparently provocatively--that someone can doubt the supremacy of judicial opinions--that someone can, in other words, entertain “fiddle-faddle”--without also being a bigot.

Bill Marcy | June 6, 2006 07:20 AM

I wouldlike ot see such analytical thinking be applied to something like, oh, the 2nd amendment. Amazing what politicians can get away with when they paint something as out of the main stream, no?

CoolBlue | June 6, 2006 07:35 AM

Brad Selbst

Civil Unions are commonly defined as between same-sex couples (although heteros can use it).

Not in Vermont. Civil Unions is for same-sex couples only, which is a problem in my mind.

John Scalzi

We've been down that road before, and it didn't work out all that great then.

Many blacls take very strong exception to equating this issue with the Civil Rights movement. Just so you know.

This "don't depend on the courts" line is the biggest sack of crap around.

I beg to differ. Using the "equal protection" argument is a very blunt instrument that could result in many unintended consequences. Because if you argue that Gays should marry because they are being discriminated against due to their natural inclinations, some guy could very well go to court and win an argument that says he should be able to marry a 12 year old because he was born with a natural inclination to like very young females. And he is being discriminated against because of it. He wants equal protection.

And the legal argument will be indistinquishable from the same sex argument.

This is why the Civil Institution of marriage needs to remain in the hands of people who want to be able to continue to define the age of consent, for instance, and not have a court define it for them.

JC | June 6, 2006 07:48 AM

John, what I think you're witnessing first hand is the great national blindspot with respect to same sex marriage. For whatever reason, it is not common knowledge that same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. (Well, at least for now. There are groups still trying to get a State Constitutional Amendment onto the 2008 ballot to change the definition of marriage.) I think this is because civilization didn't collapse, the apocalypse did not happen, and Hell did not freeze over. (Well, the Boston Red Sox did win the World Series, but that's a good thing.) People are allowed to marry the whomever they love and life goes on. It's all magnificently boring.

Well, with one exception. People in same-sex marriages in MA, of course, are not considered married in the eyes of the Federal Government because of the so-called "Defense" of Marriage Act. This means that there are married couples in MA who are still being denied rights and responsibilities regularly given to other married couples. This gets problematic as companies start rescinding dependent partner benefits on the notion that there is no need for private marriage substitute now that everyone is allowed the real thing. (If it isn't clear, the problem here is the "D"OMA, not the rescinding of dependent partner benefits.)

Anyways, I didn't realize there was this blindspot until a month or two ago when I was reading an advice column in the Washington Post which had to print a retraction because the columnist was unaware that same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. Maybe the supporters of non-discrimination in marriage are afraid of rallying the conservative base or something and so they want to keep this a secret. But still, the question of just exactly what we are defending marriage from pops up way too infrequently. Do opposite sex married couples wake up to suddenly find themselves divorced every time a same sex couple gets married? Or is it that the worth of their marriage is bound up solely in some notion of exclusivity?

The other thing that this illustrates is the difference between fact and belief. You can't argue against fact. You can assert it and reason using it, but it has been established, you can't argue against it. It is a fact that same sex marriage is legal in MA and so a Federal Discrimination of Marriage Amendment would invalidate marriages. So, it shouldn't be at all controversial to point out that this amendment would in fact change the definition of marriage in the US.

As for the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, there are so-called "Defense" of Marriage Acts all across the United States which bar those states from acknowledging certain but not all marriages performed in MA. I don't understand why these laws could ever be considered Constitutional. I don't think they've been challenged yet.

As for the judicial/legislative distinction. This ultimately is a red herring. I mean, are we supposed to re-segregate the schools because school integration came about as a result of Brown vs. the Board of Education? I mean, that was granted by the Judiciary and not the Legislature, right? Laws get struck down as unconstitutation and the Legislature either passes a constitutional version or amends the Constitution. This is how our government works. (Just like, in our government, the will of the people is not allowed to trump the Constitution. The right of Freedom of Speech ought not disappear, for example, just because a slim majority of the country decides we ought not have it. This is why we are a democratic republic and not mob rule.)

What the MA SJC decided was that the then existing law was unconstitutional and that the MA Legislature needed to come up with law with was actually consistent with the state constitution. That's what the Legislature did. That's why the SJC stayed their decision for (I think) 60 days. Same sex marriages occur like opposite sex marriages in MA. You don't have to file a suit against the state or do anything an opposite sex couple does not have to do . You just get a license.

As for the government getting out of the marriage business entirely and leaving it to the church, I used to think that way, but the discourse in the US has gone beyond that. Many of the so-called Defense of Marriage Acts and Amendments at the state-level explicitly deny civil union as well as marriage. After years of saying that they weren't against homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else, they just didn't want them to use the term marriage, it turns out that they wanted to deny rights to homosexuals available to everyone else after all. What a surprise...

I find this ironic because, IMHO, the people who have done the most harm to the institution of marriage are those who successfully framed the debate over the equalization of rights for homosexuals as "special rights." That led to private sector solutions intended to partially compensate for the inability to marry like dependent partner benefits being made available to couples who could legally marry so that those solutions would not be perceived as "special rights." I think their success in making the country think that not being discriminated against is a "special right" has done more to hurt the institution of marriage than any two men or two women choosing to commit to each other for the rest of their lives.

HalDuncan | June 6, 2006 08:00 AM

I recognize that that’s your position, John. I’ve tried to persuade you that, for many Americans, the difference between rights bequeathed by well-intentioned judges, and rights bequeathed by their elected representatives, is anything but “fiddle-faddle”.

Is that really the distinction applicable here? Seems to me that the real difference is between rights bequeathed by a formal, legal authority -- i.e. judges -- and rights bequeathed by informal, moral consensus -- i.e. "common sense". If the formal, political authority -- i.e. the elected representative -- backed up the judges, would the argument go away? Would their authority be recognised by opponents of gay marriage any more than the authority of the judges? I doubt it.

The opponents of same-sex marriage seem to be of the belief that their informal, moral consensus (note: their consensus, not everyone's) is more legitimate than the law. They trust neither the judges nor the elected representatives, so they seek to formalise their informal, moral consensus in the Constitution.

JessieSS | June 6, 2006 08:07 AM

I never thought I would approach this issue from this particular direction, but my god, has the entire anti-gay-marriage coalition thrown Massachusetts out of the US? Last I checked, we were still one of the fifty state, whose laws were still supposed to get full faith and credit in other states. And I can assure you that it is in fact the state of Massachusetts, via the clerk's office of individual cities and towns, which grants marriage licenses to couples both gay and straight. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts has never granted a marriage license. Be a bigot all you want, but do not pull this bullshit about how our marriages are not real because our laws don't count, not unless you're willing to deny every "marriage between a man and a woman" too. They are the same here.

Also, I think everyone here is aware that some members of the black community don't like to equate gay marriage with civil rights. Of course, some members of the black community are gay. Some of them are married in Massachusetts. I imagine they feel it's a fine analogy.

Occula | June 6, 2006 09:06 AM

Amen. Amen. Afreakingmen.

That they have the nerve to couch it in 'protecting marriage' terms is such a flabberghastly display of either chutzpah or madness, that's part of what makes it so hard to respond well. How do you debate someone who insists that black is white? Argh.

JonathanMoeller | June 6, 2006 09:15 AM

The proposed DMA is perfectly fulfilling its intended purpose. Rouse the base, rile the opposition, polarize, divide and conquer. Another move in the game of power.

Our lives are becoming their playing pieces.

Matt McIrvin | June 6, 2006 09:36 AM

I was going to speculate on how opponents of same-sex marriage would respond to John's argument, but commenters did it for me: basically, "Massachusetts doesn't count because they cheated." I don't think it was a cheat.

Black Americans may well object to the equation of this with the civil rights movement, and it's true that it's not comparable in every respect. I mean no disrespect to the people who faced down dogs and truncheons decades ago. But I think the separation-of-powers issues are definitely comparable. In the US we do not have unrestricted direct democracy, which could easily become highly illiberal in the classical sense of the term, as moral panics lead to the repression of anything that freaks out half of the population; one of the most important functions of the courts is to protect the rights of minorities from the majority. The civil rights movement showed that that can be true even in cases where the repression is enshrined in long history and tradition. And popular opinion followed. It is following in Massachusetts as well; the legislature has failed to overturn the court ruling with an amendment, and public support for same-sex marriage is growing.

If the political situation shifts and it's the legislature overruling repression by the courts (as has been the case at various times in the past and could well be in the future), I have no problem siding with the legislature. In cases like this it's repression of harmless minority rights that is the problem, not who's doing it.

Matt McIrvin | June 6, 2006 09:47 AM

Incidentally, "full faith and credit" is why Massachusetts has a long-standing law saying the state won't, or at least is not officially supposed to, marry couples who have no plans to become Massachusetts residents and whose marriages are illegal in their home states. I don't like this particular state law and would be happier if it were gone, but I do understand why it's there.

John H | June 6, 2006 09:51 AM

JonathanMoeller:

Of course that's what this is - it's an election year. They spun their little 'talking point' roulette wheel and this time gay marriage came up instead of flag burning.

But since the Republicans are scared shitless they are going to lose their asses this November, they decided to spin it again - that's why they're also fanning the 'illegal immigrant' flame...

Chris Gabel | June 6, 2006 09:52 AM

Scalzi sez:

"First: what's up with the "quotes," there, Chris? Are you under the impression that same-sex marriages are not real or something? Surprise! They are."

Actually, they're only legally "real" in Massachusetts. The federal government doesn't recognize them, nor are any other states currently required to recognize them. You seem to think otherwise - I suggest you consult a lawyer who practices in that arena.

"What I find really interesting is how some people recently have gotten brain damage regarding the role of the judiciary in our governments, which is to interpret the law.....etc..."

There is a legitimate difference of opinion regarding the PROPER role of the judiciary. Many argue that rulings such as the one in Mass. involve no "interpretation", but creating law out of thin air. We like to think of ourselves as a democracy & tend to resent it when judges create laws on us. I realize the legislative process is too slow for social zealots who want their agendas passed before the public is ready for them. However, I can assure you, you will be the first one to scream bloody murder if a conservative court abuses it's power to declare something unconsitutional that you like.

John, you're a pretty young pup & I don't think you realize how new and novel the concept of gay marriage truly is. I assure you it wasn't even on the radar screen when I hit voting age (and I'm only 47). The reality is, this issue has moved quickly. Hang in there, I'm quite confident you'll see your wishes come true in your lifetime.

Matt McIrvin | June 6, 2006 09:57 AM

CoolBlue: "Because if you argue that Gays should marry because they are being discriminated against due to their natural inclinations, some guy could very well go to court and win an argument that says he should be able to marry a 12 year old because he was born with a natural inclination to like very young females. And he is being discriminated against because of it. He wants equal protection."

To my mind, it's not about "discrimination on the basis of natural inclinations" at all. And I think it's not that to the Massachusetts courts either; they ruled on the basis of *sex* discrimination.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have made the cruel argument that gays have the same rights as anyone else: to marry someone of the opposite sex. But that line of reasoning can be turned on its head. The right of same-sex marriage isn't just a right for gay people, it's a right for everybody, whether they use it or not. I've never had any inclination to marry a man, and in fact I married a woman, but I also think it's unwarranted sex discrimination if the state tells me that's my only choice. I want to make that call myself. I'm proud that the state in which I got my marriage license now agrees, and to me, it makes my own choice just a tiny bit more meaningful.

darren | June 6, 2006 10:24 AM

"Because if you argue that Gays should marry because they are being discriminated against due to their natural inclinations, some guy could very well go to court and win an argument that says he should be able to marry a 12 year old because he was born with a natural inclination to like very young females."

Just can't seem to grasp that whole concept thingy regarding TWO consenting adults can we? Puddy Doggies & Itty Bitty Kiddies are not consenting adults. You "gotta draw the line somewhere" folks are right; and the line is CONSENTING ADULTS! I suspect you slippery slopers already understand the logic here but feel the need to rationalize your hatred by framing it in this STOOPID arguement about pedofilia, polygamy, and beastiality.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | June 6, 2006 10:25 AM

We like to think of ourselves as a democracy

But it doesn't change the fact that we're not. Please see Matt McIrvin's post, above, for an explanation so thorough that anything I posted would be repetitive.

How is it an abuse of the court's powers for the court to say, "The state constitution prescribes equal treatment of all, but marriage laws are not living up to that prescription. Fix it!" Seems like exactly the court's role: protecting the rights of the minority, as enshrined in a state or federal constitution, from the tyranny of the majority.

JonathanMoeller | June 6, 2006 10:26 AM

"Of course that's what this is - it's an election year. They spun their little 'talking point' roulette wheel and this time gay marriage came up instead of flag burning."

S'right.

That's what pisses me off about the whole deal. Illegal immigrants have been coming in for decades, and gay people have been living together since the dawn of civilization, but now, *five months* before the election, these are suddenly national crises? Whatever (pardon the pun).

Bearpaw | June 6, 2006 10:33 AM

CoolBlue: "Because if you argue that Gays should marry because they are being discriminated against due to their natural inclinations, some guy could very well go to court and win an argument that says he should be able to marry a 12 year old because he was born with a natural inclination to like very young females."

Oh goody, the classic slippery-slope-to-pedophilia argument. When it comes up, it always makes me so glad I've never dated anyone who doesn't understand the concept of "meaningful consent".

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 10:33 AM

Dan Dragna:

"I’m suggesting--apparently provocatively--that someone can doubt the supremacy of judicial opinions--that someone can, in other words, entertain 'fiddle-faddle' --without also being a bigot."

However, my point is that regardless of how people feel about rights secured via the judiciary, those rights are no less real. From a legal point of view, doubting them simply doesn't matter.

CoolBlue:

"Many blacks take very strong exception to equating this issue with the Civil Rights movement. Just so you know."

And some backs recognize this is very much like the Civil Rights movement. Just so you know. What's your point?

"some guy could very well go to court and win an argument that says he should be able to marry a 12 year old because he was born with a natural inclination to like very young females."

Inasmuch as there are at least two states with no statuatory minimum marrying age (and at least two where 13 year olds can theoretically get married), it seems unlikely he would need to create a legal suit do do this. Incidentally, I think this is kind of icky; I would support a rather higher minumum age to get married. However, in any event, this is not a particularly good example.

Chris Gabel:

"Actually, they're only legally 'real' in Massachusetts. The federal government doesn't recognize them, nor are any other states currently required to recognize them. You seem to think otherwise."

See, Chris, this is why you need to keep up: I already pointed out the DoMA earlier in the thread. However, I should note I can think of at least one recent marriage between a man and a woman that was performed in one state and not recognized in another, so I guess all marriages are legally "real" only to a certain extent. And of course let us remember that marriages between people of two different colors was only "real" in some states until Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

But what you seem to be wanting to ignore is that Massachusetts is actually in the United States. Well, surprise! It is. Therefore, everything I've been saying is true: Same-sex marriage is going on in the United States, and anyone can have one. And incidentally, as it is the states who have the power to create marriages, Massachussetts doesn't need the federal government to recognize the marriages in order for them to be real.

"Many argue that rulings such as the one in Mass. involve no 'interpretation', but creating law out of thin air."

Well, sure, but those people are idiots, because clearly in this case the Court said to the legislature: This law is unjust, do your job and fix it. All the hooting and screaming about "activist courts" hasn't a bit of relevance in this particular case. What the problem is, is that the Mass. Court gave a decision that some folks didn't like, and now they're trying to suggest the courts are doing more than their job.

"However, I can assure you, you will be the first one to scream bloody murder if a conservative court abuses it's power to declare something unconsitutional that you like."

Unconstitutional? Yes. Until then, no. And it should be noted that the Mass. Court acted both entire constitutionally and was the final arbiter in this matter, because it was a state matter.

As I've said a number of times in the past, the most "activist" judicial ruling I can think of in recent times was Bush v. Gore, and I think it was wildly poorly decided. However, you don't see me hopping up and down like a frog on a plate, bitching about that damned activist Judge Scalia, because in my opinion, regardless of whether I like the ruling or not, the judiciary was doing its proper role. So, basically, if I have to live with a piece of crap ruling like Bush v. Gore, my sympathy for boo-hoo conservates bitching about "activist judges" is around about zero.

Brian Greenberg | June 6, 2006 10:39 AM

John: I believe that you and I agree on this issue (gays should be able to legally marry), but I think the logic you're using to defend it is flawed. Consider this: what if a constitutional ammendment were written to define marriage as man/woman, but grandfathered in everyone who was married before the ammendment took effect? In that case, it wouldn't be destroying anyone's marriage, and yet, I'm guessing you would still consider it a repugnant ammendment (as would I).

On a broader note, I think 99% of this argument happens because people talk past each other. There are, to my mind, there are three relevant definitions of marriage: there's marriage as defined by the couple (your marriage to Krissy likely means something slightly different to you than mine means to my wife and I), there's the religious definition of marriage (as defined by the religion involved, if any), and there's the legal definition of marriage (as defined by the federal & state governments involved).

The first is unassailable by any court or legislature. The second is optional to many people (e.g., atheist couples or couples of different religions), and paramount to others. The third is also optional to many people (think Oprah...), but necessary for the various financial and legal benefits that marriage provides.

When the marriage bigots, as you call them, talk about the definition of marriage as being man/woman, I think in most cases, they're discussing the religious definition. Most of the world's major religions define marriage as man/woman and have done so for millenia. Your post here refers to the legal definition of marriage which, as you point out, has recently changed to remove that distinction. That said, I don't see the two opinions as mutually exclusive.

The problem with the laws/ammendments under discussion is that they attempt to codify the religious definition into the legal one. The fact that many, many people take the religious definition very seriously is what makes the civil union discussion interesting (at least to me). It strikes me as a way of reaching a common legal definition for these relationships without unduly trouncing on the religious beliefs of many.

Brian Greenberg | June 6, 2006 10:40 AM

Oh, by the way, I'm very glad to see you discussing this without calling the President a moron.

We've come a long way, baby... ;-)

Christopher Davis | June 6, 2006 10:57 AM

John's already mentioned Loving v. Virginia, but the question remains for those who are saying that marriage shouldn't be redefined by courts: what about interracial marriages? (Like the President's brother and sister-in-law have, for example. Remember Bush 41 talking about his grandchildren, the "little brown ones"?)

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 10:58 AM

Brian Greenberg:

"Consider this: what if a constitutional ammendment were written to define marriage as man/woman, but grandfathered in everyone who was married before the ammendment took effect?"

Heh. It would get even fewer votes in the Senate than this one will, I suspect.

"The fact that many, many people take the religious definition very seriously is what makes the civil union discussion interesting (at least to me). It strikes me as a way of reaching a common legal definition for these relationships without unduly trouncing on the religious beliefs of many."

And yet, there are any number of religions for whom same-sex marriage is not a problem -- not to mention people of no religion for whom it's not a problem either. Why should the gun-shy religions be the ones to set the pace -- and indeed why should the various governments of the US, with their separation of church and state, be enjoined from setting a definition independent of any particular church or churches? There are of course many definitions of what "marriage" is, but in this particular case the one that matters is the legal one, as that is the one that provides the benefits, protections and obligations of the state.

I doubt that any move to make "civil unions" part of the landscape is going to work. Many of the marriage bigots are working to deny same-sex couples of any protections under law -- I live in a state where that's the case -- and same-sex couples quite reasonably will want to know why they should suffer under "separate but unequal" laws. Also, of course, any attempt to make Civil Unions the universal currency of legal partnership in the US is likely to run smack into the wall of all the opposing-sex couples who don't a damn civil union, they want a marriage.

As I think someone noted upthread, if particular churches don't want to condone same-sex marriages, fine. They don't have to perform the ceremonies. But their religious objections shouldn't deny same-sex couples from being married. And as it stands, they don't.

PeterP | June 6, 2006 11:01 AM

At this point, it's more or less implied. I just have imaginary quotes that get stuck in whenever I see the words "President Bush" (Moron)

CoolBlue | June 6, 2006 11:03 AM

JC

As for the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, there are so-called "Defense" of Marriage Acts all across the United States which bar those states from acknowledging certain but not all marriages performed in MA. I don't understand why these laws could ever be considered Constitutional. I don't think they've been challenged yet.

Hunt v. Ake

Plaintiffs: Rev. Phyllis Hunt and Vilia Corvision
Defendants: Richard Ake, Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ellis Rubin, P.A.
Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
STATUS: Concluded: case dismissed
Published Opinion: n/a

Details: On August 11, 2004, plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, specifically the failure of Florida to recognize their Canadian marriage license by virtue of that statute. On January 20, 2005, this case was dismissed along with Wilson v. Ake (see below). Plaintiffs have announced that they will not appeal.

Sullivan v. Bush

Plaintiffs: F.D.R. Sullivan and Pedro Barrios, along with three other same-sex couples
Defendants: Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General; Charlie Crist, Florida Attorney General; Harvey Ruvin, Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ellis Rubin, P.A.
Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
STATUS: Concluded: plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew case
Published Opinion: n/a

Details: On May 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. On August 27, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss. On January 25, 2005, following an unfavorable ruling in two other federal cases in Florida, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their suit.

Wilson v. Ake

Plaintiffs: Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether
Defendants: Richard Ake, Hillsborough County Clerk of Courts; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Ellis Rubin, P.A.
Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
STATUS: Concluded: case dismissed
Published Opinion: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005).

Details: On July 19, 2004, plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, specifically the failure of Florida to recognize their Massachusetts marriage license by virtue of that statute. Liberty Counsel made a motion to intervene. On August 12, 2004, that motion was denied. On January 20, 2005, Judge Moody granted the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court's Summary disposition in Baker was binding on the district court—which meant that the District Court was required to uphold DOMA and the Florida marriage statute as constitutional. On January 24, plaintiffs announced that they would not appeal the case.

Matt McIrvin

To my mind, it's not about "discrimination on the basis of natural inclinations" at all.

It doesn't matter what "it" is about to your mind. Nothing you have said challenges how a lower court would interpret the Supreme Court ruling given a specific case that attempts to challenge a person's right to marry based on the "equal protection" clause.

I would also point out that in Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question".

darren

Just can't seem to grasp that whole concept thingy regarding TWO consenting adults can we? Puddy Doggies & Itty Bitty Kiddies are not consenting adults.

My ability to grasp this concept is unimpared. The problem is when you leave it to the court to construe a decision based on "equal protection" or speculating a "right to marriage" based on due process, you open the door to some potentially awful inintended consequences that may seem stoopid to you but not to a judge or justice who has to follow precedent made by a higher court.

Who's to say that because of the above some judge will decide that because it is a barrier to a "right to marriage" the age of consent should be lowered to 10 despite what the State Legislature, which is the voice of the people, intend?

I suspect you slippery slopers already understand the logic here but feel the need to rationalize your hatred by framing it in this STOOPID arguement about pedofilia, polygamy, and beastiality.

The fact remains that marriage is a civil affair and should remain so. Stop short-circuiting the process and do it right: Convince people. Bring them over to your side. Sure it may mean you have to stop calling people stoopid and affirm their right to their feelings. But that's the price adults pay to build a constituency in a Democracy.

Regardless, the demographics are on the side of Gay Marriage. While it is true that more than 60% of the population (notice, that is more than just Republicans) are opposed to Gay marriage, a majority of young people are OK with it.

Do it though the law, not the courts. That's all I'm saying

Chris Gabel | June 6, 2006 11:13 AM

Scalzi sez:

"Well, sure, but those people are idiots, "

You kill me, dude - you just called the majority of the SCOTUS, the federal judiciary and even most constitutional law professors idiots.

"...because clearly in this case the Court said to the legislature: This law is unjust, do your job and fix it. All the hooting and screaming about "activist courts" hasn't a bit of relevance in this particular case. What the problem is, is that the Mass. Court gave a decision that some folks didn't like, and now they're trying to suggest the courts are doing more than their job."

Come now, John, in all fairness - it's not "some people" - it's still an overwhelming majority of the population - even in Massachusetts. And therein lies the problem. Believe it or not, our system works far better when the laws come from "the people" rather than "from above".

"However, you don't see me hopping up and down like a frog on a plate..."

I don't know, some of those pics you've posted lately come close....

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 11:17 AM

CoolBlue:

"Do it though the law, not the courts. That's all I'm saying."

And then what? We use the courts as storage lockers for old lawyers? Fact is, the courts in this case did what they were supposed to do, which was to interpret the law as it exists. And it went something like this:

Plaintiff: You know, we think limiting marriage only to a man and a woman violates Massachusetts' equal protection clause.

Mass. Supreme Court: Hmmm. (Looks at the law.) You know what? You're right. Hey, legislature! Get your ass in gear and make this law compliant with our commonwealth's Constitution, if you please.

Legislature: Gaaaaaaah!

Contrary to the current political thinking of some, this does not constitute "making law." It constitutes interpreting law and making sure the law as written is followed. Which is to say, the courts are doing what they are supposed to do. Now, as noted earlier, I understand that many people don't understand the role of the judiciary, and may feel like there's something not right there, but that's an issue of education, not law.

RooK | June 6, 2006 11:17 AM

TANGENT:

Why aren't people hammering the marriage bigots with this?

Well, perhaps many people recognize this whole quasi-issue as really just an attempt by the current administration to do the only thing they're actually not utterly incompetent about: drumming up support from their mindless base. Seeing this relatively unsubtle gesture, it's possible that they even realize that "hammering the marriage bigots" at this time will primarily just piss them off and motivate them to vote with their spleen instead of their (supposed) brain.

But don't mind me. You just keep poking that hornets nest with a stick right before your nudist party.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 11:20 AM

Heh. Well, I'm not suggesting everyone "hammer" like I hammer. I do think the next time someone talks about gay marriage in the theoretical, they need to be corrected. Politely is fine.

CoolBlue | June 6, 2006 11:28 AM

John Scalzi

And some backs recognize this is very much like the Civil Rights movement. Just so you know. What's your point?

My point is, as with many who were around when the Civil Rights movement was afoot, that making moral equivalence with a system that didn't allow people to vote; provided them with "separate but equal" places to eat, shit, sleep, live and recreate; and littered the trees in the South with (as Billie Holliday sang) Strange Fruit all because of the color of their skin is, um, repugnant.

Inasmuch as there are at least two states with no statuatory minimum marrying age (and at least two where 13 year olds can theoretically get married), it seems unlikely he would need to create a legal suit do do this.

Not in those states. But what about your state?

CoolBlue | June 6, 2006 11:38 AM

John Scalzi

Contrary to the current political thinking of some, this does not constitute "making law."

So does this mean, in your mind, that the Judiciary is infallible?

How do you square what the Mass Supreme Court did with the fact that the Supreme Court of the US has said that banning Gay Marriage is not a violation of the US Constitution?

Both have an equal protection clause.

Is Massachusetts' equal protection clause so much different than the US Consitiutions'?

The fact is there are courts that have made law rather than interpreting law.

I would bring up the Florida Supreme Court, but that would just make this whole discussion bloodier.

Ooooops....

Caleb | June 6, 2006 11:48 AM

Well said, John.

An interesting tactic by those who are against gay marriage, is that after the early slippery slope arguments about pedophilia and bestiality and the like have been debunked, is to resort to a stance that appears calm and well reasoned; namely: "Do it through the law, not the courts".

I've been seeing that very statement crop up over and over again in these discussions for the past few years, and it is always said with a sort of checkmate finality to it.

The premise behind the 'do it through the law' idea seems mostly to be: You can't possibly do this now as there isn't nearly enough popular support for it, so just go away. (And tangentially, that's interesting in and of itself, as this particular subject only seems to come up when the Right is needing to fire up the base, but that's another post.)

Suggesting that there are African-Americans out there who don't want the civil rights movement tied to the gay-rights movement is a red herring. The similarities are striking. Take Loving vs Virginia, the interracial marriage case. At the time of the decision, 72% of the country thought the court was wrong. Is that still the case, or were those people, in fact, wrong? (I'll give you a hint, the majority now thinks interracial marriage is just fine.)

The fact of the matter is, that there isn't a solid legal reason why a two men, or two women shouldn't be able to be legally married. To have their commitment to each other recognized by the state. If you've got a legal reason why that's a bad thing, great, let's hear it.

I suspect that most opponents of same sex marriage don't have one. They're going to rest on specious arguments about activist judges, and bestiality. They'll do their best to hide intolerance behind a facade of reasoned discourse.

It took brave people to stand up in the face of intolerance during the civil rights movement, but they did it, and they succeeded. They did it through protest and through the courts, as the legislatures by and large wouldn't get involved. They won. The country now understands that the way things were before that was, in fact, wrong, that the racism of the day was wrong. I'm confident that the bigotry we're seeing now will eventually earn the scorn it rightfully should.

dan dragna | June 6, 2006 11:53 AM

Scalzi: "...my point is that regardless of how people feel about rights secured via the judiciary, those rights are no less real. From a legal point of view, doubting them simply doesn't matter."

I don't disagree with you, John. (Or any of the other commenters who’ve made similar points.) I've merely tried to draw your attention to the possibility that "doubting" the legitimacy of judicially discovered rights, even if naïve and wrongheaded, isn't necessarily evidence of bigotry. (I find it a little strange that very few of the commenters above have addressed this point, choosing instead to debate, once more, the merits and demerits of the DMA--and its supporters/detractors.)

It's dispiriting to think that people are incapable of disagreeing about any public controversy without constantly indicting the characters and motives of their opponents. It poisons the well. People--even, shiver, paleoconservatives--can be monumentally wrong, in other words, without being evil.

Tripp | June 6, 2006 11:55 AM

Geez, all these 'sensible' people trying to tell Scalzi what he should and shouldn't write about.

Just for grins you should know that when I say "Bush" the full name "Bush, who couldn't find oil in Texas" is implied. The same with "Rush the drug addict."

So let's recap the lame arguments.

1. Allowing gays to marry gives them special treatment. What a lie.
2. If we allow this were gonna have to allow pedaphilia. Very stupid. we are much more likely to allow polygamy.
3. Shut up, liberal, you must be tolerant of everything. I think they get this from Rush the drug addict.
4. Marriage has been the foundation of society for thousands of years. Ummm, no, actually the 'traditional' marriage with romantic love came into favor in the late 1800s. The conservatives were very much against it at the time, and they actually had a point. They decried marriage based on romantic love because romantic love fades and what happens then? Conservatives warned that the divorce rate would rise. They were right, too.
5. Gay marriage will be the end of our society. I hear this over and over and over but no one can explain how except for a vague idea that things are going to crap and this will be the final straw.

I wish opponents to gay marriage would just be honest and say they hate the idea because the idea of gay sex is yucky to them. At least then they'd be honest.

Harry Connolly | June 6, 2006 11:59 AM

What this whole discussion says to me is that I should be living in Massachusetts.

Tripp | June 6, 2006 12:00 PM

dan dragna,

After the last 6 six years I'd rather take my chances with the judiciary over both the legislative and executive branches. From where I stand I think the judiciary is the only branch wanting to protect me and my rights. The other two branches want to protect the rich and the Leviticans.

Q | June 6, 2006 12:00 PM

Anyone arguing civil union vs. marriage just boggles my mind a bit... arguing over a word effectively.

Mariage CAN be sanctioned by a church, with all rights, responsibilities and privelages therof...

Marriage IS sanctioned by the government, with all rights, responsibilities and priveliges therof...

By the simple separation of church and state, wouldn't the institution of marriage, as defined by the government have to ignore the religious aspects? It's this fact that leads me to conclude that banning gay marraige is unnaceptable. My church can think what it wants, but legally, I don't see how it should matter.

People want to claim this is a civil union, not a marriage... but you know what? The license issue to my wife and I, after a ceremony held at a country club presided over by a notary, with nary a religious figure in sight, is called a Marriage License.

Maybe the Religious Right should just coin a new word for marriage that is purely based on religion and is defined as between a man and a woman instead of getting the rest of us to change our definition of marriage. I'm thinking the institution of Adamevea.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 12:03 PM

CoolBlue:

"How do you square what the Mass Supreme Court did with the fact that the Supreme Court of the US has said that banning Gay Marriage is not a violation of the US Constitution?"

When did the SCOTUS say that? I'm not aware of such a ruling. Please provide the cite.

Also, it doesn't have to be squared. It's a state law and the Massachusetts Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. It presents no constitutional issues via the federal government.

"Is Massachusetts' equal protection clause so much different than the US Consitiutions'?"

Apparently so, although, again, I'd need to see the cite that suggests the SCOTUS has decided that the DoMA has survived Constitutional scrutiny.

Aside from this there are a number of state constitutions which offer broader protections than the US Constitution. For example, California explicitly offers privacy rights not explicity offered in the US Constitution.

That's the magic of federalism.

"The fact is there are courts that have made law rather than interpreting law."

So what? This wasn't one of those times.

Tripp | June 6, 2006 12:08 PM

CoolBlue,

So does this mean, in your mind, that the Judiciary is infallible?

Oh, yeah, you bring up the other dishonest technique that Rush's (the drug addict) followers like to use. You take what your opponent says and then push it too far and place those words in your opponent's mouth.

For example, if I say I trust Judges more that politicians you might come back with "So you say judges are infallible.

In a previous thread some other commenter said "we already know how Scalzi feels about gay marriage, he loves it."

That dishonest tactic may fly on little green footballs but anyone with an ounce of sense can spot it a mile away.

CoolBlue | June 6, 2006 12:30 PM

John Scalzi

"How do you square what the Mass Supreme Court did with the fact that the Supreme Court of the US has said that banning Gay Marriage is not a violation of the US Constitution?"

When did the SCOTUS say that? I'm not aware of such a ruling. Please provide the cite.

As posted above:

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question".

Clearly SCotUS did not see a conflict with a state law and the US Constitution.

Also, it doesn't have to be squared. It's a state law and the Massachusetts Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. It presents no constitutional issues via the federal government.

This is the case. But to say that the Mass Supreme Court did not incorrectly interpret the law simply because they say they didn't is not supported by the facts.

Perhaps their "equal protection" clause is different. I remember looking it up once and it didn't seem obvious to me that it was. But I don't know the case-law so I'm not sure.

Aside from this there are a number of state constitutions which offer broader protections than the US Constitution. For example, California explicitly offers privacy rights not explicity offered in the US Constitution.

That's the magic of federalism.

And I completely agree. In fact, the Massachusetts decision has more weight in my mind because people attempted to amend the State Constitution to ban Gay marriage and failed, telling me that the people of the state approve.

Which is fine by me.

Apparently so, although, again, I'd need to see the cite that suggests the SCOTUS has decided that the DoMA has survived Constitutional scrutiny.

To my knowledge DoMA has not reached the Supreme Court. I cited a number of cases above (Hunt v. Ake, Sullivan v. Bush, Wilson v. Ake) where challenges did reach various Federal Courts and all have been dismissed and not pursued higher.

Darkhawk | June 6, 2006 12:49 PM

Nothing would be obliterated. Under civil union, your rights and resposibilities would be exactly the same as they are now under marriage.

Marriage is the word in English for a committed partnership with extensive levels of mutual obligation.

"Civil union" is the word in English for "your partnership isn't good enough to be a real marriage".

I consider that a loss.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 12:49 PM

CoolBlue:

Re: Baker v. Nelson: I'm not entirely sure it means what you suggest it does. The end result of Baker v. Nelson is to suggest that the states have the right to define marriage as they see fit, as long as it doesn't conflict with the US Constitution. A state defining marriage to excuse same-sex marriage is not a violation of the Constitution, true enough, but on the other hand a state defining marriage to allow it isn't, either. Which brings up the question of what your point might have been in the first place.

"But to say that the Mass Supreme Court did not incorrectly interpret the law simply because they say they didn't is not supported by the facts."

What facts are those? Unless you can cite evidence that the Mass. Supreme Court endemically incorrectly interprets the law, there's not much evidence to support an incorrect interpretation. You're a pretty smart fellow, or at least seem to be; be that as it may, I suspect that you're not spending as much time with Masschusetts law as the folks on the Mass. Court whose job it is to adjucate the law. Your opinion may be the ruling was improperly decided, but I don't see evidence of jurisprudential malfeasance in this case. So factually I'm not seeing evidence that this ruling constitutes overreaching.

Bob Wall | June 6, 2006 12:58 PM

Isn't this the first time that a constitutional amendment (if this makes it in and is ratified) would actually REDUCE the rights of one group of citizens? Haven't all amendments up to this point in history increased rights?

John H | June 6, 2006 01:04 PM

I think Senator Feingold says it best over on DailyKos:

The federal marriage amendment, which would write discrimination into the Constitution, is an obvious attempt to change the subject from topics that the Congress should be addressing to a hot button social issue intended to appeal to certain factions. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Frist plans to hold a vote on this mean-spirited proposal. It has no chance of receiving the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments. The only thing bringing it up now will accomplish is to push Congress further away from the issues it should be addressing and engage the Senate of the United States in a shameful political ploy.

Tor | June 6, 2006 01:12 PM

Baker v. Nelson isn't really on point. At that time, there was no federal question, I believe, because no state recognized same sex marriage. For DOMA to be constitutional, it has to also be constitutional for one state to say to another, 'yeah, you gave that dude a driver's license, but they can't drive here.' There is a fair amount of federal law that says that one state cannot discriminate against another in that way. For example, New Jersey can't say, PA - we don't want your trash, find some other place to put it in a landfill, while still allowing in-state residents to use their landfills. What DOMA is trying to say is to allow one state to say to another 'your law isn't any good here.' Some believe that to be unconstitutional. I happen to agree. But what I think, and even what Constitutional scholars think, is basically irrelevant. The Supreme Court in DC is the only opinion that matters.

CoolBlue | June 6, 2006 01:43 PM

John Scalzi

Which brings up the question of what your point might have been in the first place.

The point is this: assume for a moment the "equal protection" clause is identical in both the Mass Constitution and the US Constitution (as it seems to me it is). The Supreme Court says that the equal protection clause does not bar a state from banning Gay marriages, however the Mass Supreme Court says that it compels the state to allow Gay marriages.

One of these two views must be wrong.

However, the SCotUS doesn't say that a state law allowing Gay Marriages is unconstitutional since a state can determine the conditions for marriage any way it wants.

I suspect that you're not spending as much time with Masschusetts law as the folks on the Mass. Court whose job it is to adjucate the law.

And I fully ceded this point already. While the two clauses appear to me to be the same, there may be specific case-law within Mass that allowed their decision.

Or they could have just made it up.

But if there really is a "right to marry" in the Mass Constitution, clearly you can see that it could cause a lot of problems down the raod.

I think it is more responsible to allow lawmakers define who and under what conditions people should be allowed to marry because there are situations we, as a society, want to avoid for whatever reason.

Your opinion may be the ruling was improperly decided,

Correct

but I don't see evidence of jurisprudential malfeasance in this case. So factually I'm not seeing evidence that this ruling constitutes overreaching.

In either case I don't think there was malfeasance. I think it is possible the justices decided what outcome they wanted first and so because they believed that's the way it should be.

I simply think that doing it through the courts is using a hammer when a scalpel is required.

Bob Wall

Isn't this the first time that a constitutional amendment (if this makes it in and is ratified) would actually REDUCE the rights of one group of citizens? Haven't all amendments up to this point in history increased rights?

The 22nd Amendment restricted the right of a person to run for President more that twice.

The 18th Amendment banned alcohol. Of course it was repealed by the 21st Amendment. But still.

And one could argue the 16th Amendment restricted individual's right to keep the money they earn...

And the 11th Amendment restricts your ability to sue another state's government.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 02:08 PM

CoolBlue:

"One of these two views must be wrong."

Only if one is under the impression the Masschusetts constitution and the US consitution are exactly the same.

Dave | June 6, 2006 03:06 PM

What DOMA is trying to say is to allow one state to say to another 'your law isn't any good here.' Some believe that to be unconstitutional. I happen to agree.

Then you are deeply mistaken with respect to mainstream constitutional interpretation. "Full Faith and Credit" certainly doesn't invalidate DOMA, any more than it invalidates laws in some states which prohibit cousins from marrying, and which refuse to recognize such marriages in other states. Similarly with states which do not recognize foreign marriages under their age of consent. Such laws have long been held constitutional, as long as a strong public policy reason is advanced. That the strong public policy reason advanced in favor of DOMA is stupid and pernicious does not change this, unless it were so stupid and pernicious to violate federal equal protection, which seems very unlikely.

I find this line of argument somewhat ironic in that many of the early backers of gay marriage rights specifically argued that full faith and credit wouldn't result in nation-wide gay marriage. In addition to being correct, it was also thought to be tactically wise to fight on a state-by-state basis, rather than nationwide. That's how slippery slopes get oiled, I guess.

Brian Greenberg | June 6, 2006 03:06 PM

John:
And yet, there are any number of religions for whom same-sex marriage is not a problem -- not to mention people of no religion for whom it's not a problem either. Why should the gun-shy religions be the ones to set the pace?

Well, probably because the gun-shy religions represent the vast majority of the people on the earth. On the religious front, this isn't a close call - Christianity, Judaism and Islam all define marriage as man/woman. I don't have exact statistics, but practically speaking, that's almost everybody.

why should the various governments of the US, with their separation of church and state, be enjoined from setting a definition independent of any particular church or churches?

They shouldn't be. But (and this was my point from above) when you say that two men (or two women) are married, the religious christian/jew/muslim takes it as a religious statement, because in his/her mind, "marriage" is a religious term.

Hence the argument. Hence the polls that show the majority of people are in favor of gay rights but opposed to gay marriage. They conflate the two definitions in the space of a single sentence.

There are of course many definitions of what "marriage" is, but in this particular case the one that matters is the legal one, as that is the one that provides the benefits, protections and obligations of the state.

If that were true, I believe this would have been settled long ago. Remember, it's the religious right that's fighting this battle. In fact, it's exactly this point that makes me think we should separate the religious institution from the legal institution, and work toward ensuring that the legal institution provides equal protection/privledges under the law. Doing so would remove so much of the resistance to the idea that I believe it would pass both houses almost instantly.

Any attempt to make Civil Unions the universal currency of legal partnership in the US is likely to run smack into the wall of all the opposing-sex couples who don't want a damn civil union, they want a marriage.

And why would that be? If Civil Unions could be made equivalent to marriages under the law, why would anyone care? Because "marriage" has a religious connotation that goes back thousands of years, that's why.

Q:
Maybe the Religious Right should just coin a new word for marriage that is purely based on religion and is defined as between a man and a woman instead of getting the rest of us to change our definition of marriage. I'm thinking the institution of Adamevea.

Well, Q and I agree entirely, except I'm conceding that religion defined the term long before the US government did.

There are historical records of marriages from 6,000 years ago. These are not just Bible stories. Hanging on my bedroomm wall right now is a Ketubah, a jewish marriage license, written in Aramaic, containing the same words that appeared on marriage licenses dating back to before Christ. This isn't religious dogma, it's historical fact. Real life records exist.

On my wedding day, I signed two contracts: the Ketubah and a marriage license from the State of New York. The former says "in accordance with the laws of Moses" and the latter says "in accordance with the laws of the State of New York."

I don't want to speak for anyone else here, but my guess is that the average Jewish, same-sex couple would be very happy if they were allowed to sign the latter document, and wouldn't much care if they weren't allowed to sign the former.

If we could get past the overloaded terms, I think we could come to an agreeable solution here. Of course, then we'd have to go back to talking about illegal immigration before elections...

Bob Wall | June 6, 2006 03:29 PM

Coolblue -

I think each of these amendments are very different from what is being considered here. The only one that could possibly be a relevant example is the 22nd. And that group of citizens numbers about 5 or 6 at most at any given time, and they joined that class of citizen by choice (by running for president).

The 11th amendment even if considered anything other than a statement on state's status as quasi-soverign, restricts all persons' ability to sue, not just certain people.

16th, no, bull. 18th, as you said, cancelled, and again, it didn't apply to just one group of citizens.

Darkhawk | June 6, 2006 03:33 PM

I dispute that marriage is a religious term. Yes, many people consider it a sacrament, but that doesn't mean religion owns it.

This post has an overview of how religion usurped marriage from ordinary people in English law. I live in Massachusetts, where the Constitution as written by the Puritans (those areligious scoundrels, as everyone knows) declared marriage as secular and wrote the law accordingly.

Going into the ancient world, as well, there was no religious marriage in ancient Egypt whatseover. The closest one can argue is that divorces occasionally took lawyers, who, being highly literate, were temple-trained. I am less certain about marriage for the Greeks, though I do not believe there was much religious ceremony for them; they at least had a god of marriage.

I'm less familiar with other cultures, including current-day ones, but that marriage is axiomatically religious may be popular in Western culture, it is not universal. I am not interested in having it stolen from me further; it's bad enough in my book that the personal vows between people and/or families don't get the respect of marriage without government documentation.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 03:37 PM

Brian Greenberg:

"Christianity, Judaism and Islam all define marriage as man/woman. I don't have exact statistics, but practically speaking, that's almost everybody."

Uh, no. It's 3.4 billion. Let's not forget the 1.1 billion people who have no particular religion, or 900 million Hindus or 376 million Buddhists. here are the statistics if you want them.

Also, of course, if we go by the reasoning that numbers make for morals, why don't we institute that policy for all moral decisions, and not just marriage? If you're not willing to sign on to that, I'm entirely sure what the same reasoning works here.

"But (and this was my point from above) when you say that two men (or two women) are married, the religious christian/jew/muslim takes it as a religious statement, because in his/her mind, 'marriage' is a religious term."

Then these religous people need to buy a clue, because here in the US, "marriage" has a civil meaning separate from any religious meaning, and it's no less valid -- indeed from the point of view of the law, it is more valid, in terms of the rights and obligations conferred upon the married couple. People's rights ought not be constrained because some other people don't like a particular word being used.

"If Civil Unions could be made equivalent to marriages under the law, why would anyone care? Because "marriage" has a religious connotation that goes back thousands of years, that's why."

Well, no. It's because it one creates a "separate but equal" category of partnership right, there's no guarantee that right will remain equal. Same-sex couples are entirely right to fight for marriage on this ground -- marriages, let's remember, that they already have.

Aside from the fact that many of the people who are against same-sex marriage are also against civil unions, making this whole bit of rhetorical horse-trading kinda pointless, making civil unions "equal" won't do; you'd have to make all legal unions in the US civil unions, and there's no way that's going to fly. People who are married don't want to give up being married to be something else, even if its supposedly the same. If you think they will, well, my advice to you is: You first.

"If we could get past the overloaded terms, I think we could come to an agreeable solution here."

It's nice you think so, Brian. Sadly, I have to disagree, since I live in a state where the constitution was change to ensure same-sex couples couldn't get marriages or "civil unions," and the people pushing the amendment currently debated clearly intend (however poorly they worded it) to deny same-sex couples any partner rights at all. This isn't about a word, it's about some bigots trying to put a boot on the neck of same-sex couples. The agreeable solution is to suggest that these bigots back the hell off.

Dave | June 6, 2006 03:38 PM

The 14th amendment certainly reduced the rights of one group of citizens, namely reducing the right of who had held office in the Confederacy to hold office in the United States.

gerrymander | June 6, 2006 03:38 PM

John,

Put me in with dan dragna above, re: the name-calling. It's one thing to oppose the DMA. It's another entirely to reduce and dehumanize everyone who doesn't agree completely with you on that issue. A phrase like "the marriage bigots are falsely arrogating the moral high ground in the argument" just drips with unintentional irony.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 03:52 PM

Gerrymander:

"A phrase like 'the marriage bigots are falsely arrogating the moral high ground in the argument' just drips with unintentional irony."

Bullshit. People who fully intend to deprive a class of people of rights they already have (and that they intend to keep for their own selves) are bigots, by any useful definition of the word. I'm not going to apologize for calling bigots what they are. If that makes you unhappy, then I guess that's too bad for you.

As I've said earlier in the thread -- point to where I've ever said these people cannot say what they want to say, live how they want to live, or be how they wish to be. You can't do it, because I don't. These bigots have a perfect right to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, or morally corrupt, or just icky. I won't stop them, and I don't care to stop them, and indeed support their right to say and believe these things. What I won't is say that their attempts to stomp the rights of my co-citizens is anything less than bigotry, or allow them to front the proposition that their actions are predicated on any great moral platform. Snatching away the rights people already have because you don't like what they are is a profoundly immoral act.

Calling me a bigot is incorrect; suggesting that calling bigots what they are makes one a bigot has irony, I would agree, just not the way you seem to think it does.

Ron | June 6, 2006 03:58 PM

"Many blacls take very strong exception to equating this issue with the Civil Rights movement. Just so you know."

Well, that's probably because they're bigots. Just so we're all clear on that.

Don | June 6, 2006 04:10 PM

because here in the US, "marriage" has a civil meaning separate from any religious meaning

Exactly why I think we need to abolish all state and federal recognition of marriage. Church and state, don'thca know. Want a marriage? Knock yourself out - find whatever imam, rabbi, priest, swami, bodhisattva, reverend or other that you like and do the deed. Want a recognized legal partnership? Talk to the courthouse.

Why 'recognize marriage' in the law? Do we recognize your hairdo, left or right handedness or chocolate preference? (Note: we should be recording this so that I can institute my pogrom against those white chocolate eating infidels when I conquer you all with my robot monkey army) No. So leave this marriage claptrap to the religions.

Bob Wall | June 6, 2006 04:15 PM

I should have been more specific: no amendment has reduced the rights of a class of citizen other than those who knowingly and willingly entered that class by choice.

The 14th specifically prohibits people who have pledged an oath to the constitution of the US and then later engaged in insurrection against the US from holding future office in the US. Again, hardly the same thing as just trying to live your life and pursue personal happiness.

Darkhawk | June 6, 2006 04:33 PM

Want a marriage? Knock yourself out - find whatever imam, rabbi, priest, swami, bodhisattva, reverend or other that you like and do the deed.

I'm not willing to convert to a religion that has sacramental marriage to have my partnership with my husband recognised as a marriage. Nor am I willing to make up some sort of cruddy theological justification that I know is complete bullshit to justify shoehorning sacramental marriage into my religion.

Marriage is not a religious word. It's a human word.

PeterP | June 6, 2006 04:46 PM

Darkhawk:

How about "Civil Marriage" instead of "Civil Union". Lets you keep the word marriage and accomplishes the same goals...

damon duehring | June 6, 2006 05:07 PM

Mr. Scalzi, sometimes I think you like being an asshole a little too much. I've watched over the years as you have fine-tuned your literary asshole-ness and aimed it at unsuspecting schlepps who thought they could match wits with you. Sometimes I laugh, other times I wonder why you are such a dick. Regardless, you definitely make people think, and if they want to post a dissenting comment, they'd better think real hard about what they are going to write. For, as you have often tried getting others to understand, this is your domain.

So, with that, here's my little forray into this argument. And it's only one word: secession.

Darkhawk | June 6, 2006 05:12 PM

Fine by me, as I have a civil marriage. (Well, mostly, sometimes we bicker.)

So here's a thing: my parents-in-law are religious Catholics. When we would visit before we were married (we lived together for two or threeish years before the marriage) they would put us in separate bedrooms, which amused us; I figured their house, their comfort levels.

We got married just before we went down to visit at Christmas one year. They put us in the same bedroom that year -- the fact that it was a civil marriage rather than a sacramental one or a civil/sacramental combo platter didn't seem to matter to them, so long as we were married, so long as we performed an appropriate commitment ritual. (By their standards of appropriate; I don't know if they would have acknowledged a ritual that didn't include the filing of the certificate in City Hall as 'appropriate', even if it had been sacramental.)

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 05:14 PM

Damon Duehring:

"And it's only one word: secession."

Yeah, okay, but then who gets to keep the Constitution?

Anyway, this isn't secession-worthy (in no small part because this particular amendment isn't likely to succeed).

gerrymander | June 6, 2006 06:09 PM

People who fully intend to deprive a class of people of rights they already have (and that they intend to keep for their own selves) are bigots, by any useful definition of the word.

With all respect, that right there is the crux of my trouble with the "bigot" label. Let's stipulate that many fit your description to a "T" -- I think we'd agree that the data for such is self-evident. What I'm saying that there are also quite a number of people who aren't completely invested in the "deprive people of already extant rights" principle for reasons which are not as easy to dismiss. Examples: Some of our cohort were the first to be the children of divorce due to a parent coming out in the 70s. Some of those are still going to feel that emotional sting, regardless of whether or not they intellectually approve of gay marriage. Similarly, there are those who raised under the traditional "one man/one woman" school, even though they know of some long-lasting pairings among gay acquintances. Finally, some of the gays who did come out in the 70s and after found the pairs-and-only-long-time-pairs formula of sex relations to be stultifying and don't want to go back. Marriage if fine for straights, but they don't want or need it.

(Yes, I know of at least one person in each category above. I expect you do, too.)

In other words, there's a grey area of people who might eventually be inclined to support gay marriage, but who have still have some hesitation. Just because that hesitation is less rational and more emotional doesn't make it any less valid, insofar as building public support is concerned. These same people might also disapprove of the DMA, for any number of the reasons discussed above. By discussing the issue as "accepting the marriage bigots terms" is to tar them with the same brush as actual bigots, and is ultimately damaging to the cause you seek to support.

darren | June 6, 2006 06:38 PM

Well this took off in a short period of time. I was going to write another rebuttal to something someone else said, but what they wrote was just plain STOO-F@#$ing-PID (and reading the thread, 200 years ago in Internet time). I apologize John for being snippy, but I'm done with all this self righteous, slippery slope bullshit used to rationalize pure unadulterated fear and loathing. Can't bang it into people's heads that refuse to see themselves for what they are. I can't believe anyone defends the actions of this MORON pResident and I'm becoming more and more ashamed that I defended my country for people with these kind of backward beliefs and willingness to strip their fellow American's rights and privacy without really being able to articulate why.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 07:16 PM

Gerrymander:

"By discussing the issue as 'accepting the marriage bigots terms' is to tar them with the same brush as actual bigots, and is ultimately damaging to the cause you seek to support."

I've already addressed this in the entry I posted last night at, uh, 02:53 AM, so go ahead and scroll back to that and see what I've said there. I'm perfectly willing to cede there's a group of people who don't quite get why their actions are bigoted and who would recoil from the consequences of those actions once they're put in an accurate frame. My ire is not directed at them.

However, if people persist in bigoted actions, then I don't have any problem saying, "well, then, you're a bigot, aren't you?" Nor would particularly care if it's not nice to make them aware they're bigots. Stripping away rights people already enjoy isn't particularly nice, either.

S.E. Miller | June 6, 2006 07:22 PM

John H.:

[i]They spun their little 'talking point' roulette wheel and this time gay marriage came up instead of flag burning.[/i]

Unfortunately, the Flag Burning amendment has also been resurrected from the dead. I guess they're trying to push every button they can, to divide centrists and appeal to the social conservatives.

Bobarino | June 6, 2006 08:18 PM

So here's a thing: my parents-in-law are religious Catholics. When we would visit before we were married (we lived together for two or threeish years before the marriage) they would put us in separate bedrooms, which amused us; I figured their house, their comfort levels.

We got married just before we went down to visit at Christmas one year. They put us in the same bedroom that year -- the fact that it was a civil marriage rather than a sacramental one or a civil/sacramental combo platter didn't seem to matter to them, so long as we were married, so long as we performed an appropriate commitment ritual. (By their standards of appropriate; I don't know if they would have acknowledged a ritual that didn't include the filing of the certificate in City Hall as 'appropriate', even if it had been sacramental.)

Y'know, I'm a pretty accommodating kind of person, but I'm not willing to give up on the government-grants-civil-unions, churches-grant-marriages idea just because you seem unable to tell your in-laws to grow up.

Darkhawk | June 6, 2006 08:48 PM

Y'know, I'm a pretty accommodating kind of person, but I'm not willing to give up on the government-grants-civil-unions, churches-grant-marriages idea just because you seem unable to tell your in-laws to grow up.

Setting aside your bizarre insult based on a complete inability to grasp the point of the anecdote, are you willing to give up the idea because it's based on accepting the religious right's completely fabricated claim that marriage is intrinsically religious property?

The idea that marriage is an intrinsically religious thing is a lie, and enshrining it as public policy creates favoritism for those faiths that have sacramental marriage at the expense of those which do not, those people who have no religious congregation, and the separation of church and state.

Brian Greenberg | June 6, 2006 10:03 PM

John:
[Brian:]"Christianity, Judaism and Islam all define marriage as man/woman. I don't have exact statistics, but practically speaking, that's almost everybody."

Uh, no. It's 3.4 billion. Let's not forget the 1.1 billion people who have no particular religion, or 900 million Hindus or 376 million Buddhists.

Fair enough, but 3.4 billion is more than half. And while I'm not as familiar with Hinduism and Buddhism, working in the modern technology industry has given me occasion to work with many people of both faiths, and I'm pretty sure that those religions not only define marriage as man/woman, but have rather elaborate marriage rituals as well. That brings us to 75%. Hollywood has given us a view into Scientology, and that view is also consistent with this paradigm. I know one person of the Shinto faith, and while she is single, her family treats marriage as a signficant religious event, also between a man and a woman. So your rebuttal to my argument seems rather specious: I incorrectly named only three religions, but my point was correct: just about all religious people define marriage as man/woman.

Then these religous people need to buy a clue, because here in the US, "marriage" has a civil meaning separate from any religious meaning, and it's no less valid -- indeed from the point of view of the law, it is more valid, in terms of the rights and obligations conferred upon the married couple.

Agreed, 100%. And from the spiritual point of view, the religious meaning is more valid, in terms of the rights and obligations conferred upon the married couple.

Again, I'm not a particularly religious person, and I don't mean to argue with you over which definition is more important. That answer is likely different for different couples.

What I'm trying to illustrate is the disconnect between the two sides of the debate. Those who say marriage is traditionally between man/woman are (usually) not ignorant of the law or bigoted in their thinking (stipulated that some are...). By "traditionally," they are often referring to their religion's definition of the term marriage, in which case they are quite correct. This is why many (Ohio excluded, apparently) oppose gay marriage, but are in favor of granting same-sex couples the legal rights and privledges afforded to married (in the eyes of the law) couples in the United States. The term "civil unions" probably referred to this scenario at one point, but it has now been hijacked by the religious right, and is probably no longer useful for that purpose.

As to "separate but equal," with two definitions of the term that are both (approximately) universally accepted and at odds with each other, the choices seem to be "separate but equal" and "separate but unequal." Mathematically speaking, the only other alternative is to eliminate one of the definitions (thereby eliminating the "separate" part). As a government and as a nation, we don't have the power to eliminate the term "marriage" from the world's religions, and we seem unwilling to eliminate it from our legal realm. At some point, we're simply out of options...

darren:
I can't believe anyone defends the actions of this MORON pResident and I'm becoming more and more ashamed that I defended my country for people with these kind of backward beliefs and willingness to strip their fellow American's rights and privacy without really being able to articulate why.

Ya know, when John's not joining you in that, it becomes even more obvious how unhelpful and discouraging of useful and interesting debate it is...

darren | June 6, 2006 10:30 PM

"Ya know, when John's not joining you in that, it becomes even more obvious how unhelpful and discouraging of useful and interesting debate it is..."

Well ya know, I don't consider taking the side of bigotry and hatred or defending the practice of government inserting itself into the religion, wombs, bedrooms, telephone converstations, etc. ad nauseum of its constituency to be debate. Encouraging, useful, interesting, or otherwise. These things I've mentioned before aren't debate. They are fundementally deranged, hateful, hurtful, and damaging to my country. As a member of the armed forces, I swore an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. At the time the thought didn't cross my mind that so many of my fellow American's and their elected officials would be the domestic enemies. Do you have any idea how helpless that makes me feel to know that my country is intentionally defying its own principals and constitution in order to specifically discriminate against certain people and their wasn't a fucking thing I could do about it? Well now that I'm out, I can do something. I can finally speak my mind and I'm calling all the self-loathing moral relativists out for what you are. Hateful. F@#$ing. Bigots.

John Scalzi | June 6, 2006 10:37 PM

Brian Greenberg:

"So your rebuttal to my argument seems rather specious: I incorrectly named only three religions, but my point was correct: just about all religious people define marriage as man/woman."

Not really (regarding the rebuttal, not about most religions seeing marriage between men and women. I stipulate that). My rebuttal was not the part where I gave you the stats that showed 3.4 billion is not "almost everybody" on the planet (nor, for that matter, is "over half" the same as "almost everybody," either). The rebuttal was in the part where I wrote: "Also, of course, if we go by the reasoning that numbers make for morals, why don't we institute that policy for all moral decisions, and not just marriage? If you're not willing to sign on to that, I'm entirely sure why the same reasoning works here."

"What I'm trying to illustrate is the disconnect between the two sides of the debate. Those who say marriage is traditionally between man/woman are (usually) not ignorant of the law or bigoted in their thinking (stipulated that some are...). By 'traditionally,' they are often referring to their religion's definition of the term marriage, in which case they are quite correct."

So by your formulation, they are aware that the legal definition of marriage now includes same-sex couples, and they have no animus against people who want to be in same-sex marriages... but they still say marriage should be between a man and a woman? There's a logical disconnect there, because you don't get from the first two of these things to the last of them without some clear discrimination. I fully agree that some or indeed most of these folks may not have bigotry in their minds but as a practical matter, that's the outcome.

However, what I think is the case is what I note in the main entry here, which is that people haven't in fact internalized the idea that same-sex marriage does exist in the US and that real married same-sex couples exist in the thousands. Because the debate is not framed that way, and even most those who are fully cognizant of the fact that same-sex marriages exist have a blind spot to it. You seem to have one, Brian, in that you still want to have us all board the train to Civil Unionville when we're already left for Marriageburg two years ago. And yet I know you know there are thousands of people in same-sex marriages. And it's not just you -- I don't want to make you feel like I'm singing you out. People I know who are far more liberal than I are out there to posting back to this entry and going "I actually didn't think of it this way." That's how successful the anti-same-sex crew has been in framing the debate.

This is why I think it's vital to re-frame the argument. Same-sex marriage in the US is a done deal; it's here. Thousands of people are in same-sex marriages. Defining marriage as only between men and women will destroy these marriages -- and I think most people, not being bigots, would not be willing to do that to other people... and those that would are, necessarily, being bigots and should be aware of that fact.

I would agree that the two sides are far apart here. However, the same-sex marriage folks have the advantage in that their marriages are real and legal and sanctioned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; all the arguments about what the "traditional" definition of marriage is or what marriage should be falls to that fundamental fact. The argument really isn't about whether same-sex couple have the right to marry. They do. The argument is by what right should anyone be able to take that right away. If that's not the argument we're having, then we're having the wrong argument.

mythago | June 7, 2006 12:30 AM

The bigots don't consider those marriages, you see. Oh, maybe the government CALLS them marriages--but they're not!

It's good to kick the rock over from time to time so everybody can get a good, long look at the cockroaches.

And Brian--the "civil union" thing is, from a lawyer's point of view, bullcrap. Words mean something, and you cannot call somebody's marriage a "civil union" and then pretend you are giving them everything but the name.

Christopher Davis | June 7, 2006 01:12 AM

I will point out that Islam allows polygamy; so much for the "one man/one woman" formulation.

joshua corning | June 7, 2006 02:16 AM

so wait, is poligamy ok? or can you marry your sister?

John Scalzi | June 7, 2006 02:48 AM

Yes, Joshua, you can marry your sister. And a dog. And possibly a vacuum cleaner. All at once! And then you can all have an orgy with the guy next door who has married his mom, an ocelot and a concrete statue of Buddha. Welcome to the new age.

darren | June 7, 2006 02:51 AM

I personally have no problem with polygamy. If you can find a church that sanctions it, go for it. My personal feelings are that the government shouldn't sanction any marriage. They shouldn't be in the marrying business at all. It is good for the public health to be monogomous, but let's face it, marriage doesn't guarantee that anyway. However I do believe in certain tax benefits going toward folks that agree to monogomous relationships and raising the next generation of retail sales clerks. That includes gay couples wishing to adopt. Anyone adopting takes a pretty hefty tax burdon off of the rest of us.
If I were king then everyone would be granted one civil union to another consenting adult in their lifetime by the government. The only time you can have more than that would be in the event of your spouses death. In a mutual disolving of said civil union then you forfeit your tax benefits that you enjoyed while civilly united and in certain instances may even have to pay some or all of it back. You would be able to get married as often as your particular worship station allows in their own by-laws, as it really is none of the government's business to whom (or how many) you marry in the eyes of the (insert God of choice) that isn't supposed to be involved with said government anyway. But as far as the government would be concerned, you've had your one civil union for tax purposes and it isn't the fault of the rest of us that you squandered it on PBR, power tools, and titty bars.

darren | June 7, 2006 02:55 AM

Sorry just wanted to qualify my polygamy statement by saying that even if I did have a problem with it, it would be none of my damned bussiness if you didn't. See how that works? Leave other people the hell alone to pursue happiness as they see fit, not as you do.

MWT | June 7, 2006 04:46 AM

Regarding the tax breaks for married people with dependents ... in my view, those tax breaks should be for having dependents, and not for being married. There's nothing about being married per se that calls for paying less taxes.

JessieSS | June 7, 2006 09:15 AM

Chris Gabel wrote: "Come now, John, in all fairness - [opponents of gay marriage are] not "some people" - it's still an overwhelming majority of the population - even in Massachusetts."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. As of last year, one year after the first gay marriages were enacted, over half of Massachusetts residents were in favor of gay marriage, or at least opposed any restriction on it. On account of, you know, we have it and it turns out not to be a problem. Check it out here and stop making things up.

Seriously, people. We have newspapers and everything. You can look this up. Or, if you care so much, just pay attention. I thought Scalzi was engaging in rhetorical drama when he said that the rest of the country was unaware of what's happening here, but apparently that's no more than the literal truth.

mythago | June 7, 2006 10:43 AM

an ocelot

You just knew Scalzi was going to bring cat sodomy into it somehow.

darren | June 7, 2006 11:26 AM

MWT
"Regarding the tax breaks for married people with dependents ... in my view, those tax breaks should be for having dependents, and not for being married. There's nothing about being married per se that calls for paying less taxes."

That is a good point, but I'm not sure I agree completely. I think it is a benefit to society as a whole when two people enter into an agreement to be monogomous. It may sound meaningless to someone who has pure heart and complete and utter resistence to their own sexual urges as a single person, but many a single person contributes to public health issues through promiscuity (gay or straight). Although a civil union doesn't guarantee fidelity, fidelity would be in the contract and therefore get these folks out of the STD pool reducing the tax burdon on the rest of us for public health.
Also, lifelong couples are more likely to purchase a home, and spend major amounts of cash down to the Home Depot thereby invigorating the economy.
I'd say there are several other ways that married couples without kids lower the tax burdon for the rest of us and help the economy over single people, but I'll stop there.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | June 7, 2006 11:40 AM

There's nothing about being married per se that calls for paying less taxes.

Well, we take up less real estate, for one thing. Two can live as cheaply as one and all that.

To whoever proposed upthread that "gun-shy" religions should get to write the legal definition of marriage because they are in the majority: Our government was specifically not founded as a direct democracy precisely to combat this way of thinking. When it comes to equal treatment under the law, the majority is not allowed to rule. That's why we have rights written into the Constitution and its amendments. In other words: Christians being in the majority in the US is not supposed to be a justification for writing Christian taboos into the law. So that Christian majority can just sit by and suck it up because they don't get to overturn everyone else's rights by voting.

That, by the way, is why we don't wait on consensus democracy to graciously grant minorities the rights which the majority have been withoholding from them. That's why so many strides forward in civil rights were made in the courts, not in the legislature. When the majority have bigoted attitudes towards the minority, it's unreasonable to tell that minority "Just wait until everyone eventually likes you enough to legislate your rights back into existence."

HalDuncan | June 7, 2006 11:42 AM

Dan Dragna:

..."doubting" the legitimacy of judicially discovered rights, even if naïve and wrongheaded, isn't necessarily evidence of bigotry

OK, I'll argue this point. I think the opponents of gay-marriage would, by and large, also doubt the legitimacy of democratically discovered rights. John is, it seems, to me arguing exactly this: that the right was discovered not by the courts alone but by the courts and legislature working together in due process. So, my argument (as briefly outlined above) would be that the opponents of gay-marriage, by and large, are actually arguing that these rights need to be granted by society rather than by the courts, and that they would equally argue that they need to be granted by society rather than the legislature. Many of the "sit tight and opinion will change" arguments upthread do exactly this. The principle here is that informal mores are more legitimate than formal laws, that gay-marriage must be morally acceptable before it can be legally acceptable.

Mores and laws are often going to be out of step, and those advocating changes to the law for moral reasons may be progressive or conservative, radical or reactionary. Laws may be unfair, unethical, institutionalising prejudice, but so too can mores. The concept of miscegenation is a "moral" notion: it's the belief that it is wrong for two people of different race to breed, that this is immoral. I would argue that the antipathy to gay-marriage is similarly a "moral" reaction. The anti-gay-marriage lobby is not concerned with the legality (court vs legislature); rather it is arguing that gay marriage is immoral, just as opponents of inter-racial marriage would argue that "miscegenation" is immoral -- regardless of the legality. Both moral antipathies can be voiced in positive rather than negative terms, as reverence for tradition rather than prejudice: the opponent of inter-racial marriage can say that what they are really concerned with is maintaining cultural identity; the opponents of same-sex marriage can say that what they are really concerned with is the institution of marriage. Regardless of this, at heart, in both cases, what we have is a belief in the immorality of a certain type of marriage, a belief that such marriages breach societal mores regardless of what the courts (or, I stress, the legislature) might say about it.

If you take the viewpoint -- as I do -- that this moral antipathy is irrational and discriminatory, that it is based on prejudice rather than logic, then it is fair comment to say that those whose moral antipathy is strong enough that they would actively advocate an amendment to the constitution which would reify this prejudice in law are bigots. If they would do this regardless of the effect it would have on thousands of individuals, if their prejudice over-rules any empathy, any willingness to compromise, then they can be described as bigots. One could well sit on the fence here. One could have that moral antipathy to gay marriage but accept that others have different mores, different ethics, that one's own views on right and wrong are not infallible. But those who John is specifically referencing as "marriage bigots" are, it seems to me, not simply those who feel that gay marriage is immoral, but those who are actively engaged in institutionalising their prejudice.

I think it is entirely fair to describe these people -- in accordance with their beliefs, their words, and their actions -- as bigots.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | June 7, 2006 11:42 AM

darren,

discussing responsibly polyamory with you should be interesting. Remind me not to do it until after I've hit all my deadlines.

Brian Greenberg | June 7, 2006 11:51 AM

John:
So by your formulation, they are aware that the legal definition of marriage now includes same-sex couples, and they have no animus against people who want to be in same-sex marriages...but they still say marriage should be between a man and a woman? There's a logical disconnect there, because you don't get from the first two of these things to the last of them without some clear discrimination.

Oh, we're so close. I don't think there's necessarily a logical disconnect, as long as the first two times you say "marriage" you mean legally-defined marriage, and the third time you say it you mean religiously-defined marriage. Again, I'm not saying everyone is this way - there are certianly bigots out there (and many of them are marriage bigots and deserve the full brunt of your original post), but I think there's a large plurality, if not a majority, who's problem with same-sex marriage is that it goes against God's definition of marriage, and have little or no bone to pick with same-sex couples who want the legal/financial benefits of that government contract called marriage.

To Mythago's point, words do matter and "Civil Union" has apparently been destroyed as a way to distinguish between the two concepts. I'm all for another term (or another two terms) that separate these concepts, not just because it would settle the debate, but because it could mean real legal/financial benefits to same-sex couples that don't live in Masaschusetts (and increased benefits to those who do). I understand that the moral victory of equality is important, but eliminating objections to these benefits could make life significantly easier (and in some cases, possible) for many couples, their children and their grandchildren. If there truly is common ground here, we should work toward finding it, not divide ourselves over semantics in order to score political points just before an election.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little:
To whoever proposed upthread that "gun-shy" religions should get to write the legal definition of marriage because they are in the majority: . . . When it comes to equal treatment under the law, the majority is not allowed to rule.

I assume you mean me, although I didn't say religions should write the legal definition of marriage. In fact, I said quite the opposite - the reason there's a debate is that the major religions define marriage differently and they want the two to be in synch. The two should not be in synch and we, as a nation, seem incapable of using the same term to mean two different things without offending anyone...

Wakboth | June 7, 2006 12:28 PM

For all the people who, for whatever reason, argue against same-sex marriages:

Why? What negative consequences are there to allowing consenting adults to marry, no matter what sex each of them is?

In my experience, all the arguments against same-sex marriage can be reduced to either "Because gays are icky!" or "Because God hates them", neither of which is much of a reason to legislate against same-sex marriage in an ostensibly secular and sane nation.

Jon Marcus | June 7, 2006 12:39 PM

Brian:

"Christianity, Judaism and Islam all define marriage as man/woman. I don't have exact statistics, but practically speaking, that's almost everybody."

So you're saying that every Christian, Jew, and Muslim believes that? Sorry, that's flat-out wrong. The rabbi at my synagogue is perfectly happy to perform same-sex weddings, and I've attended a number of same-sex Christian weddings. I don't have much personal experience with Islam, but I'd be amazed if it's the monolith that your "practically speaking, that's almost everybody" entails.

Dave | June 7, 2006 12:49 PM

So, my argument (as briefly outlined above) would be that the opponents of gay-marriage, by and large, are actually arguing that these rights need to be granted by society rather than by the courts, and that they would equally argue that they need to be granted by society rather than the legislature. Many of the "sit tight and opinion will change" arguments upthread do exactly this. The principle here is that informal mores are more legitimate than formal laws, that gay-marriage must be morally acceptable before it can be legally acceptable.

Note that you don't need to be a an opponent of gay marriage to believe this. A proponent of gay marriage might very well believe that societal recognition should precede legal recognition, if they felt the risks of doing it the other way around were too high.

That's more or less the boat I'm in. In keeping with the Civil Rights analogies, it would be lovely if judicially mandated gay marriage worked out as well as _Brown vs. the Board of Education_ or _Loving vs. Virginia_, with societal acceptance following fairly quickly if not-entirely-quietly from judicial mandate. My fear is that it will be more like _Roe v. Wade_, with broad societal acceptance never following, and lasting damage to our nation's political structures. If the alternative to that risk is waiting a couple of decades for demographic change and media immersion to do their magic followed by patchwork legislative enactment, that's a tradeoff I'm regretfully willing to make. Twenty years ago no one had thought of gay marriage as anything more than a punchline. Twenty years from now the average voter looks set to swallow it without too much difficulty. Exactly how much political risk is acceptable cut the timeline down.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 01:45 PM

If two people want to be together, more power to 'em.

I'm sure that there are thousands of gay marriages that are a lot more sound than some of the marriages my friends are in. One of my friends from college just stabbed her husband, if you need a visual.

The only prob I have with G'marriage is that it seems like there'll be cases where health plans become more expensive due to a sudden influx of 2.5% of the population sneeching in on their partner's health care benefits.

I sneech off my husband's health insurance, but I have two babies who need to be watched. Unless gays start adopting in huge numbers, this doesn't seem like a valid excuse for, oh, 99.999% of the gay couples out there.

Basically, I don't want our rates to increase so that some Provincetown couple gets to leave a guy home all day to play June Cleaver.

This probably isn't a fair representation of 2 gays on one health plan... I'd imagine that it'd be more of a case of someone in an office "marrying" someone who has a job that provides no health care.

I just don't see that as a gay issue. I see it as an American issue. Phil and Paul at the fern bar are no different to me than the guy I hired to dig out under my house for me this winter. He seemed pretty straight to me- he hit on me, and everything- but he wasn't getting health insurance.

It'd be a sad day in America if a working-class guy like him could only offer his ass to a marryin' man if he needed to have his appendix taken out at some point. I think we need to straighten the health care problem out before we go splitting up gay couples.

Dave | June 7, 2006 02:39 PM

Unless gays start adopting in huge numbers, this doesn't seem like a valid excuse for, oh, 99.999% of the gay couples out there.

Per the last US census, thirty percent of two-parent gay households have one or more children. In total, about 415000 children lived with two same-sex adults in the year 2000. That includes adoption, in-vitro fertiization, children of previous marriages, bisexual women living with women, and lesbians who lie back and think of England in order to get a desired child.

HalDuncan | June 7, 2006 02:53 PM

Dave: Note that you don't need to be an opponent of gay marriage to believe this. A proponent of gay marriage might very well believe that societal recognition should precede legal recognition, if they felt the risks of doing it the other way around were too high.

True. But that's a pragmatic judgement, a strategic judgement rather than an ethical one. Believing that, practically speaking, you need societal recognition in order to institute the legal recognition in a stable form is a whole nother thing to believing that mores (and your personal mores at that, mores which a whole section of society strenuously object to) trump the law, always and forever. And framing that in the current debate: "I want to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage" is not the same as "I want same-sex marriage but I'm willing to take the long road". It's not about those arguing different paths to the same end; it's about those who would actually propose the removal of existing legal recognition and the institutionalisation of a moral injunction against recognition.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 03:08 PM

415,000 is like .001% of the current US population. Good guess, wrong category. My bad, Dave. Thanks for the tip.

It seems as though a lot of these gay parents are already getting covered financially by the discarded husband, and don't really need to be trying to pass the buck for their partner onto us.

If they can afford some radical sperm implant to make a baby, they're off the radar as far as everyone else having to cover their health care goes... and off the radar as far as harming my purse goes... and therefore, A-OK with the Smurf.

Totally guessing here, but I'd say that the % of kids who were born out of a test tube are fairly minute when compared to the % of kids who are being raised by Mom, her GF, and Dad's settlement from the divorce.

Couples featuring bisexual women who get a sperm donation from the local disco should probably have considered things through a little better before trying to hop onto gravy train pulled by the rest of the people who pay health care benefits.

Also, the woman with the child can sue the sperm donor for child support and get the kid onto Dad's health care plan, thus taking her partner out of our purses. The only way a Dad should be paying for Mom's GF is if they give him a little show every Friday night.

Back to the bottom line... if there is a valid reason to cover ANYONE who needs health insurance but can't afford it, I'm all for it. If it's just a case of someone being too proud to work at McDonalds, or somewhere that provides benefits... eff em.

Beyond that, I have no reason to try to ban gay marriage.

CoolBlue | June 7, 2006 03:15 PM

Note that you don't need to be a an opponent of gay marriage to believe this. A proponent of gay marriage might very well believe that societal recognition should precede legal recognition, if they felt the risks of doing it the other way around were too high.

You can put me in that particular bucket.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 03:22 PM

One other thing... if they're not married, that makes them single. Is being single considered to be a form of second-class citizenship?

SaraS | June 7, 2006 03:51 PM

So, smurf - basically you're saying that *your* family is worth covering with health insurance, but the families of your gay co-workers are not. How sweet of you.

Last I checked, companies provide spousal health coverage to their employees as a benefit of employment...you know, part of their compensation. They don't do it to make statements about which families are worthwhile and which are not.

I know plenty of straight, married, childless people where one spouse uses the health coverage of the other, for a myriad of reasons. Maybe the spouse doesn't have coverage through his/her job. Maybe the coverage exists, but sucks. Maybe it is cost-prohibitive given the spouse's salary. Why is it OK for them, but not OK for a same-sex spouse?

I'm not sure where you get this idea that if same-sex spouses are covered under the health plan, they're somehow going to get a better deal than you. I assume your husband pays a monthly premium of some sort to cover you. A gay employee would have to pay the same premium to cover his or her same-sex spouse. No one would be getting a free ride.

For several years, I worked in a small company that had a very thin margin when it came to providing benefits. There were several times where we had to change insurance provided because our premiums went up. Do you want to know why? In almost every case, it was the WIVES of male employees having babies...people like *you* driving up *my* cost of health coverage.

I didn't throw a fit when this happened...I just took the new coverage, paid my share, and got on with my life. I didn't complain about how the sex lives of my male co-workers screwed up my health coverage.

It would be nice if you could return the courtesy.

Jesurgislac | June 7, 2006 04:13 PM

. I don't have much personal experience with Islam, but I'd be amazed if it's the monolith that your "practically speaking, that's almost everybody" entails.

Among the earliest same-sex couples to marry in the UK after the Civil Partnership Act became law, were two Muslim women, both wearing hijabs according to the person who saw them.

I don't see any reason to suppose they were the only two GLBT Muslims to marry.

Dave | June 7, 2006 04:17 PM

415,000 is like .001% of the current US population. Good guess, wrong category.

Well, more like .13%. Numeracy is your friend.

Beyond that, I'd just like to say that the levels of grasping greediness over trivial sums, willingness to make sweeping assumptions about large swathes of humanity, and pure ass-backward moral reasoning displayed in your post manage to surprise and shock me. As a long-term and outspoken denizen of political websites, that is a truly impressive accomplishment. Congratulations.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 04:19 PM

Sara S:

What I was implying is that if I weren't home with kids, I'd have a job that could provide me health care benefits. I only ask the same courtesy of Gay America. Sweet isn't important to me... fair is.

I feel the same way about spousal coverage, although I'll throw in the qualifier that a husband and wife have a chance of producing a baby without a test-tube or a duped sperm donor.

If wifey is childless and staying at home all day leeching off working Americans, she's part of the problem. To answer your question, I think it is wrong in both gay and straight situations.

Where I get my "idea" that same-sex spouses getting health care benefits is unfair is from working my whole life. The price paid for a single worker- gay, straight, or asexual- is lower than the price paid for a family. The price for a family isn't double/triple/quadruple... it's just a little more.

They can do that because they are screwing the single worker to cover families. It's allowed, because otherwise we'd be a sick nation of non-productive workers and children. Then Sara's business would get a bunch of employees who can't read or add. The country goes to hell... etc....

People (except Sara's boss) take things like "employees having children" into mind when composing health care plans. Greater minds than yours have pondered this, Sara... have some faith.

The reason Sara's health plans kept getting too high to pay isn't people like ME having babies... it's because she works for a company with a bad health care plan. When costs go up, the plan couldn't compete, and they had raise premiums. Sara's mad at me for this, but she should be mad at "Whatever" idiot chose the plan.

Sara has actually gone so far as to begrudge heterosexual women for having babies... when they complain that they may be paying some money for a childless, homosexual marriage with two partners who are both capable of finding some sort of job with benefits.

Think about it, Sara... and look for a job with proper health care. I'm not the enemy here... I'm not crying fire in a movie theatre. I'm just pointing out where the exits are.

Next!

Smurf | June 7, 2006 04:39 PM

I'd rather Dave counter some of my reasoning than just insulting me, but I doubt he has the capability to do so.

"Grasping greediness over trivial sums" makes me think that Dave is collecting from a "partner," and doesn't understand just how big a bite health care takes out of a paycheck. Work a bit, kid... then get back to us when you understand the ballgame.

To be fair, Dave... we are dealing with large sums of money circulating through large groups of people. Please try to deny the fact that workers with health plans are paying for coverage beyond their own.

It's all related, so we all get a say. I spoke my piece, and you seem to have nothing to offer... other than clinging on to a "mistake" I made with a number that was quite obviously just made up.

I rolled over most of Dave's nonsense, and he has no reply to that. If I shocked you, Dave... you should do some more real-world living before stepping up to the big leagues of the sci-fi author comment thread.

Next!

John Scalzi | June 7, 2006 04:45 PM

Let's play nice, people, and deal with ideas, not personalities.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 04:49 PM

Always outnumbered, never outgunned.

SaraS | June 7, 2006 04:59 PM

The reason Sara's health plans kept getting too high to pay isn't people like ME having babies... it's because she works for a company with a bad health care plan. When costs go up, the plan couldn't compete, and they had raise premiums. Sara's mad at me for this, but she should be mad at "Whatever" idiot chose the plan.

Sara has actually gone so far as to begrudge heterosexual women for having babies... when they complain that they may be paying some money for a childless, homosexual marriage with two partners who are both capable of finding some sort of job with benefits.

Wow...where did you come up with that? I'm not even sure how to respond to this one...

I DON'T begrudge anyone having babies. I also don't get upset at the notion that my insurance premiums help subsidize those babies, or that my tax dollars are spent to educate them. That just seems like being part of society to me.

You are right that family coverage is not double/triple/whatever single coverage. One of my co-workers has a wife and 5 kids. He pays just a little more than me (a legally single person) to cover 7 people. I'm not sure what your point is...should I be mad about this? I'm not...I don't begrudge him his family coverage. I would appreiciate it if he (and you) didn't begrudge me coverage for MY family, which is just as important to me as your family is to you. What is so hard about that?

I also find your comments about people being capable of finding jobs with benefits amusing. Apparently, you have no clue that MANY companies do not provide such coverage. Many of the people without coverage are NOT just sitting around plotting ways to raid your wallet...they are working.

I've known plenty of people in low-level jobs like you suggest (McDonalds) who literally begged for enough hours to be considered full time so that they would qualify for benefits...and were consistently scheduled just under the threshold. You seem to think that there is no such thing as a job that doesn't provide benefits.

Incidentally, there are many, many companies who already provide health coverage to same-sex spouses via domestic partner benefits (including the place I currently work). Your nightmare of childless homesexual couples "with two partners who are both capable of finding some sort of job with benefits" getting coverage is already in place in many companies...and those companies are not going out of business in droves.

At any rate, perhaps you should start a company and establish a policy whereby only employees with children and a spouse at home recieve benefits. I'm sure you will attract many great, loyal employees with that notion.

Dave | June 7, 2006 05:13 PM

"Trivial sums"

Gay adults make up something like 2% of the population, and are less likely than straights to be in long term relationships (gay males much less, lesbians somewhat more, net less on balance). Balancing that, gays are more likely to both be employed than straight partners, and thus won't be using each other's health insurance. Additionally, a large number of gays are already covered by their partners health care, even if unmarried, due to domestic partner benefits. Some back-of-the-envelope math puts the net hit for this at about .75-1.5% of the population. Were you an employer, your health care costs would increase by about as much as they do ever two months due to inflation. If you're an employee, what the hell do you care what someone else's compensation plan is.

Trivial.

As for your guesses about my personal life, I'm straight, happily married, forty years old, father of one adopted daughter, professional, and our household brought in about three times more than John's did last year. In short, you really couldn't have got it more wrong. My main personal concern about gay marriage is that I live in Atlanta, which is probably the most likely place for random bombings of gay weddings to occur if gay marriage were judicially mandated at the federal level.

The 415000 figure really was derived from US Census data from 2000. Here's a cite: http://gaydemographics.org/USA/USA.htm .

I'm not quite sure how a two-order-of-magnitude error qualifies for scare quotes around "mistake".

Smurf | June 7, 2006 05:14 PM

I came up with it from:

" because our premiums went up. Do you want to know why? In almost every case, it was the WIVES of male employees having babies...people like *you* driving up *my* cost of health coverage."

I'd be more pissed at the health care system that has you paying for 7 kids instead of someone named Smurf on a sci-fi message board complaining about it.

If I'm wrong, I'm sorry... but I don't begrudge Sara and her partner's relationship... and it sounds like Sara works for her coverage. If she has kids, her coverage is every bit as important as mine.

I do have a clue about the lack of benefits in many jobs. I also understand that many companies offer benefits, and this isn't Pol Pot- no one is forcing you to stay at a job with low/no benefits. If you need coverage for your kids, you have to take whatever job offers it to you.

If your company offers gay marriage benefits, good for you. If they offer them by sticking it to everybody else, bad for us.

I think that everyone should have benefits, as long as they work for them. If they have kids, those benefits should be extended to the family... at a higher premium. If a wife or partner is sitting home sucking up benefits off the workers, I don't care how they like their sex... they should go get a job.

As for your last paragraph of nonsense... if I made a health care plan where everyone was covered that worked for me, I'd be pretty happy. If I could somehow shave off some needless costs (let's say, childless spouse at home), I'd be able to offer that care at a better value to the worker.

I'd attract a great number of loyal employees, because my health-care plan would be much cheaper (and better) than the one at, say, that bum job Sara goes to (and has already complained about).

SaraS | June 7, 2006 05:17 PM

One more thing...I can thing of PLENTY of reasons why a spouse might not have his/her own health coverage and thus needs to "collect" from his/her spouse:
1. Spouse is at home raising children (like you)
2. Spouse has a low-end job that doesn't provide benefits (as I mentioned in my previous post)
3. Spouse is working part-time and going to school in the hopes of moving up from the low-end job to one that will actually provide benefits.
4. Spouse took years off his/her career to raise children, and now is unable to find anything other than low-end jobs that don't provide benefits.
5. Spouse is self-employed, such as a freelance writer.
6. Spouse was laid-off and is looking for a new job.
7. Spouse's job does provide benefits, but they are not affordable due to low wages.
8. Spouse is working part-time and caring for his/her elderly parents (and maybe in-laws, too), rather than putting them in a home to rot (and use up tax money)
9. Spouse is a bit older and has already retired.
10. Spouse is disabled or in poor health and is unable to work
11. Spouse is just plain lazy and won't work.

It seems you think that only #11 could be true (for gay couples, at least)...in reality, any of these reasons could apply to a straight couple or a gay couple.

BTW, I know exactly how big of bite health care takes, as it comes out of my paycheck.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 05:25 PM

"Gay adults make up something like 2% of the population, and are less likely than straights to be in long term relationships "

So we should be paying for whirlwind romances?

"Additionally, a large number of gays are already covered by their partners health care, even if unmarried, due to domestic partner benefits."

And this doesn't upset you? Christ, I'd love to be your stockbroker.

"If you're an employee, what the hell do you care what someone else's compensation plan is."

I care because my premiums go up to cover the costs of family coverage... especially when "family" doesn't involve someone forced to stay home to tend to children.

"...guesses about my personal life, I'm straight, happily married, forty years old, father of one adopted daughter, professional, and our household brought in about three times more than John's did last year. In short, you really couldn't have got it more wrong. My main personal concern about gay marriage is that I live in Atlanta, which is probably the most likely place for random bombings of gay weddings to occur if gay marriage were judicially mandated at the federal level."

I'm happy about your family and your home, but that doesn't address points that I made. I live in MA, where they actually got the ball rolling on this... I haven't seen a gay wedding bombing yet, and don't expect to.

Simply put... for about the fifth time here... if there are kids at home, I feel the benefits should be given... even if the parents can both watch the hockey game during sex. If there's no kids at home, Mom/Dad/Partner should get off their ass and get a job with benefits.

SaraS | June 7, 2006 05:26 PM

For the last time, I did not complain about my job or my health benefits. Read the paragraph right after the one you quoted:
"I didn't throw a fit when this happened...I just took the new coverage, paid my share, and got on with my life. I didn't complain about how the sex lives of my male co-workers screwed up my health coverage."

I think "I didn't throw a fit..." and "I didn't complain..." pretty clearly states that I DIDN'T COMPLAIN. I just can't think of any other way to read that statement.

My point, which just keeps getting lost here, is that no one is "sticking it to you" any more than *you* and your various lifestyle choices (having babies, etc.) are sticking it to others.

And my original complaint about your original post...you think your family is worthwhile and worth coverage and other families are not. Not a philosophy I'm comfortable with, but whatever works for you, I guess.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 05:42 PM

"2. Spouse has a low-end job that doesn't provide benefits (as I mentioned in my previous post)"

- spouse needs a new job, and it's not like the kids are stopping her.

3. Spouse is working part-time and going to school in the hopes of moving up from the low-end job to one that will actually provide benefits.

- schools offer cheapo insurance that will cover spouse while she goes there.

4. Spouse took years off his/her career to raise children, and now is unable to find anything other than low-end jobs that don't provide benefits.

- assuming the kids are off on their own now....
spouse needs to get a different job, or not sneech off the working folk.

"5. Spouse is self-employed, such as a freelance writer."

Spouse needs to get a job with benefits, and write in his/her spare time. When the book hits, will spouse be paying back the workers who carried him/her? Try showing up at Scalzi's house for a week-long visit, and tell him that he owes you because your insurance payments may have been higher because Krissy may have covered him before OMW sold.

"6. Spouse was laid-off and is looking for a new job."

Spouse has the option of continuing his/her coverage, and the state can step in if they are too poor to pay.

"7. Spouse's job does provide benefits, but they are not affordable due to low wages."

Spouse needs benefits from a better job. If there are no kids in the marriage, spouse has plenty of time to look for one.

"8. Spouse is working part-time and caring for his/her elderly parents (and maybe in-laws, too), rather than putting them in a home to rot (and use up tax money)"

Unless spouse is a nurse, the nursing home might be the better place for them. Still, in some cases, I see elderly as sort of dependents.

". Spouse is a bit older and has already retired."

Spouse should have saved better, or spouse obviously wasn't ready to retire yet.

"0. Spouse is disabled or in poor health and is unable to work"

Spouse should be covered by disability benefits and social security. If spouse2 can get benefits that cover spouse1 in that situation, good for them. I support it.

"1. Spouse is just plain lazy and won't work."

That's who I'm after, Sara.

"TW, I know exactly how big of bite health care takes, as it comes out of my paycheck."

You should try incorporating some of this knowledge into your arguments.

Look at it this way... if I were wrong, would I be able to roll over you all so easily?

Dave's turn!

Smurf | June 7, 2006 05:44 PM

"I think "I didn't throw a fit..." and "I didn't complain..." pretty clearly states that I DIDN'T COMPLAIN. I just can't think of any other way to read that statement."

Read it as "complaining to me." Or read it as "a bad example."

Smurf | June 7, 2006 05:47 PM

"And my original complaint about your original post...you think your family is worthwhile and worth coverage and other families are not. Not a philosophy I'm comfortable with, but whatever works for you, I guess."

I think that any family that has kids merits health care. I think that a family that is two guys sharing a bed (or a guy and a girl, it's really all the same to me) doesn't deserve to reach into everyone's pockets.

But whatever works for you, I guess...

KL | June 7, 2006 05:49 PM

I like Smurf.

He has a crystal-clear conceptualization of the "proper" construction of the social universe, and is happy to rattle that off to anyone who doesn't share his crystal-clear conceptualization.

Er, by the by, Smurf. That's why you're able to "roll over" others so easily. Because you're absolutely convinced as to the Received Truth of your convictions.

But you're making a really, really dumb point. You're arguing that the current structure of health care in the US (which you dislike) is sufficient basis for keeping homosexuals from getting married.

Since you can have your cake (a different health-care structure) and eat mine, too (gay marriage), I'm a bit perplexed as to the source of the problem.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 06:08 PM

You have it all wrong, KL

Smurf is a woman.

Smurf supports gay marriage.

Smurf feels that the only legitimate problem with gay marriage would be an increase in insurance premiums due to marriages... many of which will not- biologically, at least- produce any children.

Smurf has repeatedly stated that she feels the same way about a hetero wife staying at home with no kids.

There are cases of "thinking I'm right," and there are cases of "me being proven wrong." With the exception of Census Dave correcting a joke number I made up, no one has been able to even put up a half-sensible argument to the points I've made. That sort of reinforces the "thinking I'm right" part. I feel no worse after your comment.

Smurf feels that bans on gay marriage are wrong.

Smurf would like to see everyone who wants to get married get married.

Smurf just doesn't want to pay for it out of her own pocket. If the insurance issue is settled, there really is no reason to stop gay marriages, and those marriage bigots John speaks of will have lost an important crutch to stand on.

abi | June 7, 2006 06:28 PM

Sorry, Smurf, you pretty much lost me here:

- o0o -

8. Spouse is working part-time and caring for his/her elderly parents (and maybe in-laws, too), rather than putting them in a home to rot (and use up tax money)"

Unless spouse is a nurse, the nursing home might be the better place for them. Still, in some cases, I see elderly as sort of dependents.

- o0o -

It does rather sound like "Everyone arrange your lives for my convenience" when it's boiled right down. No one is to take a job unless it has health benefits, no matter what the other factors (work, atmosphere, colleagues, commute, social value, availability in one's community, etc, etc) may be. No one is to make a reasoned decision not to work, if their partner's income and insurance are sufficient. Why? You might be sponging off of Smurf.

All I can say, Smurf, is that I hope your husband's job is stable, both of your health is good, and that your savings plans for your retirement are sound. I hope, in other words, that you don't find yourself in any of the situations you so dislike seeing others in because they cost you money.

(You remind me, sadly, of the people who came into the Being Poor thread to tell people that it was their own shiftlessness that made them poor.)

abi | June 7, 2006 06:37 PM

Oh, and gay marriage? Sounds good to me.

Marriage is one of the biggest, most difficult, and most enjoyable things one can do in life. Anyone who wants to come along on that road should be welcome. I can think of no better defenders of marriage than people who are willing to fight to get it.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 06:46 PM

Asking others to carry you because you failed to save wisely seems a lot more "Everyone arrange your lives for my convenience" than anything I'm saying sounds.

As for the rest of what you said, I can only repeat hat I said earlier. I feel comfy paying higher insurance premiums for families with children because there are benefits to that for me, Dave, Sara, and Abi. America is healthier, and kids will perform better at school (and at work, when they grow up) if they have reasonably good health.

If someone isn't raising kids or 85 years old, please tell me a LEGITIMATE reason why they can't find a job with benefits... especially if they have a spouse at home splitting the cost of living. I've been checking this thread for hours, and only Sara has tried... and was brushed off rather easily.

It's not a matter of sponging off the Smurf... it's a matter of sponging off EVERYONE.

Hub's job is stable, and the Smurf does OK for herself when not playing Mommy. If things go badly for us in the future, I can pretty much assure you that we'll follow the legitimate means of coping, rather than asking for a handout.

I can tell you this... my husband wouldn't hand over his check every week if I were sitting home all day with no kids. I'd be a fool to expect him to...and only a fool would pay for someone to sit home with no kids while they bust their ass at the factory all day.

You remind me (sadly) of a guy who gets mugged, then volunteers to walk down to the ATM with the muggers so that they can get even more money... and your arguments here seem to be made after they hit you over the head or something.

abi | June 7, 2006 06:57 PM

Smurf,

I have the strongest impression you won't listen, but:

Sara said:
"I've known plenty of people in low-level jobs like you suggest (McDonalds) who literally begged for enough hours to be considered full time so that they would qualify for benefits...and were consistently scheduled just under the threshold. You seem to think that there is no such thing as a job that doesn't provide benefits."

I cited, and will hereby expand on, a number of things that might block one getting a job with benefits, such as:
work (ie, no available jobs for one's skillset)
atmosphere (available jobs include, for instance, harrassment)
colleagues (see harrassment)
commute (impossible or overly expensive)
social value (low-paid charity work)
availability in one's community (simply nothing about)

Not everyone can get a job with benefits. That's why partner benefits exist, even if you don't like the fact.

None of this furthers the gay marriage argument (it's all about the mess that is American healthcare), any more than your specious, ill-thought out and frankly incomprehensible mugging analogy, so I'll leave you to ignore this message in peace.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 07:27 PM

I'll do better than ignore it... I'll blow it out of the water.

If Spouse A is working 34 hours a week at McDonalds with no benefits, she should go find a job with benefits.

If she has kids at home, I'd have no objections to her being on her hub's healthcare plan. If she doesn't have kids, there's no reason for her (or, indirectly, a huge company like McDonald's) to mooch off someone else's health care plan.

As for the other reasons you listed:

- work (ie, no available jobs for one's skillset)

I'm a superb juggler. Sadly, no one will pay me to juggle. I need benefits... time to get a new job, no? It'd be nice if I could juggle for a living, but it'd be foolish of you to pay for me to do so... even if you pay just a little bit of my healthcare premiums.

- atmosphere (available jobs include, for instance, harrassment)

If you're being harassed, report it. If that doesn't work, sue. You'll make more money doing that than you'll make robbing the American worker so you can sit home and complain about Sara's boss.

- colleagues (see harrassment)

(see answer above)

commute (impossible or overly expensive)

Time to get a new job, my man. It's NOT time to start mooching off the legitimate workforce.

- social value (low-paid charity work)

I taught ghetto high school for a long time, and I was lucky enough to have benefits. If they didn't offer me benefits, I would have refused the job... even though I liked making a difference in the lives of poor children.

Charity is a lot like the juggling I mentioned earlier... while you or I may enjoy working that job, we can't expect everyone else to chip in so that we can afford to keep doing it.

Most charities are already getting money from the people, and you have to draw the line somewhere. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind with what you're saying.

- availability in one's community (simply nothing about)

Well... if there's no jobs... MOVE. It's cool to live deep in the woods, but not if you and I have to supply the treeeeeeeeeees.

Sara | June 7, 2006 09:11 PM

Personally, I am strongly against any amendment defining marriage at all on a national level. Right now, gay marriages exist in Massachusetts. Over time, they will exist in other states. It will be a really long time for those states where gay marriage is already banned.

I do think the argument for a seperate term has merit, primarily because everyone I personally know who is against gay marriage would support laws that gave more rights to civil unions. However, I don't think it's something that should be done on a national level, thus changing the status of those in MA. Rather, I just think that in states that have bans on gay marriage, the gay population may be better off pushing for more rights for civil unions or whatever their state calls them than they would be fighting that ban, at least in this generation. Based on polls that reflect a difference between how people feel about gay marriage versus how they feel about gay rights, I just think they'd win those battles sooner. In places like Ohio that wouldn't help, of course. Really, there is no solution right now that would work on a national level, because the people of MA and UT aren't going to agree on it. (Not to insult any residents of Utah, just choosing a conservative state at random. Not all residents are represented by what the majority decided, I realize.)

I find it a silly semantic argument myself, but I also understand that unlike some words, such as "car" or "bowl" the term "marriage" has deep cultural, historical and sacred meanings for a lot of people. It carries emotional weight. That's why the religious right don't want it defined in any way except that of the Bible, and many gay couples don't want to give it up in favor of having a completely seperate term. Personally, if I am ever at that point in a relationship, I won't care what the legal term is, and having gay people married doesn't hurt me at all. But expecting everyone else to just get over the semantics would be pretty unrealistic.

This had clearly defined paragraphs in the comment box, but they're not showing up on preview. Sorry about that.

KL | June 7, 2006 09:16 PM

Smurf: you can't be for something if you're against it.

You claim to be pro-X.

But you're against X (= gay marriage) because of Y (= insurance premiums).

Y is only tangentially and indirectly related to X. Effects of Y caused by X are a subset of the totality of Y, and the underlying causes of Y are not peculiar to X. Indeed, you can solve all the problems of Y (as you yourself admit!) and not impact X whatsoever.

Thus, this makes it a rather odd reason to be against X.

For rather straightforward reasons of pragmatic implication (use google and look up "Gricean Maxims"), this suggests that you are not terribly serious in your support for X.

In a similar vein, I could tell everyone and their grandmama that I love kids until I'm blue in the face. But if I spend my evenings sticking babies on spikes and planting them along the Interstate (hat tip to Eddie Izzard), then my actions bely my claims.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 09:30 PM

I'm not against X. I feel that solving situation Y would make accepting situation X easier for everyone. X is relevant to Y.

Formulas are nice, but they won't do dick for you if you plug in the wrong numbers. A sudden influx of spouses to cover will indeed raise insurance premiums. Only a moron would deny this. That's where X meets Y, and it's also where your Grecian Formula falls to pieces.

I hope you didn't spend a lot of time working on that nonsense, because I wiped it off the board with a paragraph. Try philosophy next time.

Also... I'm not impaling babies on spikes, you sick eff... what I'm doing is more along the lines of helping to make caring for those babies cheaper. It has the added benefit of wiping out the big money argument facing gay marriage.

K+L= Lost Argument!

Smurf | June 7, 2006 09:34 PM

Sara... same thing happens to me... I think they work themselves out once you post.

Brian Greenberg | June 7, 2006 10:13 PM

OK, so now we're talking about insurance premiums? Fine, I'm game. A couple of clarifying comments about health insurance that folks upthread either aren't aware of or are ignoring:

1) Spouses of employees aren't "mooching." It costs more to cover you and your spouse than to just cover yourself - usually significantly more.

2) Covering yourself, your spouse, and your family costs more yet again.

3) Most large companies will actually charge you a penalty if you cover your spouse and he/she has the opportunity to get health insurance at his/her job as well, so most of the people who buy spousal coverage do it out of necessity.

4) Premiums don't go up when more people are covered. Actuaries set premium rates based on averages within a group. More spouses = more premiums and more claims, so unless you're claiming that same-sex spouses are more likely to get sick, there's no evidence that this would affect premium prices at all.

5) Even if I was wrong about #4, the price for insuring the employee only (no spouse, no family) is calculated independently, so no one is forced to subsidize anyone else's spouse.

6) Health care costs have skyrocketed in the past few years, far faster than marriage rates, so I still see no evidence for the whole rate of marriage = higher premiums argument.

joshua corning | June 7, 2006 10:24 PM

Yes, Joshua, you can marry your sister. And a dog. And possibly a vacuum cleaner. All at once! And then you can all have an orgy with the guy next door who has married his mom, an ocelot and a concrete statue of Buddha. Welcome to the new age.

I am glad we agree on something.

Smurf | June 7, 2006 10:39 PM

Brian...

"1) Spouses of employees aren't "mooching." It costs more to cover you and your spouse than to just cover yourself - usually significantly more.

2) Covering yourself, your spouse, and your family costs more yet again."

Does it cost twice as much per spouse, and three times as much if you have a kid? If not, they're making up the difference by raising the premiums across the board... with the average worker losing out.

"most of the people who buy spousal coverage do it out of necessity."

I have no problem with spousal coverage out of necessity... I just don't think that "boyfriend" is a necessity.

"4) Premiums don't go up when more people are covered. Actuaries set premium rates based on averages within a group. More spouses = more premiums and more claims, so unless you're claiming that same-sex spouses are more likely to get sick, there's no evidence that this would affect premium prices at all."

I won't argue that gays get sick more than straights... but I will argue that they use as much doctor time as the next person. That's more claims, which lead to more costs to the health-care provider, which leads them to re-evaluate their rates, which leads to higher premiums. It's 2+2, Brian... sorry.

"5) Even if I was wrong about #4... "

You were, Bri... but don't let that stop you...

"...the price for insuring the employee only (no spouse, no family) is calculated independently, so no one is forced to subsidize anyone else's spouse."

Insuring the client is an individual matter... but the RATES assigned to that individual are assigned by a company with thousands of individuals to cover. I'll quote an old friend: "Actuaries set premium rates based on averages within a group."

So it's a group thing, AND an individual thing? KL, get this dude some Grecian formula!

"6) Health care costs have skyrocketed in the past few years, far faster than marriage rates, so I still see no evidence for the whole rate of marriage = higher premiums argument."

Health care rates have risen recently, and it isn't gay-related. The gay raise will happen when gay marriage puts thousands of additional people on the books. Someone has to pay for those additional peeps, and it's not gonna be a case where the insurance companies go "let's cut the difference out of out profits."

The night shift isn't that much sharper than the day shift, eh John?

SaraS | June 7, 2006 11:20 PM

Hmm, Brian's comments prompted me to actually go look up exactly what I currently pay to cover myself plus my partner under my company's domestic partner benefits. I know the total off the top of my head, but I couldn't remember the exact breakdown of how much is for myself and how much is for her.

Shock of shocks...the cost for Employee + spouse is almost exactly DOUBLE the cost for Employee alone. It is short of being double by about 2 dollars.

Just for kicks, I looked up the rest of the health coverage plans my company offers (we're big, so there are several choices.) Same story...double the Employee Only rate to get close to the Employee+1 rate. In all cases, the difference was about 1-3 dollars (for example, employee alone for one of the plans is around $81, while employee+1 is $164. $81*2= $163.

So, I take back my earlier statement that family coverage is not double single person coverage. At my company, at least, IT IS. The insurance plans offered by my company are from some fairly big names -- blue cross/blue shield, aetna, united healthcare, etc...so I can't imagine that our rates are that abnormal.

Employee+1+children seem to average about 3x the employee alone rate.

Then I looked at rates for that smaller company I mentioned earlier, the one that had to restructure the benefit packages a few times due to changes in premiums. For their most recent plan, again, the Employee+1 rate was nearly double the single Employee rate. In this case, the difference was about $5.

So, smurf - you may rest assured...at least in my company, childless, non-working spouses of employees are not getting a free ride. They are paying the same amount as the employee.

Although I'm not sure there's much point in having a discussion with someone who thinks the statement "I didn't complain" somehow actually means "I'm complaining." Clearly, we are not speaking the same language.

abi | June 8, 2006 01:50 AM

Guys, we're never going to get Smurf to listen. Let's leave her in her comforting universe where she has somehow heard, addressed, and even "demolished" what we've been saying. I'm sure she's happy there.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 06:12 AM

Sara...

First of all, you can say that you weren't complaining all you want... I'll counter with "you were expressing discontent at the rates you were forced to pay." Then we can go to the dictionary at our own leisure.

As for your rates, "almost double" means "charged a lower rate per family member than the worker who pays his/her own way." Again, we can differ about the wording.... and I'll throw you a bone- I'm French, and I trip over English a lot.

That said, the spouse and and children are covered at a lesser rate than Sara is. While we can guess at how much care Sara and a theoretical husband would need head-to-head, it's safe to say that Sara's partner gets it at a lower rate than one of Sara's single co-workers does.

It's also safe to say that since kids require immunization, orthodontry, etc... they'll use more health care than a guy who goes to the office all day and sits home watching TV all night.

Guess who picks up the difference? Hint: it's not taken from insurance company profits, or covered by the boss.

Of course, Sara said "my rates go up because of people like *you* (me) having babies," before asking me "I don't know how you think I begrudge you having children." Given the rest of her arguments, I can understand how that bit of language slipped past her.

So, even Sara admits that her lover- who I'm assuming doesn't have a job with proper benefits- gets insurance coverage for a rate less than that of a worker who pays their own way for the same insurance. If they got kids somehow, the kids also ride partially on the back of the unmarried worker.

Most people wouldn't need to ask how the insurance company can do this, but we'll explain it for Abs and Sara.... they overcharge single employees, especially younger ones.

Abi can say that I'm not listening to his/her arguments, but I can counter that I took Abi's argument apart line-by-line in the comment I made to him/her. I addressed every point Abs made, while Abs hasn't addressed any of mine yet. Abi seems to have a small problem differentiating between "listen" and "agree."

I can live with that, although I feel sorry for the people Abs encounters day-to-day.... they must get very frustrated.

Rhiannon_s | June 8, 2006 06:53 AM

I think I prefer the UK way of health care provision. Everyone is covered and everyone pays in via taxes. It's not perfect, but it's better than the massive quagmire described upthread.

Q | June 8, 2006 07:38 AM

It's nice that Smurf can be so absolutely certain of her infallability and moral correctness despite logical arguments to the contrary.

Perhaps you should run for President.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 07:46 AM

If I'm able to refute the arguments, they weren't that logical... were they?

If more people would question and analyze things... and admit that they were wrong when proven so... maybe we wouldn't have that chimp sitting in Washington for 8 years.

Again, Q... same offer as everyone else gets. Prove me wrong. While you seem to think you have me pretty well figured out, I see you as just the next clown out of the car at the Circus of Fools.

abi | June 8, 2006 08:59 AM

Sadly, Smurf, a line-by-line denial of the complexity of reality does not constitute a refutation. All you have done is prove that you haven't grasped the argument, which is that many people can't (or don't) choose their employment to minimize your health insurance costs. Sometimes your facile suggestions simply won't work, and sometimes people's priorities vary from yours. Not everyone wants to launch a discrimination lawsuit, for instance, or move their families, just to oblige your prejudices.

(I do find the judgemental tone of your arguments, where your type of staying at home is priveledged above anyone else's, very funny in this context.)

SaraS | June 8, 2006 09:13 AM

So, even Sara admits that her lover- who I'm assuming doesn't have a job with proper benefits- gets insurance coverage for a rate less than that of a worker who pays their own way for the same insurance.

Um, what? I admitted no such thing.

I should not have said "almost double" though, as I see that was incorrect. I should have said "more than double."

In the example I gave (based on real rates at a real company), the single worker pays $81. Adding a spouse to that coverage adds an additional $83 to bring the total rate for 2 people to $164.

In the real world, $83 is more than $81 (perhaps not in smurf's world, however).

So...

Single worker pays $81.

My spouse pays $83.

How is my spouse's insurance coverage shafting this single worker again?

How is this single worker "carrying" my spouse, seeing has he pays $2 less than she does for the same coverage?

How is my spouse getting coverage at a lesser rate than a single employee?

Smurf | June 8, 2006 09:39 AM

Abs...

A line by line refutation is what I offered you. You can't counter the points I made- even when I'm taunting you about it- so you go after me, instead of my argument. I pasted what you said, refuted it, and am still waiting for you to offer a coherent response.

Sara:

"Um, what? I admitted no such thing."

"Employee + spouse is almost exactly DOUBLE the cost for Employee alone. It is short of being double by about 2 dollars."

As for Sara's flip-flopping on the cost issue- "It's almost... no, it's equal, wait, it's more"- she's almost beyond reading at this point.

Now that she has her numbers straight- for now- I can honestly say that I just called BCBS, and they told me that doubling the rate for a spouse is almost unheard of in the insurance industry. M ethinks Sara might stretch the truth here and there when routed in argument.

But let's say that the people who answer the phones at Blue Cross/Blue Shield knows less about their rates than Sara does (at this point in her morning, anyhow). That rate would be a lot lower for all parties if they could shave off needless costs- such as a spouse with no children mooching off their plan. If said spouse had a job and paid her own way with the bennies, the costs would again be lowered.

If you grant me the theory that lower costs equal lower premiums... well, yes... non-parenting spouses are dragging the system down... and we all pay for it (except Sara's GF).

SaraS | June 8, 2006 09:48 AM

I presented the actual numbers. If you don't believe them, well, that is your problem. I'm not going to send documents from my company's HR department to some stranger on the internet.

You'd probably accuse me of forging them anyhow. When the numbers show you're wrong, accuse me of lying. Lovely.

I am still heartily amused by someone who admits she stays home and does not have a job complaining about everyone ELSE "mooching" off their benefits.

Have a nice life.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 10:08 AM

Sara..

You said- after supposedly checking your paperwork- that they were less than equal... then said that they were more than equal. Do you expect anyone to believe you? I have two argument-friendly estimates from you, and one estimate from an actual insurance company. Who would you trust?

The numbers you show differ wildly from what BCBS told me.... both sets of differing numbers you showed. Of course I'm going to think you made them up. Who wouldn't?

I have no problem with parents keeping a spouse at home to tend to the children.... that's why spousal coverage is allowed, no?

I do think that the system is abused, and everyone- you, me, your spouse, straight, gay- pay the costs of this abuse.

Before I got married and had children, I worked full time as a teacher and counselor. I paid my own way with health insurance. When I had the shorties, it was necessary for me to stay home with them- if you met my husband, you wouldn't leave him alone with the kids, either.

If you and your spouse have kids (if I said "husband" or "GF" in previous posts, I honestly meant no offense), I wouldn't dream of begrudging you your family coverage... and you'd be sort of a hypocrite to dispute my worthiness.

SaraS | June 8, 2006 10:27 AM

I'm sure I'll regret posting again, but one more time.

In both of my posts regarding the paperwork, I presented *one* set of numbers: $81 for single person, $164 for employee+spouse. The numbers did not change.

From the first post: "for example, employee alone for one of the plans is around $81, while employee+1 is $164. $81*2= $163"

Right there, I should have realized my error, since 81*2 is actually 162, so obviously 164 is more than double 81. I'm actually surprised you didn't note that and correct me in your typical smug tone.

From the second post: "In the example I gave (based on real rates at a real company), the single worker pays $81. Adding a spouse to that coverage adds an additional $83 to bring the total rate for 2 people to $164"

My error in the first post was in stating that $164 was "almost double" $81 when anyone doing the math can see that it is more than double.

I did not present differnet numbers in the two posts. Nor would I -- I am reading the numbers right out of the paperwork.

Perhaps I should call my HR department and tell them they are overcharging me since spousal benefits NEVER cost double single-person benefits, according to some stranger who claims to have called blue cross/blue shield.

However, since my company's HR dept probably knows more about the cost of the benefits they provide than smurf, I think I will just leave that alone.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 10:47 AM

"It is short of being double"

or

"(it's) more than double."

I'd guess that once she figures it all out, it'll be exactly equal.

You posted differing information that disagrees with what the actual BCBS employee told me... as well as what you yourself have told me. You've come in over and under on your attempts to decipher your own friggin' paycheck.

Only a fool would take you seriously at this point.

John Scalzi | June 8, 2006 10:50 AM

You know what, this particular conversation between the two of you doesn't seem to be going much of anywhere at this point. I'm going to invoke executive privilege and ask Smurf and SaraS to take it to e-mail.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 10:53 AM

Ironically... I have to leave this stimulating discussion to.. lol... seriously... go to the doctor. I'm off to my sister's house after that.... so we can pick this up again tonight or tomorrow, depending how I feel.

I support gay marriage, and I support the reform of our nation's healthcare system. Best of luck to all of you.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 10:55 AM

Ooops... kinda slipped that one in under the fence... sorry, John.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | June 8, 2006 12:39 PM

Y'know, I suspect that Smurf's response to SaraS's hypothetical #5 would get a pretty unenthusiastic reaction from the Scalzi household.

I know it would from mine.

Oddly enough, many people in the demographic who oppose gay marriage would also oppose Smurf's assertion that every childless couple ought to be a two-income-both-with-benefits couple. But then they'd also oppose hypothetical #5, on the grounds that the little woman should not in fact be attempting to launch a freelance writing career while staying at home and keeping house for big daddy.

Q | June 8, 2006 12:52 PM

Well, I think any of the responses (which despite her pats on her own back are not flawless pieces of logic, but instead the same tired "get a different job") are fairly ridiculous. To say someone should have to change jobs to get benefits, when said benefits are available as an extension of the benefits of the chosen job of the spouse is just silly.

Coach | June 8, 2006 03:25 PM

Smurf is an angry wench who needs to get off the computer and go to work. oh, was that out loud?

I don't think you deserve ME paying for YOUR kids health benefits. I didn't have kids, why the hell should I pay for them? they get sick ALL THE TIME and they eat up TONS of money in health care. most working adults don't get sick that much... yet... parents tend to take more time off, which makes me work more... so... yea that is SOOOO "fair". I'd rather work in an office full of GLBTQ married couples than one full of married hetero couples. Why? you ask. Well, they will understand if I want time off to do something important to me, and i don't have to justify it by saying "it's for my kid". They have lives outside of trying to procreate, which many heteros cannot say (except of course the esteemed writer of this blog! I heart you john!) I think it's only fair that if you get to take OODLES of time for your sprats, that I should get to take time off for my cats, or to go hiking, or do something I like to do that isn't working. If I have to pay for your kid, shouldn't you have to pay for my "kids"? that would be fair I say. mine get sick much less than yours too! AND best yet, THEY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. I just feed and water them, and pet them on occasion. oh but I'm just selfish and lazy, right Smurf? only YOU and YOUR family deserve health care and in your weird world, only people who work deserve anything. if that is the case KEEP YOUR KIDS OUT OF IT, they don't work, so we don't care.

Coach | June 8, 2006 03:38 PM

Sorry Mr. Scalzi... I wasn't trying to spew "horrid childfree rhetoric" at you. Just trying to explain to smurf that her arranging it around her and her family could annoy someone who doesn't have kids. I probably didn't do that the best but reading her rambling argument of "I'm TOTALLY RIGHT! and you all are stupid" got on my nerves. Apologies!

John Scalzi | June 8, 2006 04:06 PM

Well, I had already asked Smurf and SaraS to take it offline.

Coach | June 8, 2006 04:21 PM

Mr. Scalzi... that's why I was apologizing. I failed to read that before I posted. *Blushing*

Smurf | June 8, 2006 11:20 PM

Coach... why hide behind Scalzi like a punk, when you can easily link to my blog and leave a comment there? Oh yeah... you ARE a punk.

Grow a pair and discuss this with me in an email. Monponsett@aol.com, if you'd like to me to wipe up the floor with you and what is no doubt your stupid point of view.

If anyone else wants some, I ain't that hard to find.

Smurf | June 8, 2006 11:26 PM

Punk move, John... punk move.

Brian Greenberg | June 8, 2006 11:32 PM

Smurf aside, I've spent way too much time in the insurance industry to let this pass:

1) The employee at BCBS, if he/she really existed, was a complete moron. Insurance companies don't set rates "in general," they compute rates based on a set of average statistics they collect from the group they're insuring. If employee+spouse is more than double employee alone, it's because the average spouse makes more claims than the average employee. If it's less than double, it's because the average runs the other way. Anyone who knows anything about insurance rates wouldn't attempt to set them without some data...

2) The "gay bump" is ridiculous too - basically, what we're saying there is that premiums go up as the number of insureds go up (the insurance company doesn't care if the insureds are gay or straight - they're just more premium generators to them...). So despite Smurf's assertion that it's "2+2," I need to point out that yes, more people = more claims, but it also equals more premiums. The actuaries' job is to set the premiums so they balance the extra claims.

OK, I'm done now...

Smurf | June 8, 2006 11:50 PM

Bring it to Monponsett@aol.com, please... John gets enough of me here and on AOL.

mythago | June 9, 2006 12:08 AM

You know, the short answer to this ridiculous argument about insurance is that we don't parcel out civil rights based on whether privately-owned companies will change their pricing policies.

Brian, you can't have it both ways. If giving same-couples rights is merely a matter of a little semantics, then you have to admit that using the word 'marriage' is merely a matter of a little semantics. Either the word is a big deal or it's not, and if it is, then let's not pretend all we need to is CALL same-sex unions something other than marriage.

You are, by the way, providing a fine example of the 'ignorance of the law' problem John mentions.

John Scalzi | June 9, 2006 12:19 AM

Smurf:

"Punk move, John... punk move."

What did I do now?

Smurf | June 9, 2006 07:23 AM

Not you, John... it was late, and the painkillers dragged me down a bit.

But if I have to take it to email, I suppose the guy who calls me "angry wench" should be obliged to do so as well. The name calling after the email request was the "punk move" I meant to reference.

You're a-ight, John.

Phillip J. Birmingham | June 9, 2006 01:41 PM

As a further data point, I have BCBS at work, and premiums are $111.50, $234.00, $200.50, and $334.00 for employee, employee + spouse, employee + children, and employee + spouse + children, respectively.

Brian Greenberg | June 9, 2006 02:31 PM

First, may I point out that this comment thread is one of the most active blogs on the internet? OK, moving on:

Mythago:
Brian, you can't have it both ways. If giving same-couples rights is merely a matter of a little semantics, then you have to admit that using the word 'marriage' is merely a matter of a little semantics. Either the word is a big deal or it's not, and if it is, then let's not pretend all we need to is CALL same-sex unions something other than marriage.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm a strong advocate of civil unions. I'm not. I'm a strong advocate of getting these people protection under the law, which I believe to be more important than the moral victory that comes from the state calling you "married."

To me, personally, the word is not a big deal. I don't conflate Massachusetts calling people married to God/Jesus/Allah calling them married. But many, many people do and I think this is the source of the problem.

You are, by the way, providing a fine example of the 'ignorance of the law' problem John mentions.

I don't understand this comment at all (although if I were ignorant, I guess that's what you'd expect). So please enlighten me: what about what I just said strikes you as ignorant of the law?

Coach | June 9, 2006 03:14 PM

did you miss where I said I was a girl Smurf? I don't need to "talk" to you. I actually don't care ANYTHING about you. Especially since you think that only YOU matter. guess what, YOU DON'T! I don't post on your blog cause I don't care. see how that works? I posted on John's because (for the most part) I enjoy reading what he writes. wow... that was HARD. sorry I strained your poor blond mommy brain.

abi | June 9, 2006 05:16 PM

S'okay, Coach, at least she tried to figure out your gender. Me, she couldn't even spell my name.

Jon h | June 9, 2006 09:08 PM

Brian Greenberg writes: "By 'traditionally,' they are often referring to their religion's definition of the term marriage, in which case they are quite correct"

However, they're really cherry picking, aren't they? Selective quoting. If you want to use the Bible to define marriage, don't you have to use everything, not just the part that supports your position?

How can you talk about a religion's traditional definition of marriage while excluding the very definition of marriage as it was used by that religion's own founding patriarchs?

Going by the Bible as it is, marriage is between one man and one or more women, and those women are essentially the property of the man.

CoolBlue: "Who's to say that because of the above some judge will decide that because it is a barrier to a "right to marriage" the age of consent should be lowered to 10 despite what the State Legislature, which is the voice of the people, intend?"

Minors generally can't enter into contracts, which puts a pretty big barrier up. I don't think you can sue a minor, either. There's lots of precedent for kids being a special, protected class who are not considered to be able to make their own decisions.

Ron writes: "The same way a Massachusetts driver's license lets you drive a car through any of the other states."

But many other licenses are not treated that way. A gun license issued by one state may not be valid in another state. A license to practice medicine from one state's licensing board does not imply you can move to another state and set up a practice.

The point being, there is ample precedent for one state's license not being valid in another state.

Smurf | June 9, 2006 10:25 PM

Coach and Abs... stop hiding behind Scalzi and send an email. We can discuss it all you want.

Coach... my apologies about mistaking your gender. Given your name, and your obviously clouded mental state... well, I started thinking about that nincompoop barback from "Cheers." Honest mistake.

A lot of words in your Moron Manifesto were fully capitalized for someone who doesn't care about me, Coachess. I think that you care quite a bit. I couldn't care less what gender you may be- skirt or slacks, you're still a fool.

I've already rolled over Dear Abi enough that any further beatings might bring a social worker into the equation. Abi is stupid enough (see his/her previous arguments)... a few more shots might give him/her Parkinson's. No need to bloody my hands or conscience with that nightmare.

Sara... classy move, dropping the argument at John's request. Seriously.

I'd do the same, but it seems that I have a fan club now. I am inclined to dislike you less, now. I'm sure you're thrilled. I offered them the opportunity to go after me in email, but I think they got confused along the way somewhere.

Again... to whatever morons couldn't read the post I made earlier... no need to clutter his page with your nonsense. Stop hiding behind John, and send me an email at Monponsett@aol.com. We can settle this like men/women/whatever.

abi | June 10, 2006 05:12 AM

Smurf, if there were any point in a discussion, I would take it to email. I don't think, considering your style of "argument", that it's worth any of our time to do so.

I think that we have all made our respective positions sufficiently clear that someone coming along to this thread afresh can decide for themselves.

Looking at the numbers on each side of the debate, I do hope the lurkers are supporting you by email.

Smurf | June 10, 2006 07:36 AM

Monponsett@aol.com

If there's no point in the discussion, shut up already. Take your beating like a, well, whatever you are.

If you still feel the need to discuss it, I've made it clear where we can do so.

I doubt anyone wants to read a 3 paragraph comment saying that you don't care.

You know where to find me, now. Try it out. Thanks, sorry, have a nice day... whatever works.

mythago | June 10, 2006 06:04 PM

I'm a strong advocate of getting these people protection under the law, which I believe to be more important than the moral victory that comes from the state calling you "married."

And, AGAIN, as John already pointed out, you've shown your understanding of 'protecting under the law' is a big fat zero. Because if you don't call the union marriage, you are not guaranteeing that every law, regulation and ordinance that refers to the state called "marriage" applies to these people.

This has been pointed out again and again. I really have to assume that those who don't comprehend the fact that words, in the law, having meaning are doing so deliberately--that they know that avoiding the M Word is actually going to screw the people they are pretending they'd like to protect.

Brian Greenberg | June 10, 2006 11:59 PM

And, AGAIN, as John already pointed out, you've shown your understanding of 'protecting under the law' is a big fat zero. Because if you don't call the union marriage, you are not guaranteeing that every law, regulation and ordinance that refers to the state called "marriage" applies to these people.

Then call it marriage, but it's going to take a lot longer to accomplish the goal. You seem to suggest that there is no part of the marriage benefit that is worth having unless they have the entire benefit. I would think if I were in a same-sex marriage and struggling to obtain legal guardianship of my own child, especially if my partner's health wasn't good, I might disagree with you. But again, I'm not, so I have no standing here. It's just my opinion.

This has been pointed out again and again. I really have to assume that those who don't comprehend the fact that words, in the law, having meaning are doing so deliberately--that they know that avoiding the M Word is actually going to screw the people they are pretending they'd like to protect.

Not to go off on yet another tangent, but the evils of "separate but equal" are really being overblown here. In many cases, "separate and not equal" is OK too. There are a multitude of examples of legal distinctions that don't screw the people they are trying to protect. To wit: A person running his own business can register as a sole-proprietor, an S-Corp, a Corporation or - if he has partners - a partership or a limited parternship. A nurse can be an RN (registered nurse), an LPN (licensed practical nurse), or a PA (physician's assistant). A software developer can offer his services to a software company as an employee, a contractor or a consultant.

In each case, there are subtle legal differences what each categorization brings, but the basics are covered equally across the board.

Same-sex relationships that are sanctioned by the government (trying very hard to avoid the "C.U." term) may never be exactly the same as marriages, but may be able provide some necessary protections to a lot of people who desparately need them right now.

This is not a lack of understanding about the law, this is an attempt to focus on what (I think is) important. As Dennis Miller used to say, "It's just my opinion; I could be wrong..."

abi | June 11, 2006 04:22 AM

If I could throw a real-world example into this theoretical talk:

Britain has recently introduced Civil Partnerships. The act in question is mostly a list of laws that are amended from "marriage" to "marriage or civil partnership." As far as I can tell (IANAL), the list is complete. It certainly covers the ground, from adoption to the mechanics of forming and dissolving the bond.

Civil partnerships differ from marriages in three important ways:

1. A civil partnership can be registered in private. Marriages must be publicly announced beforehand, as Madonna and Guy Ritchie found out to their regret. A couple can even register for the partnership at different times and places, with the bond being formed when the second partner has registered. I suspect this is mostly to prevent any stigma of homosexuality preventing people from marriage.

2. There is no religious civil partnership. In the UK, a minister of the established church can marry a couple and they're married (the US, with the First Amendment, permits any minister to do so. But in the UK, if you marry in a church other than the established one, you must then go through a civil ceremony to make it legal.) A minister of the established church cannot form a civil partnership - that must be done at the registry office.

3. It's not called marriage.

My analysis (IANAL, remember), is that point 1 is an advantage. In that sense, civil partnerships are marriage + something.

Point 2 is more about the growing separation between church and state, in that the state has enacted something that the established church is still divided about.

Point 3 is the kicker. Basically, if you repeal the Civil Partnerships Act, all the civil partnerships go away while the marriages stay. The question is whether that is likely. (I suspect not.)

The law caused an enormous administrative exercise, since every piece of paperwork that asked if one was married now needs to ask if they're married or a civil partner. Apparently some debate was had about whether to have a separate box ("[ ] Married [ ] Civil partner") or a longer text on one box ("[ ] Married or civil partner") The latter text seems to have been preferred, from what I hear, because not everyone wants to shout I AM GAY on every vital statistics form.

The law was implemented with no real fuss or bother, and does not appear to have led to the fall of civilisation. It didn't lead to dancing in the streets either, which is a shame.

sprinjourney | June 18, 2006 10:13 PM

Gay marriage is a complete nonsense because by definition it does not produce anything. Marriage is an institution established by society for the sake of survival of society. By approving gay marriage western society commits suicide.
Civilization will definitely fall, and result is going to be seen in 10 - 15 years from now. Actually we already see it in Europe - with a Paris and London as future centers of fastest growing religion.
And all brainwashed western popuplation will be replaced by happy and sound-minded people from the South.

John Scalzi | June 18, 2006 10:36 PM

Sprinjourney, your pharmacist called. Says you haven't been picking up your anti-psychotics for the last couple of weeks. Get on that, would you? Thanks.

Zoe Brain | June 19, 2006 01:30 AM

Whew! Where to begin.

OK, I'm in a same-sex marriage. I'm also the biological father of my son.

A very few Intersexed people, normally boys with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, change their appearance after birth, usually at Puberty. This can cause all sorts of problems, as you can imagine. Their birth certificates say "female", and they certainly look it, but they're biologically male, and when they hit puberty, they no longer look like girls, testes descend, the full bit.

But a vanishingly small proportion of Intersexed women have something similar happen later in life. They look like boys, and although they're infertile, some can father children. They think they're male (though transsexual), and chromosomally they're right. But then something happens to their endocrine system, and they have a regrettably partial and involuntary sex change. There's at least 2 different mechanisms that can cause this.

Take it from me, even though I knew from age 7 that I should have had a female body, when a 47 year old father starts feminising for no apparent reason, it comes as a bit of a shock.

What happens to a marriage when one partner changes sex?

The simple answer is that all but a few self-destruct, sometimes amicably, but usually not. Whether mine will hold together, whether it should hold together, we still don't know. The vows did say "in sickness and in health" but I don't think it would be fair to say that that part covered this particular medical condition.

But it has made me aware of the plight of the Intersexed and the Transsexual (which in Australia, based on scientific testimony is now regarded legally as a form of Intersex).

There are people who can be either mothers or fathers. There's even one or two that have been both, though far more usually, people in that kind of position are doubly sterile, not doubly fertile. There are genetic females who have fathered children. There are genetic males who have been mothers. And what about those with Klinefelter syndrome, not 46xy(male) or 46xx(female), but 47xxy? I know of a few who have fathered children, most look somatically male, but I also know of one mother too, some look female.

At least 1 in 100 people have some degree of Intersex, though it's usually negligible, and most never know it. But for 1 in 1000, it's a problem. About 1 in 2500 have the variety of Intersex called "Transsexualism", where the parts of the brain defining gender identity are misgendered compared with the rest of the body (usually many other parts of the brain too, it varies). These days, they often get it fixed when young. But for those of us born in the 1950's, well, the treatment then was electroshock and lobotomy (not that that worked), not hormones and genital reconstruction.

But I digress.

The point is, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the Anglosphere - the US, UK, Canada, Australia etc who are discriminated against because they qualify as neither wholly male, nor wholly female. Those who have had surgery and hormonal therapy to "normalise" them as one or the other risk having their gender identity questioned and overturned in the courts.

Heck, if I got divorced, I have no idea whether the Australian Family Court would rule that I could marry a man, or a woman. I'm still in a transitional state, and until surgery in November, although biologically I'm more female than male, it's still a very ambiguous (and uncomfortable) state to be in. After November, I'd clearly be "over the line". Except in Texas and Kansas, I believe. Oh yes, but under UK law - and I was born in the UK - I'm legally male while I'm married to a female, regardless of chromosomes, surgery, or blood chemistry.

My argument in favour of some form of legally recognised partnership, be it marriage or civil union, is that it caters for the Intersexed. They have it hard enough without being denied the ability to father, or mother, or both, children when in lawful wedlock.

p.s. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here's some links:
Intersex Society of North America FAQ
Estimate of frequency of Transsexualism
Legal Comment on Transsexualism and Intersex
and finally
My Annus Mirabilis

F. Rottles | July 14, 2006 01:19 AM

>> "their proposed amendment and their goals destroy real marriages between real people"

Read the proposed amendment. It would not strip "marital" status from those already SSM'd.

>> "In total, about 415000 children lived with two same-sex adults in the year 2000 [re Census]"

Most of these were children of divorce. Very few were obtained by the alternative methods (Adoption and IVF/Arts probably account for about 6-8% of these children). Second-parent adoption would provide the direct legal benefits to the child-parent relationship that SSM would not.

While around 11% of the adult homosexual population live in same-sex households, about 97% of the adult homosexual population does NOT live in same-sex households with children. This is almost the inverse of the rest of society.

Whether its SSM in Massa, CU in Vermont, DP in California, or the more inclusive same-sex household of the Census, the participation rate in the one-sex-short arrangement is very low. In California, even SSM advocates estimate that less than a third of DPs would convert to SSM should that option be enacted.

I suspect that the strongest predictor of living in a same-sex household would be at least one partner's prior marriage to the opposite sex; and a close second would be having a child from a previously relationship with the opposite sex.

That the vast majority of children who reside in same-sex households are from previous man-woman homes is a good indication that SSM remains marginal even where there are concentrations of homosexual twosomes living in highly tolerant, and accepting, locales.

John Scalzi | July 14, 2006 02:07 AM

"Read the proposed amendment. It would not strip 'marital' status from those already SSM'd."

Really? What part of "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" allows a same-sex marriage to continue? Because, hmmm, if marriage is only between a man and a woman, then then any marriage between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is by necessity invalid under the Constitution, and the proposed Amendment makes no allowances for already same-sex marriages to continue.

You know, I really like it when people tell me to read something that they have clearly and obviously not read, or, at the very least, have not understood.

F. Rottles | July 14, 2006 03:02 AM

Since you asked so very nicely:

The proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution would not strip status of already SSM'd couples, as per the highest court in that state.

The proposed federal marriage amendment would not permit a court to do what Marshall did.

As you may know, the Massachusetts legislature passed legislation at the bequest of the Marshall court.

So, the local voters may yet correct Marshall's error -- without stripping status of those already SSM'd. And the national voters may yet reaffirm that the courts may not interpret marriage to be other than the union of a man and a woman.

But your overall point is ludricous. The definition of marriage is both-sexed everywhere in this country, except within the bounds of the jurisidiction of Massachusetts. At the state level only. It is an outlier and does not by itself redefine marital status for the entire country.

There is no fundamental right to state recognition of the one-sex arrangement -- regardless of sexual identity. However, the choice to enter a one-sex relationship -- sexualized or not -- is a liberty exercised and not a right denied.

John Scalzi | July 14, 2006 03:20 AM

F. Rottles:

"The proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution would not strip status of already SSM'd couples, as per the highest court in that state."

Ah. Okay. We're not talking about the same amendment. This piece refers to the proposed US Constitutional amendment. Check the date on the piece; it was written prior to the Mass. court approving the proposed Mass. amendment moving forward.

If Massachusetts folks wish to amend their Constitution to bar further same-sex marriages, and it clears all the required hurdles, than so be it, although I suspect thousands of marriages daily exposing the bigotry of such an amendment will eventually have an effect.

"But your overall point is ludricous."

Actually, no, it's not ludicrous in the slightest. The fact of the matter is that any American may have a same-sex marriage. Whether it is convenient to do so is another matter entirely, of course; nevertheless, the fact remains. If any American may avail him or herself of a same-sex marriage, then the definition of marriage in the US is rather definitively changed. Unless you wish to propose to have us all need our state's permission to leave its borders.

"There is no fundamental right to state recognition of the one-sex arrangement"

Well, and there is equally no fundamental right to state recognition of any marriage, when you want to get right down to it; there's nothing stopping any state from simply not issuing marriage licenses. So I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

F. Rottles | July 14, 2006 10:15 AM

>> "it was written prior to the Mass. court approving the proposed Mass. amendment moving forward"

I don't think the timing is off; the proposed state amendment is the same as it was before the court rejected the complaints brought.

>> "If any American may avail him or herself of a same-sex marriage, then the definition of marriage in the US is rather definitively changed. Unless you wish to propose to have us all need our state's permission to leave its borders."

There is no need for permission to travel, but you are mistaken about the rest.

You won't be permitted to SSM in Massachusetts unless you live there. And that localized status is not portable to, say, New York state. Nationally, it is not valid in any state of the Union, including Massachusetts. You could travel to Canada, get SSM'd, and return without that status in, say, Michigan.

So the situation in Massachusetts is an aberration, an outlier, an error that need not spread to other jurisdictions.

This is one of the basic problems with Marshall's errors on this issue.

Neither amendment is a ban on SSM. You could SSM anyplace; but there is not fundamental right for that to be recognized by the government as marital status.

John Scalzi | July 14, 2006 10:40 AM

F. Rottles:

"I don't think the timing is off; the proposed state amendment is the same as it was before the court rejected the complaints brought."

Be that as it may, this article was not about the Mass. amendment, it was about the national amendment.

"There is no need for permission to travel, but you are mistaken about the rest."

I'm not mistaken in the slightest; you're simply not accurately reading what I've written. Once again, any individual citizen of the United States may avail him or herself of same-sex marriage, provided a willing partner and a willingness to live in Massachusetts. Other states may or may not recognize the marriage as valid (not to mention the federal government), but that irrelevant as to the ability of individual citizens of this country to obtain a same-sex marriage.

All your hand-waving about states, etc, is arguing a point I'm not attempting to make. It doesn't matter if not a single other state recognizes same-sex marriage; inasmuch as any American who is willing to take the necessary steps to have such a marriage may have one, same-sex marriage is availabe to us all. Thus, the definition of marriage for all Americans includes same-sex marriage.

"Neither amendment is a ban on SSM. You could SSM anyplace; but there is not fundamental right for that to be recognized by the government as marital status."

What a jackassed argument. "Oh, you can have any marriage you want, as long as you realize it's not legal." That's right up there with "Gays can have marriages; they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex." That's a special brand of Missing The Point that's not worth discussing.

F. Rottles | July 14, 2006 06:34 PM

Yes, any person could relocate to Massachusetts. And, yes, any person living in Massachusetts could go get a license to SSM.

And that license would enable a status recognized only in one jurisdiction. It would not be portable to other states. Nor would it be applicable at the national level.

The one-sex arrangment is not banned anywhere in the USA. It is not outlawed like, for example, polygamy which is recognized for the purpose of penalizing.

Any person, anyplace in the USA, is at liberty to live and love in a one-sex arrangement. This does not depend on a law to elevate the status of that arrangment. It is a liberty exericised, not a right denied.

As I said, there is no fundamental right to state recognition of a person to be the "married" partner of someone of the same sex. No right is denied by nonrecognition.

The only exception, the outlier, is based on the tortured reasoning, and very emotion-laden policy end-gaming, of the Marshall opinion in the small state of Massachusetts.

Pre-Goodridge, a self-identified homosexual man could marry. A sel-identified heterosexual man could marry. Neither could marry each other. Ditto for their female counterparts. Whether by sex, or by the notion of sexual orienation, there was no unjust discrimination that treated a man differently than a woman, a homosexual different from a heterosexual.

Marshall decided, by axiom, that marital status was not both-sexed. She decided, by mere leap of faith to her favored policy outcome, that the Massachusetts marriage law really recognized three relationship types: the conjugal relationship of husband AND wife; the man-only arrangement; the woman-only relationship. Her addition of the extra two alternatives reintroduced into marital status the selective sex-segregation that was once used by racists to selectively segregate men from women on the basis of a racial identity filter. She emphasized Loving without using it as an actual precedent; Marshall decided that segregation should be pressed into a social institution that has always integrated both sexes.

If you are looking for a Jackass in this chain of events, look no further than the writer of the Goodridge opinion (and related advisory opinion) who by normal judiciary ethics should have recused herself from a case in which her political bias had already been publicly declared.

F. Rottles | July 14, 2006 06:46 PM

>> "this article was not about the Mass. amendment, it was about the national amendment"

Yes, it was.

But your point is still mistaken. The federal amendment prevents a court from interpreting the integration of the sexes, i.e. the man-woman criterion, as including the selective segregation of the sexes, i.e. the man-only or the woman-only alternatives. It does not prevent a legislature from enacting enabling legislation to recognize these alternatives.

The challenge for the advocates of SSM is to explain the merits (and justify the demerits) of the sex-segregative arrangments. Why should a new status be created for either of these? The "me-too" claim is insufficient. The challenge is to spell-out the societal benefit (utilitarian or whatever) which is not attached to the core of marriage: the combination of sex integration and responsible procreation.

It might be done successfully. For example, Hawaii enacted Reciprocal Beneficiaries about ten years ago. It is a lawful elevation of the non-marital trust relationship. This solution fit the problem and is far more inclusive of nonmarital arrangements than SSM ever could be.

The marriage issue is not really about homosexuality. But it remains a very touchy topic because it is presented by SSM advocates as one of imposing a particular brand of morality, not on the homosexual population, but on the rest of society. So even with the emotional hot buttons that some folks press on either side -- including those pressed in your post, John Scalzi -- it is important to discuss the subject with moderation and a deliberate effort to cutback the intemperate reactions. Respond, rather than react, is the way forward.

John Scalzi | July 14, 2006 06:47 PM

F. Rottles:

"Yes, any person could relocate to Massachusetts. And, yes, any person living in Massachusetts could go get a license to SSM."

So, then, the definition of marriage of the United States has changed to include single sex marriage. We're done here. Your continued attempts to say "yeah, but," are neither here nor there to this point.

"As I said, there is no fundamental right to state recognition of a person to be the 'married' partner of someone of the same sex."

And as I said, there's no fundamental right to state recognition of any marriage, so what's your point?

F. Rottles, if all you're going to do is just repeat your points over and over when I've clearly showed they're entirely irrelevant to this particular discussion, you should probably just move on. The argument you want to have does not fit this particular set of data. Your points are not uninteresting, they just aren't relevant for the argument I've made here.

"It does not prevent a legislature from enacting enabling legislation to recognize these alternatives."

But those alternatives are notmarriage and could never be. As noted elsewhere, "separate but equal" has been tried before and didn't work particularly well. More to the point; since same sex marriage already exists, there's little value in people wishing to have them to settle for anything less.

F. Rottles | July 14, 2006 07:06 PM

>> "But those alternatives are notmarriage and could never be."

That is the most important point. Even in Massachusetts, SSM is not marriage Marriage has social and lawful status that is recognized and elevated across the country on the basis of integrating both sexes. SSM is given a preferential status only in Massachusetts and only for local level purposes.

So the deprivation you seem to think a federal marriage amendment would manifest is only of the outlier status that was enacted by a bare majority of judges in a court in one small state.

The amendment reaffirms the status of marriage across the country and would not strip SSMs of status based on the legislation enacted in Massachusetts. Marshall did not make the law; she imposed her will on the lawmakers.

This information should cause you to reconsider what you have declared in your original post. At least check and see where the real dispute is on that point. You may be right, but just check it out further and see if what I have said here is at least a substantive response. Like you said earlier, being informed is very helpful when addressing the issues involved here.

Your point had been repeated, ad nauseam, by others in the many comments above mine. They were also ill-informed. Your underlying topic is bigotry; an unreasoned intolerance of another's opinions. Right?

SSM may exist, but it is sex-segregative and so your analogy with race falls flat. The identity filter was once used to keep white men from non-white women; and white women from non-white men. It was wrong because there is one human race. The sexual identity filter is also wrong because humankind is two-sexed; human renegeneration is both-sexed; and the unity of human community is both-sexed. Marriage arises from these objective truths. Sex-segregation is extrinsic to marriage.

On Lawn | July 14, 2006 07:28 PM

So, then, the definition of marriage of the United States has changed to include single sex marriage. We're done here.

Funny, a discussion I had with someone on this very topic.

My associate is against the federal amendment, I am for it. He forwarded that is possible for states to have conflicting definitions of marriage, and because of that they should be given the freedom to do so. His argument was summed up in words to the nature of, "if they wish to piss in their own sandbox, let them".

However, my argument was that the neutered definition of marriage was incompatible with marriage. And because of that a national standard definition was required. If what you say is true, and I think there is some truth to it, that would convince others that the FMA was crucial also. In essence you are saying the definitions are incompatible, that it is one or the other on a national level. So I say people should choose one or the other on a national level. It is folley for one state to decide such an important matter for everyone else.

Of course it is still a matter of debate whether or not the FMA means states cannot make a definition for themselves. The FMA could be interpreted as only directing federal matters with respect to defining marriage.

As F. Rottles points out, it is an error that should be corrected. On a state level would be good for Mass, but on a national level would be more important.

What that does to the current marriages is unknown. I feel you are scare-mongering on that point. We had 3,000+ marriages dissolved here in California when a rogue Mayor went outside the law. Those people exist with the same benefits, being given them by the legislature. In Massachusetts the groundword for their constitutional amendment is coupled with legislation for a reciprocal beneficiaries program there.

But those alternatives are notmarriage and could never be.

My station wagon is having a bit of an identity crisis. It seems I am being forced to pay more money to insurance because even though it is a station wagon, they think its a sports car. Apparently to them a squared off rear-end is not enough to keep it from being a sports car.

Is it the name that is important? Is it the benefits? Is it the relationship? My friend has gone through these points looking at quotes from avid marriage neuterers such as yourself. Perhaps you would like to read it as it speaks directly to that argument...

And all he seeks to do is to get into the practical details of what marriage means to marriage neuterers.

The Mask Slips

Asrael | July 14, 2006 08:09 PM

As noted elsewhere, "separate but equal" has been tried before and didn't work particularly well.

And yet you have the gall to advocate sexually segregated marriages? Separate is NOT equal. Two moms or two dads can never equal "mom & dad". It's absurd to think otherwise.

No, separate is NOT equal. You want a first-class marriage? You'll have to integrate a man and a woman for that.

John Scalzi | July 14, 2006 09:11 PM

F. Rottles:

"That is the most important point. Even in Massachusetts, SSM is not marriage."

This is factually wrong, so there's no point in discussing anything below this line as if it has any merit whatsoever.

On Lawn:

"my argument was that the neutered definition of marriage was incompatible with marriage."

You can believe as you like; the Supreme Court of Masschusetts thought otherwise. Because of that, the definition of marriage in the US now includes same-sex marriage, and has for two years.

"We had 3,000+ marriages dissolved here in California."

No such thing happened; in California the marriages were never legal to begin with. There is no such problem in Massachusetts; all those marriages are legal as any other.

"Is it the name that is important?"

The fact that people get vaporous about the fact that there is now same-sex marriage in the US says "yes."

Asrael:

"And yet you have the gall to advocate sexually segregated marriages? Separate is NOT equal. Two moms or two dads can never equal "mom & dad". It's absurd to think otherwise."

Asrael, do you make and bottle your own ignorant bigotry? Or do you have it shipped in from somewhere? Unless you have something of value to add (and apparently you don't), shoo.

On Lawn | July 15, 2006 10:21 AM

You can believe as you like; the Supreme Court of Masschusetts thought otherwise.

Is the neutered marriage definition that Massachusetts Supremes inflicted on their state incompatible with the equal-gender representation definition of other states? When you say things like, "the definition of marriage in the US now includes same-sex marriage, and has for two years", it leads me to believe you do.

If that is true, it is a problem that one state is changing the nation's definition. You seem to take that as a good thing, hoorah its already settled for the whole US because of one state's actions.

Just to underline the contradiction this generates I notice that letting one state's judicial branch, who's ruling was intentionally made with no federal grounds at all, alter the entire nation's definition is a abuse of power. An abuse of power that you happen to agree with the outcome so you overlook the injustice. By the premise that altering one states definition alter's the whole nation's definition, the premise you made in the very first point of your article here, the only way to fix that gross abuse is a national definition of marriage. Oddly enough you are arguing against making such a definition in the right democratic way, well because you don't agree with the outcome is all I can figure.

So, not to put to fine a point on it, you want the issue to be settled very badly it seems. So much so that you are overlooking some egregious points in order to do so.

That was also made evident in your reply to Asreal,

Asrael, do you make and bottle your own ignorant bigotry? Or do you have it shipped in from somewhere?

Simply calling people bigots is a good way to show people you are uninterested in rational discussion. His point is a valid one, and one I've made myself on this issue. One that I will place here also...

To me, using the adjectives like "same-sex" to describe a change in marriage is problematic. It is misleading because it only describes who is going to benefit from changing marriage, not the change itself. In fact because it just concentrates on a small subset of people it acts like a pair of blinders. Many don't think there is a change to marriage at all or any prospective harm.

I submit that the proper term to describe that change is "neutered" for the reasons below. And this concept of the potential neutered marriage conflict with marriage lends to why we need a constitutional amendment.

Exactly what would be neutered about marriage, and why? The shared public meaning of marriage across society is neutered, even if it only happens in one state. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision Goodridge v Public Health decided that for the sake of the plaintiffs the current view of marriage needed to be changed. Marriage in its current form, they found, is defined by gender integration and that was a barrier to the same sex couples.

So the order came down from the bench for marriage to be neutered. The people in individual marriages were not set to be neutered but all references to gender in official documents and law were to be removed neutering marriage as an institution. Every significance of fatherhood, motherhood needed to be struck down. And everything gender integration was capable of the state was required to expend its own resources provide to gender segregationists. Imagine if this ruling came down on racial integration of schools!

As if taking tictation from Orwell the court painted the ideal of gender integration as the moral equivalent to white supremacy. Government instituted integration becomes the new bigotry, and allowing segregation is the new equality. And ironically the neutering is portrayed as an extension.

in California the marriages were never legal to begin with.

They were all registered and certified, and the same argument you gave in that they were already there and would be taken away (horror!) was what they put to the judges. And that is sufficient for the point I made.

The fact that people get vaporous about the fact that there is now same-sex marriage in the US says "yes."

Wow, it is really telling what you ignore in the post. You see, another person was much more honest about this line of reasoning than yourself when he presented it to me a number of years ago...

To put it more bluntly: I do not seek your agreement; I wish to inculcate in your children the opinion that you are anachronistic, bigoted, and hateful.

Or in other words, name calling over and over again instead of listening to arguments.

Specifically what you missed was the question of what about marriage you are really interested in. Do you just want to neuter marriage as a way to make marriage irrelevant and ultimately abolish it as a state institution? Some do. Do you want to simply raid marriage for government goodies out of a strangely Orwellian sense of equality (cf. gender segretation is the new integragion).

I mean it was you who forwarded that RB's and CU's were insufficient, marriage had to be replaced with something of the same name. When questioned as to why, and pointing to how the answer has exposed hipocrisy in others you simply avoided the answer and posited that it was already so, thats why. I mean, you can feel free to do so but I just wanted to point out so you could see its absurdity and sign off on it explicitely. Or you could answer the question of why marriage needs to be neutered, or in other words what is the purpose of neutering marriage in your eyes.

John Scalzi | July 15, 2006 10:45 AM

On Lawn:

"So, not to put to fine a point on it, you want the issue to be settled very badly it seems. So much so that you are overlooking some egregious points in order to do so."

Well, no. To begin, the issue is settled: There is same-sex marriage in the United States. You are doing precisely what I note people who are against same-sex marriage always do -- try to frame the discussion in a manner that suggests the matter is still up for debate. It's not. It happened, and any American who wants a same sex marriage can have one. I'm not "overlooking egregious points," I'm merely refusing to have a discussion on the matter that is not, in fact, based in the real world.

Likewise, your framing the discussion as "neutering marriage" is one that I don't feel obliged to take up, because it's a rhetorical attempt to distract from facts. I could just as simply and vapidly respond that same sex marriage is "empowering marriage" and we could go around and around about what marriage should mean. But I don't see much value in that.

You want to have an argument on what marriage in the US based on what you think it should be, based on your opinion. I am saying what marriage in the US is, based on the law. These are not the same discussion. I understand you want to work from the assumption that they are, but they're not. That being said, I'm not obliged to engage as if your points have any relevance to what I've been saying here.

As to my response to Asreal, he/she/it said something rheorically vacant and jackassed and I'm not obliged to repsond to him/her/it in any serious sort of matter. You are rhetorically more organized, so you get a more moderate response. However, both of you are working from opinion; I am working from fact. You think marriage should not include same-sex unions as part of its definition; I am saying it does, as a matter of law.

"They were all registered and certified, and the same argument you gave in that they were already there and would be taken away (horror!) was what they put to the judges."

Your inability or unwillingness to understand the legal process in this particular case does not oblige me to respond to this argument of yours as if it has any validity.

On Lawn | July 15, 2006 11:43 AM

You are doing precisely what I note people who are against same-sex marriage always do -- try to frame the discussion in a manner that suggests the matter is still up for debate. It's not.

Talk about parotting bad reasoning over and over, I can't help but think that repetition of your ipse dixit is no rational way to substantiate it.

This is an accusation you lobed against F. Rottles, IIRC, yet it is you who are seemingly sitting in a corner, plugging your years and muttering the same thing over and over to yourself hoping that if you quit listening the issue is settled.

Now, here's something I'll grant: neutered marriage does exist in the USA. I don't see where you can reasonably say anyone has denied this. But the logical leap that because it exists the matter is settled is baffling. I can't find anything rational about it.

Likewise, your framing the discussion as "neutering marriage" is one that I don't feel obliged to take up, because it's a rhetorical attempt to distract from facts.

Well then you could grace us with where you feel the problem is in the reasoning. All you provide is that you don't like the conclusion, but avoiding good reasoning because you don't like the conclusion is simply sitting in a corner and singing "LALALA, I can't hear you".

we could go around and around about what marriage should mean. But I don't see much value in that.

Well, I was assuming you were not very aware of your own behaviour in this debate. However with that blatant assertion that you do not wish to discuss this, I can only conclude that you are very aware of what you are doing.

I am saying what marriage in the US is, based on the law.

I don't believe I caught the point where you were able to prove this assertion. I see where you avoided the pertinant facts that dispute your interpretation in your discussion with F. Rottles. I see where you avoided the pertinant facts of the power the FMA has to settle the issue. I see lots of avoidance from you, actually. Not much by way of rational persuasion, if I might be honest.

If you just want the debate to go away (and it seems clear by your assertions that you do) you'll have to come up with something more substantive than your interpretation of the law, and avoiding any argument that discredits it.

However, both of you are working from opinion; I am working from fact.

No, I don't see that. You have well over-reached with your conclusions what the facts say. What one court says does not alter the definition for the nation, there is DOMA, and the wording of the Goodridge decision that explicitely states there is no federal matter in the case that disputes your nation-wide conclusion.

The fact of the FMA and Massachusetts amendments and their impact on this debate is met with both derision and avoidance. The fact of how your argument impacts that overall debate was met entirely with avoidance. They also dispute your conclusion that the matter is settled.

What you believe are facts are, when looking circumspectly at the evidence, very wishful thinking.

Your inability or unwillingness to understand the legal process in this particular case does not oblige me to respond to this argument of yours as if it has any validity.

I hate being made responsible for the problems in others arguments, now it is left to me to make your argument for you because you apparently like holding your cards close to your chest. Hopefully I'm somewhat accurate but I have no way to be sure.

Perhaps you mean that what Gavin Newsome did was truely illegal, and that somehow invalidates my point. Let see, how could you mean that. Perhaps it is because what made it legal in Mass was a Supreme Court decision that could not be appealed to a higher court. The same decision in CA was different, therefore they are not equatable. Is this it?

Or is it that the timeframe was different? In CA the marriages were invalidated by the Supremes in a matter of weeks, in Mass its been years that the marriages have took.

Either of these sound good? Perhaps both?

John Scalzi | July 15, 2006 12:24 PM

On Lawn:

"Talk about parotting bad reasoning over and over, I can't help but think that repetition of your ipse dixit is no rational way to substantiate it."

I'm not responsible for your ability to logically parse facts, On Lawn. It's a fact that same-sex marriage exists in the United States, and has for two years now. It's a fact that any US citizen may be married to a willing same sex partner. It's not bad reasoning to note things that are factually correct, although it is poor reasoning to suggest that sticking to the actual facts of the matter is bad reasoning.

I understand it may annoy you that I am not dissuaded from noting the facts despite yours and others best efforts to distract me, but here's the thing: When you have facts on your side, it makes it easy to stay focused.

You may believe I am incorrect about these facts, but you are mistaken, and I'm not entirely sure why it's my responsibility to instruct you on the nature of reality.

"Now, here's something I'll grant: neutered marriage does exist in the USA."

Find me the place in the United States where "neutered marriage" is a legal term of art, and we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, what you're doing is the cheap rhetorical maneuver of trying to redefine terms to bolster your argument, and I'm not obliged to take such an argument seriously, because it's not based in the real world. Unfortunately for you, as a matter of law Massachusetts makes no distinction between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage; it's all just marriage. And any US citizen may avail him or herself of marriage in Massachusetts.

As "neutered marriage" is not a legal definition, either you must accept that legally speaking there is same-sex marriage in the United States, or maintain that there is not. If you accept it, you have the advantage of having the facts on your side. If you maintain there is not, rather unfortunately for you, there is an extensive pile of legal documentation (and the marriages of several thousand same-sex couples) to refute you.

"What one court says does not alter the definition for the nation, there is DOMA, and the wording of the Goodridge decision that explicitely states there is no federal matter in the case that disputes your nation-wide conclusion."

As with F. Rottles, you are making the argument that the several states and the federal government are not obliged to recognize marriages from other states. This is a point I have stipulated several times in this thread. Regardless of what the states or the Federal Government do, however, there is not a single thing barring any US citizen from availing him or herself of having a same-sex marriage, provided he or she is willing to establish residency in Massachusetts.

Again, we're not having the same discussion. you want to discuss what the states say; I am discussing what individual citizens can do. These are not equivalent discussions. Individually they are both correct. States are entirely free to define what marriage is, within their own borders; individual US citizens are free to go to the state where the definition of marriage best suits their needs.

Be that as it may, as Masschusetts is a part of the United States, and any United States citizen may have a same-sex marriage if he or she is willing to jump through the various hoops to get one, there's nothing factually incorrect about my statement that the definition of marriage in the US includes same sex marriage.

"I hate being made responsible for the problems in others arguments"

You're not; you're being made responsible for the problems in your own.

Op Ed. | July 15, 2006 02:20 PM

Scalzi is completely off base factually.

1. The definition of marriage in the US already includes members of the same sex marrying each other.

Does it? When a same-sex couple from Massachusetts files any federal form, such as when filing taxes, can they legally claim to be married? 'Nuff said.

2. it is the marriage bigots who are looking to change the definition of marriage.

OK. On that point he is correct. The only marriage bigots I am aware of are those who wish to change the definition of marriage and then choose to apply that changed definition unequally. For example, what of Aunt Milly and Aunt Tilly seek to marry? Are they not consenting adults?

3. The language of the proposed constitutional amendment would end thousands of legal marriages ...

The language bars courts from imposing marriage by edict. It does not require what any particular state should do with any particular existing marriage license.

4. The proposed constitutional amendment would make second-class citizens of all same-sex married couples...

Dependent on 3, above, which is already shown in error. But a question: Am I a "second-class citizen" if I am raising children with a member of the same-sex and am not allowed to marry that person? What if that person is my brother or my son? Unequally applying your chosen definition of what makes a marriage is what makes your argument bigotted.

Mr. Scalzi's argument can be summarized as an appeal to despotism. Those of us who had no part in electing this Massachusetts judge should all be disenfranchized. The judge changed the definition for everybody. It's a done deal, constitutional right to vote be damned. In other words, what Mr. Scalzi seeks is tyranny, pure and simple.

Mr. Scalzi's professed love of tyranny assists him in his goal of shutting down the debate on this issue and imposing his narrow and bigoted agenda without having to defend his claims, but is that really a good enough reason "that government of the people, by the people, for the people [should] perish from the earth?" (Apologies to Mr. Lincoln.) Better would be for Mr. Scalzi to find some defensible rationale on which to camp his predrawn conclusions, I should think.

Op Ed. | July 15, 2006 02:32 PM

Scalzi: As "neutered marriage" is not a legal definition, either you must accept that legally speaking there is same-sex marriage in the United States, or maintain that there is not.

Special pleading. To paraphrase: "Find me the place in the United States where '[same-sex] marriage' is a legal term of art, and we'll have something to discuss. ... Unfortunately for you, as a matter of law Massachusetts makes no distinction between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage," making marriage neuter in that state.

It is you who are badly abusing the language and your terms. Does it make sense to you to say that a husband-wife in Massachusetts are same-sex married? According to you there is no difference between same-sex marriage and any other marriage, but as demonstrated above, your own choice of terms contradicts your very claim.

JC | July 15, 2006 02:45 PM

Well, in Masschusetts, there isn't "opposite-sex marriage" or "same-sex marriage", there is just marriage. All citizens of Massachusetts can take on the rights and responsibilities of marriage without gender discrimination.

Jon Marcus | July 15, 2006 02:48 PM

Op Ed

You say: "The language [of the FMA] bars courts from imposing marriage by edict. It does not require what any particular state should do with any particular existing marriage license.

But the FMA says:
1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Seems pretty clearcut that you're wrong. The FMA is not limited only to courts, but would reverse the changes made by the legislature of Massachusetts.

Moreover, barring the "legal incidents" of marriage from same sex couples would also overturn existing Civil Union statutes.

Re neuter marriage: Neuter is a loaded term usually relating to sterilization.
Yellow Card: Deliberately choosing a pejorative terminology in an attempt to frame the debate.

John Scalzi | July 15, 2006 02:50 PM

Op Ed.

"When a same-sex couple from Massachusetts files any federal form, such as when filing taxes, can they legally claim to be married? 'Nuff said."

This is irrelevant. As stated, the US Government is free to decide who qualifies as married for its programs; however, it is the states who define what marriage is and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- which is the appropriate governmental body for the issue of who gets marriage privileges or not in Massachusetts -- says marriage includes same-sex unions. The United States government cannot bar Massachusetts from making this determination, short of a Constitutional amendment.

Certainly the US government recognizes that Massachusetts is well within its rights to define marriages as it will, and that those marriages are perfectly valid. Masschusetts is a part of the US. The definition of marriage in the US includes same-sex marriage. Done.

"The language bars courts from imposing marriage by edict. It does not require what any particular state should do with any particular existing marriage license."

Assuming we're talking about the late, unlamented FMA, nonsense. If marriage is specifically defined as a union between man and woman, than any marriage outside that union is invalid; in order to avoid this, the amendment would have had to have specific language grandfathering in prior same-sex marriages, which it did not.

"What Mr. Scalzi seeks is tyranny, pure and simple."

What I seek is for people to not to confuse the normal and unobjectionable rule of law with tyranny simply because they don't like the outcome.

F. Rottles | July 15, 2006 06:03 PM

John Scalzi,

The national authority prohibited pushing polygamy into marital status. This applies throughout the Union.

The national authority prohibited anti-miscegenation pressed into marital status. This applies throughout the Union.

No individual state has the unrestrained authority to make of marital status whatsoever it wishes to make of it.

A form of relationship that is unrecognized as marital status anyplace else in the Union is hardly a settled part of the national definition of marriage.

The federal marraige amendment would reaffirm the man-woman criterion as per the federally legislated DOMA and the law of every other state in the Union.

In Massachusetts, the "marital status" of the SSM pairs has no further reach than the jurisdiction of that state. It is a local definition of civil union, not of marriage, that is not portable.

You say that a person can relocate to Massachusetts and get this localized status. However, that does not make it a national definition.

In this regard, SSM in Massachusetts is like Civil Union in Vermont. Vermont's civil union status is attached at the hip to Vermont's marital status; but the one-sex pair has no marital status even in Massachusetts.

F. Rottles | July 15, 2006 06:12 PM

The Vermont one-sex pair does not have marital status in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts one-sex pair does not have civil union status in Vermont.

There is unsettled confusion because ... what for it ... there is no national definition of marriage that includes the one-sex relationship.

John Scalzi | July 15, 2006 06:42 PM

F. Rottles:

"No individual state has the unrestrained authority to make of marital status whatsoever it wishes to make of it."

Agreed; if the states marriage laws run counter to the rights guaranteed all Americans via the US Constitution, then they are not operative (see Loving v. Virginia). However, as it happens, Massachusetts' marriage laws do not contravene the US Constitution, so that Commonwealth may choose to allow same-sex marriage -- and it did, thereby introducing same sex marriage to the United States.

"The federal marraige amendment would reaffirm the man-woman criterion as per the federally legislated DOMA and the law of every other state in the Union."

Would, if it had passed, which it didn't, so a discussion about what that amendment would have done is neither here nor there unless and until some jackass decides to push it again in the Senate, which undoubtedly one will at some point or another.

"A form of relationship that is unrecognized as marital status anyplace else in the Union is hardly a settled part of the national definition of marriage."

Nonsense. Let's deal with this legally and then generally.

Legally, the definition of what marriage is and who is able to enjoy its benefits varies from state to state, making a discussion of the "national definition of marriage" a legal null concept (except, as noted where a marriage law contravenes the US Constitution, which Massachusetts' does not). For example, in Ohio a woman can get married without parental consent two years earlier than she could in Massachusetts. If there were a "national definition," one suspects this would be standardized.

And as noted earlier in the thread we certainly have recent examples of one state ignoring another states' marriage guidelines; recently in the Midwest one state prosecuted a man for sexual involvement with a minor even though he was married to her in another state, and their sexual relations were legal there (the details escape me at the moment, alas, but that was the gist of it). Clearly, one state is not obliged to follow every dictate of marriage any other state proposes, even if you're in a opposite-sex marriage.

Naturally, this brings up questions of "full faith and credit," and I for one would find it very interesting to see how the DOMA would fare in that argument, but again, for the moment, this is neither here nor there to the discussion at hand.

Nevertheless, the fact remains: if you are in a same-sex relationship and you wish to get married, all you have to do is live in Massachusetts. This is certainly settled; no one disputes it. Once again, as Massachusetts is a part of the United States, same-sex marriage already exists in the United States -- and to the extent that marriage has a definition in the US (in a general sense of who is eligible to be married within the US' borders) it includes same-sex marriage.

"You say that a person can relocate to Massachusetts and get this localized status. However, that does not make it a national definition."

As noted above, since there is no "national definition," this statement is a null statement legally. However, if any person in the nation who is able to be married can be married to a member of the same sex, then it is by definition a national phenomenon, and certainly as Massachusetts is part of the US, the statement "same-sex marriage is allowed in the US" is perfectly true.

Once again, you want to peg this discussion to what is allowed by the states other than Massachusetts and the federal government. That's a fine argument, but it's neither here nor there to my point, which is not about what the states other than Massachusetts and the Federal government can do, but what individual citizens can do.

John Scalzi | July 15, 2006 07:27 PM

Look, to avoid any further round and round on this topic, let me make it easy for you. In order for someone here to invalidate the primary statement provided in the original entry ("Same-sex marriage already exists in the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in the US already includes members of the same sex marrying each other") you will need to prove the following:

1. Massachusetts is not part of the United States.
2. The same-sex marriages that take place in Massachusetts are not legally constituted and/or never actually happened.
3. That of the set of marriage options that exist within the borders of the United States, two members of the same sex marrying each other is not one.

Unless you can prove the three statements above, you're going to get absolutely no traction disproving my initial statement, and, in effect, you're wasting my time and yours arguing pointless trivia (likewise, arguing the finer points of the FMA -- which has now failed and is thus a settled matter until/unless some other variation is introduced in the nebulous future -- is more pointless cat-vacuuming).

Inasmuch as I've got a book to write and the recent spate of arguments here have been both circular and largely orthogonal to my original statement, I'm unlikely to be be responsive to further attempts at discussion here that are not directly on point to what I originally wrote. I don't have the time, or, given the rhetorical sloppyness of the arguments presented ("neutered marriage"... yeeesh), much further interest in continuing.

mythago | July 15, 2006 08:59 PM

Just FYI, John, you're getting bleedover from some of the regulars on the Family Scholars blog. They don't believe anything is true unless the New Testament says so.

John Scalzi | July 15, 2006 09:15 PM

Ah. Well, there you go, then.

F. Rottles | July 16, 2006 12:30 AM

>> "a discussion about what that amendment would have done is neither here nor there"

You discussed it in your original post and it was discussed in this thread before I made my first comment.

Your example of the varying protocols of marriage do not go to the core of marriage. Even the Goodridge decision conceded this distinction. You don't even as you hold fast to the exmaple of Massachusetts.

The national authority has clarified the national definition of marriage where necessary. The man-woman criterion has not been removed from that definition, no matter how much the novel error of Marshall inspires you to say otherwise.

You concede that no individual American citizen can access or utilize the localized definition of Massachusetts except in that jursidiction for localized purposes. It is therefore no part of an American definition of marriage.

An American citizen can go to Canada or to Holland and return to Massachusetts and yet these localized statuses would also not be part of the American definition of marriage.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 12:46 AM

F. Rottles:

"You discussed it in your original post and it was discussed in this thread before I made my first comment."

Yes, but that was before it failed.

"The man-woman criterion has not been removed from that definition, no matter how much the novel error of Marshall inspires you to say otherwise."

Your snide and wholly legally incorrect assessment of the ruling aside, no one says it has; it's simply not the only criterion anymore.

"You concede that no individual American citizen can access or utilize the localized definition of Massachusetts except in that jursidiction for localized purposes. It is therefore no part of an American definition of marriage."

Leaving aside the fact that this construction would be correct regardless of which State you placed into it (because all states define what is marriage within its borders, therefore no individual American citizen can access or utilize the localized definition of marriage in that state except in that jursidiction for localized purposes): Massachusetts has somehow magically become not part of the United States? How interesting. We must alert the press.

Until such time as we get confirmation about this stunning news from both Boston and Washington, however, we must regretfully continue to assume that, as a logical conclusion of Massachusetts being a subset of the United States of America, its definition of marriage is, in fact, an American definition of marriage; and that indeed, because of that, the definition of marriage in the United States includes same-sex marriage. You don't have to like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less of a fact.

F. Rottles, please see this comment. It is applicable to you. As I doubt you'll be able to prove any of those three statements, I think your work here is more or less finished. More to the point, as you show no evidence of attempting to progress beyond positions that are both factually inaccurate and rhetorically purile, there is no actual value in discussing this matter with you any further. I'm done with you.

F. Rottles | July 16, 2006 01:02 AM

>> "Same-sex marriage already exists in the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in the US already includes members of the same sex marrying each other"

All you are saying here is that there is a localized merger of SSM and marriage. And since an citizen could relocate to that jurisdiction to get the SSM status that is no good anyplace else in the country, you want to claim that this is part of the national definition. If you read Goodridge, you will discover that even there it is acknowledged that there are two separate, and conflicting, definitions. So your larger point is nullified.

You were wrong about the effect of the proposed state amendment and there is a legitimate dispute about your claim regarding the effect of the proposed federal amendment.

Meanwhile, for as long as even one of these amendments is in the process leading to its ratification, your claim about what is and is not settled in Massachusetts is wrong.

The state amendment is in the hopper. The federal amendment is within 6 votes of passing to the next stage of the ratificaiton process; it will be reintroduced in short order.

Add to that the growing number of states which have passed state amendments or have passed defining statutes or whose courts have rejected the SSM redefinition. The momentum is against the localized error in Massachusetts ever becoming the national definition. It is far, very far, from being a settled matter in the way you originally described.

Apart from some mysterious SSM alchemy, you cannot turn the localized redefinition that applies only within Massachusetts into a national definition without extending the redefinition across the country. The national definition, of one man and one woman, is the gold standard. The Massachusetts localized merger is fool's gold.

You already conceded as much in citing Loving. The same goes with the example of polygamy.

........

By the way, mythago, you can cite no reference to the New Testament by myself. If you wish to offer such a diversion, remember that there are some SSM advocates who say they believe in the New Testament. Your strawman, and your mischaracterization of the discussion here, adds zilch to the substance of the exchange.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 01:08 AM

F. Rottles:

"All you are saying here is that there is a localized merger of SSM and marriage."

You mean to say that same-sex marriage is now part of the definition of marriage in Massachusetts, a state of the United States -- and therefore, given Massachusetts' status as a state, the definition of marriage in the United States (of which Massachusetts is a part) includes same-sex marriage? Excellent. Glad to finally see you coming around.

Once again, F. Rottles, please see this comment. None of what you've just posted is either here nor there as regards to these points.

Also, please stop boring me.

F. Rottles | July 16, 2006 01:19 AM

>> "it's simply not the only criterion anymore."

Cute but nonsensical. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman was the subject of Marshall's opinion.

You are mistaken if you think there is no national definition of marriage. It has at least two elements that were explicitly enforced by the federal authority: see Loving and polygamy. Implicit, in all the states, is the man-woman criterion. Massachusetts remains the sole outlier and its localized error is no part of the American definition of marriage.

That's all.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 01:21 AM

Find me the place in the United States where "neutered marriage" is a legal term of art

The Goodridge decision lays out "gender neutral" as the guileline for marriage. That is "neuter" by definition, as is the very the act of removing gender featers. The terminology of neutering marriage comes from Galois, who is on your side of the argument. I didn't make it up, I just like it. The very term "same-sex marriage" is bigoted as it looks entirely at the people targeted as a class, and not at the change to marriage. Yes, you've shown your bigotry not only in your support but how you support neutering marriage. When you dismiss ration and facts, as you have, to make flagrant and unsupported charges in order to protect and pamper a class of individuals, I can't imagine another word for it than you are a bigot.

Its just that simple.

as a matter of law Massachusetts makes no distinction between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage

Correct, it is now a neutered definition. Stripped of all gender reference so that same-sex and both-sex is equated. That is the heart of the problem.

Neutered marriage means it has no expectation of procreation (Jon called this sterilization?). As the NY court held, in a romantic relationship of both genders there is an expectation that there might be children that happen to be there that need to be raised.

When we remove that expectation we find that what we've created is nothing new. We have organizations today with no expectation of procreation that still raise children. They are called shelters, orphanages and foster homes. The level of government oversight is much greater as the government accepts responsibility and calls the children a stewardship of the state. However, the children that come from these environments are far worse off than the ones from full fledged families.

But these neutered marriages would still try to be something more than an orphanage. They would exclude from neutered marriage, for instance, mother-daughter pairs raising children or other non-romantic agreements then that would indicate an expectation of romance. In fact, recently a Florida employer required an affidavit from domestic partnerships declaring they were having sex on some level. So we see that the purpose of neutering marriage is not equality, but to discriminate in favor of a sexual orientation inspite the fact that it is no more likely to produce children than a non-sexual combination raising children.

As one commenter at Opine put it, with neutered marriage it becomes the state's duty to make sure Aunt Tilly is doing Aunt Milly if they want marriage benefits. This point is one that most libertarians don't realize, that neutered marriage is based on romance and because of that directly puts government into the business of romance. Where as marriage just makes sure you are being good parents and respects your choice to form a family unit. Marriage gives you a degree of soveriegnty to encourage you to be responsible with children, neutered marriage becomes a hallmark basket of welfare goodies to encourage your romance, and offers to take care of the children when you don't want to anymore.

Procreation divorced from the institution meant to ensure responsibility turns marriage into a customer of the medical profession and chindre into a commercial industry to accessories romance. Instead of ensuring familial responsibility, marriage becomes an ensuring of romance and commerce. Familial responsibility is family governance, commerce of commissioning human beings is not. More on this argument comes from Prof. Velleman of NYU.

But children aren't the only subjugated class of individuals in neutering marriage. Not only does neutering marriage conflate two different arrangements (as you just pointed out) but it conflates homosexuality with a handicap. More on that argument here. Where the mechanism of conflating same-sex and both-sexed relationships is through neutering the definition, the mechanism of conflating homosexuality with the handicapped is simple fraud. Again that is described in the link above.

A second point on that remark is that you sure seem to be flailing around punch drunk now. You are disagreeing and questioning my ability to see facts. Facts that we both agreed on. In essence you have now attacked your own argument. That says more about your take on reality than any bald accusation you have put across.

As "neutered marriage" is not a legal definition

Here you are correct, but vaccuously so. It is not a definition, it describes an idea. In this case it describes and distinguises the definition put forth by Goodridge from the definition the rest of the country uses. Perhaps part of your problem is basic comprehension skills such as this.

If you accept it, you have the advantage of having the facts on your side.

Thank you. Now where was the logic that lets you leap to your conclusion that the definition for the US is already altered, the matter is settled? You haven't, it is just a conclusion you don't want to deal with the facts on. That is, again, just simple bigotry on your part.

You did up the tempo with many poorly contrived insults, but in the end didn't support them at all. I can only take your hostile tone as hateful. You are showing hate and bigotry. I'm just pointing it out, laying out the rational behind my conclusions.

As with F. Rottles, you are making the argument that the several states and the federal government are not obliged to recognize marriages from other states.

You can't have it both ways. It is foolhardy to assert the matter is settled for the united states because the definition is altered, and then pretend all you are arguing is whether a state can recognize a couple as a marriage when confronted on the issue. The latter does not support the former. Choose one and go with it, not both.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 01:32 AM

In order for someone here to invalidate the primary statement provided in the original entry ("Same-sex marriage already exists in the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in the US already includes members of the same sex marrying each other") you will need to prove the following:

I'm interested in this...

1. Massachusetts is not part of the United States.

Actually, all that is needed is to prove Massachusetts is not the united states. This is due to a problem in your wording. More on this later.

2. The same-sex marriages that take place in Massachusetts are not legally constituted and/or never actually happened.

This lies in the ability of the people to write a constitutional amendment stating such.

3. That of the set of marriage options that exist within the borders of the United States, two members of the same sex marrying each other is not one.

Ah, here is where your phraseology is problematic. As stated in #3, your statement is true. Your premise would be more accurately stated if it said, "Same-sex marriage already exists in Massachusetts which is a state in the the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in Massachusetts already includes members of the same sex marrying each other."

Do you dispute that this is just as accurate, if not more accurate to reality than your wording?

Your problem is in switching the context midstream. A legal inclusion is not the same as a geographic inclusion, yet here you place one after the other in logical sequence as if they are interchangable.

But you know what the real problem is, no one cares. You scream and hollar that this is supposed to mean something, but in reality it doesn't. If anything your screaming that it should make an impact on the debate only rallies people to lock Massachusetts into its own sandbox to commit crimes against humanity in its own state.

In essence, in trying to boil down your point to something substantive you have become entirely irrelevant.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 01:35 AM

Mythago: They don't believe anything is true unless the New Testament says so.

Scalzi: Ah. Well, there you go, then.

There you have it, so frustrated is Scalzi that he jumps at the bait of a known and documented liar.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 01:38 AM

F Rottles:

"You are mistaken if you think there is no national definition of marriage. It has at least two elements that were explicitly enforced by the federal authority: see Loving and polygamy. Implicit, in all the states, is the man-woman criterion. Massachusetts remains the sole outlier and its localized error is no part of the American definition of marriage."

Even if one grants there is a national definition of marriage, it quite clearly is not limited to a "man-woman criterion" because -- wait for it -- one of the states clearly allows members of the same sex to marry. Your suggestion that the "man-woman criterion" is implicit in this national definition runs smack into the explicit fact that same-sex marriage is extant in the United States. Your argument therefore ignores legal reality.

That Massachusetts is the only state which allows same sex marriage is neither here nor there; because it does, and because clearly it has the Constitutional right to do so, any national defintion of marriage rather explicitly includes within it same-sex marriage.

This is why, I assume, you're reduced to calling same-sex marriage an "error" and have otherwise tried to intimate over the course of your time here that same-sex marriages are anything but genuine legal marriage -- that's apparently the only way you can handle the fact that same-sex marriage exists in the United States at all.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 01:43 AM

What I seek is for people to not to confuse the normal and unobjectionable rule of law with tyranny simply because they don't like the outcome.

The tyranny comes in your absolute "its settled" statement on top of the egregious goings on in Massachusetts. Just to set the record strait on that. Op-Ed's remarks were not pointed at the SC, but to Scalzi's absolutist support of them.

I just don't want this point lost in the discussion because Scalzi decided to play a shell game with the argument.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 01:51 AM

On Lawn:

"Your premise would be more accurately stated if it said, 'Same-sex marriage already exists in Massachusetts which is a state in the the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in Massachusetts already includes members of the same sex marrying each other.'"

Not really. If same sex marriage exists in a state in the United States, then same sex marriage exists in the United States, given the realtionship of states to the United States. The statement is perfectly accurate as is.

Your reformulation is also correct, but is not more correct.

"Your problem is in switching the context midstream. A legal inclusion is not the same as a geographic inclusion, yet here you place one after the other in logical sequence as if they are interchangable."

You're making the assumption that points 1-3 are part of the same logical construct. Each of the conditions must be independently satisfied.

"If anything your screaming that it should make an impact on the debate only rallies people to lock Massachusetts into its own sandbox to commit crimes against humanity in its own state."

You're cute when you're frothy and nonsensical. Bye, now.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 01:54 AM

Jon Marcus,

barring the "legal incidents" of marriage from same sex couples would also overturn existing Civil Union statutes.

You switched context here. The wording states that nothing in the constitution can be construed to give the legal incidents. The legislature requires no such construeing to do just that. Only the courts require such a basis for their legislation.

Neuter is a loaded term usually relating to sterilization.

It describes how that sterilization is achieved.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 01:56 AM

Jon Marcus: Seems pretty clearcut that you're wrong. The FMA is not limited only to courts, but would reverse the changes made by the legislature of Massachusetts.

Seems pretty clear you're wrong. By your tortured line of reasoning, freedom of religion itself would be on the chopping block as several religions within the United States claim to recognize "marriage" among same-sex couples. Some even recognize marriages to pets.

The Federal Marriage Amendment will not change any of that. It establishes a federal definition of marriage, period. If your wild extrapolation of part 1 were correct then there would be no need for a part 2. Your wild doom and gloom predictions serve nothing but to fear monger in lieu of reason.

Moreover, barring the "legal incidents" of marriage from same sex couples would also overturn existing Civil Union statutes.

I'm sorry, perhaps you could point out where the "legal incidents" are barred from same sex couples? I'm sure next you'll be telling us the FMA kicks puppies.

Yellow Card: Deliberately choosing a pejorative terminology in an attempt to frame the debate.

Yeah, it could be that...either that or the fact it is simply the more accurate term, as I have pointed out. Neither you nor John contest the accuracy of the term, only grouse about its consequences. Pray, why your preference for the less accurate term? Is it not for its emotion laden content? Who, then, is choosing terms to try and influence the emotions of the debate?

Scalzi: What I seek is for people to not to confuse the normal and unobjectionable rule of law with tyranny simply because they don't like the outcome.

...and "that all the children to join hands and sing together in the spirit of harmony and peace." As long as you're not going to argue the facts, John, I thought I'd extend your Steve Martin reference for you.

mythago: They don't believe anything is true unless the New Testament says so.

Mythago, do you make and bottle your own ignorant bigotry? Or do you have it shipped in from somewhere? Unless you have something of value to add (and apparently you don't), shoo.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 02:01 AM

Op. Ed:

"As long as you're not going to argue the facts, John, I thought I'd extend your Steve Martin reference for you."

Well, see. I've been arguing the facts this entire time. It's been fun watching the various tortured attempts here to get around the facts, but these attempts are not particularly good or on point. So the fun is rather sadly limited.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 02:05 AM

If same sex marriage exists in a state in the United States, then same sex marriage exists in the United States

Geographically speaking, yes.

The statement is perfectly accurate as is.

I note you only tried to substantiate a part of the statement here. The statement as a whole mixes geographic inclusion and legal inclusion as if it were synonomous. It is not, therefore the statement as a whole is misleading and erroneous.

Its that simple, and thats not frothing. You've simply been exposed in your con.

You're making the assumption that points 1-3 are part of the same logical construct. Each of the conditions must be independently satisfied.

What do you mean that each condition must be independantly satisfied, and why is that necesary for a grouping of points of a single logical construct? I know what the words mean, but am unclear of the overall point being made by them.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 02:08 AM

I've been arguing the facts this entire time. It's been fun watching the various tortured attempts here to get around the facts

Its all well and good that you have such a high opinion of yourself here, but your facts have not withstood scrutiny and your con game has been exposed.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 02:11 AM

I continue, also to note how frustrated Jon is getting knowing that all he has left is pointing out to people that Massachusetts law and its geographic location in a nation. I can't imagine what this point must mean to him, or what he expects it to mean in relation to the FMA now that he's completely abandoned the logical leaps he attempted at the beginning of this thread.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 02:23 AM

Scalzi: Your reformulation is also correct, but is not more correct.

Let's play Scalzi Sophistry: Marriage in the United States is already defined to consist only of the union of a man and a woman, and has been for the past 2 years. Two years ago, Ohio and 10 other states voted (democratically, my poor Scalzi!) to define marriage so. Therefore, marriage in the United States is already so defined. Mr. Scalzi's long, fear mongering diatribe is clearly off base. The only refutation would be to show that:

1. Ohio and each of the 10 other states is not part of the United States.
2. The votes that took place in Ohio and each of the other 10 states are not legally constituted and/or never actually happened.
3. That of the set of marriage definitions that exist within the borders of the United States, as consisting only of one man and one woman is not one of them.

Unless you can prove the three statements above, you're going to get absolutely no traction disproving my initial statement, and, in effect, you're wasting my time and yours arguing pointless trivia.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 02:23 AM

On Lawn:

"Geographically speaking, yes."

Nice try, but your geographic/legal distinction is not relevant. Legally speaking Massachusetts is also part of the United States, therefore within the legal entity of the United States, there is same-sex marriage. The federal separation of powers is neither here nor there to this. You're attempting to introduce ambiguity that does not exist.

"I know what the words mean, but am unclear of the overall point being made by them."

Given your apparent need and/or desire to complicate things unnecessarily, this is not entirely surprising.

"But your facts have not withstood scrutiny and your con game has been exposed."

Not really to the first of these and toward the second, I think you've confused me with you.

Op. Ed:

Your construction ignores the fact that regardless of how Ohio, et al defines marriage, another state defines marriage as including same-sex marriages; therefore when discussing the definition of marriage within the US, we must as a matter of necessity include all legal forms of it within the United States. Your construction is therefore factually incorrect and need not be considered seriously.

You argue poorly and your snark is not much better.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 02:41 AM

Nice try, but your geographic/legal distinction is not relevant.

Such continues the wishful thinking that permeates how you try to support your failed argument.

Legally speaking Massachusetts is also part of the United States, therefore within the legal entity of the United States, there is same-sex marriage.

This is simply supporting one shell game by playing another. The Massachusetts membership as a state in the union is simply another way to describe the geography of the matter.

A legal inclusion is still not the same as a geographic inclusion. Massachusetts law is external to, not internal to US law by nature of its degree of soveriegnty. It is a seperate volume, the seperation followed and noted many times in the Goodridge decision. If state law was included in federal law, the Goodridge decision would not have been possible.

Given your apparent need and/or desire to complicate things unnecessarily, this is not entirely surprising.

Aww, Jon is now complaining that things are getting too complicated for him? I believe that is what I just read. The conflations he's attempted have been exposed, and now I'm supposed to believe its just too complicated.

Now, what was the answer again Jon? I don't think you really meant for your baseless accusation to substitute for an answer. Answer simply if you must.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 02:57 AM

On Lawn:

"If state law was included in federal law, the Goodridge decision would not have been possible."

And? That states have their own book of law is neither here nor there as regards to Massachusetts being a constitutent legal part of the United States. Your argument at best points out the federal nature of our system of government, which is both obvious and non-controversial. And certainly doesn't invalidate the observation that within the legal entity that is the United States, there is same-sex marriage. You seem to wish to suggest that the legal entity of the United States is solely its national government, which -- if this is what you're saying -- while an interesting construction, doesn't exactly pass constitutional scrutiny.

Which is to say that I find your reasoning here rather unpersuasive as a matter of law and of logic.

"Aww, Jon is now complaining that things are getting too complicated for him?"

Complicated? No. Obtuse? Possibly.

Also, as an fyi, it's "John," not "Jon." I wouldn't want your slings and arrows to miss their target for the want of a letter.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 02:58 AM

when discussing the definition of marriage within the US, we must as a matter of necessity include all legal forms of it within the United States.

There seems to be a lot of missing logic there hidden in the words "matter of necessity". Just saying.

Websters, for instance, tries to include different definitions of a word used inside the whole english language. It, you could say, has a self-proclaimed mandate to include all forms of a word commonly used in the language. How it treates the word "marriage" is interesting. It does not adopt one definition as inclusive of all instances, it lists seperate definitions. Both same-sex and both-sex definitions are listed. Sometimes same-sex, both-sex and unsexed (as in just two people) are listed in a dictionary.

What you commentary attempts to gloss over in a cheap rhetorical exercise (over and over again) is that both definitions exist in different realms. When you say "same-sex marriage exists in the US" you are taking in an entirely greater realm than the definition can.

Op-Ed's use of your argument points that out very starkly. Moreso than you have given credit for, or even answered in rebuttal.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 03:03 AM

On Lawn:

(I really was going to sleep. Got side tracked in e-mail. Thought I'd take this last one.)

"What you commentary attempts to gloss over in a cheap rhetorical exercise (over and over again) is that both definitions exist in different realms. When you say 'same-sex marriage exists in the US' you are taking in an entirely greater realm than the definition can."

Not really, since, as a matter of fact, same-sex marriage exists within the United States, and any complete discussion or definition of marriage in the US must note that fact, Webster's notwithstanding. Also, none of your comment here invalidates the fact that Op Ed's construction of his argument was sloppy and incorrect and, on those grounds, not worth considering.

"Have a good sleep."

Thanks! You too. And now I really am going.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 03:05 AM

Once again, Jon, you want to peg this discussion to what is allowed by the states other than Ohio, et al, and the federal government. That's a fine argument, but it's neither here nor there to my point, which is not about what the states other than Ohio, et al, and the Federal government can do, but what is defined in the United States.

Once again, Jon, please see this comment. None of what you've just posted is either here nor there as regards to these points.

More to the point, as you show no evidence of attempting to progress beyond positions that are both factually inaccurate and rhetorically purile, there is no actual value in discussing this matter with you any further. I'm done with you.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 03:08 AM

F. Rottles: By the way, mythago, you can cite no reference to the New Testament by myself.

F. Rottles, pay Mythago no mind. She only says what the chicken entrails tell her to say.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 03:10 AM

Op Ed, it's certainly true that you appear more clever when you use my words.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 03:19 AM

I'm off to bed now. Gentlemen, a pleasure.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 03:23 AM

That states have their own book of law is neither here nor there as regards to Massachusetts being a constitutent legal part of the United States.

Funny you should call my point irrelevant, only after substituting an origional point of legal definition inclusion with one of geographic inclusion. Your point became irrelevant with the substitution of your own making, plain and simple.

Complicated? No. Obtuse? Possibly.

Then when you used the word "complicate" before, that must have been a mistake. If this is your way of appologizing for making a baseless and irrational claim (one you choose now to alter rather than support), I accept.

You seem to wish to suggest that the legal entity of the United States is solely its national government

Again, it is dishonest to hold others responsible for problems in your argumentation. When you imply a state alters the legal definition "in the US" you ignore the role the federal government plays. There needn't be a sole legal entity at all, that is the problem with your argument not mine. In fact if there weren't a sole legal entity to decide what the definition in the US was, the more impossible your point is.

Which is to say that I find your reasoning here rather unpersuasive.

Yes, you have said that in so many words quite a few times. It is simply the egregious steps you take to come to that conclusion that is important to note.

On Lawn | July 16, 2006 03:26 AM

Op Ed, it's certainly true that you appear more clever when you use my words.

I've noted that has been very persuasive myself. It seems that, reductio-ad-absurdum, using your logic even down to your words to show how both dispositive and generic they are does a lot to shed light on the debate.

Have a good sleep.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 03:33 AM

On Lawn:

(I really was going to sleep. Got side tracked in e-mail. Thought I'd take this last one.)

"Funny you should call my point irrelevant, only after substituting an origional point of legal definition inclusion with one of geographic inclusion. Your point became irrelevant with the substitution of your own making, plain and simple."

Not really. I can't help if you've posited a flawed and irrelevant construction, applied it poorly, and then decided to blame me for the mess.

"When you imply a state alters the legal definition 'in the US' you ignore the role the federal government plays."

First, I didn't imply it, it stated it pretty directly. Second, not really. Federal law simply not an issue in this particular case, as you've noted yourself. This doesn't mean that the definition of what marriage is in the US has not changed to include same-sex marriage. It has, as evidenced by thousands of US citizens being in same sex marriages.

"Yes, you have said that in so many words quite a few times. It is simply the egregious steps you take to come to that conclusion that is important to note."

The steps aren't egregious; they're actually pretty simple. I'm simply not obliged to give your rather baroque constructions any creedence because out here in the real world they're not relevant.

"Have a good sleep."

Thanks! You too. And now I really am going.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 04:49 AM

John,

I can't help if you've posited a flawed and irrelevant construction, applied it poorly, and then decided to blame me for the mess.

I'm simply not obliged to give your rather baroque constructions any creedence because out here in the real world they're not relevant.

What makes your "baroque constructions" completely irrelevant "here in the real world" is that your logic is completely self contained and therefore not impacted by the "real world." As I have demonstrated, your logic can be used to simultaneously prove your own conclusion and that your exact conclusion is wrong. Further, I have discredited each of the four bases from which you launched your flawed logic to begin with. In response to both you have thrown temper tantrums aplenty, but have not refuted anything. If you doubt that your words are empty, just read those first two paragraphs again. They are your own words used against you. Your reasoning is wrong, your facts are wrong yet you do nothing to fix either. Exactly what of your argument do you feel is left other than your own claimed narcicistic pleasure in reading what you have written?

Patrick Vera | July 16, 2006 05:21 AM

To all the new people (F. Rottles, On Lawn, Op. Ed.) on this thread, it seems to me you seem to be arguing with John for the sake of arguing and about John's position on the legal status/definition of marriage.

In all this arguing, I have not seen or inferred just what is your own personal positions on same-sex marriage. Are you for or against it. All I have read and by arguing against John (specifically in this thread) would lead a newcomer to believe that you are against it. Not wanting to put words in your mouths could please enlighten me just what are your positions on same-sex marriage.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 10:38 AM

Patrick,

I recommend you click on my name in my by-line should you be interested in my position on neutering marriage. If you only have time to read a single post on the subject, this one, The 800lb Gorilla, fairly well sums up my position.

Laurie | July 16, 2006 12:27 PM

Over the last few years I've noticed that there's a particular mindset that's gotten more and more notice, thanks in small part to the anonymity of the Internet (and I think in large part to the "entertainment" talk radio format).
It's the mindset that insists upon picking apart phraseology, terms, and statements simply for the purpose of obfuscating the argument. Mindless talk show hosts take great delight in pulling quick sound bites out of context and playing them over and over again, picking apart every syllable, as if there is some greater truth to be found within.
Trying to rename same-sex marriage "neutered marriage" is exactly the same kind of attempt that the "pro-life" people utilized several decades ago. Because, of course, who alive ISN'T pro-life? It's an idiotic phrase that we're now stuck with.
But it seems to me that the purpose of this tactic is to simply muddy the water and bog down arguments in a muck of semantics so that nothing is clear at all, and in fact so that the original premise gets lost. This isn't argument, it's masturbation.
As little as a few decades ago, if you employed a tactic like this in a real debate you would be labeled a bore (and probably a boor!) and would summarily be ignored by those with actual intellect and wit.
You anti-same-sex marriage people clearly feel threatened by disruption in the status quo. I understand. Change is scary! But let's talk about reality. I am a woman, and I live in Massachusetts. If I wanted to, I could get married to another woman (if she wanted to, too) -- why does that make you frightened? Is it because I won't be bearing your children? I'm 41. I don't have any children, and am getting old enough that I probably won't ever have any children. Does that mean (by the marriage for procreation argument) that I shouldn't get married to anyone, man OR woman?
Feh. John, you are a very patient man. I just spent a few minutes on this thread and I'm all cranky. How do you manage to spend a lot of time reading this twaddle?

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 12:30 PM

Op. ed.,

You have done no such thing; you've attempted to be clever and snarky and achieved neither with any competence. Indeed, of all the recent people positing arguments here, Op. Ed., yours have been the least interesting and worthy of attention. On Lawn has at least attempted a novel ground for his argument, which I appreciate even if I don't particularly agree with his thesis. You, on the other hand, have been mostly noise.

Now, I'm sorry to say that today I don't have any time to play word games with you guys. Too much work. If anyone else wants to engage you, that's fine, but otherwise you'll have to get along without me.

Laurie:

"John, you are a very patient man. I just spent a few minutes on this thread and I'm all cranky. How do you manage to spend a lot of time reading this twaddle?"

I got a fair amount of writing done yesterday and I had a little time for it. Time-wasting, basically. As you note, the primary point here seemed to be an attempt to deny same-sex marriage actually, you know, exists. Unfortunately such novel logical constructions run into the little problem that it does. Which is, of course, the entire point of the original article: that people should recognize that the discussion needs to be framed to note that reality.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 12:55 PM

Sigh John, you keep offering temper tantrum in place of a corrected argument.

The fact is, your sophistry is wrong, your facts are wrong. You may be too busy calling everyone not like you a bigot to think clearly or to form a rational argument, but that is a problem with how you use your time. It does not change your illogic to logic, your falsehoods into truths, nor make your fallacies sound.

Op Ed. | July 16, 2006 01:28 PM

Laurie: Trying to rename same-sex marriage "neutered marriage" is exactly the same kind of attempt that the "pro-life" people utilized several decades ago.

Whatever parallels you wish to see with the abortion debate, not one person has denied that "neutered marriage" is the more accurate term. You can choose to continue using the inaccurate term, but choosing to be inaccurate is "simply for the purpose of obfuscating the argument."

One major flaw in your parallel to the "pro-life" apellation is that "neutered marriage" was coined by an advocate of "same-sex marriage," not one opposed to it. He convinced me the term was more correct. It avoids such oxy-moronic claims as John's that "same-sex" is "gender neutral." Why do you choose to use the less correct term if not to muddle and obfuscate?

By the way, by your reconing, wouldn't "pro-choice" be an equally idiotic title? After all, who isn't pro-choice?

...feel threatened by disruption in the status quo.

John no longer even tries to justify his wish to reframe the debate in terms of this fallacial appeal to tradition. Here you try to reintroduce the discredited link by fiat. Apparently you too feel the pro-neutering side of the debate would be elevated by invoking this known fallacy.

I could get married to another woman (if she wanted to, too) -- why does that make you frightened? Is it because I won't be bearing your children?

Actually, it is quite reassuring that you will not. It is quite the egotistical claim that an opposition to neutering marriage has anything to do with you at all, let alone your choice of with whom to live. You are quite free to make all those same choices without having to redefine the purpose of marriage. The deterioration of personal liberty that has occured in Massachusetts since marriage was neutered there is ample reason to oppose exporting that experiment elsewhere.

John Scalzi | July 16, 2006 08:18 PM

Op Ed:

"Sigh John, you keep offering temper tantrum in place of a corrected argument."

As I noted earlier to On Lawn, I think you've confused me with you.

I expect this argument has petered out on both sides, however; at the very least, I've lost interest. By all means, feel free to declare victory. Just be sure to pick up your mess before you go.

Laurie | July 16, 2006 08:57 PM

Op. Ed.:

not one person has denied that "neutered marriage" is the more accurate term.

Well, if no one really has (and I can't really take the time out of my life to wade through all of your mindless rhetoric to verify that), then please, allow me to be the first. I believe the term should be "marriage." Much like I think the abortion debate should use "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion". I like precision.

By the way, by your reconing, wouldn't "pro-choice" be an equally idiotic title? After all, who isn't pro-choice?

You're seriously asking that? Wow! There are so many people in the world who would deny choices about any number of things that I don't really see your point, other than silly recursion. But if we're dealing with the term itself, I agree. Abolish it! Call it "pro-abortion."

"neutered marriage" was coined by an advocate of "same-sex marriage," not one opposed to it. He convinced me the term was more correct.

I'm glad to hear that you are easily persuaded by silly things, but I don't see how that helps your argument. I don't care if Jesus Christ himself came down from a puffy cloud and coined the term "neutered marriage." I would still find it deliberately hostile. The term (which I had never heard before today, despite reading quite extensively about this issue, so I suspect you and/or your little friends have decided to start pushing it) implies that allowing two women or two men to marry will neuter or otherwise harm the current sacred tradition of one man/one woman matrimony.

It is quite the egotistical claim that an opposition to neutering marriage has anything to do with you at all, let alone your choice of with whom to live.

Oh, but it does! Every law in the state and in the wider nation affects each and every one of us. The point is not with whom I wish to live, but with whom I might want to make legally responsible for me if I were in a car accident and unable to speak for myself. Who would be allowed to stay by my bedside far beyond visiting hours. Who, should we have children through whatever means (artificial insemination, adoption, willing sex with a man), would get to raise my children in case of my death.

And finally, from the link you provided I am deducing that the deterioration of rights that you are talking about are the rights of religious groups to practice as they see fit, correct? I can see how you'd feel that way, and indeed feel threatened by it. But the ACLU still defends the right of the Klan to exist, despite the passage of the Civil Rights Act all those many decades ago. Aren't you and your friends up for the challenge? The Catholic Church (and many others) will fight tooth and nail for the right to still discriminate against gays and lesbians, don't fret!

The fact that that bunch of crazies, the Westboro Baptist Church, exists and is allowed to picket soldiers' funerals, should reassure you that as a nation, we're a pretty tolerant bunch.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 12:02 PM

I can't help if you've posited a flawed and irrelevant construction, applied it poorly, and then decided to blame me for the mess.

This fits the pattern I've noted about you, John. The more your argument falls apart, the more you rely on self-serving and rash judgments. And the less you actually discuss about your argument. In fact I can't even award you points for origionality, all you are doing is grepping my posts hoping that the arguments I've given credibility to can be stripped of all meaning and parroted back.

This isn't even as clever as Op-Ed, who's kept not only your conclusions in tact but the logic when applying them to different points order to show how poorly applied your logic is. Here you've stripped the logic entirely and hope that the conclusions if parroted back would have some force.

Zero points for origionality, zero points for application.

First ... it [John's statement] stated it [a state alters the legal definition 'in the US'] pretty directly. ... Federal law simply not an issue in this particular case, as you've noted yourself.

As pointed out before, if you are talking about a legal definition in US law, the geography is for a trivia game and the federal law is the topic. How you can pretend the opposite only underlines the desperation of your position.

I'll just be blunt here, your point is not even that impressive to go through all this cover-up and logical gymnastics to save. Lets just look at this your point is, essentially: Massachusetts is geographically a part of the USA, and they have neutered marriage. Lets see how that interacts with your four points above...

1. Same-sex marriage already exists in the United States. It has for two years. The definition of marriage in the US already includes members of the same sex marrying each other.

The definition of marriage in US law is found where? In Massachusetts? Thats just asenine, John.

2. By pressing for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between men and women, it is the marriage bigots who are looking to change the definition of marriage.

The change is in Massachusetts, and even then its debatable (though you have avoided the topic, much like all the other problems in your points) whether the FMA changes the definition in Massachusetts. Thats just one of your logical gymnastics in that point.

The second is that neither point justifies calling people bigots, especially when you come from the standpoint of wanting the the government to endorse and subsidize gender segregation. Is segregation as sign of bigotry or is integration? According to your metric, integration is bigotry, and that is a contradiction so we know your logic is false.

3. The language of the proposed constitutional amendment would end thousands of legal marriages -- both the same marriages that legally exist now and all the same-sex marriages that would occur between now and whenever the theoretical moment would be that the 37th state ratified the amendment.

I think its funny here how you single out the 37th state, as if acting alone. Some paigns of guilt are no doubt involved here as you realize Mass. was acting alone, that four people are responsible for the government endorsement of crimes against humanity. But you want those four justices to have more weight than the 37 states that reject their conclusions. That is the appeal to tyrany that Op-Ed noted earlier.

The problem with this is that you imply injustice in this move, should it happen as you say (which as pointed out earlier is debatable at best since Mass law may not be forced to change with the acceptance of the FMA).

But more particular, you entered into another point here, which is entirely orthogonal. In other words, even if your "fact" hadn't eroded away this would still be a questionable conclusion. The question is, where is the injustice? Is it in benefits that they would lose? No, because they wouldn't lose benefits, that is pretty settled. Is it that they would lose the title of "marriage"? What is it about the title that you are really looking for here? That was asked earlier and like so many points you simply dodged it.

4. The proposed constitutional amendment would make second-class citizens of all same-sex married couples by stripping them of a marital status they currently enjoy, while allowing all other legally married couples to continue being married.

Oh, now this is a lark! In fact, its one of Op-Ed's noted "Frequently Asenine Quips". This suffers from much of same problem of the other point. Nothing about the singlular "fact" you hasn't withstood scrutiny ("yes it has!" you say? Um no, lets get real here you're only embarassing yourself by holding such sentimental value in it). would substantiate this point, even if it had survived. Its a false point on its one, one you abandoned.

The steps aren't egregious; they're actually pretty simple. I'm simply not obliged to give your rather baroque constructions any creedence because out here in the real world they're not relevant.

Fundamentally, egregious steps can be very simple steps. Your attempt to cover your actions with this false-dichotomy is pretty silly.

I should probably take that as a compliment that even though you don't think your shell game was egregious that I've presented it in a way you found it simple to follow. Perhaps that modifies your previous attempt to call it "complicated" which you then changed to "obtuse".

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 12:07 PM

Patrick,

I have not seen or inferred just what is your own personal positions on same-sex marriage. Are you for or against it.

This post, I thought made that pretty clear. Neutereing marriage is a mistake in and of itself. The special pleading that is made for homosexuals in order to commit such an act on marriage is also wrong in and of itself. They also both cause problems with subjecting other classes of individuals, as noted in that post. Such is the bigotry behind the effort to neuter marriage.

I appreciate you asking, in some ways it indicates the irrelevance of John's self-proclaimed "fact" in that discussing it does not shed light on the matter as a whole at all. A point John seems to be struggling accepting.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 12:07 PM

On Lawn:

"The more your argument falls apart, the more you rely on self-serving and rash judgments."

Once again, it's remarkable how you to continue to confuse me with you. Your willingness to continue arguing your bad logic doesn't make it any less bad, or any more worth considering further.

Move along, now.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 12:30 PM

Laurie,

Trying to rename same-sex marriage "neutered marriage" is exactly the same kind of attempt that the "pro-life" people utilized several decades ago. Because, of course, who alive ISN'T pro-life?

An excellent point Laurie. I find it funny that when you call it same-sex marriage that people like John are all for it. Because it focuses on a select group of people you can say you are for them by being for it. But it does not describe the change to marriage at all, which is simply neutering the marriage definition. When presented people run from that.

So perhaps in John's self-delusioned sense of infallibility he's simply not taken stock of his position well enough. Like sausage, he apparently likes the outcome, but not the method. The outcome is described by noting who gets the benefits, the process is noted as neutering. He's both for and against it, in one way of looking at it.

who alive ISN'T pro-life? It's an idiotic phrase that we're now stuck with.

Sorry, that brought a chuckle. Instead of discussion how the term pro-life applies or doesn't apply you, like John, simply don't like the implications on your argument. The relevance, for you and John, seems to be whether or not it helps your argument instead of the normal use of the term.

You anti-same-sex marriage people clearly feel threatened by disruption in the status quo. I understand.

While you are on the topic of rhetorical tricks, I feel inclined to expose this one. You made no attempt to discuss the merits of the description of the change of marriage. Hence you probably didn't read the problems I have with neutering marriage. What you did do was create a cartoonish motive to accomplish the same aversion to neutered marriage, and pretend that was my motivation.

Its simply dishonest.

Feel free to read the links and posts that discuss how neutered marriage is by no means a benefit to society, and how marriage's affirmation of equal gender representation does not harm homosexuality.

I'm 41. I don't have any children, and am getting old enough that I probably won't ever have any children. Does that mean (by the marriage for procreation argument) that I shouldn't get married to anyone, man OR woman?

Reading the links would have provided the answer. Above I provided this link pointing out that homosexuality is not a handicap. Infertility, whether by natural course of age, self-mutilation or defect, is a handicap. Homosexuality, at least from the arguments I've read, is not. Trying to slip homosexual couples through the door under the same exception is simply commiting fraud. All this is explained in the link.

John, you are a very patient man.

Being able to maintain ones position while it gets discredited by facts and reason requires many things which John has shown in abundance. Patience may be one of them, but qualities such as willful ignorance play a more important role. Johns unwillingless to explain his position, or his baseless attacks on others may indicate that on seme level he realizes how his position is not withstanding scrutiny.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 12:35 PM

On Lawn:

"Being able to maintain ones position while it gets discredited by facts and reason requires many things which John has shown in abundance."

I'm not entirely sure how you would know that, On Lawn, as that's not happened here. I understand you think it has, of course. But that's yet another thing in which you are in error.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 12:37 PM

John,

As you note, the primary point here seemed to be an attempt to deny same-sex marriage actually, you know, exists.

Its your misplaced faith in lies such as that which indicates desperation to me. No one has denied that same-sex marriage exists. F. Rottles noted that it exists as an error that should be fixed. Op-Ed noted how neutering marriage came about. And I agreed with your statement of not only it existing but exists in a state that is a part of the USA.

It is misplaced to state that its existence at all assists the claims you made above, however. Thats been shown up and down the thread.

The problem with baseless claims is that without any reference to the evidence that brings you to those claims people must guess for themselves. I honestly have no idea why you make such charges, you don't say. But here you might have let it slip that you simply don't understand what is being said at all. Rarely does lack of understanding create a true conclusion, and the match of your evidenced lack of understanding with the falseness of your accusations would lead me to believe the mystery is solved.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 12:50 PM

Thanks for sharing, On Lawn.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 12:51 PM

I believe the term should be "marriage."

The question is not what the term should be, but the definition. A distinction is drawn in this debate to avoid confusion, how do you distinguish the definition of marriage you choose? Here's an example answer:

I distinguish it by calling what you root for as neutered marriage. Describing a change in marriage by describing the people getting benefits to me is misleading. The marriage definition itself is undergoing a change, and that change should be described and "neutered" describes it very accurately for myself. The marriage definition I find most appealing is the one that is equal-gendered marriage. I also like the term gender-complete marriage or equal-gender representation marriage.

That is by its very nature more precise than trying to call both definitions unqualified with the same term. To call two different things the same name is ambiguous, and you note that even the dictionary holds two seperate definitions in respect to the conflict in marriage.

I'm glad to hear that you are easily persuaded by silly things, but I don't see how that helps your argument. I don't care if Jesus Christ himself came down from a puffy cloud and coined the term "neutered marriage." I would still find it deliberately hostile.

Whether or not it is silly, it seems you don't appeal to anything rational for your basis. Percieved hostility is paranoia, not ration. Op-Ed none-the-less has appealed to ration in why he describes the form of marriage you advocate as "neutered".

so I suspect you and/or your little friends have decided to start pushing it

Actually the term came from someone on your side, who goes by the moniker Galois. The term also comes from reading "gender neutral" in the Goodridge decision itself and GLBT handouts/talking points when discussing their substitute version of marriage.

Every law in the state and in the wider nation affects each and every one of us.

Which, as pointed out above, is an argument for the FMA. If one state decides for the rest of us, that is tyranical compared to the FMA which at least brings in a consensus of states. It was when I pointed this out to John that he abandoned explicitly discussing this as a federal legal definition and instead settled for a geographic debate.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 12:54 PM

I'm not entirely sure how you would know that, On Lawn, as that's not happened here. I understand you think it has, of course. But that's yet another thing in which you are in error.

I have noted this is your way of dealing with the reason presented to you. I believe your readership is sharp, as for most discussions here you bring on many good points. But I find it just as well that you continue in that mantra, as people most assuredly will recognize it from the playground as "I'm rubber and you are glue..."

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 12:54 PM

"Which, as pointed out above, is an argument for the FMA. If one state decides for the rest of us, that is tyranical compared to the FMA which at least brings in a consensus of states."

Federalism = tyranny. The founding fathers would find that ironic.

Again, thanks for sharing, On Lawn.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 12:58 PM

On Lawn:

"I have noted this is your way of dealing with the reason presented to you."

It's my way of dealing with poorly-constructed arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny, yet are persistently pushed forward. After a while there's little point in engaging them seriously. As I've noted before, your willingness to continue to promote a bad argument does not require me to consider it once I've determined it is bad.

Likewise, you are free to believe you've made a good argument; I know otherwise. You are likewise free to believe I'm running away from a compelling argument, but again, you'd be wrong about that. It's nice you believe the argument you're peddling, but it doesn't make it any less bad. And I don't see much time pursuing an argument about it once I've determined it's a load of crap.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 01:36 PM

Me: Which, as pointed out above, is an argument for the FMA. If one state decides for the rest of us, that is tyranical compared to the FMA which at least brings in a consensus of states.

John: Federalism = tyranny. The founding fathers would find that ironic.

Funny, John. You just equated one state deciding a legal definition for the rest of the union to be federalism.

Keep `em coming.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 01:42 PM

It's my way of dealing with poorly-constructed arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny, yet are persistently pushed forward.

Ration expects you to present your rational behind such conjecture on someone elses argument. And you've failed to address the arguments of others accurately, as noted above.

So what is it about this discussion thats caused you to devolved to calling names? As your points have been scrutinized you've abandoned each one. Even to calling your own points "irrelevant" when they are shown to not support your position. You don't even feign reasoning anymore, and that is indeed telling. That you take these points and try to parrot them back shows you are even running out of creativity.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 01:44 PM

"Funny, John. You just equated one state deciding a legal definition for the rest of the union to be federalism."

The definition of marriage in the United States certainly does include same-sex marriage, and I'm glad to see you acknowledge that point, On Lawn. Of course the individual states are able to make their own determination of what sort of marriage they choose to sanction, so what one state does need not be followed by the other states if they choose not to do it. Again, the magic of federalism.

Considering any of that tyranny is nonsense.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 01:44 PM

Likewise, you are free to believe you've made a good argument; I know otherwise.

Your bluff was called, and you are now intellectually broke in trying to pay up.

Keep 'em coming. But since you are already bankrupt, bluffing won't do you any good.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 01:48 PM

On Lawn:

"Your bluff was called, and you are now intellectually broke in trying to pay up."

Not really. Your idiotic interpretation of federalism doesn't really constitute calling a bluff. Although given how poor your arguments have been to this point, I can certainly see why you think so.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 01:51 PM

The definition of marriage in the United States certainly does include same-sex marriage

What was that you said again about "poorly-constructed arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny, yet are persistently pushed forward"? That point was shown as a charletan's sham. It does not, as a trivial fact of geography, have the impact on US law you have gone on record saying it has.

and I'm glad to see you acknowledge that point, On Lawn.

On the same grounds you've already aknowledged that geography is irrelevant to the US legal definition, and that was when you clammed up entirely. Hmmm, funny coincidence?

so what one state does need not be followed by the other states if they choose not to do it. Again, the magic of federalism.

Funny, when F. Rottles pointed that out to you, you called it irrelevant. It seems entirely too much like your metric of relevance is hap-hazzard. Well in one way it's shown complete congruence with another noted problem of yours, the narcissism and self-assertion of your bias towards your own words. It has to be a sentimental attachment to your argument, because ration hasn't held much sway at all with you.

On Lawn | July 17, 2006 01:54 PM

Me: Which, as pointed out above, is an argument for the FMA. If one state decides for the rest of us, that is tyranical compared to the FMA which at least brings in a consensus of states.

John: Federalism = tyranny. The founding fathers would find that ironic.

Me: Funny, John. You just equated one state deciding a legal definition for the rest of the union to be federalism.

[... later ...]

John: Not really. Your idiotic interpretation of federalism doesn't really constitute calling a bluff.

Keep 'em coming. Any argument that relies on short term memory loss is easily discredited.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 01:59 PM

On Lawn:

"It does not, as a trivial fact of geography, have the impact on US law you have gone on record saying it has."

Your persistence in misinterpreting what I've written does not oblige me to keep correcting you, On Lawn.

"Funny, when F. Rottles pointed that out to you, you called it irrelevant."

It was irrelevant to the discussion we were having then, which is not the same discussion we're having now.

"Any argument that relies on short term memory loss is easily discredited."

Actually, the argument relies on reading comprehension, which apparently you lack.

John Scalzi | July 17, 2006 02:05 PM

We've clearly reached the useful end of this discussion, On Lawn; if this had been anyone else but me, I would have told the folks having it to take it into e-mail by now. So, On Lawn, if you care to continue this conversation with me, please put it into e-mail (I'm at john@scalzi.com). Otherwise this particular line of discussion is now officially closed.

I'm going to close this thread to comments for a couple of hours to ensure the discussion between me and On Lawn goes into e-mail; I'll reopen it later today for the rest of you.

Op Ed. | July 26, 2006 01:08 PM

In Massachusetts, the courts imposed neutered marriage on the people. Scalzi tries to extend this tyranny to the entire United States, stating a handful of justices in Massachusetts have settled the question of what marriage "should be" for the entire nation, if not the entire world. He refers to this conclusion as "unobjectionable" and "the rule of law," and that anyone who finds Goodridge an example of a despotic court is merely getting carried away in disagreeing with the outcome of the case.

Well, today the Washington Supreme Court, in what turns out to be a scathing dismissal of Goodridge, calls court imposed neutering of marriage "dictated" by "five members" of the court. They object to the overreach of court power despite several times stating in the opinion and within both concurences that the court doesn't necessarily oppose neutering marriage as an outcome, contradicting Scalzi's claim that such objection is necessary to disagree with Goodridge.

So, despite all his finger pointing, it is quite clear that it is Scalzi who is using outcome-based rationalizations to appeal to tyranny.

John Scalzi | July 26, 2006 01:14 PM

Op. Ed:

The idiotic term "neutered marriage" aside, the Washington Supreme Court has every legal right to make the decision it chose; the Massachusetts court likewise. I'd have preferred a different outcome, personally, but I don't find the process any more or less objectionable than the process in Massachusetts. Calling the Washington ruling a dismissal of the Massachusetts ruling is legally inaccurate and rhetorically null, as Massachusetts' marriage laws are entirely unaffected by the ruling.

In other words, there's not much point trying to pick a fight here.

Op Ed. | July 26, 2006 01:43 PM

You simply reject your own thesis that MA "settled" what marriage "should be" throughout the United States, as the Washington ruling certainly dismisses that little bit of nonsense. Funny how sometimes you find accuracy "idiotic" and yet in this case it was so important to you that it forced you to admit your own conclusion is wrong. You really should check that situational logic of yours.

John Scalzi | July 26, 2006 02:05 PM

Op. Ed:

"You simply reject your own thesis that MA 'settled' what marriage 'should be' throughout the United States, as the Washington ruling certainly dismisses that little bit of nonsense."

Yet again, Op. Ed., your inability to comprehend what I've written is not my problem. I have no interest in trying to run it through again with you, since it's clear that no amount of explanation will work with you. You're basically a troll on this subject, and I don't see the utility in continuing to feed you.

I invite you not to post here again, Op. Ed. I find your obtuseness tiresome and would rather not have you around.

Op Ed. | July 26, 2006 03:36 PM

[deleted for not picking up the clue]

On Lawn | July 26, 2006 04:59 PM

Calling the Washington ruling a dismissal of the Massachusetts ruling is legally inaccurate

Oddly enough, his observation on the competing legal decisions matches an observation made in the Washington Post before this decision that I discussed today on Opine.

John Scalzi | July 26, 2006 05:01 PM

I haven't seen that article yet. Do you have a link? (the Post article, I mean. I see the post to your piece.)

On Lawn | July 26, 2006 05:27 PM

You are right, I forgot to put the link to the WP in my article. It is fixed now. Many thanks.

John Scalzi | July 26, 2006 05:29 PM

I live to serve.