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 Cit