Gay marriage

[Highlander]

I only see it as gays/left are trying to change the definition of (redefine completely) the Judeo-Christian religious institution that is the very foundation of our entire culture and society.

I'm actually far more libertarian than "left" but certainly I do not care how Christians define marriage for themselves, or what they believe constitutes marriage, and I have zero desire to tell them what to believe or what to accept, endorse, or allow in their churches.

But I do have an issue with Christians essentially saying, "Marriage is our word, we own it, and we decide what it means for everyone else in the country forever, whether they are Christians or not."

I will point out (not for the first time) that the obvious libertarian answer to the question is to let people decide for themselves what, if anything, marriage means. Promoting the concept of marriage to a legal institution is the very picture of illiberality: it is an imposition, and an unnecessary one, one that gives the force of law to a custom the may (and does) differ from culture to culture and from person to person.

Marriage as a legal institution is asking for trouble. What's the point, other than imposing one's view of right living on everybody else? Do we need a legal concept of marriage? No. It's useful, certainly, if you mean to dictate on common terms how we all should live. And that's about it.

Actually, in strictly legal terms, it's probably more about property and wealth now more than anything else. A guarantee, so to speak, that one party is entitled to the spoils if there is ever a split.

[mean]

I agree, but I don't think that marriage is going away, legally speaking. And certainly it has uses beyond dictating "how we all should live" insofar as it represents a contract which, if broken for whatever reason, attempts to distribute assets as fairly as possible among the involved parties. But that's all it is, a contract. Might as well be an LLP for all I care. Highlander beat me to it, but yeah.

[pash]

.

[AJoD]

Geez, this thread is nuts.

Kind of interesting, but largely perplexing.

It seems to me that the idea of uniting male and female has been (historically and cross-culturally) more fundamental to the idea of marriage than the number of people involved. The complementary union of male and female has a long and rich tradition, both corporeal and psychological. These ideas are reflected in any number of religious, philosophical, political and economic systems and institutions.

To suggest that it is "arbitrary" or irrational or mean-spirited or just semantics to believe that there is a fundamental, ontological difference between on the one hand, male+female, and on the other, male+male or female+female---is that really what's being expressed? (Sorry for using words like "ontological"...can't come up with anything more appropriate.)

And even if you don't think there is anything that ontologically differentiates male/female from same sex unions, the expression of derision, amazement, incredulity, and loathing that someone else might observe this as an ontological difference....that's a pretty amazing cultural phenomenon, I think.

Whether you think the two (or myriad) kinds of relationships ought to have different legal statuses is certainly a related question, but a different one.

On a separate note--there are so many different nods to history in this thread, I hesitate to throw out another--the idea that "marrying for love" is a creation of the past century (that strikes me as a bit too recent, but quibbling)...it is the preposition that gets a little tricky. Marrying for love may be a modern invention (although, it also may not...it seems the progression of falling in love and marrying was acknowledged way back into the ancient world), but the strict economic reduction of marital transactions strikes me as misguided.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

This talk about marriage being between a man and a woman brings up a point. It has been awhile since it was reported on so I am not sure of the current situation. A man and a woman marry and proceed to have children like most married couples. The man finally accepts his situation and decides he is a she, a woman in a man's body, and proceeds to become a woman. All couples in this situation that I know of have gotten a divorce but not this couple. They have remained married, although celibate since the wife is not a lesbian and neither is the new woman, and neither has the desire to break their marriage vows.

[phuqueue]

On a separate note--there are so many different nods to history in this thread, I hesitate to throw out another--the idea that "marrying for love" is a creation of the past century (that strikes me as a bit too recent, but quibbling)...it is the preposition that gets a little tricky. Marrying for love may be a modern invention (although, it also may not...it seems the progression of falling in love and marrying was acknowledged way back into the ancient world), but the strict economic reduction of marital transactions strikes me as misguided.

I'm not suggesting that there was not affection between married couples back in the day, or that people didn't used to fall in love. But marriage itself was still primarily an economic arrangement -- financial security for the wife, offspring (themselves an economic asset) for the husband. I mean many cultures have/had bride price (and, relatedly, dower) which is literally what it sounds like. I'm not a marriage scholar (this is my standard disclaimer, but I have read some about this, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass here either), so when you say that "falling in love and marrying was acknowledged way back into the ancient world," I don't really know whether you're referring to any actual studies that have documented this phenomenon with historical evidence (I'm not aware of any of these, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist) or if you're referring to like Penelope refusing all the suitors until Odysseus came back and killed them or something, but I'd be very wary of relying on the latter. Modern fiction of course runs the danger of simply projecting modern values on the past, but historic fiction as well carries its own dangers, most notably that fiction frequently expresses an escapist ideal. "Love" itself is not a modern concept, and marrying your true love has probably always been the ideal, but that doesn't mean that's what actually went on. That people in the ancient world wanted to fall in love with someone and marry that person doesn't mean that's what most people in the ancient world actually did. This is admittedly not the strongest way to make the point, but I for one personally have a very hard time visualizing eg a peasant in medieval Europe falling in love and marrying for that reason. Life was unimaginably brutal and marrying for love is a luxury that I think we take for granted in 21st century America.

Marriage, whether for love or money or for whatever reason, is ultimately a partnership, so you lose something if you consider it in precisely the same terms as an arm's length commercial contract or something. Nevertheless, "love" is not the only component here or even necessarily an important one. A hundred years ago women weren't even allowed to vote, and until the postwar period it was unusual for them to hold down jobs outside the home. In circumstances like that they certainly weren't supporting themselves. But with industrialization and also with falling infant mortality rates, it became less necessary that you produce a large family. Incomes rose, women started working for themselves, and this system in which men need children and women need support broke down. Why bother getting married at all now? Because even though the socioeconomic necessity is no longer there, the emotional desire still is.

This is a complete tangent, one that may not even actually be relevant, but I just thought of it anyway, this column I read a few weeks ago about a pickup artist (those loathsome ghouls who think crude psychological tricks can manipulate women into sleeping with them) who found himself totally out of his element in Denmark. The thesis of the article (and, for that matter, the main theory of the pickup guy himself) is that because Denmark has such highly developed social services and such a low level of gender inequality, women there didn't respond to this guy's tricks because they don't need a man to support them. They can be as choosy as they want because they don't risk anything by staying single. This has gradually become more and more true across the entire developed world (this is also thought to be a major driver of through-the-floor fertility rates in developed countries and especially in Europe and Japan), but it's particularly true in countries where the social safety net guarantees a basic level of economic security (ie not America). You no longer have any external reasons to get married (well, maybe you've got an overbearing mother who wants grandchildren or something, but that's not quite the same thing of course), so you only get married for internal reasons -- ideally because you're in love (or less ideally because you're lonely or need the validation or whatever). But what is now the main reason to get married was once just a perk of a good marriage.

[AJoD]

And even if you don't think there is anything that ontologically differentiates male/female from same sex unions, the expression of derision, amazement, incredulity, and loathing that someone else might observe this as an ontological difference....that's a pretty amazing cultural phenomenon, I think.

Is anybody suggesting that? I don't think anybody worth conversing with is arguing that there is nothing at all differentiating gay relationships from straight ones: at the very least we can ignore anybody suggesting the latter aren't distinguished by their ability (at least in the primitive sense) of producing children.

Here are a couple quotes that suggest there's not a meaningful or fundamental difference. Add in the line of reasoning that suggests it's some weird Christian subsect teaching that acknowledges a unique character of male-female union.

The problem with prohibiting gay marriage is that it is an essentially arbitrary restriction.

Yeah, but that's obviously not different enough to not make people freak out over what seems to me, at least, to be absolutely meaningless semantic shit.

Apologies if these particular quotes are out of the full context, but the overall tenor of the discussion is much more that a same sex relationship can be fundamentally the same as an opposite sex relationship, with little acknowledgment that a same sex relationship is always fundamentally different than an opposite sex relationship. As you point out, that seems manifestly obvious, which is why it's puzzling that--not only do people disagree--there seems to be outrage that anyone think it reasonable.

[chaglang]

Apologies if these particular quotes are out of the full context, but the overall tenor of the discussion is much more that a same sex relationship can be fundamentally the same as an opposite sex relationship, with little acknowledgment that a same sex relationship is always fundamentally different than an opposite sex relationship.

Apart from the (ahem) interface of the parts involved, I don't see a fundamental difference. Consenting adults love each other and get married. End of story. Even if, as you note, marriage for love is a modern concept, that's the concept the drives modern heterosexual marriages. Modern heterosexual couples don't get married because it's the bedrock of civilization. I doubt anyone ever did. Before love entered into the reasoning, it was more of a real estate transaction.

Regardless of the whether you believe a fundamental difference between heteros and gays getting married, that real argument is whether or not any such difference is a reasonable justification for preventing gays from marrying.

[phuqueue]

And even if you don't think there is anything that ontologically differentiates male/female from same sex unions, the expression of derision, amazement, incredulity, and loathing that someone else might observe this as an ontological difference....that's a pretty amazing cultural phenomenon, I think.

Is anybody suggesting that? I don't think anybody worth conversing with is arguing that there is nothing at all differentiating gay relationships from straight ones: at the very least we can ignore anybody suggesting the latter aren't distinguished by their ability (at least in the primitive sense) of producing children.

Here are a couple quotes that suggest there's not a meaningful or fundamental difference. Add in the line of reasoning that suggests it's some weird Christian subsect teaching that acknowledges a unique character of male-female union.

The problem with prohibiting gay marriage is that it is an essentially arbitrary restriction.

Yeah, but that's obviously not different enough to not make people freak out over what seems to me, at least, to be absolutely meaningless semantic shit.

Apologies if these particular quotes are out of the full context, but the overall tenor of the discussion is much more that a same sex relationship can be fundamentally the same as an opposite sex relationship, with little acknowledgment that a same sex relationship is always fundamentally different than an opposite sex relationship. As you point out, that seems manifestly obvious, which is why it's puzzling that--not only do people disagree--there seems to be outrage that anyone think it reasonable.

When I say the restriction is arbitrary, I mean that in the modern context. Of course same sex marriage didn't make sense historically, when producing as many children as possible was imperative. That's not the situation today, though. People nowadays get married out of love, not to have children. The US, France, and Ireland are basically the only three developed countries with replacement-level fertility rates, and in each country's case it's actually negligibly below replacement level (in 2010: 2.07 in Ireland, 2.00 in France, 1.93 in the US), and in the US and France native-born populations are much farther below replacement level. So if we're not getting married to have children anymore, then we're just getting married out of love for our partners. In that case, the restriction is arbitrary. That doesn't mean that it always was arbitrary, but now the "fundamental difference" between hetero- and homosexual relationships is not an important feature of those relationships.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Of course same sex marriage didn't make sense historically, when producing as many children as possible was imperative.

If you go back in time, and not that far back, there were no, or just a few, reasons for same sex marriage. Men lived with other men, women lived with other women and people would talk but for the most part it was just accepted. The women were just "Old Maids" and the men were just sharing the residence. But with society changes in the 60's and advances in fertility and childbirth same sex couples could have off-spring. And then throw in he 80's with AIDS and there is a whole different mindset with regards to same sex couples.

The state of marriage is both civil and religious. Our society has changed over the years and the acceptance of same-sex marriage, in a civil sense, will come. It won't be universal or 100% but then what is or does have 100% acceptance in our society.

[mean]

Apologies if these particular quotes are out of the full context, but the overall tenor of the discussion is much more that a same sex relationship can be fundamentally the same as an opposite sex relationship, with little acknowledgment that a same sex relationship is always fundamentally different than an opposite sex relationship. As you point out, that seems manifestly obvious, which is why it's puzzling that--not only do people disagree--there seems to be outrage that anyone think it reasonable.

Like chaglang, I honestly do not see a fundamental difference. The difference, as far as I can tell, begins and ends with what's in their pants, and that's really none of my (or the government's) business.

However, my comment, specifically, was in reference to the idea that it's fine to have gay unions, but don't call it marriage, because marriage has an eternal, mystical, God-decreed definition that certain sects of Christianity are privy to, and everyone else is wrong.

[aknowledgeableperson]

the idea that it's fine to have gay unions, but don't call it marriage

I have always thought that if civil unions were given the same rights and recognition that were given marriage the push for "gay marriage" wouldn't have happened or would at least been kicked down the road a ways.

[mean]

That may be true, I just don't see a difference except in the words.

[FangKC]

Hawaii House passes gay marriage bill; Senate expected to approve bill, and governor will sign. Once signed, Hawaii will be the 16th state to approve gay marriages.

The next state to take up the issue is probably Idaho, where lawsuits have been filed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/us/ga ... ne.html?hp

http://www.nclrights.org/press-room/pre ... -in-idaho/

[FangKC]

Gay marriage passes Senate in Hawaii. Governor says he will sign the bill into law. Once the bills are signed in Illinois, where the legislature voted to approve gay marriage recently, and Hawaii, 16 states and the District of Columbia will allow gay marriage.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hawa ... e-20859216

[KCMax]

Gov. Jay Nixon has announced the state of Missouri will recognize jointly filed tax returns from same-sex couples married in other states.

[KCMax]

Judges in Utah and Oklahoma have ruled a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Same-sex couples in Utah married for a few weeks until SCOTUS halted handing out marriage licenses until an appeal is heard.

Could Kansas and Missouri ever be as progressive as Utah and Oklahoma?

[smh]

Could Kansas and Missouri ever be as progressive as Utah and Oklahoma?

I've been meaning to ask this question. Does anyone know of a similar case wending its way through Missouri courts? I've not heard of one, but I also feel like we wouldn't necessarily hear of it until it was on appeal.