I want to start by addressing the points made by NG in the comments on my last post:
This implies that we should not legalize gay marriage because it will cause problems, but these problems won't be visible for 50 years. We can't say no to gay marriage with the reasoning that it won't cause problems tomorrow but it *might* cause problems in 50 years.
"But it seems to me that the absolute removal of procreation as a purpose of marriage could well lead to a further decline in the birthrate among married heterosexual couples."
I disagree with this statement because procreation is not the purpose of marriage. If it were the purpose of marriage, then the word “procreation” would appear on a marriage license, which it does not. Also, it is not part of a wedding vow except in a Catholic wedding, and America does not base its laws off of Catholicism.
"That removal of purpose combined with the extension of the institution to a wider universe could make it (unconsciously) feel less special, which could lead to further declines in the rate of marriage among heterosexual couples."
Let's assume that marriage would become less valuable if gays were allowed to marry and analyze the implications of this:
People would opt out of marriage only if they saw this lower “value” as being a negative concept. These would be people that only marry because they think it is a valuable institution. In other words, they are people that only marry because they realize that gays cannot marry, and that makes marriage more special for them. Do you know of any such people?
Finally, it is highly immoral and unethical to exclude a group of people from an institution in order to artificially inflate its value.
"And the official removal of procreation from the purposes of marriage could lead to an increase in out-of-wedlock pregnancies as a percentage of all pregnancies."
I think that unprotected sex is a greater cause of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In fact, I can't think of any teen pregnancies that are caused by homosexuals. I think they are pretty much caused by heterosexuals who don't know how to use the pill, a condom or some other contraceptive.
"And there could also be the increased tolerance which you mention."
I'm confused. Is increased tolerance a bad thing? Increased tolerance of what?
Now, let's go over some of the main talking points made by the anti-gay marriage camp. These points are taken from the Marriage Talking Points page published by the National Organization for Marriage.
1) We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.
I believe that the definition does not change for heterosexual couples. After all, their marriages won't change at all. The only marriages that change are those between homosexual couples, so this point makes no sense to me.
Furthermore, I think that definitions and semantics are cold comfort when it comes to human rights.
2) Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers. Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant?
If NOM believes that mothers or fathers are indispensable, then I guess child services should take away the children of single parents.
Of course, they would never do that because having one parent is better than having none and growing up in an orphanage.
Now, remind me, what sorts of children will be raised by same-sex couples? Oh, that's right, the kind of children that have no parents because they are in an orphanage. Now what is better: Two dads/moms or no dad or mom?
3) Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
The argument of “let's not confuse kids” is weak for two reasons. First of all, homosexuality in its own right can be a bit confusing to children, so if we don't want to confuse kids, then we should ban any discussion of homosexuality. Of course, we would never do that.
Second, stopping gay marriage because it can be “confusing” is a very weak argument to limit someone's human rights.
P.S. The comments section is open for debate. Please keep it civil and use CONCRETE EVIDENCE. If you make a claim, try to find some solid evidence for it. Analyze your evidence or counter your opponent's points, but be polite about it.
Ready, Set, Go!
30 comments:
I am perplexed about why anyone, gay or straight, would want to get married. The practice of life long pairing is not innate - it was invented. In nature, there are very few examples of monogamous behavior, and lest we forget that we are animals. I am certainly not against anyone who chooses to pair off to have kids, but the marriage has been overly romanticized by just about every interest for there own purposes: Marketers - what can we sell?; Governments - who can we tax?; Religions - who can we control?; Interest groups: how can we hijack an issue?. I could go on, but you get the idea. Anywho, sorry for the cynicism.
I just came across this on Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2221779?nav=wp
It gives some background on same-sex pairings. Might make an interesting read.
C.
Why should a government take children away from single parents? It´s idiotic! My older Bro. and me were left by my native mother, so he was a single parent for like 16 yrs. This is the mistake in your argumentation, to assume that gay adoptive parents were any better than straight ´rents....Despite many opinions, marriage can be forbidden by church law to straight couples a. if they are not of legal age, b. because one of the partners was divorced w/out the consent of the church. My Dad had some luck that his paternal family knew the Archbishop of Liége, who ran the decision of the Rota a bit. If you don´t know what I txt, look for the divorce of Princess Caroline of Hannover and Monaco after her first marriage. And all this makes the differnce between straight marriages and gay civil unions as I know them in France. Propz Pilgrim
"'Come back in fifty years and ask the question, and maybe some preliminary, provisional answers will be possible.'
This implies that we should not legalize gay marriage because it will cause problems, but these problems won't be visible for 50 years."
Jason, you are reading more into what I said than was there. Perhaps I had done the same thing earlier. I inferred that the fact that 92% of Iowans polled felt no effect from the legalization of gay marriage in their state by judicial fiat (had to slip that in) was taken to mean that there was and would be no effect. I was saying that it was way to soon to know whether there would be any effects, and if so what they would be. And I was implying that it was not valid evidence for the proposition that gay marriage does not hurt heterosexual couples or society as a whole.
I do not say that procreation is *the* purpose of marriage, but that it has been *a* purpose of marriage. Elsewhere I have adduced evidence for this from the "Politics" of Aristotle to children's rhymes. The laws and rituals of the Catholic Church are merely one example of a wider societal consensus that existed.
What complicates the discussion is that there had already arisen a fairly widespread cultural amnesia about procreation as one of the purposes of marriage, fueled by and in turn fueling the growth of the contraceptive mentality.
And no-fault divorce has also devalued marriage by essentially throwing the idea that it is a permanent commitment out the window.
So our society misunderstood marriage for some time before the idea of gay marriage came along. The common law defines marriage as a union of man and woman. But when the reason for that element of the definition (that it takes a man and a woman to procreate) is irrelevant to a society that has forgotten that procreation is a purpose of marriage, then it becomes possible to imagine that a homosexual union can be the same as a heterosexual one.
These factors do not operate independently or simply in series. They reinforce one another. And the more changes take place in marriage, the more change they will cause in society in ways we cannot foresee.
If you don't like my ideas of the possibilities of the direction of the change, fine. But please don't imagine that everything will stay the same just because we haven't noticed changes yet.
And tolerance is good.
C. - Marriage and monogamy are not the same thing. A couple could get married, thereby committing to be with each other, and have an open or nonexclusive sexual relationship. I agree that monogamy is unnatural, but the desire to have some constancy in our relationships is not.
As for procreation being an essential component of marriage, such a belief leads not only to discrimination against gay people, but also to discrimination against the infertile.
Finally, I always mention this when involved in any discussion of gay marriage:
http://pfarley.livejournal.com/105081.html
"And the official removal of procreation from the purposes of marriage could lead to an increase in out-of-wedlock pregnancies as a percentage of all pregnancies."
who says out-of-wedlock pregnancies are bad? two civil adults could easily raise a child, without being married, whether if they're straight or gay.... having a wedding band on your finger doesnt make u any better of a parent
"Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further."
correct.... children *are* confused about sexuality, which is exacly why sexuality needs to stop being oppressed as a bad thing, and opened up so people can be educated about it
I guess you guys have already seen this, but if not I do recommend this youtube clip:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM
You raised some good points in this blog, one of them sticks out is the children, raising children with the same sex they will ask questions like why do I have two Dads or two Moms?
I think if we learn to accept man and women or man and man or women or women now, when the child is growing up they will ask this question and you have be proud to tell your child that reason why you have two Dads is because we care for each other and we care for you and love you the same way that both of the Dads love each other.
I was raised by a single parent and a sibling of mine until I left the house at age 19. My Mom raised me well and my sister, they don't approve of the lifestyle that I have taken on but at the same time they love me still to this day.
Very good topic I hope we have many more like this!
Chris
Same scare tactics were used when blacks and whites were allowed in the same schools, and marry each other. It will happen in due time.
Luckily, my husband and I were able to get our license in California last year. Hopefully everyone will be able to get them again soon ...
"Some kids have 2 dads and some kids have 2 moms and we don't like it b/c we are afraid that this would threaten our marriage even though in reality it doesn't affect us or cause mommy or daddy's marriage to be invalid"
That's what parents should say to the kids b/c that's what it boils down to when it comes to "confusing kids" about gay marriage
Personally since I live with Iowa and know how it runs I doubt gay marriage will hold around here
@natureG
"And I was implying that it was not valid evidence for the proposition that gay marriage does not hurt heterosexual couples or society as a whole"
how about you look at countries who have legalised gay marriage many years ago, like Canada, or Holland. These countries are doing great. no offence, but they're doing damn well better the usa.
"I do not say that procreation is *the* purpose of marriage, but that it has been *a* purpose of marriage."
last time i checked, the largest reason why people marry, is because they *love* each other. And gays defo love each other.
"The common law defines marriage as a union of man and woman"
the common law is written (or taken) according to the beleifs of members of a specific religion. the idea that a county would base its law on something written thousands of years ago, by men with irrational biases is absolutely absurd. the other aspects of law have slowly moved on, with time and changing opinions, and higher levels of education. there's no reason marriage shouldnt progress either
I agree with Tyler's point that Canada and the Netherlands have yet to see social collapse because of gay marriage.
In fact, the Netherlands is a very strong country. I believe they are doing quite well in this poor economy.
Yes, the Netherlands has a lower birth rate than the USA, but that is a trend that can be seen throughout Europe. Usually birth rate goes down with an increase in the standard of living, but this is not a perfect correlation.
I continue to fail to see how two men getting married will lower the birth rate of the entire population. I feel like this is a non-sequitor. It only follows if straight couples have children BECAUSE gay couples cannot get married.
I agree with you on that Jason especially since people can be sperm and egg donors so it's possible to have children just not in the "normal" way
"So our society misunderstood marriage for some time before the idea of gay marriage came along."
So marriage was better understood when, ng?
When men had multiple wives and concubines?
When women were simply chattel?
When wives were baby machines, to be discarded, or killed, if they did not produce sons?
When it was legal for husbands to rape their wives?
When marriages were arranged by families to for political and/or monetary purpose?
Or is wanting to commit yourself exclusively to another person, to promise to be true to that person in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love and honor that person all the days of your life, because you love that person, a misunderstanding of marriage?
The notion of marriage based upon love is a somewhat recent phenomenon, after all.
Perhaps you can explain why it is that a same-sex couple raising children should be denied the right to legally marry, since children is "a" reason for marriage? You have yet to do so. Your argument again-and-again boils down to body parts, regardless of whether they work or not.
What about transgendered people who have had gender reassignment surgery? Should marriage licenses be handed out based on birth gender or current gender?
Conferring the right to marry to infertile opposite-sex couples, simply because they have the right (useless) body parts, is a slap in the face to same-sex couples who want to raise, or are already raising, children.
I'd like to hear how you'd explain to my doctor's 11-year-old son why his daddies, who have raised him since birth, should be denied the right to marry.
I'd like to hear how you'd explain to him why his daddies should be denied the right to marry while opposite-sex parents of adopted children should be allowed to marry.
I'd like to hear how you'd explain to him that his family deserves no legal recognition, because both of his parents have penises.
I'd like to hear you explain to him why, if one of his daddies got very sick, the hospital should be allowed to deny his daddy who is not sick the right to visit. While at the same time the hospital would be legally required to allow him to visit his sick daddy.
I'd like to hear you explain to him how his family JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
Well?
I'm far too tired to contribute anything meaningful. I'd just like chime in on the debate/discussion going on here.
But I remember a story told to us in med school a couple weeks ago:
A lesbian couple had raised several teenage kids. One of the moms developed a serious health condition and had to be rushed to the hospital in another state. The partner faxed all info over to that hospital documenting that the couple were married legally and with kids. The hospital denied the partner and their children access to her room. She died alone and her family was not allowed to see her in her final moments because the hospital blatantly said they didn't recognize their homosexual marriage.
Is this the world we live in? I am ashamed. I am ashamed that a health institution would not show the compassion. I am ashamed that these stories get swept under the carpet. To die alone, knowing that you have family who desperately want to be with you at your dying breath, and they're denied access - just because of sexual orientation.
What's your gut reaction there? Was that ethical? Was that moral? Was that legal (the legality is currently in the courts I believe)? Was that right? Married to someone you love and have raised kids together - and to die alone like that.
Regarding Aek's post
That is ONE of the reasons why I support gay marriage so much b/c of gay/lesbians being denied rights just b/c of the sexual orientation they have chosen
It would be MUCH MUCH harder to deny rights to gays and lesbians if it was made legal across the entire country and I think this would be a good way to show some people that we Not lesser beings just b/c we aren't straight and this does not give them a right to treat us like ones either
Ah, but ideology is so much easier to defend, if you simply ignore the senseless, inhumane pain and suffering it causes. People don't matter; only their genital configurations are important.
As I understand it, the family was told they were in an anti-gay state (Florida), so boo hoo hoo, fuck you, dyke.
Well if the guy is hot then he can go ahead an fuck me I had to slip that one in to cool some tempers a bit
That maybe true but people wont always be able to defend ideology especially if it's politicians
@ Tyler — I think even the Netherlands and Canada have not had long enough experience for useful studies to have been done.
The common law definition is the definition developed by English judges. I think it is less than 600 years old. But it does reflect an societal understanding which existed for centuries.
@ Mr. HCI — The fact that these abuses of marriage existed has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether procreation is a purpose of marriage. They are simply red herrings. Great sound bites, but irrelevant to my point.
Love obviously should exist in marriage, but as you say, it is clearly possible for there to be a true marriage without romantic love. The love that needs to exist is the love of philia. Hopefully it will develop into agape. As for everything you say about the same =-sex couple raising a child, it is no different from the same-sex couple without a child. Their relationship is not the same as that of a heterosexual couple. It is not a question of "denying them the right" marry, but of refusing to go along with the lie that their partnership is *identical* to that of a man and a woman. I would have no trouble telling your hypothetical child that the reason the two men can't get married is that marriage is something for people of opposite sexes. But as for "no legal recognition" you exaggerate. I do not say that you cant have domestic partnership laws which could cover the two daddies.
Civil union laws and domestic partnership laws can confer hospital visitation rights, so that part of the argument is another red herring.
@ Aek — I don't see why the fact that individuals are not married to each other should prevent hospital visitations when they are clearly what the law used to call "next friends."
I think the hospital was cruel.
Naturgesetz: What happened was this couple was legally married in one state and was vacationing in another state where same-sex marriage wasn't legal. The hospital didn't recognize the marriage and thus denied access. The partner probably wouldn't have thought to use this "next friends" thing you speak of because they are married and why would one lower oneself to go through another system? ESPECIALLY in such an emotional state as a dying loved one.
The truth is, such stories are more common than one would think. It's a systemic and societal issue. Even if this couple weren't married, the partner would probably have been denied anyway - due to her sexual orientation alone. Never mind the kids that they raised together.
What would you have done in that situation? If you were the partner? If you were the hospital? This is a long-term consequence of propagating the discrimination. There's only a net loss for same-sex individuals here. They gained nothing and in this case, lost quite a bit.
Ng, the child is not hypothetical. I see his picture every time I go to my doctor's office. Please, write a nice letter I can deliver to my doctor for his son, so you can explain why his daddies and he do not deserve to be legally recognized as a family.
Next friend? Are you fucking kidding me? A "next friend" is court appointed, according to the information I found. You expect the wife of a dying woman to go petition the court, in a state antagonistic to gay rights, to be appointed next friend status so she can visit her dying partner? Trying to catch 1,000 houseflies in her teeth would probably do just as much good.
You may think the hospital was "cruel," but their actions are legally supported by your stance against marriage rights for same-sex couples. Your position endorses cruelty. Suck on that for a while.
"Next Friend," per legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:
An individual who acts on behalf of another individual who does not have the legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf.
The individual in whose name a minor's lawsuit is brought, or who appears in court to represent such minor's interest. The French term prochein ami has been used to designate such an individual, but the term Guardian Ad Litem is more commonly used.
At Common Law, when an individual was unable to look after his or her own interests or manage his or her lawsuit, the court would appoint a person to represent that individual's legal interests. In court terminology this person was called a next friend, which is derived from the French term prochein ami. Individuals requiring a next friend included minors, persons who were mentally ill or mentally retarded, infirm or senile persons, and others whose disabilities prevented them from managing their affairs.
State statutes now set the qualifications and duties of a person who acts as a next friend, but these laws more commonly designate this person a guardian ad litem, or a court-appointed special advocate. Regardless of the designation, this person's responsibilities are now confined to representing a minor or incompetent person in a lawsuit or court proceeding. At common law, a next friend represented a plaintiff, whereas a guardian ad litem represented a defendant. This distinction has been removed in modern law.
A next friend is not a party to a lawsuit but an officer of the court. When the lawsuit is concluded, the next friend's duty ends. The next friend has no right to control the property of the person she or he represents or to assume custody of that person. These rights may be given to a person designated by a court as a minor's or incompetent person's guardian.
Guardians ad litem are commonly used in family and juvenile courts, where the best interests of the child require an independent, neutral person to safeguard the child's rights. The increased number of these representatives has led states to develop training and certification programs for individuals wishing to serve as next friends or guardians ad litem. Though attorneys also may represent juveniles, next friends provide valuable assistance to the courts.
________________________
From the above, it would appear that "next friend" would not have even been applicable in this situation. The dying woman did not need the court to appoint someone to manage her affairs nor did she need someone to represent her in a lawsuit. She needed her wife and children by her side.
FAIL
@ Aek — I hate these bureaucracies. The hospital should be considering the good of the patient, not their own ideas about marriage when it comes to visitation. I don't know if a health care proxy would have worked in this case, but the hospital should have been trying to remove obstacles, not create them.
If i were the partner, I don't know what I would have done, but I think she needed to have someone get an injunction, if appeals to the head of the hospital failed. If I were the hospital, I'd have let her visit.
@ Mr. HCI — I can see that the concept of "next friend" isn't what I thought it was, so that isn't, strictly speaking, apposite. But marriage is not necessary to resolve that problem, well drafted domestic partnership laws can do just fine, as I said earlier, but you conveniently ignored. So my position, fully understood, does not legally support the actions of the hospital; and honestly represented, my position does not morally condone the actions of the hospital.
If you would insist on the magic word marriage, you could actually achieve more progress in solving these problems. So what's more important, solving problems or the word marriage?
Sorry, I meant "if you would stop insisting on the magic word marriage"
Here's the thing, ng: you were not running the hospital. The administration ran it as they saw fit under Florida law, which allowed them to treat the women as friends and nothing more. It matters not if you would've handled the situation differently.
There was legal documentation of the surviving partner's durable health care power of attorney for her partner. The hospital refused to accept it.
Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association, said she didn't think the hospital broke any laws or rules and chided the family for seeking money from a public hospital:
"Whether [the hospital] could have been more culturally sensitive, maybe. Do the [family members] deserve an apology? Probably," Quick said. "But that's tax money they are trying to get."
Nice. Maybe the hospital should apologize but nothing more.
In addition, the surviving partner was refused the death certificate she needed to get life insurance benefits and social security benefits for their three children. Neither the hospital nor the Dade County Medical Examiner would provide one.
____________________
What's important is EQUALITY. As long as people insist that marriage is for straights but FAGS are worthy merely of domestic partnerships, there will be NO equality.
I know you're old enough to remember the sick charade of "separate but equal?" Yet you expect "domestic partnerships" to magically work?
"Well crafted domestic partnership laws," would mean adding thousands of new laws to the books at the federal, state and local levels rather than simply removing the requirement that marriage be one man/one woman. Instead of simply accepting a same-sex couple as married and entitled to the same treatment as an opposite-sex couple, legal codes will need to constantly be consulted. It would make dealing with just about anything a nightmare, for everyone involved.
The upshot in many, if not most, cases would be same-sex couples would simply be denied rights, privileges and benefits accorded opposite-sex couples and would need to go to court if they wanted redress for any such infractions. Going to court is not free. Rather than take the time and money to fight for their rights, many, if not most, same-sex couples would just give up.
_____________________
Several years ago, my mother and I were discussing marriage and she asked, "Why do you [meaning gays, not just me] have to be so hung up on the word marriage?"
I responded, "Why do you?"
She understood and has been in favor of same-sex marriage since.
@ Mr. HCI — The reason I said what I would have done is that Aek asked.
I don't see why any hospital should be able to ignore a legally documented health care proxy and power of attorney. I would have thought that they'd be required to accept it. After all, it has nothing to do with relationships. (My former pastor died recently. He had a sister and several nieces and nephews. But his health care proxy was an unrelated friend, and it was accepted.) And I'd think that proxy/power of attorney ought to be enough for a death certificate. Florida needs to clean up its act.
I think there is considerable misconception out there about who has access in law to the dead or dying, etc. Prudent people have prepared a will and a "living will", or advance medical directive that invests someone, not necessarily a relative, with the power to make life or death decisions on behalf of the insentient. They also usualy invest someone with a general power of attorney that permits that trusted person with the power to manage all of one's legal affairs. Such documents are kept in a place where the investee can find them during an emergency. Actually, a lot of hospitals have pre-printed advance medical directives and powers of attorney on hand, along with available witnesses and a notary public, in case such investitures have to be made at the spur of the moment, such as right before emergency surgery. So I really don't think this is a problem. If a hospital refused to honor the marriage of another state, or a duly authenticated power of attorney, it would set itself up for one hell of a lawsuit.
On an historial note, the English common law extends back beyond 600 years to the earliest recorded decisions, some of which arise in what we would have to call the Dark Ages. And as the writings of Lord Coke and others illustrate, they are derivitive of Roman law. In American the Common Law is understood to be the statutory and case law which existed prior to the Revolution. Probably the best expostulation of that law appears in Blackstone's Commentaries, which I believe came out in 1756, but don't hold me to that exact date. If you wanted to get an understanding of justice before the Revolution you would check out Blackstone and whatever was the codified law of the colony in question, since they had their own colonial assemblies.
It is remarkable how much of Blackstone is still in effect today, but that is not because we haven't made our own law governing these subjects since then. We have our own laws and precedents that often reflect what is in Blackstone. I would suggest you forget about this Common Law argument, because there is absolutely no impediment to our changing the law with time. After all, a lot of colonial laws govern slaves, mete out corporal punishment, and provide for the payment of fines in hogsheads of tobacco. At common law, and even today in many states, sodomy is a felony, but that didn't stop a conservative U.S. Supreme Court from declaring that there is a constitutional right to engage in it in private about four years ago.
The only thing that stops changing the law is the will of the majority, and the majority is free to apply its arcane and even foolish religious beliefs to decisions at the polls.
ng: This is not the first case I've heard of where a hospital chose to ignore legal documents when the persons involved were a same-sex couple who were not legally married.
Were the couple legally married, none of this would've happened.
As I already said, ideology is easy to defend if you ignore the people affected by it.
Florida needs to "clean up its act?" No. The whole damn country needs to clean up its act. You're not helping.
In Germany gay couples can have a civil union at the civil registries office.
Afterwards they have equal rights as married heterosexuals and also equal reponsibilities. It is according to our national law. But we do not call
it Ehe (German word for marriage) we call it eingetragene
Lebenspartnerschaft(German word for civil union).
We do have very well known politicians as Wofereit and Westerwelle living
openly as gay. A lot of popular singers and comedians in Germany are gays too. I'm sure most heterosexual people do not bother.
Discrimination of gays is not finished in Germany but civil union for gay couples works if they like to get married (German word for to marry is heiraten).
We do have two words for your English word marriage. We say Hochzeit and refer to the wedding ceremony. And say Ehe and refer normally with that to a married heterosexual couple.
RR
"But it seems to me that the absolute removal of procreation as a purpose of marriage could well lead to a further decline in the birthrate among married heterosexual couples."
Fucking good idea then.
There are too many people on the planet.
Post a Comment