Justly Married

February 20, 2004 12:09 PM

Justly Married Derek Powazek shares a series of images of same-gender couples who were married in San Francisco over the last week, and sells one stark image in poster form to raise funds for DontAmend.com, an organization committed to fighting the radical right's efforts to add an anti-gay marriage/union amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
posted by Dreama (309 comments total)

Putting aside if 'gay marriage' is right or wrong, I am constantly amazed at all the new 'rights' we keep fining in the Constitution, that were not there before.


posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:22 PM on February 20, 2004

finding, rather
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:24 PM on February 20, 2004

I think it's not so much the new rights as the, "Well, shit, you mean this right applies to even those people?!" In any case, the right in question isn't literally marriage but rather equal protection.
posted by callmejay at 12:27 PM on February 20, 2004

Something can be rightly regarded as a human right without being specifically enshrined in the Constitution. No where did it say "black people can vote," but it was determined that voting rights for all are part and parcel of more general guarantees in the document. The equal protection clause has constitutional weight, and I wouldn't be too surprised if those nine "activist judges" in Washington find themselves with no choice but to apply it here.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:29 PM on February 20, 2004

it's not a new right at all...callmejay has it exactly--it's that the same rights and benefits you get from entering into marriage apply to me too, steve.
posted by amberglow at 12:32 PM on February 20, 2004

Back on topic, those images are really moving. It's hard to imagine being opposed to that.
posted by callmejay at 12:34 PM on February 20, 2004

good lord, I'm tearing up. Those are great, truly joyful pictures.
posted by synapse at 12:37 PM on February 20, 2004

Putting aside if 'gay marriage' is right or wrong, I am constantly amazed bla bla bla

Hey Steve, the post was about pictures. Pictures of ordinary people thrilled that they could be married. Did you notice the pictures?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2004

Yeah, that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing is so obviously narrow.

Back on topic, I can't decide which one is my favorite. I don't think I've ever gotten so choked up looking at wedding pictures.
posted by scody at 12:44 PM on February 20, 2004

same sex, different ages.
posted by tomplus2 at 12:46 PM on February 20, 2004

Plus, Steve, where on the shirt does it say "Constitutional right?" It doesn't. Nice strawman though.

And thanks for pointing out the t-shirt! A shirt I might not otherwise have found will now be purchased by me and my wife :)
posted by terrapin at 12:46 PM on February 20, 2004

Yeah, that one made me do a double take, too. I almost said, "this is about gay marraige, not gay adoption!"
posted by jonmc at 12:48 PM on February 20, 2004

And, in case anyone cares, I'm 100% in favor of both.
posted by jonmc at 12:54 PM on February 20, 2004

cool post, thanx!
posted by archimago at 12:55 PM on February 20, 2004

It's just like Santorum said. First marriage, then bestiality.
posted by stonerose at 12:58 PM on February 20, 2004

Why can't one national politican stand up and point to the love on these people's faces? I think marriage is pretty silly overall, but I'm tearing up looking at these pictures. Why can't the Democrats have half as much discipline in our pluralism as Republicans have in their irrational hate? A big fat cookie to the first Democrat who responds to the "sanctity" argument by simply saying "well, then fuck off. It's your right!"
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:01 PM on February 20, 2004

Human contrivances can't really be considered inherent human rights, but still, cool pictures.
posted by xmutex at 1:04 PM on February 20, 2004

Ignatius, my gut agrees with you, but in an election year where every vote is at stake, I can understand how avoiding this political hot potato is somewhat pragmatic, especially if one considers unseating Bush to be the most important goal. If we get a Democrat in the Oval Office, then I have a feeling the issue will be solved through the appointment of right seeking judges or by turning it over to the states.

But I'll be the first to admit that I may be being naive and cynical at the same time.
posted by jonmc at 1:05 PM on February 20, 2004

I can understand how avoiding this political hot potato is somewhat pragmatic, especially if one considers unseating Bush to be the most important goal.

I guess you're right, but I also wonder why Democrats can justify that, and then be afraid of losing left-leaning voters to Nader (who apparently is running). All I know is that the Democrat strategy has been wildly unsuccessful of late, so my admittedly wild "don't be a fucking wuss" idea may not be too far out at this point. Is anyone in the party still willing to defend the past courtship of pro-segregation Southern Democrats?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:09 PM on February 20, 2004

The Republicans think they have a winning diversionary issue with Gay Marriage/Civil Unions.
posted by terrapin at 1:10 PM on February 20, 2004

I was there on Monday. Man, it was beyond amazing. Every time a couple came out - every minute or two - the crowd would go nuts and cheer and cry and blow bubbles and throw rice and cars would honk their horns. The statue of Abraham Lincoln was holding a rainbow flag.

I feel incredibly privileged to have seen it.
posted by rdc at 1:11 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm going to SF on march 5th--Steve, will you marry me? ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:15 PM on February 20, 2004

where on the shirt does it say "Constitutional right?"

Human Rights are nice and all, but only Constitutional rights matter.

Republicans have in their irrational hate

Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:19 PM on February 20, 2004

Steve, I don't think I remember the Consitution saying anything about people named "Steve" having the right to free speech, so I think you're going to have to stop posting now before you threaten the institution of MetaFilter any further.
posted by badstone at 1:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Nice things don't matter to Steve_at_Linwood. He'll give you nothing but trouble, amberglow.
posted by liam at 1:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Just because you don't realize you're a bigot doesn't mean you aren't one.
posted by callmejay at 1:30 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm going to SF on march 5th--Steve, will you marry me? ; >


Can I be the flower girl??
posted by jonmc at 1:31 PM on February 20, 2004

I was just there half an hour ago. I was with my friend who was going to vote (she is catching a flight out of town this afternoon.) She asked this whole crowd where she could vote and they all laughed. Finally, one man, noticing the confusion on her face volunteered "If you are really serious, you need to go..." Also a bunch of elementary schools seem to be all having field trips to city hall so the area is also packed with children (anyone know why?) It's like this strange atmosphere of pure joy.

Oh, and why not point out too that outside city hall there were a few young white males walking around with various T-shirts and sweatshirts which said, as I recall "Read the Bible", "Fear God" and another with the word "Fags" circled in red and crossed out. Ah well.
posted by vacapinta at 1:37 PM on February 20, 2004

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence (emph. added).

Unless the "pursuit of happiness" is a weapon of mass destruction, frankly, I don't see what makes any of this dangerous. Our nation was founded on the principles that all men (and thus humans in general) were created equal, which means hetero, same-sex, or bi. It goes against the spirit of this nation's founding document to prevent same-sex couples from marrying and, thus, precluded from "the pursuit of happiness" -- clearly on display in these photos.

Furthermore, can a case be made that marriage is free expression? If so, any law preventing same-sex unions would violate the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If a same-sex marriage ban became public legislation, it would be a law that respected an establishment of religion (Christianity, which bans homosexuality) and thus unconstitutional. It would also preclude the right of people to peaceably assemble or, for that matter, obliterate the right to engage in this very private freedom of expression. Thus, a marriage ban, from a freedom of expression standpoint, is unconstitutional.

A ban would also violate the Ninth Amendment, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Establishing an amendment or a bill is intended to grant rights (such as peaceful assembly and rights implied such as "the pursuit of happiness"), not deny them. Thus, a ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1) also prevents states from "mak[ing] or enforc[ing] any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So if a case can be made that a same-sex union ban deprives a person of "life and liberty," then a case could be made that it is unconstitutional for the States to enact legislation which prohibits people from enjoying the "life and liberty" of a same-sex union.
posted by ed at 1:37 PM on February 20, 2004

What Would Jesus Say?
posted by homunculus at 1:40 PM on February 20, 2004

Putting aside if 'gay marriage' is right or wrong, I am constantly amazed at all the new 'rights' we keep fining in the Constitution, that were not there before.

Well, Steve, we don't live in the same society that our country's founders lived in. They couldn't possibly have foreseen that our society would recognize homosexuals as a distinct category of people, as opposed to just people who commit homosexual acts. The founders were only human, and there's no reason we should defer to their wisdom in the area of rights.

I, for one, think it's great that judges can enumerate new rights that our founders never would have considered. Sure, there's the possibility of abusing the system, but for the most part it works darn well.
posted by Tin Man at 1:41 PM on February 20, 2004

Indeed, Who Would Jesus Do?
posted by liam at 1:43 PM on February 20, 2004

It's just like Santorum said. First marriage, then bestiality.
posted by homunculus at 1:45 PM on February 20, 2004

Human Rights are nice and all, but only Constitutional rights matter.

Well, they might be all that matter to the court system in the U.S. (and the U.S. is only one of many, many countries in this wide world, remember), but I would argue that, in a larger sense, human rights do very much matter. Remember, it was a consideration of human rights in the abstract that brought about the foundation of the U.S. Human rights are a powerful concept: one of the Enlightenment's biggest ideas. They have a great hold on the psyche of modern man, regardless of whether or not they are specifically enshrined in the U.S. constitution.

Obviously everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

Some people who disagree with me are bigots. I would hold that those who prefer to oppress an entire class of humanity are, by definition, bigots. I see no nobility in seeking a middle ground with such people--our country should have learned the lesson of Jim Crow and "separate but equal". No compromises with bigotry!
posted by mr_roboto at 1:47 PM on February 20, 2004

Steve, I don't think I remember the Consitution saying anything about people named "Steve" having the right to free speech

Wow, how clever.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that covers me.

If a same-sex marriage ban became public legislation, it would be a law that respected an establishment of religion (Christianity, which bans homosexuality) and thus unconstitutional.

Well since the purposed Constitutional Amendment doesn't "ban homosexuality" (it defines marriage as between a man and a woman) that is patently wrong.

I, for one, think it's great that judges can enumerate new rights that our founders never would have considered.

The problem with this is that there already is a way to "enumerate new rights" in the Constitution, and it does not involve Judges at all.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:48 PM on February 20, 2004

This is a good thing for Bush.
There will be something for the hardcore Christian vote to mobilize and rally around.

I wonder what Kerry is going to say about this. Should he be on the fence, or should he take advantage of widening acceptance of gay culture and gay chic and come out and support it, and look more humane and compassionate.
posted by Dukebloo at 2:00 PM on February 20, 2004

The problem with this is that there already is a way to "enumerate new rights" in the Constitution, and it does not involve Judges at all.

But an amendment can be ratified only if a vast majority of the people support it. And the majority isn't always correct. One great thing about the judicial system is that it can protect (or enumerate) minority rights that a majority of the people might not support.

And the justices are in tune with politics. They're not going to create a right that, say, only 15% of the people support. They know that if they created a right and the government refused to enforce it, their powerlessness would be revealed. After all, the Supreme Court has no power to enforce its rulings; its power rests on the people's sense of its legitimacy. The Court has never created a right unless there was a pretty large movement for it. The justices might sometimes move ahead of society, but not too far ahead.
posted by Tin Man at 2:09 PM on February 20, 2004

S@L, are you not moved at all by how happy those people in the pictures are? Seriously, I don't think anyone here thinks you or even Republicans are evil incarnate (although a lot of us think the current administration is doing a fuck-up job.) But, unless you're going to thump me with a Bible (which is probably the only thing that gets selectively quoted more than the Constitution) could you please just explain why these happy people, who aren't going to be butt-fucking/going down on each other in view of school playgrounds or anything, are such a threat to America as to require a constitutional amendment to say they should be able to commit to another person the way you or I can?
posted by Cyrano at 2:11 PM on February 20, 2004

"to say they shouldn't"
posted by Cyrano at 2:12 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm still curious, Steve: have you actually looked at the pictures? Of the human beings? In love? Wanting to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives? Have you not looked at them? Can you not see and appreciate the glow of love and pride and relief and joy?

I'm not being snarky; I honestly want to know what you see there. I see ordinary folks celebrating their love and commitment to each other -- something that, until now, has been denied to them. I want to know, because I'm genuinely curious: do you not care? Are they not worthy of the same rights and respect as you or I?

[on preview: jinx, cyrano!]
posted by scody at 2:16 PM on February 20, 2004

Kerry's already come out saying that the term marriage applies to a man and a woman, not anyone else. He adds a bunch of wishy-washy crap about how he kinda sorta but not really supports civil unions, but we'll see.

Pretty much everyone here on metafilter is in the distinct minority in the country. An overwhelming majority of americans feel what is going on in SF is wrong, and will likely side with politicians they agree with. It doesn't matter that it seems like an obvious social justice issue, or that most libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives agree that gay marriage is ok, most americans have a problem with it and see it as a threat to marriage, family values, and the morals of this country.
posted by mathowie at 2:18 PM on February 20, 2004

I would love to hear the worst-case scenarios from Steve or others. I'm guessing here, but are these the things that people opposed to gay marriage are really afraid of?:

- once married, they can adopt?
- makes "being gay" totally acceptable and gives it more legal standing?
- would force churches to recognize the marriages?
- would force priests/rabbis/justices of the peace/etc to perform marriages they don't agree with?
- people will starting trying to get married to inanimate objects, animals, and pets?
- gays seem non-monogamous so the marriages wouldn't mean anything and result in more divorces?

What else am I missing here? Is that the worst things that could happen if this went through?
posted by mathowie at 2:24 PM on February 20, 2004

Most americans have a problem with it and see it as a threat to marriage, family values, and the morals of this country.

Well, if the Second American Civil War comes about because of gay rights, at least it will be well catered.
posted by Cyrano at 2:26 PM on February 20, 2004

What's in a word? Plenty, if the word is "marriage."
posted by homunculus at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2004

"Forty U.S. states, including Massachusetts, once prohibited marrying someone of the “wrong” race, no matter how much you loved them. Social prejudice accomplished much the same result in other states. Marriages between whites and persons of color were decried as “immoral” and “unnatural.” Polls showed that overwhelming numbers of Americans agreed. Massachusetts forbade interracial marriage as early as 1705, a restriction which was ultimately changed in 1843 after a three year campaign in the legislature. The legislature understood that withholding marriage based on race was an affront to human dignity and denied our basic guarantees of equality.

Despite the public opposition to interracial marriage, in 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. In Perez v. Sharp the Court stated that:

“A member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains.”
The decision was controversial, courageous and correct. At that time, 38 states still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by state constitutional provision.

Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that:

* the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans;
* marriage is one of our “vital personal rights” and
* the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people].”

The parallels between the struggle for the freedom to marry then, and the struggle for gay and lesbian couples today is illustrated by the endorsement of marriage for same-sex couples by civil rights organizations ranging from the Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund, the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, the Mexican American LDEF, the National Asian Pacific American LDEF, and the Puerto Rican LDEF. " -- (Marriage - A History of Change).
posted by lola at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2004

The constitution and amendments to same work best when they define restrictions on government not people. The government can't tell you to shut up. The government can't lock you up without telling you why or giving you a chance to defend yourself. It is assumed as a matter of course that the public can do whatever the hell they want so long as everybody hasn't gotten together and agreed they won't in the form of a law/restriction. When the constitution tries to tell individuals what they can't do -- say for instance drink -- it's a total disaster.

What the proposed constitutional amendment really says is we used to agree that equal protection was important enough to restrict ourselves (the legislature) from writing laws that violate it. Now though, we'd really like to violate it, so we want to undo what we've done.

In a hundred years, with any luck it will be obvious what a horrible idea that was. Hopefully the horrible idea won't have been enshrined in the constitution where everybody can see what a bunch of uptight twits we were.
posted by willnot at 2:27 PM on February 20, 2004

The Democrats are horrible on this (I say this as a hardcore Dem). The Republicans even worse. It's not a new right, unless you feel that equal rights for minorities and women were "new" rights rather than honest interpretations of the constitution.

Two Men or Two Women get married.
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
posted by owillis at 2:29 PM on February 20, 2004

Can't you guys see? This is just furthering the gay agenda.
posted by owillis at 2:30 PM on February 20, 2004

But is it an issue that will sway undecided voters to the right or one that won't be considered important by the fence-sitters, while giving the left something to rally around that won't alienate a large majority? And providing the shot of energy that comes with doing the right thing? (The hard-right opponents are already so committed to their views and politically active, I don't think we have to worry about rousing them any further).
posted by liam at 2:32 PM on February 20, 2004

This is my favorite, from the Chronicle. . .
posted by Danf at 2:36 PM on February 20, 2004

* the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans;
* marriage is one of our “vital personal rights” and
* the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people].”

God, no wonder the John Birchers thought Earl Warren was a communist. (Thanks for the legal background, lola.)
posted by scody at 2:38 PM on February 20, 2004

people will starting trying to get married to inanimate objects, animals, and pets?

My brain is tickling trying to remember...was it a Duckman episode? Where Duckman goes to Mexico and runs across a big stadium wedding were the announcer says, "do you take this man, woman, cow or potted plant..."

That's not by any chance what you were thinking of when you wrote that, was it?

(Sorry for the derail. Steve, we're still waiting. And please understand, I/we want to know why you personally oppose gay marriage. I'm not asking my question as an attack. I just plain don't understand why this matters to you and would like to get a personal rather than political perspective.)
posted by Cyrano at 2:41 PM on February 20, 2004

Those interested in the full decision from lola's citations, goto LOVING v. VIRGINIA 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Oh, and I hate [HATE] it when the inanimate objects line is brought up. Is the inanimate object a consenting adult? No, then therefore can't get married now, or when gay marriage is allowed.
posted by plemeljr at 2:44 PM on February 20, 2004

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that covers me.

Does that mean you take back your opening comment?
posted by badstone at 2:44 PM on February 20, 2004

If we legitimize gay marriage, it means, and we all know this, that we admit that we're killing off the human species.

Coz, you know, gay sex is so much better than straight sex, no one ... NO ONE ... will be able to resist, and none of us will be thinking of the children.

You heard it here first. Gay people are the ancestors of the Borg. They're run by a queen, you know.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:46 PM on February 20, 2004

are you not moved at all by how happy those people in the pictures are?

Yes, I've looked that the photos. I can see that they are clearly happy. But, I attempt to not make my choices and decisions based on emotion. But as Andrew Sullivan points out himself this is exactly what is going on in San Francisco:

The debate will become how to tear gay couples apart, how to demean and marginalize them, rather than an abstract debate about theories of marriage.

This is a very smart politcal move by the so-called gay activists. They are attempting to reframe the debate from granting gays the privilege of marriage, to tearing apart just two happy people in love.

On perview: "Why?".... well fankly at this hour, I don't have the energy to write that much, but perhap later today.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:47 PM on February 20, 2004

Oh, man, thanks for more waterworks, Danf. I'm crying like a baby looking at this one. (Boy, after being together fifty-one years, they sure are a threat to the sanctity of marriage, eh, Steve? There oughta be a law, right? Right? No wonder poor Britney's marriage couldn't last 72 hours -- not when those immoral sodomites show such disrespect for holy matrimony!)
posted by scody at 2:49 PM on February 20, 2004

Coz, you know, gay sex is so much better than straight sex, no one ... NO ONE ... will be able to resist, and none of us will be thinking of the children.

Prove, Wolfdaddy. . . .now. . .

*smile*
posted by Danf at 2:51 PM on February 20, 2004

amazing pictures. How could anyone want to make such happiness illegal is beyond me.
posted by Sijeka at 2:58 PM on February 20, 2004

These photos are wonderful. I loved the photo of the two grannies who've been together 51 years! What an historic time. As for the debate, this is such a clear civil rights issue. I'm confident that in a decade or two, people will look back on this time just like we do on interracial marriage or women being able to vote.
posted by humbe at 3:00 PM on February 20, 2004

Although S@L remains S@L, I gotta thank him for that link to Sullivan's post. One paragraph that says quite a bit, and says it well.

Looking at all the pictures, and then reading a summation like that, I can't help but get all melodramatic inside and think that perhaps despite having lived in Bush's America, I might still be able to think back to this time someday and remember seeing the start of something big, and wonderful.
posted by pzarquon at 3:01 PM on February 20, 2004

The debate will become how to tear gay couples apart, how to demean and marginalize them, rather than an abstract debate about theories of marriage.

For the record, the rest of the passage:

And as these couples begin to feel what marriage is like, as they experience what civil equality actually is, they will become emboldened. Just as those who refused to leave segregated lunch-counters began to deepen their sense of moral outrage and conviction, so the act of getting married - something heterosexuals simply assume they have - is empowering. When Massachusetts becomes the first free state for gay citizens, the movement will explode. I predict thousands of couples from all over the country and the world will arrive to claim their dignity and rights - and this experience will help transform the argument. I've always believed that if we could get every gay man and lesbian to fully internalize their own equality, to get past the brutalization that society has wrought upon their souls, nothing could stop us from achieving our dream. Now the process is accelerating. Already consciousness has been changed. Already the very idea of equal marriage rights is in the minds and souls of a new generation. And when the religious right try to strip us of those marriages, and force us back into second-class status, then we will see something else: resistance. We are on the verge of the next phase of this civil rights movement: when we become the change we want to see in the world.

Here's hoping. I've known too many good gay men and women to accept anything less.

On perview: "Why?".... well fankly at this hour, I don't have the energy to write that much, but perhap later today.

Steve, I think myself and others framed our questions as an honest interest into what motivates your views. So, personally, I'm going to hold you to "later." (Although maybe not later today or even tomorrow. I'm not pushy. Please, take your time. And I mean that in an non-snarky way.) But, anything less will righteously be viewed as a cop-out.
posted by Cyrano at 3:04 PM on February 20, 2004

lesbian activists who have been together for 51 years

51 years? That's longer than my parents have been married.

And nothing says true love forever like a Harley T-shirt.
posted by deadcowdan at 3:10 PM on February 20, 2004

They are attempting to reframe the debate from granting gays the privilege of marriage, to tearing apart just two happy people in love.

Wrong, Steve. Wrong. It's not a "privilege" (which of course carries certain moral connotations of engaging in so-called "appropriate" behavior -- i.e., the preference to sleep with members of the opposite sex); as lola 's link already clarified, the U.S. Supreme Court already called marriage a "vital personal right."

Or maybe you think that the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries back in '67. I mean, after all, weren't Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving "just two happy people in love" as well? Do you mean to suggest that their love should also have been considered irrelevant in the face of upholding some sacred abstract principle of marriage?
posted by scody at 3:13 PM on February 20, 2004

But, anything less will righteously be viewed as a cop-out.

Given that Steve somehow found the energy to post two comments in the "Israelis kill crops" thread minutes after claiming exhaustion in this one, my money is on cop-out.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:15 PM on February 20, 2004

Steve, my offer still stands, and with jonmc as our flowergirl, we're golden. I love a man I can fight with. ; >
Meanwhile, this was brought about by the Mayor of SF, not an activist or anyone else advancing what you see as an agenda or new rights. The Mayor of Chicago agrees with him, and folks in government in New Mexico now too. (and don't forget Vermont, which showed how half-assed civil unions are) In the coming weeks and months, more and more public officials all over the country will be supporting this, and soon it'll be before the Supremes, where Scalia already said it was legitimized. An amendment to ban it would take years and years to ratify and Bush will be long gone by then--if Repubs think it happens fast, they're delusional. (and Bush is obviously counting on the delusional for his reelection if this is what he wants to focus on.)

That said, I do wish either Kerry or Edwards would get with the program on this.
posted by amberglow at 3:17 PM on February 20, 2004

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: "Americans have been tolerant of homosexuality for years, but now it's being stuffed down their throats and they don't like it."

So that's the scathing incisor-like logic we have coming from the "opposing view" which is nothing more than veiled bigotry of some degree or another.

There is, and I want to make this statement very clearly, absolutely no manner of logical opposition to gay marriage. Anyone who opposes allowing two individuals of the same sex to do what any other American can do does so out of emotive and bigoted reasons, or theological reasons. Mostly the latter is still just the former.

And neither emotion nor theology should guide the law of a land. Granted, it occasionally does but moral and rational people must concede that these such incidences should be righted as soon and as efficiently as possible.
posted by xmutex at 3:22 PM on February 20, 2004

Yes, people are happy, and yes, it's equality, blah blah blah.

But what all you seem to really want to know is why someone might be opposed to this. Disregarding the ludicrous inanimate object theory.

Here's my take. Marriage was a recognition of monogamy, yes, but also of the dedication of the participants to bringing up the next generation. Thus married people got some special privileges for making that committment. Now, since gay marriages are strictly for the romantic end of it (leaving aside cloning and in vitro and all that) in many people's minds this devalues the raising of children.

Further, gay marriage really does introduce a fundamental change in our society. Polygamy has a much stronger chance of being recognized; legal challenges for it are already being mounted by the polygamists in northern AZ and UT. To fundamental conservatives who still happen to make up a good portion of America, this is disturbing and strange.

To sum up, it takes away societal incentive and recognition for being parents (some think this is a good thing), and it is the first step in a fundamental shift of how our society will handle relationships between consenting adults.

I'm not gay. I find homosexuality fairly repugnant. But I still think that long-term relationships between adults should be recognized. I like committment and value it. So I think that in the short-term this is a good thing. But in the long-term, it will create some changes in our society that I might not like so much. So I remain ambivalent.

Maybe that will spark a little discourse.
posted by hurkle at 3:36 PM on February 20, 2004

check this out: It's legal for gays to marry in New York
... On the same day, the New York City clerk disregarded not only constitutional principles, but also existing state statutes by refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Unlike California law, New York's matrimonial law does not restrict marriage licenses to persons of the opposite sex, in the view of leading legal authorities. ... (like New Mexico)

(so add soon NYC to my list above, no matter what Bloomberg or Pataki thinks)
posted by amberglow at 3:37 PM on February 20, 2004

This is a very smart politcal move by the so-called gay activists. They are attempting to reframe the debate from granting gays the privilege of marriage, to tearing apart just two happy people in love.

Those evil gay commie bastards trying to corrupt our bodily fluids. They fight us, because they hate our freedom.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:37 PM on February 20, 2004

hurkle: That's not logical. Gay marriage will remove no such societal incentive because it will still apply and remain entirely unchanged. Gay marriage does not affect straight marriage, does not in anyway devalue or reorganize or 'fundamentally shift' the institution of marriage, has approximately zero bearing on anyone's marriage at all.

Your argument has the queer implication (ha ha ha!) that gay marriage might incline someone who would otherwise marry and breed to instead choose gay marriage. I can see that being the only potential 'threat.' Otherwise, it seems to make no sense.

I have no problem with people marrying for the pure romance of it. I hope to one day marry my girlfriend and we have discussed it and will likely have no children. Are we devaluing the institution of marriage?
posted by xmutex at 3:44 PM on February 20, 2004

So hurkle, if so much of marriage is still (presumably) tied up in the notion of being able to raise the next generation, what do you think about the rights of straight couples who get married who don't bring up children? And I don't mean because they're not able to conceive or adopt -- but because they have absolutely no intention of doing so in the first place? Has that "create[d] some changes in our society that [you] might not like so much"? Given that so many (millions?) of married opposite-sex couples don't have kids, I fail to see how the potential social cataclysm argument is really anything other than another straw man.
posted by scody at 3:49 PM on February 20, 2004

Can we stop framing this entire discussion as a question-and-answer session with the stupidest person in the room? Derek Powazek's photos and the event they describe are too great to let one dedicated know-nothing monopolize the conversation.

The thing I haven't heard from genuinely intelligent opponents of gay marriage is what we're losing by recognizing these unions. I can't find a microscope powerful enough to detect any effect the couples in San Francisco might have on the sanctity of my marriage, and normally, you'd expect that if a constitutional amendment is being drafted to solve a problem, you'd expect someone to identify the actual problem.
posted by rcade at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2004

XMUTEX: I think you miss the point, dude. Marriage gave economic and societal privilege to people to help raise kids. Now marriage is not for such a purpose anymore. Next phase, why should married people get the breaks when single people don't? Single people are people too. Where's the equality? I'm not saying people will be disincentived to breed. I'm saying that the fundamental reason marriage received protections and benefits is no longer a valid reason for it to receive such any more. It would not be equal for it to continue. It will be removed eventually as part of the equality-levelling process. Or do you think that somehow straight marriage should be a little more special than queer marriage?
posted by hurkle at 3:50 PM on February 20, 2004

Thanks for the response hurkle, but this key point you're making:

Marriage was a recognition of monogamy, yes, but also of the dedication of the participants to bringing up the next generation. Thus married people got some special privileges for making that committment. Now, since gay marriages are strictly for the romantic end of it (leaving aside cloning and in vitro and all that) in many people's minds this devalues the raising of children.

But it doesn't hold water when there are a couple hundred years of american marriages that didn't produce children. But I'm not religious and I've always seen marriage as an act of committtment, not a promise to raise kids.

Given that there are many happily married heterosexual people that can't have kids or choose not to, homosexual marriage doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but then again I never say kids as vital to the process.

I've always thought that gay couple adoption was why everyone opposed gay marriage, because so many people think that gays somehow corrupt kids or teach them to be gay or something. Since getting legally recognized as married would mean adoption would be easier, I figured that what was really driving this ammendment against it business.
posted by mathowie at 3:53 PM on February 20, 2004

Further, gay marriage really does introduce a fundamental change in our society. Polygamy has a much stronger chance of being recognized; legal challenges for it are already being mounted by the polygamists in northern AZ and UT.

Hurkle, I myself have no desire to be polygamous, but can you come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed? I make this point not to defend polygamy, but to show that the slippery slope argument between gay marriage and polygamy makes no sense. Each issue should be argued on its own terms. Perhaps there's a reason why gay marriage should be allowed but polygamous marriage shouldn't be. If so, okay, no polygamy. If not, then we should allow polygamy.

Polygamy will stand or fall on its own terms. I'm tired of the slippery slope argument being used as a reason to prohibit gay marriage.
posted by Tin Man at 3:55 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm not gay. I find homosexuality fairly repugnant.

Oh dear. I'm sure this will come as a great disappointment to that tuxedo-clad fellow I've just sent over to your house with a dozen roses and a wedding band. Because, you see, you're going to be forced to marry gay! [with thanks to Jon Stewart]
posted by scody at 3:56 PM on February 20, 2004

To sum up, it takes away societal incentive and recognition for being parents

According to this logic, we should give lesbian couples twice the marriage benefits, since they can propagate the species in parallel.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:56 PM on February 20, 2004

also, there are many thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of naturally-derived and adopted and in-vitro children already living with their lesbian moms and their partners, or gay dads and theirs. Children are actually a good and important reason to do this.
posted by amberglow at 3:57 PM on February 20, 2004

rcade: nice insults - beautiful way to avoid having a conversation. You must be proud. Also, I'd be amazed if you could detect any change in society with your microscope over the past few hours, seeing as how societal change can take years if not generations to show up. Snap to the conversation instead of your emotions.

scody: I didn't set up a straw man. And I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth. I never said social cataclysm. I said things I might not like. And hey, it's America. I'm allowed not to like certain aspects of society. Regarding straight couples that choose to be childless - it's not been much of a concern of mine, as marriage has been heading this way for a long time. Once single parenthood was established to be normal and sufficient for raising a child we were on our way. this is just another step. And I'm amazed that you sidestepped the fact that I think this is a good thing, and simply ignore the fact that I think we are fundamentally changing society. Even some of the other posters state that this is a historical moment. I just see it as historical with what I feel is a little more of a long view.
posted by hurkle at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2004

As Bill Maher recently said (not that he is a bastion of intelligence) "anything you can do drunk at 3 in the morning in vegas is not sacred. " The words 'privilege' and 'sanctity' are pretty hollow given the current status and statistics of the institute of marriage.
posted by dig_duggler at 3:59 PM on February 20, 2004

hurdle: that may have been the original intent but there are a lot of exceptions to that even without gay marriage. A lot of people decide not to have children, some of them are so sure of this that they have surgical procedures done. Some people just can't conceive. Other people put it off until it's a good time for them and it never is.

I haven't heard anybody argue that non-child bearing marriages are somehow wrong or undermine marriage even if there always was an intent not to have children. If what somebody else does undermines your marriage then your marriage is horribly weak.

What this is really about, in my opinion of course, is the loss of one of the final accepted prejudices. They lost racism, they've also lost sexism. If gay marriage and homosexuality becomes accepted to the point where the average person feels "Well, it's not something I'd ever do but whatever floats their boat" then the prejudice becomes unacceptable. Those who continue to berate gay people will be treated like the uncle nobody talks to who still talks about "niggers" at the family reunion.
posted by substrate at 4:02 PM on February 20, 2004

Marriage gave economic and societal privilege to people to help raise kids.

This might have been true in the 1800s or something, but it's preposterous to think that marriage has this function any longer. Like matthowie said, millions of heterosexual marriage exist without either children or even the intent of children. It's not at all a prerequisite. Therefore marriage doesn't exist has a benefit or privilege for the procreating class. Moreover it's seen as very much a deep and personal choice to have children and not in anyway tied to the institution of marriage.

Now there is actually a genuine debate to be had over the whole idea of legal interpersonal relationships and the benefits given to them but it's irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage: because marriage exists for two consentual American adults it should therefore apply to all.

And thanks to Lola (and I'd refer you back to his/her post if I could figure out what the HREF would be but alas, just scroll up) for the astouding SCOTUS legal precedent that says marriage is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people]" and that 'the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans.'
posted by xmutex at 4:02 PM on February 20, 2004

mathowie: I don't feel a need to defend polygamy because I never said it was bad. I simply said we're facing a shift in society.

scode: Thanks for making fun of my honesty (wrt "I'm not gay").

I included that to make the point that I think the commitment between adults should be applauded and recognized even if I find what they do personally repugnant. But hey, that's America. I'll defend to the death your ability to do what you want and say what you want. What I find odd, though, is that all I get is attacked and made fun of for having an alternate viewpoint and an opinion. If anyone is showing bigotry, it ain't me.
posted by hurkle at 4:04 PM on February 20, 2004

I'm saying that the fundamental reason marriage received protections and benefits is no longer a valid reason for it to receive such any more. It would not be equal for it to continue. It will be removed eventually as part of the equality-levelling process.

And I'm amazed that you sidestepped the fact that I think this is a good thing, and simply ignore the fact that I think we are fundamentally changing society.

OK, Hurkle -- although you weren't addressing me, I won't ignore what you said. Sure, it's possible that gay marriage could have unforeseen consequences. But everything has unforeseen consequences. In my opinion, it's good to rethink traditions, and if there's no viable reason to keep them going, they should end.

(If there's a viable reason to keep them going, they should of course continue.)
posted by Tin Man at 4:07 PM on February 20, 2004

And also, what other people said. There are already childless heterosexual marriages, and there are lots of gay couples raising kids.
posted by Tin Man at 4:10 PM on February 20, 2004

hurkle, I didn't bring up polygamy, but I do thank you for posting here and wish people would stick to the issues instead of attacking you. I geniunely want to know what the opposing viewpoint is on this issue.

Personally I'm trying really hard to figure out what about a legal gay marriage does to "fundamentally change society" but I can't come up with much beyond general acceptance, some minor spouse-related laws, and adoption. I don't see this costing insurance companies or health care companies much money, and the money raised by all these marriages would certainly spawn an entire new industry.

A lot of people think this is a big deal, and I'm wondering what exactly makes it a potentially big deal, as it seems like a harmless thing to me.
posted by mathowie at 4:15 PM on February 20, 2004

What I find odd, though, is that all I get is attacked and made fun of for having an alternate viewpoint and an opinion. If anyone is showing bigotry, it ain't me.

Maybe the reason you're "attacked" is because your arguments carry no more weight than standing up in 1964 and saying "I think black people having sex with white people is repugnant, but I'll tolerate it as long as they don't demand the right to marry".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:18 PM on February 20, 2004

I think that for a lot of people on the con side, the choice isn't gay marriage vs. committed gay couples without legal sanction. It's gay marriage vs. no gays. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to know about it, they just want homosexuality to disappear off the face of the Earth. Because if you think about it, if there are going to be gay couples, including gay couples with children, who should be first in line demanding that they get married but conservatives?
posted by callmejay at 4:21 PM on February 20, 2004

I geniunely want to know what the opposing viewpoint is on this issue.

And I think that's what a lot of us have been saying this entire thread.

Tell us what makes it wrong for you. Not wrong for society. Not wrong for democracy. Not for America. But wrong for you.
posted by Cyrano at 4:22 PM on February 20, 2004

Gay marriage as a gateway to polygamy and the breakdown of civil society? Fear.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Nice post, Dreama. Couldn't have done better, myself.

Looks like New Mexico's doing the right thing, too:

(CBS/AP) A county clerk in Bernalillo, New Mexico issued marriage licenses Friday to at least 15 gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, and dozens more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.

The latest incident of gay civil disobedience came as foes of the weddings headed back to court in California to stop San Francisco from giving licenses to same-sex couples.

In New Mexico, a sign-up list at Sandoval County courthouse grew to 38 couples after county clerk Victoria Dunlap announced she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But on the other side of fairness and freedom...let's see....at least locally, we've got our own resident waffler-cum-apologist for outright bigotry: Steve@Linnwood. And let's see...the support he provides for his righteous indignation that gays want "new" constitutional rights was based on...wait for it.... an image of a fucking T-shirt (fer chrissakes) which actually spelled out the words "H-U-M-A-N rights" right there before his ownest eyes.

~chuckle~

To Steve@Linnwood and his ilk, I say: keep it up. Really. Wonderful job. You will continue providing exactly the same easy target as those right-wingers who fought against equal rights for minorities in the recent past, no matter how you try (and they tried) to quibble and spin the issue into legal nitpicking.

Ameican IS changing....for the better.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:30 PM on February 20, 2004

Incidentally, this just in: "Gay and lesbian couples won another reprieve Friday when a judge declined to immediately stop San Francisco from granting them marriage licenses, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm."
posted by Tin Man at 4:31 PM on February 20, 2004

I geniunely want to know what the opposing viewpoint is on this issue.


The problem with the anti-gay-marriage spokespeople I've heard (and I'm not pointing this solely at hurkle) is that it seems that they start with the supposition "Gay marriage is bad" and from there try to work out reasons for the suposition. In a word, they're rationalizing. Whether you agree with it or not, the pro-marriage side of this debate has a very simple statement: "We deserve access to the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else." It's a pretty clear, unambiguous stance. The arguments against have a "but . . . but . . . " feel to them. This article pretty much sums up what the prominent arguments against are, and the author(s) skewer(s) them pretty well.
link from owillis' blog
posted by deadcowdan at 4:32 PM on February 20, 2004

And if it comes down to it say, "well, I just don't like fags..." At least cop to it. Be honest.

(And I'm not attempting to read the minds of those on the other side of this issue [although, I'm sure {because I've met them} some people {not necessarily in this forum} actually hold such an opinion.])

(on preview: I've agreed with foldy twice in one day now. I need a drink...)
posted by Cyrano at 4:33 PM on February 20, 2004

Polygamy has a much stronger chance of being recognized; legal challenges for it are already being mounted by the polygamists in northern AZ and UT.

I wouldn't think so. There are lots of not-stupid policy reasons to restrict legal marriage to only two people, mostly dealing with extension of benefits. Restricting marriage to only two people self-limits a lot of fraud -- I'd be reluctant to enter into a sham marriage with someone in order to get him or her on my health insurance, or to get him or her into the US, because being married to them means not being married to whoever I actually want to marry.

Allowing full legal polygamy would create obvious incentives to enter sham marriages, which would in turn make the government even more intrusive into which marriages are valid and which are fake. It's bad enough the crap that my Canadian bride and I have had to put up with, and will have to continue putting up with, from INS/BCIS. Having to put up with a similarly intrusive process in other circumstances... ooh.

It also creates lots of problems with marital decision-making. If Husband1 is in the hospital on life support and Wife1 and Husband2 say to pull the plug, but Husband3 says not to, what should the hospital do?

None of which means that a bright person couldn't come up with a way to manage these concerns, only that there are at least not-obviously-invalid reasons to limit legal marriage to a single couple. Unlike gay marriage, where the only conceivable purpose behind forbidding gay marriage is finding it repugnant.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:35 PM on February 20, 2004

Thanks to those commenters who have focused on the nature of the post; the beautful and moving pictures. The images are not really subject to debate. Excellent post, Dreama.
posted by moonbird at 4:38 PM on February 20, 2004

The images are not really subject to debate.

Word.
posted by Cyrano at 4:39 PM on February 20, 2004

My partner and I were turned away at the County Clerk's office in Sandoval County, New Mexico this afternoon. With no formal ruling, they decided to suspend issuing same-gender licenses and closed the office.

We watched couple after couple get married, and cheered for them, but were unable to enjoy that happy moment ourselves.

I hope that nobody else ever has to be turned away on the day they want to marry the person they love. I'm still shaken up by it.

I've never felt like a second-class citizen until today, and I'm still too hurt to be mad.

Hopefully, the mad will come later.
posted by answergrape at 4:50 PM on February 20, 2004

Allowing full legal polygamy would create obvious incentives to enter sham marriages, which would in turn make the government even more intrusive into which marriages are valid and which are fake. It's bad enough the crap that my Canadian bride and I have had to put up with, and will have to continue putting up with, from INS/BCIS. Having to put up with a similarly intrusive process in other circumstances... ooh.

It also creates lots of problems with marital decision-making. If Husband1 is in the hospital on life support and Wife1 and Husband2 say to pull the plug, but Husband3 says not to, what should the hospital do?

None of which means that a bright person couldn't come up with a way to manage these concerns, only that there are at least not-obviously-invalid reasons to limit legal marriage to a single couple. Unlike gay marriage, where the only conceivable purpose behind forbidding gay marriage is finding it repugnant.

Interesting analysis of polygamy - I was just wondering about that. But what about, say, sibling marraige - aside from the issue of genetics & children (although today we don't prevent known carriers of genetic disorders to breed), what is the reason for banning them aside from their being "repugnant" to others (mainly, I might add, from a religiously-based value system)?
posted by laz-e-boy at 4:54 PM on February 20, 2004

Our friends over at MonkeyFilter are also talking about the good and bad things that happened in Sandoval County, New Mexico today.
posted by answergrape at 4:58 PM on February 20, 2004

Hurkle, please. I'm not making fun of your "honesty" -- I'm straight too, so I trust you'll believe me when I say I'm not "bigoted" against the breeding types. I was taking a jab at the idea that your admitted personal distaste for homosexuality is somehow separate and incidental to the social consequences argument you're trying to lay out. If you're going to hang your hat on the arguement that marriage is (or was) for procreation and that your discomfort stems from the breakdown of that, then your problem is not with homosexuality -- as has been amply demonstrated, A) many straight married couples do not have kids, and B) many gay and lesbian couples already do. In fact, if that's really your concern, then you should be supporting gay marriage, because it will make it that much easier for gays and lesbians to adopt children and bring up the next generation.

So if that's not the case, then frankly, you're trying to have it both ways -- that is, you say you find the idea of two men (or two women) together to be "repugnant," yet you want to claim that that's got nothing to do with your concern over the issue. But given that your "non-repugnance" portion of the argument (i.e., the ways in which gay marriage might potentially harm society) doesn't hold water, I'm left with assuming that you are actually driven by your repugnance in this case. And since the fact that you personally wouldn't want to be married to someone of the same sex is completely irrelevant, those of us (gay and straight) who do support gay marriage are still left wondering: what specific social/political problem would a ban on gay marriage solve?

On preview: moonbird, I don't think you can really fault the discussion for going to the broader implications and political argument that's taking place all over the country (as answergrape's maddening experience today shows). I've made it clear I'm deeply moved by the content of those photos -- of course. But the post itself also links to dontamend.com -- those of us who are moved by what we see in those photos must, I believe, confront the forces in this country who will try to stop these marraiges from going forward. Maybe one day same-sex marriages will cease to be political lightning rods; until then, however, each of those beautiful images represents not just the story of a couple's love, but also a chapter in the emerging saga of a social revolution.
posted by scody at 5:01 PM on February 20, 2004

answergrape: Your statement, painful as it was to make, is very powerful. You keep goin', girl.
posted by moonbird at 5:05 PM on February 20, 2004

Armitage Shanks: Oh, that was a beautiful post. Because I don't like homosexuality I must be a bigot/racist/sexist. Man, you are too much. Talk about close-minded!

Many of you wonder why people are opposed to gay marriage. I tried to present the arguments as I understand them, without ever saying that I viewed gay marriage as a bad thing. Yet I have been insulted for genuinely trying to answer the original post about why people are opposed. No wonder there's so little actual discourse.

Mathowie: you're right. All change leads to more change. However, my point is that this is simply another point on the slide into a different society. And I'm not happy about some of the things I foresee, regardless of whether gay marriage is good or bad.

Another poster said they felt that restricting marriage to two people would be the "right thing" and that they doubted that polygamy would become de rigeur. Without finding the actual articles, there have been two legal challenges in favor of polygamy since the Massachusettes Supreme Court approved same-sex marriages. Why aren't you all leaping on that person for daring to imply that two people are better than many? I mean, where's the line? And if there is a line, then why there? Why not further or nearer?

By the same token, if I said that I found infatilism or plushy activity fairly disgusting but would support your right to do it, would it give all of you who took such offense the same degree of outrage, especially those who insinuate, like Armitage Spanks, that I am a bigot for having my own ideas about what I like in my life and what I don't.

I don't like naziism, but in America they get free speech. But judging from our little conversation here, the only people who shouldn't get free speech are those who aren't as "politically correct" as you all. Conservatives - oh no. They are WRONG. People who find the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender disquieting? BIGOTED! WRONG! Especially if you dare to say it.

Once again, for those who steadfastly refuse to actually read and think about a post, I think this is right and just. But that doesn't mean I don't like what I see as some of the potential implications.

I thought that some of the Patriot Act was a good idea too! But I didn't like the full bill and what it means for personal privacy.

I think that child abuse is horrible, but I think that we have given the government way too much control and influence over our private lives.

These are my opinions. If you want to debate them in a reasoned way, as some do, then I'm all for it. However, if you want to insult me and call me bigoted for not thinking as you do, I suggest you get busy attending to the motes in your own eyes.
posted by hurkle at 5:18 PM on February 20, 2004

get busy attending to the motes in your own eyes.

Um, I think that's supposed to be the logs in our own eyes. Let's make sure we get our clichés right.
posted by deadcowdan at 5:24 PM on February 20, 2004

deadcowdan: re: logs. I don't get the reference. Sorry.

scody: I'd hope that you weren't bigoted against the "breeding types", seeing as how us breeders made you.

I think I made it clear that I believe that allowing same-sex marriage is the Right Thing (tm) to do. I think I also made it clear that I think that it is an indication that we are changing society pretty quickly. I think I also made it clear that I believe if we're not careful, we're going to end up with the Hiroshima of the relationship movement on our hands. The questions this opens up for public discourse are: Why should marriage only be limited to two people? Why should those two people not be from the same family, especially if they aren't going to be breeding? Mother-son? Father-daughter? Brother-sister? Father-son? Mother-daughter?

One thing that I really am HAPPY about because of same-sex marriage is that when two lesbians get divorced and fight over the kids, there will be no way to apply presumptive maternal custody with two mothers on the line. Thus I think in this area we will see - eventually - more joint/shared custody and parenting. I think we'll see the growth eventually of communes - or at least large open families. Do I think this is a good thing? No, not right now. Am I open to thinking about it and discussing it and deciding if I am making an intellectual or emotional decision? Yes.

Are some of the people I see posting here capable of the same thing? Yes. Do others appear to be? Hmmm.
posted by hurkle at 5:29 PM on February 20, 2004

scody: That's a sound argument, and I can buy that. But the discussion felt as if it was getting a bit too divisive, a rip-roaring debate that has been hashed out here many times in many ways. Is it possible for us to celebrate or ignore these picutres without getting into a virtual arm wrestling match over the legal and ethical implications? I don't know, but your point is well taken.
posted by moonbird at 5:30 PM on February 20, 2004

Armitage Shanks: Oh, that was a beautiful post. Because I don't like homosexuality I must be a bigot/racist/sexist.

In your own words, you find homosexuality "repugnant". Unless you can articulate a valid reason for that, then yes, you're bigoted against homosexuals.

I didn't say that you were a racist. I simply pointed out that the arguments you presented against gay marriage in 2004 could have been spoken almost word-for-word by racists against inter-racial marriage in 1964.

those who insinuate, like Armitage Spanks, that I am a bigot for having my own ideas about what I like in my life and what I don't

Sigh. See above.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:32 PM on February 20, 2004

hurkle: Because I don't like homosexuality I must be a bigot...!

bigot. \Big"ot\, n. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. [Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary]

Hurkle, I respect your right to hold a particular view on any subject you see fit. What I don't much respect are those who don't question the motives, implications and blind-spots in their own world-view. Why isn't it ok for the government to recognize the union of gay people? I have yet to hear any opposition that doesn't, yes, stink of bigotry - with that unflinching, uncritical view that this must be wrong, even if it's impossible to articulate quite why.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I just wish that people with your position would be a little more critical with their thinking, and look beyond gut, (literally) homophobic, unChristian, unsympathetic feelings like "homo sex is gross". They're two human beings in love: let's celebrate that.
posted by Marquis at 5:35 PM on February 20, 2004

I believe if we're not careful, we're going to end up with the Hiroshima of the relationship movement on our hands

Love will end because a small subset of the population is allowed to make their love "official"?
posted by badstone at 5:42 PM on February 20, 2004

answergrape, I second that keep the faith cheer. Frankly, as someone who is both a heterosexual in a non/never will be childbearing marriage and also a believer that we ought to take seriously the ideas that make is better people, I simply do not understand the heated opposition to either gay marriage or homosexuality in general and have yet to hear an argument that does not rely on the invisible man in the sky saying [Church Lady voice on] Bad... baddd [/off].

Hurkle, who I will say I think got harsher treatment in this thread than the initial comment deserved, does bring up what I think are valid points for discussion and its too bad they got lost in the heat.

Why, at a logical level, not allow polygamous marriages? The economic issues are pragmatic and therefore (IMO) not worthy of rising to a consitutional level, as are some of the legal confusions such as how to make decisions. Why should we continue to base tax laws on marital status? If we, in a majority rules the group sense, want to give certain economic benefits to households with children, that's fine but follow through and be consistent. Etc...

Plus, I love the photos and the bestiality column homonculus linked, thanks!
posted by billsaysthis at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2004

As usual.. Derek says it so perfectly in pixels.
Beautiful.
posted by Latitude11 at 5:46 PM on February 20, 2004

I SPENT ALL DAY AT CITY HALL. Let me tell you, love was in the air, so much so that certain hallways were getting a bit stuffy. Here's a video [19MB Quicktime] from my camera (a still camera that does not take great video) in which you can see the line as it stretches from the clerk's office (bottleneck of the whole operation) well into the basement. Video is from about 3PM and Flo & Anne (my friends at the end there) had been there since 10AM, so folks up front had been there much longer. The widespread laughter and spontaneous cheers were not so obvious by 3PM, but they were still happening. Sorry about the bold caps there, just trying to stand out as an addition to the images in the fpp as opposed to the noise of the ensuing discussion.
posted by damehex at 5:47 PM on February 20, 2004

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right

Marquis, this is precisely my point about the anti-Hurkle comments. He never said he was unquestionably right and in fact said he sees no legal or logical reason to deny gay marriage, just that personally he finds it distasteful. In none of his words did he ever say or suggest that others should refrain from homosexuality because of his feelings.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:49 PM on February 20, 2004

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
-Matthew 7:3, KJV

Okay, beam, not log. Pretty much the same thing. You should have said that we're the ones with beams in our eyes, not motes.

Never mind.
posted by deadcowdan at 5:49 PM on February 20, 2004

Marquis:Hey, according to your definition, you're bigoted for judging me to be bigoted! Cool!

Now did I say I was unquestionably right? Um. No.

Did I say that homosexuality was unreasonable or wicked? Um. No.

Am I intolerant of it? Um, no. Seeing as how I mentioned I'd fight to the death your right to do it, even if I DON'T LIKE IT.

Am I blindly devoted to it? Um. No.

Sorry, Marquis, you judgemental doofus. You lose. Try again. It's okay not to like homosexuality. But it's not politically correct. It's also okay not to like President Bush, but try telling the Dixie Chicks that. Get over yourself.

You tell me, why ISN'T it okay for me to not like homosexuality. I never said it was wrong. I never said it was evil, just that I didn't like it. Why are you so intolerant of that? Didn't you just say What I don't much respect are those who don't question the motives, implications and blind-spots in their own world-view. Try it. Maybe you'll like it.

Armitage Spanks: I also don't like Brussel Sprouts. I know they're good for me, I just don't like them. Guess that makes me a bigot against Brussel Sprouts. OOPS! Read Marquis' definition below. Guess not. I'd say judging by your intolerance and hatred, you're the bigot. Amazing isn't it. Here you are all proud of how open-minded and wonderful you are, supporting same-sex marriage, patting yourself on the back for being so thoughful and intellectual, and yet you can't stand that someone actually says they don't like it. Not that it's bad or wrong, they just don't like it. C'mon Mr./Mrs. Intolerance-Pants. Grow up. Get over your gut-level reactions.
posted by hurkle at 5:50 PM on February 20, 2004

spanked.
posted by Marquis at 5:53 PM on February 20, 2004

You're all a bunch of fucking hate-mongerers.
posted by xmutex at 5:58 PM on February 20, 2004

Oh, and the pictures are very nice. And I must admit, the couples are in love. That's just how I looked the day I got married.

Not to mention the whole thing about the flowers being sent from all over made me sentimentally shivery. That was beautiful.

Even if it was for icky gays.
posted by hurkle at 6:01 PM on February 20, 2004

By the way, that was a joke. Poor taste maybe, but it should be said with a wink in the voice. If you get what I mean.
posted by hurkle at 6:02 PM on February 20, 2004

I've never felt like a second-class citizen until today, and I'm still too hurt to be mad.

Answergrape, I am so, so, so sorry.

*THIS* is what is wrong with the other side of this argument. Making people feel like this.

Answergrape, you are not a second class citizen. You just live in a country where many, many people think they should legislate their PREFERENCES on such minutia.

Why can't anyone on the other side say why this is wrong without resorting to religious declarations or outright bigotry?
posted by Ynoxas at 6:03 PM on February 20, 2004

Guess that makes me a bigot against Brussel Sprouts.

I suspect that you don't dislike the actual entity itself, rather you dislike the taste and/or smell. Perhaps you have a similarly rational objection to homosexuals.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:04 PM on February 20, 2004

I don't see how the polygamy arguments stem from gay marriage arguments. We're talking about making a minor change from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people" - extending that to polygamy is a slippery slope argument. That said, if there were ways to sort out the legal benefits of marriage such that polygamous marriages were "fair", I see no problem with it. Nor do I see a problem with incestuous marriages - since genetic counselling is already strongly suggested to those with genetic defects in their family lines, there's no reason the same counselling couldn't be extended to an incestuous couple (remember that the problem has to exist in your genes in the first place for inbreeding to increase the chances of its occurring) - as long as everyone's a consenting adult, I don't see a problem.

answergrape - I'm so sorry you couldn't get married today, but don't despair. And what Ynoxas said.
posted by biscotti at 6:05 PM on February 20, 2004

AS: You're right. I do. It makes me feel all icky on the inside.

And I was raised in Santa Fe. So while I intellectually accept it, I just viscerally don't.
posted by hurkle at 6:07 PM on February 20, 2004

Damehex: great video! Wow!
posted by moonbird at 6:36 PM on February 20, 2004

Totally off topic but I have to say this gay marriage in SF thing certainly makes me like our mayor more. That and the fact that he is actually going to crime scenes in the projects to see for himself how tough it is to solve murders in low income neighborhoods. In a couple of ways, he's thumbing his nose at the establishment. Pretty impressive for a rich politician.
posted by culberjo at 6:44 PM on February 20, 2004

Folks, don't feed into hurkle's victimization party. He/she is part and parcel of the whole problem. Whether it grows out of not liking icky gays or not, that isn't the issue anymore. The issue is that people are getting hurt, and too many people on the obviously undefendable side of this are co-opting pain at all our bigotry. To them I say: "Guess what, buckwheat? If you defend a stupidity, you should feel bad!".

Steve brought up earlier that the debate will now be framed as one of breaking up happy couples instead of being the rational discourse of society. Bullshit. This was never about the rational discourse of society. It is about the fact that there are people in pain who want relief, want satisfaction and want justice in a supposedly just society. The arguments against that don't hold water ... never have, never will. The rational debate? There are many here who rationally pointed out the ludicrous nature of hurkle's defense against gay marraige. To hurkle's credit that may have been the most rational of all reasons to prohibit same sex unions, and it has no base in reason at all. But we're all supposed to calmly debate while others are hurt. Sorry, No.

And now we have the defenders of the rational proposing a change to the foundational document of our political society ... to define a word. A fucking word! This is not rational, its idiotic, bigoted, and defies the very principle of the seperation of church and state. But God forbid any of us librals ought' point that out, 'cause we might hurt the feels of those who defend a lunacy. From this backwoods bubba to all you enlightened folks who think that the Constitution should defend the word of God I give a hardy "too bad and tough shit". Deal with the fact that human lives are too important to leave at the mercy of your definitions.

Gee, hurkle, I'm real sorry that there were folks slapping you around with words on your computer screen. Might I suggest in the future that if you are going to play devil's advocate that you don't take it so personally. But if you do back a failing and stupid argument, kindly don't expect me to weigh your pain against that of people who just want to have the rights and privilages of a loving life-long union. Simply put, hurkle, do you expect me to feel worse for you than I do for answergrape? I don't. Get over it.

(answergrape, in contrast to the great feeling I've had about the events in San Fransisco, I was deeply angered and hurt by what happened to you. The wife had to stop me from raging and ranting around the house. What happened today in NM wasn't legal, or right, and I deeply hope that the happiness and justice you deserve will be yours very soon.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:46 PM on February 20, 2004

There's one thing missing from this discussion -

Many happy years for the couples who've gotten married; may your lives together be what you wish them to be.

Congratulations!
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on February 20, 2004

Wulfgar: how nice of you to compare my feelings to answergrape's. I didn't. Once again, it's the old game of put word's in someone's mouth and then slap them out.

Of course you shouldn't compare pain, but you're the one who did. I didn't ask for it.

Of course, why should I expect better from someone who can't handle the fact that I don't agree with you. If you feel that gives you cause to call me part of the problem, I's say you're the problem. But that must be what you are calling liberalism: say what you want, and insult what you don't like.

Once again, I never said anything against same-sex marriage, I gave the arguments as I understood them. And for that I have been told I'm a bigot, and get commentary from idiots like you who can't let their intellect override their reason.

Yes, you read well at first glance, but your whole diatribe is based on nothing more than "feelings". Something made you feel good. Then something made you feel bad. Is that liberalism? Acting on feelings instead of intellect?

I'm not a victim. But I am completely aghast at what I see as some of the more intellectual, enlightened, humorous souls on the internet totally freaking out at one small person speaking something that isn't in the religion of political correctness. No matter how many times I've said this is a good and just thing, close-minded people liek you still need to vent their little feelings, instead of acting from an intellectual viewpoint.

But of course. You actually urge action instead of thought. How dare anyone discuss anything when people are being hurt right now! Shoot first! Ask questions later! It doesn't matter who's wrong. Give in to your anger, Luke!

As far as answergrape goes, I can feel for him/her deeply. In fact, I was ashamed of my "icky" joke because on post I read that message. But that's the net - can't take it back.

But my human understanding and empathy has nothing to do with my feelings about homosexuality. It's nice I can use my brain to analyze them. It's too bad you apparently can't use yours to read my posts before you start spouting off.
posted by hurkle at 7:18 PM on February 20, 2004

Final notes:

1. This discussion clarified for me why I think same-sex marriages are okay and the next progession in the evolution of society.

2. It made me realize that I need to rethink where I think society will take the concept of "two adults" instead of "a man and a woman". Perhaps it won't be as bad eventually as I think it will be. And why I think it is bad stems from my moral upbringing. Perhaps that will change.

3. It made me humanize the debate - the same thing that eventually changed my mind about abortion.

4. It made me realize that leftists and liberals can be just as hateful and blind and rabid as any right-wing conservative. Note to self: watch out for this in future.

Thanks.
posted by hurkle at 7:26 PM on February 20, 2004

Even if the Constitution doesn't have wording in it that allows same-sex marriage, it does have wording in it that makes international agreements equal to law, so long as they don't contravene the Constitution.

And according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the US is a signatory...

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

It doesn't say that the couple has to be a man and a woman, nor does it say, for that matter, that the couple can't be a triad, dyad, etc.

Alternately, you can believe that those who are born with mixed genders or who are infertile are not entitled to marry. Your choice...

Personally, I think it's time we start forcing the infertile to divorce, because obviously God made them that way on purpose, and they are acting in an abominable method contrary to God's plan... right?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:26 PM on February 20, 2004

If Gays have the right to get married, hetrosexuals have the right NOT to get married. You know, be a respectable citizen of the community who is happily single and seeing 2 or 3 partners, perhaps kids with a bunch of people. Many people allready live this lifestyle but are the kids better for it, is the community stronger for it? Typically not according to most studies a 2-parent household is the strongest.

That is the nightmare scenario for the conservatives. Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of the family, from the perspective of the Right.
posted by stbalbach at 7:51 PM on February 20, 2004

Isn't the divorce rate in America currently around 49%?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:10 PM on February 20, 2004

To put it another way.. just as there are forces to prevent gays from being married, there are forces on hetrosexuals to be married. Legal and otherwise.

If gays can get married, than straights should not pay (higher taxes etc) for not being married. All the arguments for why gays should get married can be turned around and the same thing said for hetrosexuals freedom to not be married.
posted by stbalbach at 8:16 PM on February 20, 2004

I've thought for a while, based on the way that France managed to get civil unions approved a few years ago, that activists should stop talking about "gay marriage" and focus on getting equal legal rights through civil unions. The idea of "gay marriage" seemed to me to be a way to antagonize people like hurkle who feel unconfortable about homosexuality, and hand Bush a perfect fundraising opportunity to mobilize his base of support.

These photos and this thread have changed my mind. Actually seeing peoples' faces makes the problem real. Respect to Derek Powazek for the kind of political action that actually might change things, and respect to hurkle for being able to think about different points of view (something that I still think activists need to work harder on).
posted by fuzz at 8:18 PM on February 20, 2004

Okay, there is no reason to have a constitutional amendment for "saving marriage." But, if this continues, then dammit I want divorce to be outlawed and codified into the Constitution as well.

What's that? No, divorce is okay?! Well, I guess we are not that worried over the "institution of marriage" of marriage then. Hypocrites.

Wake me when we are done with this hypocrisy. I now know what Jim Crow was like when we dealt with "those sub-humans." Here is the segregation of our generation.

Pathetic narrow minded
Real things to worry about (poverty, literacy, cancer/disease, etc. etc. and this is what people raise their anger about.)
posted by fluffycreature at 8:41 PM on February 20, 2004

Oh, one more thing.

Seperation of Church and State - recall this from the Constitution? Well, remove all tax credits and other loop holes for being married. The government should not be in this business, right?
posted by fluffycreature at 8:43 PM on February 20, 2004