Portland Joins SanFran

March 3, 2004 12:18 PM

Portlandjoins other cities in offering gay marriages. Multnomah County didn't consult the state Attorney General before they started issuing licenses, though, which is a bit unusual. Forgiveness easier than permission? There's also a Unitarian Church in downtown Portland that is performing same-sex marriage ceremonies, if you're interested in a church wedding.
posted by SpecialK (73 comments total)

With more and more municipalities offering this, and Bush's constitutional amendment already DOA, I'd say it's game over. Same sex marriage will mainstream in a matter of years.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:22 PM on March 3, 2004

Wow. This is starting to remind me of file sharing vs the RIAA. Update your rules and concepts, or have everything bulldozed over quite unceremoniously (well, besides the actual marriage ceremonies, I suppose).
posted by VulcanMike at 12:44 PM on March 3, 2004

There's also a Unitarian Church in downtown Portland that is performing same-sex marriage ceremonies...

This is an interesting angle on the gay marriage rights debate that I have yet to hear much discussion of. If religious authorities start sanctifying same-sex unions, using the word marriage, doesn't the whole thing become a free practice of religion issue? Isn't the state now formally discriminating against the Unitarian Church?
posted by mr_roboto at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2004

Forgiveness easier than permission?

To ask permission is to seek denial.
posted by mkultra at 12:48 PM on March 3, 2004

all i've got to say is WOO-HOO!
posted by moonbird at 12:50 PM on March 3, 2004

If religious authorities start sanctifying same-sex unions, using the word marriage, doesn't the whole thing become a free practice of religion issue?

IANAL, but I think the argument would be that the civil authority invested in priests to perform legally-binding marriages doesn't cover same-sex marriages. The religious nature of the ceremony is beside the point.
posted by mkultra at 12:52 PM on March 3, 2004

to quote Bill Maher, (from memory, his HBO show this weekend, talking to a conservative bore on satellite) "isn't this just too strong a wave to fight, no matter how hard you try to put a finger in the dyke?"

(and the woman on the satellite didnt catch the joke!)
posted by Peter H at 12:53 PM on March 3, 2004

Straight couples have long had shotgun weddings. Queers now have brushfire weddings.
posted by divrsional at 1:11 PM on March 3, 2004

If religious authorities start sanctifying same-sex unions, using the word marriage, doesn't the whole thing become a free practice of religion issue?
Religious authorities have been performing marriages for a while, in selected spots and selected denominations (some Reform temples, and some Unitarian churches, as well as others), but they don't issue marriage licenses--that's a separate thing issued by the locality or state.

I'm pissed about here--Eliot Spitzer, our Attorney General, said today that same sex marriages are illegal here.
posted by amberglow at 1:18 PM on March 3, 2004

mr_roboto: That's an interesting point... however, that argument has some case law against it. The Surpeme Court ruled that the government could outlaw polygamy, and the plantifs used a freedom of religon argument.

In terms of Unitarian Universalism by itself, ministers and churches having been doing gay marriages for decades now. It's not something a minister or church has to allow to be a UU church, and it's only started really catching on in the past 10 or so years. Of since it's against the law to perform a marriage without a license, they've been forced to call them "commitment ceremonies" and the like until now. To see how important gay marriage is to the UU Association, notice that all of the major stories on the front page of their website are supporting it in some way. (On preview, what amberglow says too. I think that some UUC ministers have been willing to do gay ceremonies, but I honestly am not sure.)
posted by skynxnex at 1:24 PM on March 3, 2004

As a proud Unitarian Universalist, I'd just like to make the distinction that the proper terminology is, in fact, 'Unitarian Universalist/ism', not 'Unitarian/ism'.

That having been said, this issue has been strongly taken on by our congregations, and we are in the process of becoming one of the first (if not the first major) religions to declare our full and unconditional support for complete equality for LGBT persons and their families and children in all matters 100%, including marriage and adoption.

In fact, our national organization has already made several Actions of Immediate Witness in support of same-sex families (with or without children). We are currently drafting a resolution to make this a permanent part of our constitution and to call on the government to guarantee these freedoms to every person.

This is a religious issue. There are many people who want to claim the definition of marriage for themselves and cloak themselves in the robe of 'sanctity', 'religion' and 'tradition', but our religion, which has judeo-christian roots, believes in the rights of same-sex families and that the government is willing to recognize some marriages performed in our church and not others is inherently religious discrimination.
posted by PigAlien at 1:30 PM on March 3, 2004

amberglow- Spitzer's stance is the correct one. As AG, he's bound to uphold the law, even if he thinks it's incorrect (which he said he does).
posted by mkultra at 1:45 PM on March 3, 2004

All I have to say is:

Yay!!!!

The more places that do this, the happier it makes me.
posted by jearbear at 1:45 PM on March 3, 2004

but if our marriage law doesn't mention gender, why is it illegal?
posted by amberglow at 2:04 PM on March 3, 2004

more on it from Richard Goldstein
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on March 3, 2004

This really is starting to piss me off. This is becoming one of the main issues in the Presidential primary and god only knows how it will blow up in the November election.

It is becoming so bad that a lot of my friends are using this as a deciding factor in voting which is just insane. All of the real issues are being looked over because of all of the attention that Gay Marriage is getting in the media.

I really wish this would calm down until we try to elect a new President. Then we can start the debates.
posted by bmxGirl at 2:17 PM on March 3, 2004

Ahhh, Portland. Home of the 24-hour Church of Elvis. (Where you could get married, at least when I lived there in the early 90s)
posted by Karmakaze at 2:20 PM on March 3, 2004

As AG, he's bound to uphold the law, even if he thinks it's incorrect (which he said he does).

Why? San Francisco ignored the law in issuing same-sex licenses that are plainly illegal; just as Judge Moore ignored the law and kept the 10 commandments in his courtroom in defiance of a superior court order; the Supreme Court ignored the law and created a non-existent right to abortion in Roe v. Wade; the South Dakota legislature last week ignored the law and outlawed abortion (the bill will be signed soon). Judicial activism started with the civil rights movement, and now it's poisoned every single branch of government against the presumption that regardless of how we feel about it, we have to follow the law. So why should AG Spitzer be expected to oppose illegal homosexual marriages, and why should then-AG Pryor be expected to oppose leaving the 10 commandments in Judge Moore's courtroom? Because the law says so? Nobody cares about that, not anymore.
posted by gd779 at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2004

Judicial activism started with the civil rights movement, and now it's poisoned every single branch of government against the presumption that regardless of how we feel about it, we have to follow the law.

This is a bit of historic know-nothingism. The SCOTUS first "created" law with the Marbury vs. Madison decision in 1803; executives have been happily ignoring the law at least since Jackson ordered the Cherokees removed in the 1830s. The sky has yet to fall: this is how our government struggles with the inevitability of social change.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:38 PM on March 3, 2004

"It is becoming so bad that a lot of my friends are using this as a deciding factor in voting which is just insane."

Don't worry. Kerry and Bush have very similar rhetoric on this issue. The only difference is that Bush wants to amend the Constitution to prevent certain people from getting married. If Bush wants to press this through the election he's going to look like an extremist. Which he can't do because it will make his bad poll numbers even worse. Count on him to pretend this issue doesn't exist, since he already took it too far.

Personally I think Kerry is a jackass for not supporting same sex marriage. But it will help him in the election.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:48 PM on March 3, 2004

The SCOTUS first "created" law with the Marbury vs. Madison decision in 1803; executives have been happily ignoring the law at least since Jackson ordered the Cherokees removed in the 1830s.

That's true, (generally, anyway - I'll quibble with Marbury in a moment). What I meant to say was that it was during the civil rights era that we came to believe in judicial activism as a valid means of changing the law; it entered into our common consciousness. Sure, there'd been the odd case of it here and there throughout history, but there wasn't the concerted and organized effort to "pass legislature" through the courts that we have today. It's the difference between noticing the odd crime in a mostly law abiding community, and a "den of thieves" where crime is acceptable and normative.

Technically, however, Marbury v. Madison was about the Supreme Court creating law to fill a vacuum, it was not about defying the existing law. (At least, that's my recollection from my now-long-past constitutional law course). That's a whole different creature, particularly in light of the fact that the nation was just getting started, and the legal system wasn't perfect yet.
posted by gd779 at 3:09 PM on March 3, 2004

The sky has yet to fall: this is how our government struggles with the inevitability of social change.

Why can't the legislature be trusted to "struggle with the inevitability of social change?" The cost of common judicial activism is to reduce the rule of law to politics - nothing more, and nothing less. And when laws and rights are routinely created by people that no one voted for, democracy has become a casualty of the social war. As Jefferson said:

The germ of disillusion of our federal government is in the [composition] of the federal judiciary... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief with a field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped.

-- Thomas Jefferson to Chalres Hammond on August 18, 1821. Albert Ellerybergh, ed., 14 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 331-332.

If you still don't believe me, imagine this: Bush wins reelection, and during his next term three or more Supreme Court justices die. If Bush manages to appoint even one or two "pro-life" justices, Roe v. Wade is gone for good. And it'll be years before the "pro-choice" movement might be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices that favor their cause. Is that really the way you want the abortion question to be decided?
posted by gd779 at 3:17 PM on March 3, 2004

I really wish this would calm down until we try to elect a new President. Then we can start the debates.

Just my opinion, but that's the wrong attitude. Where a candidate stands on issues such as equality for all citizens under the law is pertinant. Where a candidate stands on seperation of church and state is pertinent. Where a candidate stands on manipulating the Constitution is pertinant. What a candidate uses to buy votes from a particularly loathsome sector of the population is very pertinant.

This issue has direct bearing on the elections because it shows where a condidate stands on protecting your individual rights. Bush has been an enemy of personal rights since day one of his Presidency. He panders to your tax issues while selling your Constitution to the religious zealots for their votes and financial support. He appears willing to sell your second ammendment rights for votes. He appears willing to sell your first, fourth and fifth ammendment rights for votes. His stand on same sex marraiges is part and parcel of why no one should trust this man. His motivation is re-election, not serving the people or protecting the sanctity of the Constitution WHICH HE IS SWORN TO DO. Like it or not, this is a campaign issue, and one that people would be well advised to pay attention to.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:19 PM on March 3, 2004

"... This year, a growing number of ministers in our movement, myself included, have pledged not to sign marriage certificates until such time as gay couples can legally marry.

...As religious liberals, we are called to speak and act out of our principles and purposes. When we raise our voices and act from this ground, we can be extraordinarily effective in strengthening the liberal religious voice for justice.

That is why I am making family values and family matters central to my public witness work over the next three years. The furor that followed Senator Santorum’s April remarks suggests that our convictions about the rights of bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender persons are shared by a growing segment of the American public."

UU President William Sinkford
From the July/August 2003 edition of UU World
posted by whatnot at 3:22 PM on March 3, 2004

Make sure not to vote for any public official whose actions in his or her position do not reflect your wishes as a constituent.
posted by Hildago at 3:33 PM on March 3, 2004

What I meant to say was that it was during the civil rights era that we came to believe in judicial activism as a valid means of changing the law

I wouldn't say that. While some important decisions were made by judges, those decisions were more-or-less nice, straightforward applications of the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The judicial activism WRT civil rights was the Plessy court that warped the equal-protections clause into nothingness. The civil-rights courts merely started taking the plain words on the page seriously.

And an awful lot of the civil rights era came to fruition in acts of Congress -- the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act -- not in any court case.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:39 PM on March 3, 2004

As AG, he's bound to uphold the law, even if he thinks it's incorrect (which he said he does).

Why?

Because Attorney General is not a legislative function. don't freak on the NY AG. He's on the side of the angels in leaving it up to the courts and supporting the licenses publicly in word even if he's not able to in deed.

Personally I think Kerry is a jackass for not supporting same sex marriage. But it will help him in the election.

Word. I'm about as excited about him as I am about the next flavor of Cheerios.
posted by scarabic at 3:43 PM on March 3, 2004

"Make sure not to vote for any public official whose actions in his or her position do not reflect your wishes as a constituent."

More than anything this strategy will drive people away from the polls and cement the power of special interests. If I were to follow your advice I wouldn't be voting in the next presidential election. Which, I dare say, is about the worst thing I could do to further my own interests, or the general well being of my nation.

"I'm about as excited about him as I am about the next flavor of Cheerios."

Just stay tuned as he shines a light on Bush & Co for the next eight months as they try to scurry behind obfuscation and spin. It will be great fun.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2004

I'm pissed about here--Eliot Spitzer, our Attorney General, said today that same sex marriages are illegal here.

Actually what he did was uphold the law. What an asshole he is huh?

What I find amusing is that people are arguing over a piece of paper. Because that is all it is. CA has a law that makes all the "weddings" in SF invalid. NY has ruled them illegal. So all you have is a piece of paper, that no one will recognize. If that makes you feel better, then good for you.

This is going to play out in the courts for years.



I'm about as excited about him as I am about the next flavor of Cheerios

I like that saying. Pretty much sums up how I feel about that talking head too.
posted by a3matrix at 3:59 PM on March 3, 2004

a3matrix, as a symbolic action it was more important than a mere piece of paper that makes someone feel better. The ball is now rolling. It's almost irrelevant now what Bush or anyone else says about the matter. What has begun must come to its logical end. We aren't going to simply go away no matter what laws are passed. An object in motion stays in motion, and bigotry and hatred are not a force strong enough to stop it. Bush is going to regret every making that statement as this has energized gay people in a way I am sure he never intended. So they amend the constitution. You think we are not going to fight until that ammendment is repealed? And if you think we are raising a stink now, you just wait, the culture war has only begun, my friend.

Do people think that gay people are going to go back into hiding, stop loving and living shared lives? No one can be that clueless. The will immediately become a non-issue to the nation as soon as it becomes a non-issue to gay people.
posted by archimago at 4:08 PM on March 3, 2004

what archimago said
posted by amberglow at 4:19 PM on March 3, 2004

.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:23 PM on March 3, 2004

Well, y'know, solidarity...
posted by dash_slot- at 4:23 PM on March 3, 2004

I heard of one incident already (sorry, no link) of an alleged "homosexual marriage" being broken up by police in a central Asian country.
I wonder if the idea is spreading?
posted by kablam at 4:35 PM on March 3, 2004

it was inSaudi Arabia, but facts are murky.
posted by amberglow at 4:53 PM on March 3, 2004

this is a really exciting time.
posted by palegirl at 5:52 PM on March 3, 2004

As a proud Unitarian Universalist, I'd just like to make the distinction that the proper terminology is, in fact, 'Unitarian Universalist/ism', not 'Unitarian/ism'.

In Portland yes. But I hope you aren't speaking for everyone as up here in Canada (please pardon the website design) we are proud Unitarians.
posted by futureproof at 6:34 PM on March 3, 2004

of course, futureproof :) our Unitarian brothers and sisters in Canada we are proud to be associated with! Its just too common for people to abbreviate to 'Unitarian' or even just UU, which doesn't really give proper respect to our diverse heritage. Why should the poor Universalists be ignored because they're listed last? That's exactly why partnerships argue over who's name goes first on the marquee.
posted by PigAlien at 7:12 PM on March 3, 2004

y6y6y6: Don't worry. Kerry and Bush have very similar rhetoric on this issue.

They aren't the only ones running. Many of you, insolated here at MeFi, can't seem to grasp that the voting majority is against gay marriage and are actively deluding yourselves into imagining that Kerry is gonna steamroll over Shrubya. I wish I had your confidence, but from where I sit -- even ignoring an October "capture" of Bin Laden which would frost your aspirations decisively -- you are about to see the GOP divide and conquer the Democrats in textbook fashion, and this will be a key issue. They can neatly sidestep the "homophobic" epithets by framing it as a fight against judicial activism. People frustrated at the current end runs around the law will vent said frustration at the ballot box. Bank on it.

You guys are taking an enormous gamble. Even in the best scenario Dems will have a difficult time holding their current Congressional numbers. A "moderate" backlash will set them back significantly. Moreover, the next Prez will certainly tip the complexion of the SCOTUS with up to (3) probable appointments (plus CJ).
posted by RavinDave at 7:27 PM on March 3, 2004

and we can frame it as a fight for civil rights (just bringing up that Bush is the party of Lott and Helms to name 2 will do it). Americans don't want to discriminate--Bush does, but that's a losing proposition.

Jobs, jobs, jobs--where are they? That's the defining issue this time, and Bush will repeat his father's mistakes (and lose) if he runs on gay marriage and culture wars instead of the economy.
posted by amberglow at 7:40 PM on March 3, 2004

and "judicial activism" perfectly describes what they used the Supremes for in 2000 about Florida--let them try and continue to use it. Gay marriage and culture wars isn't what most voters care about--they care about the economy first and foremost. Millions have lost their jobs since Bush got in. He's done squat about it.
posted by amberglow at 7:47 PM on March 3, 2004

"can't seem to grasp that the voting majority is against gay marriage"

If Bush wants to make same sex marriage a prominent issue he'll lose big time. Kerry can just ignore it. He's said he's against same sex marriage, but also against a Constitutional amendment. Which is also the majority opinion in this country. Are you following me this time RavinDave? Kerry has the majority on this issue, not Bush.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:33 PM on March 3, 2004

Gay marriage and culture wars isn't what most voters care about

I think that's our default position. Oddly, the only time that the culture wars really did come into national prominence was in '92, when the voters roundly rejected the whole ball of wax. The more that people see this as a screaming minority trying to railroad the rest of us into their own short-sighted morality, the more that people will care about the issue--in that they'll vote for the nutjobs to shut up.

I watched the live news coverage of the Portland marriages/press conferences today, and even a mild social conservative could not possibly have looked at the scence of happy couples and piss-filled bigots and determine that the screaming, sandwich-boarded haters aren't the ones who are really countercultural.

Every day that this drags on, equality makes concrete gains in people's hearts and minds. Today I'm proud to live in Portland. What town will be next?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 8:34 PM on March 3, 2004

y6y6y6: Kerry has the majority on this issue, not Bush.

So what? Bush has the majority on the overall issue. I know you're not trying to say that opposition to a constitutional amendment somehow translates into support for gay marriage.
posted by RavinDave at 9:16 PM on March 3, 2004

I know you're not trying to say that opposition to a constitutional amendment somehow translates into support for gay marriage.

But Kerry also says he's against gay marriage. The difference in their opinions is that one of them supports an unpopular constitutional amendment. That person is Bush.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:31 PM on March 3, 2004

"Bush has the majority on the overall issue."

No. You are not listening on purpose. What a handy debating skill. And it's a non-issue, or it's a big loser for Bush.

Again. The majority is against same sex marriage, and against a constitutioanl amendment. This is Kerry's position. Right?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:37 PM on March 3, 2004

Maybe Bush genuinely believes in the constitutional amendment route. Maybe he's tossing it out as a sop to the rabid right (it's certainly a quick way to put his opposition in the public eye). The point is that he is taking concrete action to oppose it, and that's all people need to see. What is Kerry going to do when asked: "How do you intend to stop these activists from skirting the law to push their agenda"? There will be no skating.
posted by RavinDave at 9:47 PM on March 3, 2004

"One good thing about gay nuptials: It'd drive the mullahs mad."
posted by homunculus at 10:01 PM on March 3, 2004

homunculus-
That Hitchens article really brings into focus what I think could be a long-term effect of the gay marriage debate: the long-awaited divorce of at least some significant portion of the intelligent and principled conservatives from the GOP. I know a lot of self-styled conservatives who have stayed with the Republicans simply because they hate paying taxes or have fond memories of Barry Goldwater (who took to calling himself a "liberal" late in life, but anyways...), and once you throw this attempt to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution in with the PATRIOT Act and this administration's demonstrable contempt for sound decision-making on matters from intelligence to spending, I'm hoping we might get to see some serious cleavage. Forget Lincoln, would Eisenhower still support the party of theocrats and war profiteers?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:35 PM on March 3, 2004

link for ridiculous assertion about Goldwater
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:37 PM on March 3, 2004

RavinDave:

So Bush is going to run on 'oh, we have to stop the evil gays?' I'm sorry man, but the guy becomes more of a joke every day. Sure, there were once a whole hell of a lot of true-believers who seemed unwilling to abandon the man under threat of death. But then we had Iraq and never found the motivation, and a few of them started asking questions. And then a few came home in boxes or minus a leg or two, and a few more were lost. Then many noticed that they were unemployed, and that all of these tax cuts didn't seem to be making a damn of difference. And Bush lost a lot of sympathy by 'coming out' with the gay marriage amendment. I think a lot of people began to realize that yeah, he's in it for his own hide, and doesn't give a shit about anything else. He spouts terr'ist and nine-eleven in a constant, repetitive drone, in the hopes that we'll shut down our brains and huddle up in fearful balls and forget to watch what his cronies are actually doing to the world. But it's not gonna work. His magic words have already almost lost their edge, and the campaign is just getting started. He has a bunch of the same old bullshit rhetoric to explain the dive in the economy, why Iraq wasn't a horrible idea, why he's been gutting thirty years of environmental laws, etc. Eventually, more people realize that he's just feeding the same old cynical line. When people realize they've been duped, they aren't happy about it. There are major rifts forming within the republican party right now over the budget and the president's total disregard for the basic ideas of American democracy.

The tide is turning.

I'm going to sit and watch with great satisfaction as Bush gets drowned.
posted by kaibutsu at 3:11 AM on March 4, 2004

but if our marriage law doesn't mention gender, why is it illegal?

To play, well, Devil's Advocate, the argument is that marriage inherently means one man, one woman. If the law says "marriage is legal" you can no more redefine marriage to mean a union between two men then you can redefine marriage as marijuana and claim that pot is now legal.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:05 AM on March 4, 2004

"How do you intend to stop these activists from skirting the law to push their agenda"?

1) Do you have any idea how loony that sounds?
2) States rights.
3) Activist judges? I thougt the issue was the sanctity of marriage.
4) If you change the US constitution every time you disagree with a judge, the constutution becomes meaningless.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:11 AM on March 4, 2004

the argument is that marriage inherently means one man, one woman. If the law says "marriage is legal" you can no more redefine marriage to mean a union between two men then you can redefine marriage as marijuana and claim that pot is now legal.
Then why is "inherent meaning" equal to legal meaning? Isn't what the laws actually say (in NY and Oregon, for instance) what counts? Isn't that why other states (but not NY) passed DOMA explicitly spelling out that it's a man/woman only thing? Because there were openings in the law, and that the current laws didn't forbid gay marriages? And because state constitutions called for equality, opening another way for gay marriage? Wasn't it their fears that actually caused them to explicitly spell it out with DOMA?

A) Is their fear enough to deprive me of rights others have? and B) Given that DOMA and other law changes were created and passed to explicitly spell it out, haven't states that didn't do that have left themselves open to gay marriage? (letting alone the state constitutional thing, which certainly does allow it, i think.)
posted by amberglow at 5:40 AM on March 4, 2004

People are not seeing that these "activist" judges are just responding to the will of the people. People in the minority are still people who deserve the benefits of the majority. No judge, no mayor, just woke up one day and figured it would be a swell idea to allows gay people to marry each other. They are responding to what the people want. If you don't want it, don't marry a gay person.

I reiterate what I stated earlier. There is no going back to before San Fran, Mass, Chicago and now Portland. In typical Bush fashion, he stepped right in it and made it worse because he is blinded by Jesus.
posted by archimago at 5:51 AM on March 4, 2004

I'll bet that if you put it to a vote, most people would want Judge Moore to be able to post the 10 Commandments in his court (or on government grounds). I have to wonder how many people who hold your view don't see the inconsistency when they condemned Moore for his judicial end run.
posted by RavinDave at 9:05 AM on March 4, 2004

Why can't the legislature be trusted to "struggle with the inevitability of social change?" The cost of common judicial activism is to reduce the rule of law to politics - nothing more, and nothing less.

how is it that when judges change the laws, it's reduced to politics, but when politicians change the laws, it's not? Isn't "politics" a kind of inescapable part of the evolution of social norms and regulations?

And when laws and rights are routinely created by people that no one voted for, democracy has become a casualty of the social war.

well, the judges are experts chosen by people who were voted for, so it's not like they're unrelated to democracy. And the whole point of our constitution was to protect rights that mob-rule might not protect - the legal standing of citizens cannot be decided by the tyranny of the majority, etc.

If you still don't believe me, imagine this: Bush wins reelection, and during his next term three or more Supreme Court justices die. If Bush manages to appoint even one or two "pro-life" justices, Roe v. Wade is gone for good. And it'll be years before the "pro-choice" movement might be in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices that favor their cause. Is that really the way you want the abortion question to be decided?

If it weren't for a supreme court decision to start with, that issue could easily have been decided by the republican majority and the president himself. As it is, he has to hope to be able to appoint new justices that are approved who will decide the issue the way he would want it. And the judges cannot just say, "abortion is wrong"; they have to respond to the specific claims and arguments made in favor of its being legal, the current decision of the increase of the fetus's rights over the course of the pregnancy, etc.

I'm not saying judges should just do whatever they damn well please, or that we shouldn't focus on changing legislation, but I think the occasional flexible interpretation or even blatant overstepping of the law is not a sign of the end of the republic. I think it's just another way to attack the issue.
posted by mdn at 9:42 AM on March 4, 2004

I'll bet that if you put it to a vote, most people would want Judge Moore to be able to post the 10 Commandments in his court (or on government grounds).

What possible evidence can you have for this?

I'm sorry for you that you think a man wanting to post a religious monument in a public building is comparable to a demographic of people acting in protest to a gross injustice. The suffragists were once arrested for protesting the injustice of not being allowed to vote. Sometimes you have to break the law to show how foolish it is.

No one was telling Moore that he couldn't worship his God, he just couldn't do it on property that is beholden to the "Separation of church and state" part of the constitution.
posted by archimago at 9:43 AM on March 4, 2004

It's the exact same situation; he (and his followers) believe just as deeply in their agenda and that they are justified in thwarting the law as you and your side. You cannot logically support one approach and condemn the other.
posted by RavinDave at 9:57 AM on March 4, 2004

I like Vera Katz's quote ... very poignant against conservative arguments:

"Katz asked, "In a world where we worry that promiscuity is rampant, why would we not embrace those who are pledging fidelity?"
posted by SpecialK at 10:53 AM on March 4, 2004

Sometimes you have to break the law to show how foolish it is.

Exactly. If Rosa Parks had started a petition drive, she'd still be sitting in the back seat collecting signatures.

It's the exact same situation; he (and his followers) believe just as deeply in their agenda and that they are justified in thwarting the law as you and your side. You cannot logically support one approach and condemn the other.


What do you want? Civil disobedience is open to all. Moore chose to break the law, and it backfired on him. Rosa Parks and Gavin Newsom broke the law, and only history gets to arbit whether their claims were more valid than Moore's. It's important to note, however, that the Portland case is not civil disobedience. Multnomah County's legal advisor was asked for an opinion--and a second opinion was then sought--and the conclusion was that not allowing gay marriages violates Oregon law.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:50 AM on March 4, 2004

It's the exact same situation; he (and his followers) believe just as deeply in their agenda and that they are justified in thwarting the law as you and your side. You cannot logically support one approach and condemn the other.

Sure I can, RavinDave. With the 10 Commandments issue, Supreme Court cases had already settled that Moore's actions were unconstitutional. With the gay marriage case, it's not settled law. In fact, Mayor Newsom has already said that if the courts go against him, he'll stop the gay marriages. The situations are not comparable at all.
posted by Tin Man at 12:23 PM on March 4, 2004

Then why is "inherent meaning" equal to legal meaning?

Because laws are made of words, and words have meaning, and even if you specially define some terms within the law to have meanings other than their standard English usage, those definitions themselves are made of words, and at some point you have to use the regular English-language meaning of words in the law.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:20 PM on March 4, 2004

Then why did so many states add specific wording to their marriage laws with DOMAs to specify "one man and one woman"? Doesn't that mean that the meaning actually wasn't inherent? There would have been no need to do that if what you say is so.
posted by amberglow at 1:26 PM on March 4, 2004

The word "voter" in the US used to mean only land-owning white males. The meaning of that term changed as more people were able to vote. Now "marriage" will change as more people are able to marry. I still don't see how "inherent meaning" has any significance (especially legally) at all, given the vast changes we go through all the time as a society.
posted by amberglow at 1:30 PM on March 4, 2004

amberglow Doesn't that mean that the meaning actually wasn't inherent?

Are you really taking the position that the original legislators of US marriage laws meant to include "gay marriage" in their definition? That stretches credulity well beyond honesty. The parsimonious explanation is that they considered the Male/Female paradigm so self-evident that it didn't merit elaboration.

You guys remind me of the GOPers, who didn't object to the criminal SCOTUS activism in Gore v. Bush because the result suited their agenda. Keep in mind that this sort of activism is a two-edged sword and come back to haunt you. Just wait until some judge on the other side uses the same tactic to accord "person" rights to fetuses, or such. This is not a good way to seek change. Unfortunately, few of you will see this until it blows up in your face.
posted by RavinDave at 2:11 PM on March 4, 2004

I'm taking the position that words only have the meaning we invest them with, not some nebulous "i'll define it the way I'm most comfortable" or "i'll define it the way the founders did" thing. I'm taking the position that meanings change with use. I'm taking the position that no word is static--ever--or the language dies. "Voter" is one of those words, and mentioned many times in our federal and state law. "Marriage" and "spouse" are the same.

The founders said "All men are created equal" and not "All people are created equal"...are you actually saying they only meant men? That's what your argument is, and it's sadly lacking, and incorrect. And I'm still waiting to hear about why "inherent meaning" carries legal weight.
posted by amberglow at 2:25 PM on March 4, 2004

Then why did so many states add specific wording to their marriage laws with DOMAs to specify "one man and one woman"? Doesn't that mean that the meaning actually wasn't inherent? There would have been no need to do that if what you say is so.

1. Legislature passes a law regarding permissible levels of mercury in drinking water. Mercury is not specifically defined in the law, as most everyone understands it to mean "a metallic element having 80 protons in the nucleus of each atom."

2. A few random nutjobs start arguing that "mercury" actually means "peanut butter."

3. Legislators think these people are nutjobs, but are worried enough that courts might agree with them that they amend the law to clarify that "mercury" means "a metallic element having 80 protons in the nucleus of each atom."

4. amberglow concludes that "a metallic element having 80 protons in the nucleus of each atom" is not the standard meaning of mercury; otherwise the legislature wouldn't have had to pass an amendment defining it as such.

The word "voter" in the US used to mean only land-owning white males. The meaning of that term changed as more people were able to vote.

No, laws were passed changing who was permitted to vote. It wasn't just some unlegislated cultural shift in the meaning of the word "voter," which courts then recognized on their own without any action on the part of legislatures.

And I'm still waiting to hear about why "inherent meaning" carries legal weight.

"Inherent" was perhaps a poor word choice on my part. What I mean is that words which appear in laws, and are not specially defined by those laws, ought to be interpreted according to their normal meaning.

I'm taking the position that words only have the meaning we invest them with, not some nebulous "i'll define it the way I'm most comfortable"

Who is "we," and how does that "we" differ from the "I" whose definition you don't accept?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:06 PM on March 4, 2004

Look, right now, in this country (in SF, Portland, and soon Mass, and those weddings will be recognized in NY State according to our attorney general), "marriage" means both men and women joining together in this arrangement, and men and men, and women and women. It's happening, and even before now, I could have been married by a rabbi, and it would be a "marriage" whether you think so or the government thinks so or not. Unitarians too. Even moonies with their mass weddings have "marriages."

As to definitions, that Legislature you mention could just as easily define mercury as "that tasty additive to drinking water" if they chose. What's to stop them? If it's not true or harmful to people, that law will be contested in court, like DOMAs will be and other discriminatory laws.

And "normal meaning" is just as meaningless as "inherent meaning." What's normal for you is not normal for me, and you don't get to decide what's normal or not.
posted by amberglow at 4:44 PM on March 4, 2004

related, from the Hill, on meaning and definitions. (scroll to Do not thou be too hasty)
posted by amberglow at 5:13 PM on March 4, 2004

It's happening, and even before now, I could have been married by a rabbi, and it would be a "marriage" whether you think so or the government thinks so or not. (Emphasis mine.)

Oh, my mistake then. I thought we were discussing whether, under laws such as New York State's, where marriage is not explicitly defined as between a man and a woman, whether such a law (if not ruled unconstitutional) would recognize and give legal benefits to same-sex marriages.

I didn't realize you were only talking about what you, personally, could call a marriage. Naturally, the First Amendment allows you to call anything you want a marriage.

that law will be contested in court, like DOMAs will be and other discriminatory laws.

Yes, they will be. And I hope they will be overturned, and think they should be overturned, on the grounds that they violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

I just as fervently hope that New York's law is not held to permit same-sex marriages on some vague cultural-shift-in-the-meaning-of-marriage argument. Although it might result in one good court decision, it would open the door to thousands of bad ones, giving every fringe group in existence a wedge by which to try to have laws reinterpreted to their liking.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:30 PM on March 4, 2004

Right now, in Oregon, same-sex marriages are happening because of "some vague cultural-shift-in-the-meaning-of-marriage argument" -- to use your words. Their law is vaguely worded like ours in NY.

Furthermore, our attorney general has said our law as worded now calls for recognition of out-of-state marriages, so all that's going to happen is that we go out-of-state (probably Mass.), come back, and are "married" in both your definition, the "normal meaning" and mine. All of those marriages will be recognized and legal. There's a new "normal", no?
posted by amberglow at 7:33 PM on March 4, 2004

Right now, in Oregon, same-sex marriages are happening because of "some vague cultural-shift-in-the-meaning-of-marriage argument" -- to use your words.

In one city in Oregon, in an interpretation that has yet to be tested in the courts, just as the marriages in New York. That similar legal questions exist in two different jurisdictions does not, in itself, provide evidence as to how those question shold be answered.

Furthermore, our attorney general has said our law as worded now calls for recognition of out-of-state marriages

Which is not relevant to the question of whether the law as worded recognizes in-state same-sex marriages.

There's a new "normal", no?

Suppose an alien from another planet comes to earth to study our laws. He comes across a term in the law which is not explicitly defined in the law. Further, there is some dispute in society about the meaning of the term. How do you suggest that he determine what the proper meaning of the term, to apply legally, is? I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that he determine first what conclusion he wants to reach, then pick the definition which supports that conclusion, since you yourself have argued against just such an approach in this thread ("...not some nebulous 'i'll define it the way I'm most comfortable'").
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:28 PM on March 4, 2004