Other arguments by the states and more than five-dozen briefs by their defenders warn the justices of harm that could result “if you remove the man-woman definition and replace it with the genderless any-two-persons definition,” said Gene Schaerr, a Washington lawyer.
It’s been almost 11 years since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. I’m sure there’s ample data on the harm that’s been caused, right? Divorce rates rising faster than the US average, marriage rates declining, more children born out of wedlock, etc? This should be an easy hypothesis to prove. They wouldn’t make a statement like that without any proof – would they?
The whole idea that there has been a “definition” of marriage has always struck me as odd. Never heard it talked about that way before this controversy. Certainly, you could argue it has been the practice for only one man and one woman to get married–unless one goes back to biblical times or heads to Saudi Arabia and other parts–but I can’t remember a definition being written down anywhere.
So, for example, many people DO marry as a prelude to having kids; that’s a huge piece of it for them. But no one says that people who have no intention of having kids are not sticking to the definition of marriage. And certainly the roles and expectations of the two partners vary widely from culture to culture and even within cultures. So where does the definition reside?
On the slippery slope question, one point that hasn’t been raised AFAIK is that gay marriage grows out of one’s sexuality in a way that polygamy or incest doesn’t. Polygamy and incest are choices, AFAIK, in a way that one’s sexuality is not.
But shifting gears and speaking theoretically with respect to equal protection (and Goner’s point) would a civil union that included everything that marriage includes, except for the label, be a violation of the equal protection clause?
In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the civil or legal aspect of any marriage really is just a civil union, is it not? As far as the state is concerned, marriage is just a set of legal obligations and privileges one takes on vis a vis another person.
That is, a “marriage” is just a legally binding union. Anyway, I’m not addressing your excellent points about the evolution of the struggle and how and why certain things have come to be the way they are.
I agree. I always felt like the idea of arguing a definition was contrived by the right-wing. If you can control the definitions of words then you can control the outcome of a discussion using those words. But in fact, the definition is arbitrary and could have been stated any number of other ways.
Personally, I don’t have much of an issue with saying (as a gay person), “We have a civil union” – but ONLY so long as I and my partner have point-for-point, benefit-for-benefit, protection-for-protection, full-faith-and-credit acceptance, etc. (including adoptions) that a “married” heterosexual couple has. Seriously, if were only just the word, they can have it.
That said, that solution begs the question about why their “marriages” (assuming a religious ceremony) are any more worthy of that designation than the ceremony that my church performs? Government is supposed to not favor one (religious) belief over others. Additionally, and still assuming said solution, what about those heterosexuals who opt for a “civil” ceremony at the Justice of the Peace (who must perform ceremonies to all who would be legally to make said commitments, not pick and choose since they work for all the people) instead of a religious ceremony? – Would they be considered “married?” – Or do they get the same designation of us gays?
This is why religions should not be a part of the equation except in that they are all on equal footing. Totally let alone the idiotic argument about procreation, who can and who can’t, who is fertile, who even desires to procreate – a whole bag of worms.
Edit: Also what about international recognition of “marriages?” Assuming we weren’t to call ours “marriages” (for gays), would that leave open the real possibility for other countries like Canada, France, etc., to legally not recognize those unions as a “marriage” for legal purposes such as hospital visitation, medical decisions, spousal benefits should there be any dual citizenship? Second-class designation leaves open a whole host of issues.
On the slippery slope question, one point that hasn’t been raised AFAIK is that gay marriage grows out of one’s sexuality in a way that polygamy or incest doesn’t. Polygamy and incest are choices, AFAIK, in a way that one’s sexuality is not.
I don’t know, it’s a pretty good point but I don’t think I see that big a problem with their angle. One might say that being gay is not a choice but marrying someone is, and that keeping a kissing cousin from marrying the one they love (and leaving them forced to marry someone they don’t) is akin to banning gay marriage.
I think the better argument is just that slippery slopes are exactly what the judicial system is designed to adjudicate. Yes, the law will now say that “two people” can get married, but existing laws still apply. You still can’t marry a 5-year-old and you still can’t marry a dog and you still can’t marry your first cousin. If those groups want to challenge the law they can argue their case to the courts.
Yes, I thought about this, but the argument doesn’t speak to one’s sexuality. Being attracted to someone of one’s own sex isn’t the same as being attracted to one’s cousin exactly. To be parallel, the person would have to be attracted, in general, to his cousins, all 40 of them, and want to marry them. A possibility, I suppose. Or better put: He would have to be attracted to his cousin, in part, because his cousin is his cousin in the same way that a gay man is attracted to other men; not all men, but men, in the same way a straight man is attracted to women, not all women, but women.
More broadly, conservatives seem to be looking for delimitations that don’t depend upon human judgment and will and decision making. So, one of the supposed benefits of the gold standard (I know I’m jumping around here) is that it puts a physical limitation on the money supply. Put it in the hands of a metal in the ground, and it’s impossible for the money supply to get out of control. But leave it in the hands of the Fed or humans and you inevitably get a devalued currency, etc. But the value of gold IS a human creation and inflation is just as possible with gold as it is with fiat currency.
So, to your point, there are inevitably slippery slopes and that’s where the law and the courts come into play. Not being able to marry a 5 year old, but being allowed to marry a 14 year old, as we used to be able to do, IS at least a somewhat arbitrary boundary. Yes, there are probably good reasons for it, but well, if it’s a precocious 5 year old, I dunno…
The civil ceremony is an interesting case because, of course, many straight people do get married in civil ceremonies and are called “married.” So yes, the civil union designation would have to apply to both equally. I don’t know whether there are religious elements in a civil ceremony; maybe it depends upon the state you’re in.
Plus, if you rule out “married,” what would you say? We’re civilly unioned? We’re joined?
Also, while we’re at it, the word “married” has a number of connotations that don’t anything to do with people at all. Marry the two wires with a soldered twist. Maybe that’s it! When asked, we skip the word "married and say, “We’re soldered.”
At this point, I’m forced to say that we’ve endowed this one word with amazing content and power, which undoubtedly exists in some way, but which sort of disappears when you go looking too hard for it.
