The reactions to the Supreme Court’s gay rights rulings were not quite as crazy as I had hoped, but Rand Paul didn’t disappoint with his own personal Man on Dog contribution. I do wonder about the Man on Dog phenomenon, because it seems to make logical sense to these folks that if two women can get married then obviously you can marry your office chair, your coffee maker, or your kid’s pet gerbil. Glenn Beck’s slippery-slope polygamy charge makes a little more sense to me, although most of what we’re talking about with gay marriage has to do with legal rights dealing with inheritance, tax policy, hospital visitation, and so on. And it doesn’t seem hard to keep those policies as limiting one person as your spouse. It just doesn’t follow that if you can marry someone of the same sex that you should then be permitted to marry two people of the opposite sex.
The rest of the reactions are more religious in nature, and while I might think those kind of religious beliefs are a little whacky, I don’t know that I’d call them insane or crazy. Insofar as marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, for example, I can see how some people might think that we’re messing with an institution that God thought was extremely important. But the separation of Church and State is well established in this country, so the Court hasn’t changed anything in terms of the sacredness of marriage. I was married for nine years as far as the government was concerned, even though the mayor of New Hope presided over the secular ceremony, and no church on Earth recognized our marriage.
Anyway, congratulations to the LGBT community. It was a long struggle and today was a breakthrough day.
“We might have let the People decide. But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
~Scalia,
Bush v. GoreUnited States v. WindsorOh, wait,
I almost took off work to go to the Court, but I had too much stuff to do. Few friends of mine went instead, looked like a fun time.
Good news for gay civil rights, bit bittersweet because of SCOTUS essentially gutting the VRA, the largest civil rights legislation the country ever had.
Next up the Zimmerman trial and with the VRA ruling I’m not feeling good about the trial outcome.
Still congrats to advocates and DOMA is a thing of the past
I haven’t even been to Sulivan’s site since the paywall, but I did happen to come across this bit on Bill and Hillary’s statement on SCOTUS striking down DOMA, and I gotta say, I found myself if not in complete agreement with Sully, I definitely nodded along.
From The Annals Of Chutzpah
I will now go back to ignoring Sully.
Oh and not for nothing, but I don’t think a joint statement was released on SCOTUS gutting the VRA. Although I do think either Chelsea or Bill may have tweeted about it, so there is that.
And still Democrats hold Bill Clinton in high regard. DADT and DOMA are but two of all the wretched legislation that he helped saddle this country with. I’m simply not enough of a hypocrite ever to vote for another Clinton.
How old are you?
I’m curious if you lived during that time. I did. I agreed with Clinton on about 70% of the issues, and disagreed with him on that one, but I was a small minority – even in counties of the bay area, there was a default assumption that gay rights was not popular. I worked at an office in the Silicon Valley where our VP was openly homophobic and called gay people “animals” in front of the entire department, even though he knew two of his direct reports were gay. A real charmer.
The world has changed. Clinton has changed, too, admitting now that legislation was bad, and supporting it’s repeal. It’s called progress.
Doubt I agreed with Clinton more than 20% of the time.
On issues of equal rights, it’s not always easy for those not discriminated against to see until the victims point it out. Beginning with Holy Unions and extending through domestic partners, civil unions, and same sex marriage proposals over the years, it never took me more than a minute to support the request. Doing the “right thing” is always obvious — what a shame we have to make it so difficult.
LOL, I guess you’re more “pure” than me then. Just so you know, that’s not necessarily a good thing…
There are plenty of things to hold against Bill. I’ve got other reasons about Hillary.
She supported DOMA. So, I will hold that along with other things against her.
After yesterdays AVA vote it seems all the more important to remember that the LGBT has fought and re fought a long hard battle. They organized, they put themselves in harms’ way, they pushed and they fought smart. They may have many more hurdles to go but today’s ruling gave recognition to their insistence that they have always been equal, and Justice needed to catch up.
First, I have supported and do support marriage equality for many years.
But it does follow. I mean, look. You talk about how it’s been about legal inheritance rights and hospital visitations, but that hasn’t been what’s turned public opinion around. What’s turn public opinion around is “We love each other!” and most things are predicated on how cruel it is do deny those things in the context of a loving relationship.
So the polygamy aspect is the same in that regard. “We all love each other!” “How is this hurting your marriage?” “Is it wrong if we all want this?”
There have been very very few rationales I have ever seen that convinced me the issues in the end were separate. So I support marriage equality despite thinking that logically polygamy is also qualified.
If there’s a working model for it I see no reason why it shouldn’t be illegal; certainly not logically.
I can’t really say what turned public opinion around. But what turned the law around was the recognition that it’s wrong to tax a woman hundreds of thousands of dollars on the inheritance she received from her partner of 40 years just because her partner was a also a woman. In other words, she paid that when she wouldn’t have had to if her partner had been a man.
This is fairly simple. You can choose one person to marry and that person and you then enjoy certain special rights, including the ability to treat your money collectively. Likewise, you can choose one person who is not your kin who you will consider part of your family for purposes of hospital visitations. And so on.
It does not logically follow that you can pick two. The rule is one.
And allowing your one pick to be of either gender doesn’t change that.
I think your underestimating public opinion’s roll here. If the public groundswell hadn’t gone so much in favor of equality some of these court decisions might well be different. Not all judges are as willing to rile their people up as the Iowa supreme court. That’s leaving aside the defeat of further discriminatory laws put up as initiatives or referendums in the last election.
As to the other, I don’t see how it doesn’t logically follow. In the past when marriage was economic it mattered a lot (and there was concubinage until the Catholic Church stamped it out) but these days?
All your examples make just as much sense for two people instead of one. If you feel intense love for two people and they feel intense love for you and or each other and are willing, why shouldn’t they both be allowed to treat your money collectively? Why shouldn’t they both be allowed to visit you in the hospital and make life decisions if you are in a coma, or you both for them? How is that less valid than one person?
You say the rule is one, but what is it based on aside from tradition?
I agree and I have been saying this for quite a while. As long as we’re talking about consenting ADULTS I don’t even see a reason to limit the conversation to just two. It’s my understanding that the statistics on these polygamist marriages show that the children tend to do extremely well in school, they have higher scores, high graduation rates and college entrance. And these marriages have a much lower divorce rate than traditional marriages. The ruling today should give them hope.
Well, these rulings have nothing to do with marriage for love, at least not under the law. In one case, they’re saying that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge. And in the other they are making an argument about inheritance taxes.
Nothing prevents people from marrying for money or status rather than for love.
What you are really arguing is that once we remove arranged marriages and have marriage for love, then anyone can marry anyone, and in any quantity. There is a sliver of logic in that, although it’s hard to untangle. But it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
There is a strong consensus in this country that polygamy is wrong, and it was certainly codified in response to Mormon polygamy. Obviously, other cultures disagree, but our system is set up to allow for one spouse and no more, and there is no compelling reason to change it. In fact, the gay marriage movement is premised on not changing it.
Just a couple of years ago there was a strong consensus that gay marriage was wrong. I recall Barack being asked if he supported gay marriage during one of the debates in 2008 and he stated that he was against gay marriage and Hillary said the same. The country evolved since 2008 in large part because Obama shifted and came out in support of gay marriage among a lot of other things so I would never say never in regards to polygamist marriage at this point. I never thought I would see the day when transvestites would be considered the “norm” but it has happened so all bets are off.
Theoretically I agree. But the history of polygamy is strewn with intimidation, abuse, and a kind of slavery. It all comes down to the old, old, question: to what extent is the state required/allowed to protect individuals from their own foolishness? On that basis I don’t see how polygamy could be treated in the same way as 2-person marriage/civil union. There is a kind of built-in power imbalance that makes it different.
And of course there are the legal tangles: Does each of 9 wives/husbands get one-ninth of the estate? One-ninth of social securty, tax breaks, etc.? Does the mother of a child get federal child benefits, or are these distributed equally among the family? Personally I don’t give a damn if a bunch of people want to get married, but it ain’t as simple as it first looks. To my mind the government should never have started the married/single legal discrimination in the first place, but the times then seemed to call for it.
The history of marriage is strewn with the same abuses. Abuse is wrong, whether one person or several are involved. And love is love, whether one person or several are involved. The legal tangles are complicated, but they can be dealt with. If the family hasn’t made different arrangements, the government can split all benefits equally, problem solved. Poly families do exist. They always have. Their kids need protection just as much as anyone. The best way to keep everyone safe is to acknowledge and support the reality.
tb92 basically articulated my response–different than history of marriage how? Perhaps legalizing it will show existing abuses are not as endemic as they appear if it’s not limited to extreme patriarchal sects like Mormonism.
But let me say the inheritance issue is the only one I’ve come across that I consider a good logical argument against polygamy but not gay marriage. It IS in the state’s interest to try and reduce inheritance disputes. and they can be quite tangled.
Who but extreme patriarchal sects and royal wastrels want polygamy? Inheritance is the big issue, but not nearly the only one. Child custody would be an essentially unresolvable problem — does the discarded wife have enforceable rights to her child, or does the child belong to the “family”? Does an unhappy wife get to sue the bossboy for discrimination if he favors somebody else? Does the bossboy have to prove before being allowed to marry a new one that he has the means to provide alimony and child support to all nine “wives”?
Like I said, in principle I don’t give damn who people want to hook up with. Aside from the legal/money stuff, though, in this case I wonder about the degree that mutual consent that’s present, and question the motives of the gatherer of women. OTOH, there is a silver lining: it would finally send the Christianists so far around the bend that they’d never get back.
There is more to the poly culture than just polygamy. Who wants it? I do. And about half a million openly polyamorous families do. Please read this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html
I don’t know who would want polygamy, but I’m not under the obligation to provide people who do. I don’t see how the child custody is a problem any more than it would be now. Best interests. The courts decide that if the bio parents can’t. Why would we require a means test when anyone can get married now if they can pay the fee? Why would this be more regulated than current marriage? The state certainly doesn’t care now if people who get married are entirely unsuitable or financially unable to. A lot of people delay marriage because of finances. I don’t see how that would necessarily be different.
You’re making a lot of assumptions.
You’re assuming the person is male. You’re assuming for some reason, a pair that has a falling out wouldn’t get divorced (and legalizing polygamy would give the party more legal rights) or that there would be a need to police whether someone likes someone else enough. We certainly don’t do it now. Adultery is legal and that’s pretty clearly discriminating against a spouse.
Finally, Bossboy? Discarded wife? Are you actually interested in a discussion or just taking pot shots?
Iunno about polygamy, but I am polyamorous…
polygamy is just incredibly complex, legally. It seems to only survive in countries where the legal relationships are either less formal or the spouses (typically women, in 90% of cases) simply have drastically subordinate status and so nobody really cares if they’re treated fairly.
In fact, in one of the few examples of women having multiple husbands, in Nepal, only one husband lives with the wife at a time – so it’s more like a subscription (a new man every couple of years or so) than a truly polyamorous marriage.
Now excuse me while I go look for Mr. 2013…
So in the meantime the unfriended guys just go live in some dorm for the leftovers or something? Sounds like a kind of CSA, where you subscribe to get fresh meat delivered every so often.
Does the wife get to decide who she subscribes to this time around? Do the husbands all have to court her when the current subscription runs out? Do they even care?
In any case this polyandry/polygamy by subscription sound much less dreary than the Mormon kind.
Following your example, it’s not anymore complicated than someone dying without a spouse but with several children that must share an estate. Even real estate ownership can be divided into equal shares if needed as well as all of the other benefits involved. I feel like I’m advocating polygamy but I’m not. I just don’t see that it’s all that different since homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage now.
I am troubled in that I see some walls against polygamy coming down. Polygamy is a very bad situation. It is coercive, manipulative, and very bad for young men.
Same kinds of things were stated about gay marriage until Barack Obama evolved on the issue and now suddenly gay marriage is the most natural thing in the world. If Barack made a speech tomorrow in favor of Polygamy, I suspect many of the naysayers will be right here touting it’s virtues. I am in favor of consenting adults being able to choose this as their lifestyle, and now there is no justification for discriminating against them. Most of these folks are normal and just want to be happy and they should be left alone.
Congrats to all of us. Every time the nations moves forward in a big way it benefits every citizen, gay or straight. We’re all living in a better country than we were in yesterday (at least post-10 am or so yesterday… ugh…).
I’m sorry, but I can’t give the religious such an easy pass on this. Literally centuries of oppression and hatred, all in the name of serving a god who only resides in the texts of mostly non-educated, Iron Age goat herders has just taken an immeasurably horrible human toll.
The sincerity of their beliefs in no way mitigates the fact that many of these beliefs are, indeed crazy and inhuman, when viewed from a rational and empirical point of view. They are the furthest thing from our democratic principles of equality. I could not care less how “sacred” anyone views their own particular beliefs. After all, I would venture to guess that many held Mein Kampf and Mao’s Little Red Book to be sacred texts, too.
If they want to sit in their designated places of worship and have sacramental circle jerks every day, I have no problem with that. But this hatred surrounding gays has been a crusade of theirs for centuries. And they are the ones who have taken it outside the church walls and brought it into the public domain, leading to the contamination of our discourse with the vilification and hatred. I’m sorry, but all I can say is, “Screw them”.
The LGBT community gained ground on this issue. It is not won yet. And once won, it must be preserved by each new generation. Labor started having to defend its gains with Taft-Hartley and has been fighting a rearguard action ever since. The civil rights movement has been fighting the Southern Strategy from the moment the ink dried on the Voting Rights Act. Even child labor, emancipation, and women’s suffrage have been held up to scorn by the current GOP.
Take nothing for granted. It’s likely never going to be settled law requiring no defense.
Yes, so much truth in this. Just look at Roe v Wade, being chipped away piece by piece every damned day. Success is relative; it’s fluid and evolving and with every challenge we have to be alert and vigilant about protecting what ground we gain.
And part of the reason for the ongoing unsettled state is the choice of the activists to demand “marriage” instead of limiting government’s role to recognizing civil unions for all, with totally equal rights. The “marriage” part could have been left to the churches or whatever and have no legal meaning whatever.
But the sentimental sell was too tempting, and now the blathering about “love” and “marriage” will go on unabated for the foreseeable future. The conflation of marriage with the civil contract was a grave error from the very beginning, and the gay rights movement fell for it to its detriment.
Nonetheless congratulations to all people who care about equality under the law, and may the road ahead prove easier than it now looks.
Interesting.
In comparison to your previous post
Not sure what you mean by ‘religious in nature.’ What does that mean or imply? Inflexible fundamentalism?
I’m 62. How the world has changed. And today for the better.
Liberal fanboys fav Jersey boy guv’nr does NOT agree with equality for all. Whocoodanode?
Christie says court’s ruling on DOMA “was wrong”
Wonder how that’s going to play for the guy in 2016 when a majority already support same-sex marriage. Hell, how do NJ voters stomach this bigot?
In 2016 he’s going to have to bomb an abortion clinic to get any traction in the primaries. But he may have problems this fall. If only a decent Democratic candidate runs against him.
With the death of Frank Lautenberg, are there any decent Democratic politicians left in NJ? NJ voters have demonstrated that they’re not even that fussy and will give indecent or half-decent Democrats a chance: Torricelli, Corzine, McGreevey, Menendez. Too bad Bill Bradley took his ball and went home after losing in 2000.
hey, quit with the maligning of NJ. How about our rep who acutally is a rocket scientist, Rush Holt!
Holt definitely qualifies as decent and would be a worthy replacement for Lautenberg. What a shame all the money’s on Booker (not a decent Democrat) and it’s paying off as he’s polling at 49% to Holt’s 9%.
Booker will still be fine. After Sept 11 some large % of the financial industry moved to Jersey City [lower Manhattan wasn’t functional for a long time; office space for the financial industry was already under construction in Jersey City at the time] and simultaneously there’s an effort to resolve some of the issues in Newark to give NJ an urban center – right now NJ is sort of satellite to either NY or Philadelphia. So Booker is concerned about the financial industry as part of NJ revitalization. He’ll be good and he’s definitely a larger than life personality [personally shoveling ppl’s cars out of the snow is just one story]
The man on dog phenomenon also mystifies me. I would have thought a lot of these guys have more experience with farm animals.
But seriously…fuck them. What two consenting adults do isn’t any of their business, and their predictable reactions aren’t today’s story. The powerful blow for equality for millions of Americans – sort of the opposite of yesterday’s ruling – is. And Pride events this weekend are going to be one serious party.
Please, everyone, don’t allow the Conservatives to classify polyamory as equivalent to beastiality. It’s just another attempt to turn us against each other. There are many happy poly families in this country, and they need support just as much as gay families. If you don’t know much about poly culture, please educate yourself before judging. This article is a good start: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html