I don’t know that I should be encouraging the troop at Dr. Joan Bushwell’s Chimpanzee Refuge to compete with me, but OK, it’s a poll, anyone can join in. This one asks, Do you agree with the gay marriage bans?. It does have an interesting twist, in that the poll also displays the states of respondents, so you can see where Redneckistan is. Or another way to look at it is that you can vote to defend the honor of your state.
I don’t know what it does with you non-Americans. Those bits of geography don’t seem to exist on this map.
GA isn’t Redneckville? Why do I get the sense internet polls may not be accurate?
I’ve been telling you guys that over and over…
That’s not the only problem. Do Americans really think that both Alaska and Hawaii are positioned somewhere off Arizona’s southern coast?
ugh
I voted yes. I oppose all state sponsored marriage, it is clearly a cultural affair. Domestic partnerships are a good idea for other reasons and should be available to all consenting adults. I disagree with man-horse domestic partnerships
I agree completely with gay marriage banns.
Hmm that’s FUNNY it looks like a very similar pattern in the USA JUST like that one I saw!
Nope, the thingie appeared to accept my input, but not my Canadian exisitance.
nice ;)
But they told me not to believe anything I read on the innertubes!
That really puts the ‘b’ in “subtle”.
Two thumbs up. Makes a great quote for the next election. It should confuse the theobots.
Fox’s election map (when I could get it to work) had a spot for Puerto Rico. At least it was in the right general area relative to the rest of the country.
I really hate my brain sometimes.
It is just about identical to CNN’s map about 30 minutes after the first polls closed.
That’s an almost useful poll.
Bloggers are set to blog for peace November 6, 2008. Don’t miss it!
BlogBlast For Peace ~ How To Participate!
From the comments:
Yeah, like how to tell their bigoted parents that they really like their same-sex best friend.
@ Jim, #5
“I oppose all state sponsored marriage”
I oppose state sponsored marriage too. I don’t think people should be given a tax break just because they’ve committed to some sort of partnership, particularly considering that it has no ‘cost’. Said partnership and the terms of it aren’t governed by law and therefore shouldn’t be endorsed or governed by law.
However! I oppose discrimination MORE. And the government shouldn’t endorse ONE group’s wacky symbolic ritual with monetary benefits and deny the same ritual to another group.
Up here in Canada, I’d argue it under Gender Equality laws myself, but I don’t think you guys have the same protections as we do in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I like it that you can filter the comments and look only at the “Yes, I support the gay marriage ban” ones, because some of them are amusingly stupid. Admittedly the rest are *unamusingly* stupid, but whaddya do?…
Here in AZ I voted no. Not just because it was a homophobic measure in intent but because I don’t believe in screwing around with constitutions. The advertising in favor of that prop was *everywhere*. The commercials appealed to simpletons: “What do you think of changing the constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman?” Answers like: “it’s simple…makes sense…clear enough”. Having lived here my entire life I don’t think it’s fair to characterize most Arizonans as your average bigot…I was shocked that it passed.
Marriage provides other benefits and responsibilities than just a tax break.
I’m not sure this is entirely accurate, since California is coming out predominantly “No”, but, if my news accurately reported the fallout of that proposition 8 bollocks, that isn’t entirely true…
But there’s a problem with the question… It’s in a double negative form!
“No” stands against the opinion of being against gay marriage. I don’t doubt this has confused many people, voting for Yes when they wanted to do for No…
You can see that many comments in that online poll don’t accord with the option they have voted for.
Unfortunately, California has entered in to the union of Redneckistan with this latest election.
And, just so you know, that tax break you’re so miffed about saved my wife and I a total of $30 last year.
It’s beyond my comprehension why people still waste their time, and that of their neighbors (and in this day and age, bandwidth), trying to turn their most trivial personal issues into a matter of law.
@tsg #22
Sure, there’s estate laws and the like as well. I focus on the tax breaks because it seems like the least fair. If it’s about benefiting people with children, give tax breaks to parents, not couples. Etc.
I’m not against people being able to receive benefits like those offered in marriage; I’m just against them being offered to you solely because you’re married.
And if there are no legal aspects associated with marriage, should it still be governed by law?
It’s a bitter irony to see my California running to “No” on this poll. :(
Yay – Texas is no longer in Redneckistan!
particularly considering that it has no ‘cost’
Tell that to the thousands of stand up comedians who’ve been riffing on Henny Youngman material for decades.
Am I right, folks, am I right?
Wow, what a great comment here on that site:
The tax break is negligible. Last year, two people with 50K taxable incomes paid 8930 each in federal taxes. If they were married, they paid 8920.50 each. $10 apiece is reason to “oppose all state sponsored marriage”?
@tsg #33
You seem really focuses on the amount. Are you purposely ignoring the intent?
It is a benefit. Does the government have any business in declaring who is and isn’t married, or offering people benefits based on that status? It wouldn’t matter if the government taxed people MORE for being married, I’d still be opposed.
It’s presumably a union (generally religious) that is between TWO people. Since the terms of that union (vows) aren’t held by force of law, does the government have ANY business using that status as a measure for anything?
One of the “Yes” responses made me laugh:
Presumably being the child of a moron is high on their list of nagging concerns.
Oh… and Amy #6 FTW
Because it’s a bloody trifling amount to get your knickers in a twist over. You were the one focusing on the tax break.
A microscopic one that amounts to a rounding error.
They don’t declare anything. They acknowledge it. It’s bloody paperwork. Does the government have any business declaring who owns your house? Your car?
And responsibilities. And why not?
Being married gives those people legal obligations that have the force of law, as well as benefits to each other that have the force of law, so yeah, the government does have an interest in knowing who is and isn’t married.
Do you oppose corporations?
I don’t want my kids to have to decide what their sexual orientation is.
Damn right! That’s MY job! I decide what their sexual orientation is! You hear that, Junior? You like girls, do you hear me??? YOU LIKE GIRLS.
Greg,
I can’t quite tell if you are referring to civil unions/partnerships. I think there are many societal benefits to these types of unions (child rearing, economic risk spreading, shared use of property and so on). I think therefore, that civil unions should be recognized, legally. The legal recognition facilitates the sharing of property, handling of privacy issues in health care, sharing of child rearing rights and responsibilities.
If you are just referring to marriage, than we have no disagreement.
The government doesn’t sanction Baptisms nor Bar Mitzvahs. Churches don’t issue driver’s licenses or liquor permits. Why are weddings some sort of cross-over? There should be two separate things: a legal contract and, if you wish, your own private religious ceremony (in which you abide by the rules of your chosen fantasy). Churches could have marriage mean anything they want and government could control social contracts with some meaningful, logical policy. I am reminded of Gould’s non-overlapping magesteria. It ought to be easy and obvious.
Obligatory tasteless joke:
A redneck walks into a bar and says, “Gimme a shot of whisky. I just found out my son is queer.”
The next night he walks into the same bar and says, “gimme two shots of whiskey. I just found out my other son is queer.”
The next night he walks in and says, “gimme three shots of whisky.”
The bartender says, “anyone in your family like pussy?”
The redneck says, “yeah, my daughter.”
Badoom boom ksh!
Precisely where do they overlap that you object to?
Which failed entirely.
If it was, it would have succeeded already.
Present.
Wow that is a blog chock full of cookoo.
@ Jim #38
Sure, I’m fine with Civil unions. A partnership defined by law, with legal purposes, restrictions and benefits. That’s fine. (Of course, I imagine I would define these unions far differently than the majority.)
“child rearing, economic risk spreading, shared use of property”: I can see plenty of reason to have legal unions on each of these fronts. However, I would also keep them individually separate. Just because a pair shares property doesn’t mean they are, or are going to rear a child, and vice versa.
@tsg #36
First, knickers? Not in a twist. It’s my personal ideology — I don’t support state-sponsored marriages.
I personally think of it as an issue of the size and scope of government. It doesn’t matter if the issue is negligible, the government SHOULDN’T be involved. It’s not their say, they don’t belong in this conversation. But they are there. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t do any harm; it looks to me like a loose thread, and to keep things clear, organized, safe and efficient, it should be trimmed and dealt with.
So, I’ll turn the question on you: Why SHOULD the government have any say in marriage? Should it grant any legal status? Should it be protected legally?
I couldn’t resist. I had to look at all the ‘yes’ comments, and now my head hurts. Main breakdown of reasons:
1.) Religion – I think we know the problem with this argument
2.) “Common Sense” – Codeword for religion. See above.
3.) “Democracy” – Correct me if I’m wrong, but the USA is a republic, not a democracy. This means we protect the rights of the minority, hence the constitution. Majority-rules voting on social issues like this is just plain absurd and completely contradictory to the nature of our government.
This last one is the main point that really irritates me about these propositions. It’s not the general public’s right to decide on these issues. If we’d had the same kind of approach as to civil rights and suffrage, we’d still have slaves and only men would have the vote.
One of the “yes” comments on that poll:
Yes, cause that’s just what the pro-gay marriage people want. To force people to take a same-sex spouse. *facepalm* “But, I’m straight!” “I don’t care, mister, you’re going to marry this man and you’re going to like it!”
I can name some sizable financial benefits of being married that gays in most parts of the country can’t enjoy:
Lower car insurance premiums.
Lower health insurance premiums.
Significant reduction in estate taxes.
And here’s another one that needs to be addressed for those in legal unions:
Social Security survivor benefits. Currently, even married gays cannot receive this benefit if a partner dies.
well, marriage is both a holy sacrament and a legal contract. that’s an overlap I’d rather see dissolved, too. Civil unions for people who want to become a unit, marriages as religious ceremonies only. it worked for christening/official name-giving, it should work for family contracts, too. at least, it seems like the best possible solution to the problem, and not just in the U.S. either.
Oh crap! Look, more states have finally drawn the line in the sand. I mean, how many people should have civil rights? How many people will we include in the term “human”? If everybody gets treated as though they deserve respect, what makes me so special? Uhg! Next we’ll have to offer civil rights to the French! Where does it STOP?!?!?!
@25
California has ALWAYS had lot of redneckians – It’s the coastal areas (which tend to be higher populated) that push CA to go democratic in elections. Don’t be fooled, the central valley is Rural and is not in any way like the coastal areas. There is one exception to this rule, really, and that’s Orange County that always goes to the right. I was down there this weekend and didn’t see a single no on 8 sign, but up here you don’t see a single yes sign.
I’ve always liked the idea that the state shouldn’t recognize marriage at all, that should be between you and your place of faith (hey scientists can get ordained also). Give ’em all civil unions. Should be all or nothing, IMO.
Am I reading it wrong, or some people here have actually said that they voted ‘yes’ to proposition 8 because they don’t support government control over something as personal as marriage?
Now that the prop 8 has passed in CA, doesn’t the government have to step in and say, “No” – if gay couples want to marry? Then doesn’t the business of marriage still remain under government control – only now that flaming bigoted homophobes can flaunt their bigotry openly under the shelter of law?
I am confused!
So you keep saying, but you have yet to tell me why.
Because some people want the legal protection of sharing property. Because some people want their partner to have the legal right to make medical decisions for them if they are unable to. And there are quite a few statuses that are protected legally such as citizenship, drivers licenses, car registrations and house deeds.
And you didn’t answer my question: do you oppose corporations?
Mine isn’t.
So, in other words, precisely what we have now except call it something else?
I personally think of it as an issue of the size and scope of government. It doesn’t matter if the issue is negligible, the government SHOULDN’T be involved. Greg
Yeah yeah. Never mind whether it makes any difference to anyone, it’s just so much more important than a collapsing economy, two unfinished wars, or anthropogenic climate change. The libertarian-stupid, it burns.
I voted “no” on Prop 8 here in CA (of course). I assume most people here know that the entire reason we had the vile thing on our ballot, in the first place, is because our State Supreme Court had been presented with over a thousand instances in which civil unions were not treated equally, under the law, to marriages, and so ruled that gay couples could not be denied the right to marry (as legally defined, not as religiously defined). A lot of Christians got very upset about “activist judges” and started this whole Prop 8 nonsense.
With more than a thousand instances of discrimination, it’s clear that “separate but equal” doesn’t work.
I’d rather extend the word “marriage” to everyone who wishes for it, as apparently that confers a message of societal acceptance as well as legal rights, but if people cannot share the word “marriage,” as apparently they can’t, then I agree with so many who have posted here: EVERYONE’s marriage should be taken away. Civil unions for all. Then at least I’d get to watch scads of my neighbors who so cheerfully decked out their lawns with “Protect marriage–Yes on 8” signs cry and complain about losing their marriage…
(Also, as I posted on another thread, the govt. could, instead of rolling over everyone’s marriage into a civil union, actually require all who want the benefits heretofore extended to married couples to apply for one of the new civil unions. The govt. could charge for the civil unions, and we could have just a little bit more money in the pot for solving our budget-deficit problems.)
If a civil partnership and a marriage have the same rights and duties involved – why not call both marriage?
What does a hetero-marriage lose when their gay neighbors can call each other husband and husband?
Just using two different terms for the same thing is legal apartheid.
(I’m stealing the words from an rdnet post here):
Is it ok for a man to have a driver’s license when the woman may only have a civil conductor permit?
Sure, we could have separate contracts between the couple and the church and the couple and the state – but it’s only fair when the hetero couple has to sparately register with the state just as the homo couple has to. The registration cost is small – but obliging one type of union to go through different procedures than the other is a violation of the equality principle no matter how much or little it costs.
Might as well demand blacks to fill out a separate form at entering college to confirm their blackness (paying an extra fee), and file their documents separately from whites. Same rights, but apartheid in principle.
If the state shouldn’t care about marriage, then it shouldn’t for all purposes, including different-sex marriage.
“So, you want to claim the inheritance from your deceased husband? Sorry Mrs., nothing for you, you forgot to sign the civil partnership form. No, we don’t care that your church has you registered as married.”
Letting the gays marry just as the non-gays reduces bureaucracy and saves everybody some money.
Equal recognition under the same terms costs less, makes more citizens happy and doesn’t devalue hetero-marriage one electron.
That borders on racist but against the American south! But then again, it might be accurate…
I watched a black guy being interviewed as he left the poll location. He’d voted for Prop 8: ‘To protect the children.’
Aside from the fact that “protecting children” and “gay marriage” are non-sequitors, I so wanted the interviewer to point out that all of that calling out the National Guard in 1957 to prevent black kids from entering white schools was “to protect the children”.
Then I realised that neither of them were old enough to remember Littlerock or Selma or any of the events that marked my childhood.
If marriage gets totally secularized, as in simply an official sanction of two persons’ mutual covenant, how long will it be before there’s pressure for that number to go up?
And wouldn’t it be a good thing to officially sanction higher-order familial units? M-M-M, M-M-F, …, F-F-F? And then why not M-M-M-M, M-M-M-F, …, F-F-F-F families?
If everybody really is at least partially bi, why not have state sanction of M-M-F-F quadruples over, say, simple M-F, M-M, or F-F couples, or triples?
And if anyone wants to throw in a T for transgendered, (or T, T’, T”, … for the various individual kinds (yeah, right*, why even have M and F when carrying that one out to infinity!)), then please do.
*just because this is a double positive, it doesn’t mean it’s a negative. Or anything else, for that matter.
Perhaps things have changed a great deal in the last 15 years, or maybe this is a state-by-state thing. But in Pennsylvania I was required to get a marriage license (and medical exam w/standard STD testing) through the state in order to be wed/married by a Justice of the Peace and/or a Mayor.
I was under the impression that a marriage license was still required for the religious ceremony as well. And don’t the religious leaders need to have “powers invested by the State of ________” in order to ‘pronounce’ the couple legally wed?
I don’t think that the government should have ever gotten into the business of handing out extensive legal benefit packages because they approve of sex only under certain circumstances. It’s clearly rooted in religion, even though (mixed-gender) couples may opt for civil ceremonies rather than church ceremonies.
I like the idea of the abolishment of marriage as we know it, with that legal benefit package going to any pairs of people (gay couples, straight couples, grandparents, whatever) who are raising children together. Then it could be up to religious institutions what they want to call a marriage, but that would be unrelated to any kind of legal status.
But realistically, we’ll never see that happen. I think the best we can aim for is extended fairness, and recognizing marriages for gay, lesbian, and straight couples is the best way we can aim for that. I wouldn’t be opposed to calling gay marriages “civil unions,” as long as that’s what straight marriages are called. But that’s not going to happen, either. So they should all be called marriages.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
hit me with your rhythm stick.
oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh baamahhhhhhhhh
The word marriage has become a secular institution the moment a secular government became a legal authority over the process. I still find it peculiar that there are so many who rally behind it as a sacred institution much like they rally behind Christmas as an exclusive Christian holiday. It’s like they don’t know the first thing about what secularism really is…
It’s funny how polls usually show these things failing, and then they always pass. As for the map, you have Mormon Utah, home of the Aryan Nation Idaho, the old Confederacy and the Dakotas. No surprise in any of those.
Slippery Slope. Fail.
Cannabinaceae #6-
Please explain how this is a bad thing. Or are you just making a comment?
soboco @65: Because most bigots don’t want to admit that that’s what they are.
What I don’t understand is, do people really think that depriving gays of their rights will make them not be gay? Because if that worked, nobody would be gay in the first place. Or are they just doing it because it’s fun for them to be mean to somebody?
No no, it’s because it makes god happy and they get a punch on their get into heaven card.
Hey, do you really want them to start trying to ban atheist marriages too? Let’s not give them too many ideas…
It’s beyond my comprehension why people still waste their time, and that of their neighbors (and in this day and age, bandwidth), trying to turn their most trivial personal issues into a matter of law.
I’ll give you a clue. When someone who is seen as a groundbreaker in civil rights can say, “I personally disagree with gay marriage” and therefore personally disagree that people who are different than himself are not entitled to the same civil rights he has won, without question, with impunity, then you’re going to have assholes who think it is okay to put that very opinion into law.
Rev. @69: That’s what they say, but I don’t buy it. I think there must be multiple other neuroses behind it. Because why is it the “homosexuality” issue that they get hung up on, and not the shellfish issue, or the issue of different fabrics blending together and living in sin?
Because homosexuals are ikky and not “man” enough, or too much man when they shouldn’t be. So they can continue to play out their highschool bully and football macho feelings / fantasies.
But mainly just because they are “different”. And that plays into the herd mentality of throw out the outcasts as they might rub off on us.
I don’t understand the entire issue of gay marriage.
Personally, I think the Federal government should take this absurd issue out of the hands of the states and make it universal: One pair of consenting adults my form a civil union in any state with the benefits that a marriage currently provides. Their church can choose whether to marry them or not but it has nothing to do with taxes whatsoever. It’s a religious ceremony, only.
It puts the bigotry in the hands of the churches and not the government.
Am I really too far off on this?
Civil unions vs. marriage
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
Civil unions are not equal.
#67: I suppose it was “just” a comment, compared to the suggested alternative!
Stipulating that marriage became totally secularized, I was wondering how long it would be before other permutations were promulgated – thinking in terms of decades or centuries.
I certainly wasn’t meaning to imply that I thought bestial necrophilia was just around the corner (right after three-person marriages) if gay couples were equally sanctioned, in marriage, to het couples. Indeed, I thought that my dispassionate inclusion of further, even more extreme* combinations would dispel any notion that I was denigrating such relationships.
Anyway, I felt as if I were advancing the conversation.
*sarcasterisk, as opposed to “scare quote”, here.
“This type of issue, is going to kill America. Political correctness, is destroying the very foundation of our society.”
I think commarrhea is destroying the very foundation of our society.
Banning gay marriages has nothing to do with defending tradition, and more to do with the fact faggots are icky.
Where gay marriage banns are concerned; I’m all for the period before the actual cermony being a time of joy and happiness.
I must admit I quite like this one: ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’
Very catchy that and if I ever have some kind of major brain disfunction and join the British National Front or ‘get’ religion and join some hideous appocalyptic death cult like most of the people in the ‘yes’ section….I’ll have that made in to a T shirt.
Yay for Georgia not being in Redneckistan!
Not all of us conform to the “stupid redneck” stereotype, y’all.
Atlanta,and a few other urban areas, help balance out the Redneckistan aspects of GA. Atlanta is a pretty place to live, just don’t try and travel to far.
Jeanette @ #68- “What I don’t understand is, do people really think that depriving gays of their rights will make them not be gay? Because if that worked, nobody would be gay in the first place. Or are they just doing it because it’s fun for them to be mean to somebody?”
It’s not about change, it’s about PUNISHMENT. Just as anti-abortion laws aren’t about “life”, they’re about punishing women for having consequence-free sex the religious don’t approve of.
I really disagree with the way those polls are going. Palin and Coulter are bad but they haven’t actually affected anything significant. In fact Palin has helped us by driving people to support Obama.
Rick @82: Yeah, that makes sense to me, while at the same time not making any sense at all because it’s such a sick and twisted motive. The psychology of bigotry is so convoluted and dark that I don’t know if it’s fully comprehensible. But people who are terrified of other people’s consenting adult relationships really need to see a shrink, for their own happiness as well as for the rest of us.
pz dont worry ppl do like science but keep championing it you are like jamie olvier to food pz for science mke a movement change ppls ideal get to schools and fanilies job on bloke
that made no sense im drunk pz google jamie oliver to make ppl feel passinate on things like foof if he can pick someone for science everyday ppl do believe we arnt thickos
Damnit, I live in Redneckistan.
Che @83: Yeah, that’s the one good thing about Palin. I think she was extreme enough to finally turn the tide in this country and get even many conservatives and people who don’t normally participate in elections to vote against Religious Right nuts for a change.
There are other factors, such as the youth vote, of course. But such a decisive victory had to mean that some people changed their voting behavior this time. And I’m not sure if Obama could have been elected in the U.S. if McCain had put much thought into his selection of a veep running mate. McCain’s own confused utterances might have clinched Obama’s win, anyway, but probably not by such a wide margin.
I must admit I quite like this one: ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.’
“Of course it’s NOT Adam and Steve…It’s Adam and Stephen.” -David Rakoff
@ 60
And so? Sounds like a good idea. A stable triad or quad who have proven themselves and wish to commit to each other should be afforded full rights. I personally know a triad that has performed their commitment ceremony after 8 years together, which is a longer time than many straight two-person religious marriages have lasted.
And to all people out there who complain about gay marriages because all marriages should be banned forget that we’ve totally highjacked marriage. The reason the godbots are whining so loudly about the “sanctity” of marriage, is because they don’t own it. It is in our society entirely secular. Oh sure, there still remain some trappings, but it’s like Christmas. Many families may put an angel on the top of the tree, but very few actually think about or care about the supposed religious significance. We the atheists, the secularists, OWN marriage and Christmas. They have transformed in our culture into celebrations, recognitions of fundamental ideas about commitment and family and doing right by each other, and yes, presents. And the truth of that statement can be seen in the actions of our society. Any straight couple can hop a broom, get married in a mosque, just say some words on a beach, or simply walk into the registrar and sign some forms with a witness and all are culturally treated the same on the issue of them being married. And more and more people are opting out of more and more of the Christian Church baggage of marriage and doing away with that step.
To the godbags, they realize that. They know they’re losing all of that to secularism. Women are no longer property, marriage is no longer a financial transaction sanctioned by God, and the aforementioned registrar-goers are afforded the same recognition as they are. The sanctity, the specialness, has been lost. So, what do they do? Find a minority to take it away from and feel like they still have some specialness. And this is an old old script. Don’t believe me? Just look at the last 100+ years of history. First mixed religion marriages were banned. Secular love won out. Then mixed race marriages were banned. Secular love won out. Now same sex marriages are banned. Secular love will win out. But we should never cede back what we have won. The word we’ve stolen from them and the word we are scraping free of every religious taint they’ve given it. Let them have nothing, but shame an frustration. This election, they’ve proved that they deserve nothing more than that.
Cerberus @90: I think those are all good points.
A Molly for Cerberus! #90
I can never string more than a bunch of angry epithets together when faced with this kind of bigoted stupidity, so your eloquence is doubleplusgood. A Molly I say!
Marriage versus “civil union” is a semantics argument, and a minor one at that (until it is brought in as a “separate but equal” solution to the gay marriage issue). State marriages, like the ones being performed in California were pretty much civil unions, in that they were secular, legal marriages. The only hitch is that religious leaders can officially marry people. Now, if we followed many European nations leads and made legal paperwork the only marriage accepted by the state (allowing people to have show religious weddings, but they aren’t the ones that are counted for legal benefits), this debate would be a touch easier. What makes it so hard is the irrational fear that their church will be forced to marry the gays, and an inability to understand that marriage can be completely secular and state-run without religion’s sticky fingers all over it.
Also, why create a new institution with all the barriers that entails, when you can just modify an old one? Marriage holds all the benefits you mention, you just don’t seem to dislike it because the word has been appropriated by religion for part of its history. This sort of focusing on the impossible and ignoring small steps to better achieve equality is just hurting those that are currently being ignored the right.
So, Jim, if you did vote Yes on Prop 8, or would have because of semantics, fuck you hard.
Erm, my post should have “don’t seem to like it” and “denied the right” in there rather than my beautiful typos.
Naruhodo: Much of what you say makes sense, but the problem most opponents of gay marriage isn’t semantic; they just don’t want “those kinds of people” having the same legal rights that they have. They want marriage to keep one key component of its origins as a religious rite, and that one component is that marriage grants a privileged status in society based on monogamy combined with heterosexuality, qualities that many Christians, and others, believe should be encouraged and rewarded by government.
But you’re right in that those who seek equal, married status might do well strategically to accept civil unions as an interim step, and fight for the rest of the pie once they have acquired half of it.
It’s not “Ben and Mary’s”, it’s “Ben and Jerry’s”
#96: VERY cute comeback to “…not Adam and Steve.” Thanks for that!
It’s probably a shade or two late to respond, but what the hell.
@tsg, #53
“Because some people want the legal protection of sharing property. Because some people want their partner to have the legal right to make medical decisions for them if they are unable to…”
Yes. These are all good things. So why bundles them up with each other and wrap then in the name of a religious ceremony? If you’d read the rest of what I wrote, you’d know I supported those legal contracts.
“And there are quite a few statuses that are protected legally such as citizenship, drivers licenses, car registrations and house deeds.”
Yep, but if you break the law, you can’t have your marriage license taken away, they can’t deport your marriage, they cannot repossess your marriage. The state of being marriage is set and broken by the people who engage in it, and there are no laws governing its mechanics. As such, why is there any government involved in forming or disbanding such a union?
“And you didn’t answer my question: do you oppose corporations?”
I didn’t answer it because it isn’t relevant. You’re intent on trying to slam my position by saying that it disallows for corporate partnership or property sharing, but that is NOT the case. When corporate laws apply to marriage, it’ll be relevant.
Looked in my newspaper today, here in CA, and saw that a guy from a Yes-on-8 organization said, “now that the people of California have decided this issue, we hope that there can be a healing among all.”
A healing! Now that a tiny majority of voters have decided to eliminate a right from a small minority of Californians, codifying bigotry in the highest law of the state — there can be no healing from something like that! Now we have to work to get the damned thing overturned in the courts, or the next election, or the next…
A wiser voice from the No-on-8 side pointed out, “They [the Yes-on-8 groups] have just accomplished what they said was their fear by having this proposition. There’s not a child in California that doesn’t know about gay marriage now.”
BINGO! I teach kids, and they’ve all been talking about, and asking me about, gay marriage.
Who says they have to be? Mine wasn’t. Most of my friends’ weren’t. If you don’t want a religious ceremony, you don’t have to have one, so where is your objection?
Because those benefits are protected by law. How is the government supposed to enforce that law when they don’t know who it’s supposed to apply to?
Don’t assume you know my motives in asking the question.
Marriage laws apply to marriage. That’s the point and why the government is involved.
And unless you can point to specifics beyond vapid platitudes presented as self-evident truths as to why the government shouldn’t be involved, you don’t have much of an argument.
@tsg, #100
“Marriage laws apply to marriage.”
I would hope so; but what laws? I mean, let me plead ignorance on this front. I’ve never observed a marriage law. I’ve never heard of any that are even remotely enforced. Adultery isn’t an enforced crime in any place I’ve heard of, and as far as I can tell, every other law you might be thinking of is part of a subsection of the legal CLUSTER of marriage, which (if you noticed) I’ve been advocating be de-clustered.
So, if you can perhaps show some laws that directly relate to marriage, and aren’t specifically pointing at property rights, the baring of children, or some other splinter OF marriage, then please educate me.
“Don’t assume you know my motives in asking the question.”
I don’t. I simply voiced my suspicions. But it’s pretty rare that someone asks a tangential question when it isn’t meant as a trap.
I find it curious that you’re so adamant in the government’s sanctioning of marriage. Why does my position bother you so much? If your marriage license was void tomorrow, but all the legal tangle it brings were available separately, would that bother you?
A spouse has the legal right to make medical decisions for the partner when the partner is unable to. A spouse is legally responsible for the debts of the partner. A spouse is entitled to a legal exemption from inheritance taxes when the partner dies.
How can you possibly take the position that government has no business in “sanctioning” marriage when you don’t have the slightest idea what legal protection marriage offers and, apparently, haven’t even made an effort to find out?
I don’t understand your position. Every time I ask you a question to clarify it, you either ignore it or flat out refuse to answer.
No, but I fail to see why you’re advocating tearing something down to build an exact replica in it’s place under a different name. The only aspects you have stated you object to are a miniscule tax break (which, I’m willing to bet, you wouldn’t object to if it applied to you), religious entanglement that turns out not to be true, and a vague assertion that government shouldn’t be involved without any explanation as to why.
What, precisely, is your objection to the existing structure?
@tsg, #102
“A spouse has the legal right to make medical decisions for the partner when the partner is unable to. A spouse is legally responsible for the debts of the partner. A spouse is entitled to a legal exemption from inheritance taxes when the partner dies.
How can you possibly take the position that government has no business in “sanctioning” marriage when you don’t have the slightest idea what legal protection marriage offers and, apparently, haven’t even made an effort to find out?”
So, if I have no partner, but I want to ensure someone I trust has medical responsibility for me… I’m what, fucked? Power of Attorney? Power of Estate?
I can’t decide, perhaps, that a trusted roommate who I *don’t* want to have medical powers might have shared estate and property? That we would be responsible for the debts of the other?
Yes, virtually EVERYONE couples off. But that doesn’t mean that we should only provide these sorts of benefits in one little package — and, since we DO allow legal exceptions and declarations for these outside of marriage, then why don’t we get rid of the superfluous institution? What part of marriage, in a legal sense, is special and in need of preservation?
“The only aspects you have stated you object to are a miniscule tax break (which, I’m willing to bet, you wouldn’t object to if it applied to you)”
ARRGH, you got me! That’s all I want, is ‘miniscule’ tax breaks! Don’t mind me, that’s all I’m after, ARRGH. (Seriously, I named it because it’s well known. You’ve stuck with it, because, I dunno, reading is hard.)
“religious entanglement that turns out not to be true”
I would say neither of us have proved this point.
“and a vague assertion that government shouldn’t be involved without any explanation as to why”
See, that’s a remarkable statement. The question should never be ‘why shouldn’t government be involved?’ and always
‘why SHOULD government be involved?’. I’d rather have government as uninvolved as possible in my life. I want them doing the bare amount of services and task as possible. Clean, efficient and unobtrusive.
I’m am of the firm belief that the government should be acting as infrastructure and a basic safety net; law, healthcare, education, economic stability and physical infrastructure. Beyond that, the less they do, the better.
As far as *I* can tell, you only argument so far is essentially: “Marriage is already here, why change it?”
If you don’t think that’s misrepresenting YOUR position, then do I need to explain to you why tradition for tradition’s sake is bad?
Advance Directive for Health Care
Common Law partner agreement or a Roommate Agreement.
What is the harm in providing them in one package for those who want them?
The very fact that my marriage and many others are not entangled in religion does.
I’ve told you why government should be involved and you’ve yet to refute any of it.
If you aren’t married, then it doesn’t apply to you.
A marriage license does nothing beyond what you’ve outlined here.
Some people want it and it doesn’t harm you in the slightest.
@tsg, #104
“Advance Directive for Health Care”
“Common Law partner agreement or a Roommate Agreement.”
“What is the harm in providing them in one package for those who want them?”
Evidence that you totally miss my point.
“The very fact that my marriage and many others are not entangled in religion does.”
Perhaps. I don’t agree, but it’s a matter of semantics, and further disagreement on this front leaves the realm of the topic.
“I’ve told you why government should be involved and you’ve yet to refute any of it.”
“Being married gives those people legal obligations that have the force of law, as well as benefits to each other that have the force of law, so yeah, the government does have an interest in knowing who is and isn’t married.”
This is the only quote I can find that you’ve used to support why government should be involved. Of course; you fail to understand that, IF the legal realities of marriage are available elsewhere (and you have stated them where they exist elsewhere) then why should they exist in duplicate?
Two rules existing to do the same task is not better than having one rule for said task. Since the SEPARATE rules allow for flexibility not present in the COLLECTED rules, and the Collected rules offer NO benefit not available in the Separate rules, then does it not make sense to eliminate the Collected rules?
If the Collected Laws of marriage are so regularly desired in JUST that single package, then there are simple ways to streamline the way they are applied for and dealt with to prevent any headaches.
“A marriage license does nothing beyond what you’ve outlined here.”
Seeing as how it’s superfluous, why keep it?
“If you aren’t married, then it doesn’t apply to you.”
“Some people want it and it doesn’t harm you in the slightest.”
Because it does affect people it doesn’t apply to. Perhaps, subtly, but it doesn’t mean it’s unimportant. Perhaps it’s part of my work ethic that makes me so concerned about details like this, but it IS important.
I’m sure by now you think I’m some rabid anti-marriage crusader, but I really don’t care that much about marriage specifically in law (though it’s religious backgrounds do concern me, but I digress). My main concern is weeding out the unnecessary leaks and gaps and inefficiencies.
Law, like most rules, like most growing creations, always grows in the same way. The start as a single, usually clear document, which accounts for all the rules their writers think are important. Then, over time, additional concerns, loop holes and problems occur, and the original, solid base, is patched. Initial patches are often almost as solid as the original document, but over time, patching on patches leads to unruly, unstable, inefficient crap. You can observe this anywhere where structure is implemented over time. The ‘best’ solution is to rewrite government from the floor up, but the interim anarchy is not exactly agreeable, and so the alternative is to fix up and streamline the existing structure as best as possible.
Now, I don’t think my position could be any clearer. Marriage is unnecessary. It should be pruned. (I have no expectation that it ever will be, if only because of people who romanticize it and hold it as the be all end all of relationships and their desire to keep a silly title in legal space indefinitely) It DOES effect people not engaged in it, in a number of ways (minute costs, for instance; It may not mean much individually but it’s the little things that matter most, as it were) and as a unique ‘union’, it offers nothing. We would be having a distinctly different conversation if adultery was a(n enforced) criminal offense.
@Greg #105
I don’t understand what you are arguing against, and I suspect that’s because you don’t understand what you are arguing against.
Marriage works for a lot of people, and nobody is forcing it on you. You don’t object to the rights and responsibilities it provides, don’t disagree that the government has a right to provide for them, and they are available to you without getting married. You can’t even explain how marriage doesn’t fit in with your ideological view, let alone whether that view is even right. And all this bullshit about duplication of efforts is just that: bullshit. Are you really suggesting that offering the same things that a lot of people want in a package deal with one form is less efficient than making all these people get them separately?
And as for your claim of “subtle harm”, I note you didn’t list even a single example.
I strongly suspect this entire exercise is just an effort to try to support a position that turned out to be not nearly as bad as you originally thought because you never made the effort to find out. Yes, the tax break again. Admit it: you didn’t know how little it was until I told you, and now that you do you’re trying to save face.
And if you had a point to make, if you can’t state it clearly and succinctly, then I’m no longer interested.
@tsg, #106
Oh ho! You’ve caught me. I kept up pages of debate because I secretly think I’m wrong, and not because I have a valid, different opinion from you!
It’s not like you’ve spent most of your time ignoring what I’ve said, snidely dismissing me, or otherwise discrediting me without any implication of comprehension. No, sir, you’ve been a champion of polite discourse, you have.
I don’t have any further discussion to make, because I can only tolerate repeating or expanding on my ideology so much. I don’t expect anyone to support my point of view, as it’s unpopular. Do I care? Not really. I’m mostly annoyed by how unwilling you are to even attempt to understand my point of view, or how you press me to answer minute and tangential questions about my position and barely answer any of mine.
This effort is one sided, and I’m rather tired of being yelled at. I disagree with you. You are thick headed. (Yep, I’m down to insults! Woo!) End.
Oh, and from politeness spawns one final response:
“Admit it: you didn’t know how little it was until I told you”
I do admit it. I thought it was clear above that I didn’t know. It was also stated repeatedly that I didn’t care. If you don’t understand why the break is more important than the value of it (that’s my whole ‘patching the rules’ comment, if you missed it) then it’s no surprise that we will be unable to come to a level point of view.
So I’m gone. Hopefully in future discussions, the memory of this dissonance will not interfere with the topic at hand.
[Congratulations, you won!]
@107
The drama queen exit only confirms my suspicions.
Haven’t read all of the comments yet, so please excuse duplication.
While I support equal rights for gays, it’s always struck me as odd why they would want to. Marriage as an institution is fundamentally immoral. It is based on the premise that another person is property. It is based on the premise that offspring are property. It is based on the premise that the state or church can authorize the sexual or loving union of any persons. But neither institution, nor any person, can exercise such authority over the soveriegnty of another person. That is because neither institution nor an outside person can be in a position to authenticate the will or feeling of a private individual with respect to our most personal acts.