Engaging Our Opponents

Hi Rob! I didn’t see you post. I agree with everything in your last comments. It’s stuff we’ve all seen before, eh? Have a great day!

Turkey day is over, and here’s my take on things:

for one thing, the overwhelming number of blacks does not agree with that comparison

Mike, you always seem hooked on the “majority” thing. The majority this, the majority that, the overwhelming number feels this, etc. I’m certainly interested in what the majority thinks, but it’s not what the constitution was designed for. It, and the democracy itself, is not a “majority rules” construct. It is about protecting the minority within the larger group. Resistance against the majority is also built right into the legislature, where the Senate is designed as a brake to the House. (The House is quickly turned over every 2 years in order to respond to the desires of the unwashed masses…the “majority” if you will.) And then of course there’s the Judiciary, which nulifies any unconstitutional legislation that makes it past the Senate. (Legislation that might illegally expand powers, or deny rights to individuals or groups.) In regards to the context you use it in – that the majority of blacks don’t agree, it’s not the whole picture. Yes, many blacks want to keep the civil rights struggle their own and not diminish it. That sentiment comes more from self-protectionism than an examination of gay issues. Because, frankly, they are still struggling and trying to move forward. Why would it be in their interest to risk that? Jews have similar feelings about the holocaust. They don’t want anyone co-opting it. Still, Jews, to their credit, have trememdously stood up for discriminated groups, such as gays and blacks. (Even to the extremes in Cosovo, no one stood up for the undesireable muslims except Israel). As far as american blacks, the question of standing up for OTHER groups or integrating them into the struggle was a subject of debate even back in the MLK years. Ultimately, they decided at that time, not to water down the message. Sad decision for black gays to be sure, but they accepted it because of the greater racial challenges before them. In time, one would expect that the issue would be addressed. And, predictibly, it has been, by black folks like Coretta Scott King.

Gays have no concept of the discrimination blacks suffered.

There are many, many black and brown gays and bisexuals. They certainly understand. Being white, I don’t. But I understand discrimination, and I can borrow the lessons of the civil rights struggle. Not only that, but being white I’ve been on the other end. I know what it’s like to exclude, or to treat someone thoughtlessly just because you can. And I know that it is wrong. I hear a lot of the same attitudes toward gays, I recognize them, that’s why in fact it gets me so crazy, because it’s NOT something new.

I want you to convince me why you think gays need marriage. I see the way it has been for centuries and now you want it changed.

I don’t think I CAN convince you. You’ve declared you’re solidly against it. Your position would have to evolve, not be reversed. As far as your “centuries” comment, I think it would probably be good if you began to see marriage for what it really is instead of the ideal 2007 version in your mind. It has very much changed over the centuries, very much. If you don’t view it that way, then I don’t see you changing your mind. Because that’s a lot to ask of a person – something has been unchanged for centuries, coveted, and handed down from gen to gen like hebrew text slowly and painstakenly put down by candlelight. But no. It’s not at all that way. Here is an interesting link which addresses that question:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

The burden is on you, and I am willing to give you the time.

No, I think the burden is on the country. It doesn’t seem like it at first glance, but it’s more accurate to say that than the other way around. Look, the majority always thinks the minority should prove themselves in some way or behave a certain way, otherwise they’re chopping off their nose to spite their face. Despite how disgusted some whites were with blacks, the black community survived, didn’t it? They kept all their culture, beliefs, behaviors, good bad and ugly, and they succeeded. Not only that, it’s obvious they were strengthened by it. Their attitude now to white america is, “YOU learn cause I ain’t gonna teach you.” That seems kind of rude, but it’s reality. As whites, if we’re not going to educate ourselves then they’re not going to bother to explain it all to us. The burden shifts to US. Sadly, I don’t see this strong position emulated by the womens rights movement. It was gang-busters in the 60′s and 70′s but then faded away because no other strong women took up the torch. They were all too concerned with upsetting the apple cart. “Make everyone more comfortable with us” seemed to be their new mantra. And you see the result. There’s a whole lost generation of young women without any strong female role models at all, who are vulnerable to misusing their bodies, misusing sex, drugs and men. It’s a train wreck that is just horrible to watch. Speaking of train wrecks, politically you can point to the democractic party as the poster child of now not to succeed. Placating the majority is never a good idea. Acting out of fear is never a good idea. Waiting for people to like you before you stand for something is never a good idea. Some have learned this lesson and others have not. I would like the gay community to not learn the hard way.

You are operating from a self-imposed platform of being ?right.?

Aren’t you? I think there’s a difference though, in our being “right,” and that word is precedent. There is precedence for my position, for progress. There is precedence in interpreting the constitution to allow for expanded rights, such as women’s rights, slave rights, handicapped rights, etc., and by the structure of the document itself, which the founding fathers said was designed to not preclude other “future” rights for it’s citizens. Now, with your position there is also precedence. There is the precedence not of progress, but of obstruction. And that is everything we’ve seen before – small, organized groups of citizens (religious right) moving against a certain disliked group hoping to marginalize, strip existing rights and reduce any possiblity of future rights. There is precedence in the general populace too, which has traditionally been slow to accept inclusion and change. There is precedence in feelings of fear, bigotry, or cultural and religious practices which promote hate, death or disinformation towards an excluded group. The $1,000 question is…which precedence is more valid, and which is more likely to hold up with the test of time? You know my answer to that.

I want to know if you believe there are any psychological or emotional differences between gays and straights and their relationships. Is there something that makes them uniquely different?

I think there are lots of differences, but none of them are relevent to the decision to “grant” rights to gays. Just as marriage for women has changed to move away from ownership and more towards partnership, so has relationships between 2 women, which removes many of the last of the authority-based restrictions. If two women are together, they certainly have to work out roles and who does what, but it’s pretty much a level playing field from there on out. There isn’t any patriarchal behavior to deal with or power imbalance. Straight women do have to deal with a potential power imbalance and unequal distribution of work, while gay women do not. However all other factors are probably the same. Relationships are tough all around, everyone argues and everyone, gay and straight, has baggage they bring to the relationship, and have inlaw issues and childcare issues.

I had a straight friend who recently married and had 2 problems in her marriage. One was his kids, and the other was his anger issue. By coincidence, my (unrecognized) marriage was similar. The biggest issues besides finances were her kids. There was less anger issues but still some, and big trust issues. Gay Marriage would help solidify gay relationships, because let’s be honest here, even though at the time I considered myself married, we weren’t. That piece of paper also would have helped big time with the inlaws.

All of this is important when we are also considering the procreation aspect of marriage

You know, the thing is, we’re already parents. It’s not like there’s going to be this radical change in families where gays can now procreate. They’ve always been procreating, the only difference is they were living life as a lie while they were doing it. Also, really, you’re always going to have gay people who become parents first in a straight relationship then find a gay relationship, because of bisexuality, and the length of time it takes to come out and realize your own identity. Children often arrive not long after high school, often too early to know. What do we do then, take their children away? Even as fully out gay women, lesbians have wombs, are natural mothers and procreate in gay relationships (and you don’t need a lab for that either). For gay men it’s a bit trickier, they would have to find a surrogate or adopt. That is really the only “new” baby issue in this mix. Maybe you are uncomfortable with that. Personally, I prefer a baby to have a mother figure in the early stages of life and not just two dads, but frankly if the two dads are interested in being parents then they’ll be good parents. I know that child will likely be loved, cared for, appreciated, educated and encouraged, (and not molested by a straight step-father.) And hopefully, they’ll get a mom-figure in there somewhere with an aunt or sister. When you’ve legitimitized the family with marriage, that aunt or sister is a lot more likely to be involved in that child’s life, and the family will be stronger. I just can’t list all the ways that marriage would improve things, there are just too many.

But, let’s not put the cart before the horse. We’re talking marriage here – the right of two consenting adults to have their relationship legally recognized and receive the same state and federal benefits as their straight counterparts.

Gays have no concept of the discrimination blacks suffered.

I hate it when someone — usually a black heterosexual person — drops this canard.

Black gay people are some of the worst off in our society. Not only do they deal with latent racism in society, but “traditional” African American institutions such as churches, youth groups, mosques, etc. also reject them.

Also, while it’s true that many white gay people haven’t lived “the black experience,” many black people haven’t lived “the gay experience” either. I often point out to black heterosexual people that much of what they take for granted — including societal recognition that racism is, on some level, wrong — doesn’t apply to gay people.

When racist stuff happens in society, there’s generally much stronger condemnation of it than of homophobic stuff. And, of course, black people achieved equality under the law decades ago. Anti-miscegenation laws and other such legal segregation disappeared — but gay people today continue to pay taxes to a government that states that they are permanently inferior citizens. To claim that’s somehow “not as bad as what I go through” is patently dishonest. At this point, heterosexual black Americans have had equality under the law for over 40 years — something I’d *love* to have and that gay people still don’t have today.

Cultural arguments to the side, my only interest in the political realm is equality under the law. Talk of culture is all well and good, but it’s far less relevant than the idea that gay men and women are segregated even today, legally, and that black gay men and women are not only segregated by the law — but are often also segregated by leaders in their own community who rage against other forms of segregation.

“it repudiates the basic principles of democracy upon which this country is built”

Except that it doesn’t. If something is a fundamental right – as marriage was established to be in Loving – then it is not up for a vote. We live in a constitutional republic with representational government, not a pure democracy.

“it legitimizes the same argument that could be made by Warren Jeffs and others that their right to their (polygamous, incestuous, and child)”

Although polygamous and consanguinous marriages might be arguable, child marriages most certainly are not: children are not capable (legally or practically) of giving that consent.

As to consanguinity and polygamy, there are several rational reasons not to permit these, that stand up to constitutional scrutiny even when marriage is recognized as a fundamental right.

Consanguinity can be shown, clearly and scientifically, to raise the chances of birth defects. Also, marriage makes two people related to each other, and adding multiple layers of relatedness weirds things. On closer examination, forbidding a certain level of consanguinity is not particularly narrowly tailored or least restrictive, but since the characteristic in question is not one like sex, race, ability, etc, there’s no need for it to meet anything other than the rational basis test.

As for polygamy, the laws are not built to deal with multiple marriages at the same time. They would have to be significantly overhauled, which is not true of the same-sex marriage question. There you go: a rational basis. Again, the characteristic in question is not a fundamental characteristic of one of the participants, so no need for higher scrutiny.

The question is, does the “fundamental right to marriage”, as established in Loving, mean “marriage” as defined by the traditional male-female idea of the word, or just the legal consequences of the civil action of marrying?

The answer to that is clear to me. No one has a “right” to a sacred and unchangeable definition. There are heterosexual married couples who are still virgins (read Postsecret this week.) That doesn’t fit most people’s definition of marriage, but so what?

The only thing that matters, legally, are the legal consequences of the action: choosing to becoming each other’s closest relation, to put it in the simplest terms. That is the fundamental right, and constitutionally, it must not be restricted without cause – and in the case of using one party’s sex as the criterion, without REALLY good cause.

The Loving case illustrates rebuttals to three arguments in particular that I’ve been refuting all along, one – that marriage has never changed, two that marriage is not a civil right (The Court stated it was a civil right in 1967), and thirdly, that the voice of american blacks is in opposition to same-sex marriage. Not all blacks oppose it, and certainly it’s significant that black individuals who have personally gone through a struggle, seem to be more aware of equality for all and more likely to advocate for it. Here is a recent quote from Mildred Loving:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

I shouldn’t have used the verb “to weird” – I should have known you wouldn’t understand the concept.

“Verbing weirds language”. Get it now?

“Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that procreation and childrearing have nothing to do with marriage rights.”

No, the fact that my wife and I need ART to procreate has nothing to do with marriage rights. We’re not endangering children. Try again, NDT.

“Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that they should be able to marry regardless of anyone else’s opinion, and that nontraditional structures should not be judged as “weird” and should be given the full rights and benefits as everyone else.”

No, you are using the wrong definition of “weird”, but for what its worth, beyond 1st degree consanguinous heterosexual marriages (which DO substantially endanger the resultant children), I see everything else (plural marriage included) as merely people trying to control other people’s lives.

“Irrelevant. Gays and lesbians have claimed that having to change the wording of laws is insufficient grounds and constitutes discrimination when used as a reason.”

No, changing the wording to include same-sex couples is very different from the structure of family law itself. If you have two wives and you die without a will, who inherits? There’s no laws in place to deal with it. Saying that it’s too hard to remove the “Sex” box from marriage licence applications isn’t discrimination, it’s just stupid. And FWIW, I think that we should be working towards a more flexible civil family law that does allow for plurality. Try again, NDT.

“Irrelevant. “Romeo and Juliet” laws, as well as laws giving minors the right to request and consent to having abortions without their parents’ notification or consent, demonstrate that minors are more than capable of consenting to sex and to long-term contracts.”

Misdirection. Romeo and Juliet laws address the fact that when two unconsentable minors have sex, who can charge who with statutory rape is unanswerable. Minors cannot consent to sex, period. Abortion consent/notification laws are not what we’re discussing here, and you have no way of knowing my position on them even if we were. Try again, NDT.

“She claims that issues around procreation are sufficient grounds for banning other people from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right, but insists they should have no effect on her own.”

That’s because my procreational “issues” are not a 30% rate of birth defects, genius.

“She claims that other people should be banned from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right because their relationship is “weird”, but insists that other peoples’ opinions of hers constitute bigotry and should not be allowed to set public policy.”

Again, you need to check your definition of “to weird”. That’s not at all what I said. I’m referring to the legal complications of multiple layers of relatedness. I have not studied this enough to know if it is practically surmountable or not.

“She claims that other people should be banned from exercising what she claims is an automatic constitutional right because laws would have to be rewritten to accomodate it — but insists that laws must be rewritten to accomodate her, or it’s a violation of her constitutional rights.”

No. I don’t think plural marriages “should” be banned because the structure of the law does not currently support it. I think we should be working towards flexible family law. What I’m saying is this:

Changing the law to allow for same-sex marriage is trivial (see: Massachusetts.) Changing it to allow for plural marriage is very non-trivial. The number of participants in a marriage is not a suspect class, whereas sex is. My marriage is prohibited on the basis of my sex. This is a much more invidious and clear violation of my constitutional rights than bigamy laws are, AND it’s simple as pie to fix. So fix it.

Try again, NDT.

NDT,

That rise is less even than 1st cousin marriages – which many states and countries allow. Also, I’m not infertile, I’m a lesbian. All I need is fresh sperm and a pipette. Did they study that? ART is a blanket term. Anyway, a 30% chance is very different from a 2% chance – giving birth over 40 is more dangerous than me, a 26-year-old, availing myself of a male friend and a turkey baster. We don’t prohibit that, do we? You have problems seeing the big picture, don’t you? 30% > 2%.

“Yes there is; the section of the law that invalidates plural marriage, or, in other words, “first come, first served”.”

Now, this HAS to be on purpose. Oh Brilliant One, bigamy laws are necessarily excluded in a thought experiment about what would happen if there were no bigamy laws.

“Or, in other words, there is no way of reconciling your assertions with the clear FACT that minors, under law, are fully capable of having sex without penalty, making legal decisions, and making medical decisions, ESPECIALLY pertaining to sex, love, and relationships.”

Sex is not marriage. Minors do make decisions about sex as a practical matter – although we still regard them as unable to consent below ~16. Marriage is a legal commitment. If they can’t enter a contract legally, there’s no reason that they should be able to enter a marriage legally. It’s that simple. No, I’m not ok with them being able to abort pregnancies without parental notification – I find it hard to believe that they can consent to that without permission, but not a tongue ring. I do understand the thinking behind it, though, w/r/t abuse and coercion and the consequences of a teen keeping a pregnancy secret, although I don’t agree with the result. Anyway, like I said, that’s not what we’re talking about, you twisty little man. You presume to know that I support abortion AT ALL, when in fact I am deeply ambivalent towards it. If you’re looking for inconsistencies in my positions, you’ll find it problematic, considering there are very few matters that I feel have clear answers. This marriage thing is pretty much it. I don’t know much, but I know I should be able to marry my wife. (And thaaaat may beeeeeeeee… all I neeeeed to knooooooow… hehe.)

“So is your walking into a men’s bathroom, or men walking into a women’s bathroom.”

Bathroom usage is a matter of social policy. It may get you kicked out of a store or bar, or dirty looks, but it should not get you arrested (even though it does sometimes.) There is no law on the books that I know of regarding women’s vs. men’s restrooms.

What there IS, though, is law that states exactly what you sarcastically say: that there is no difference between the sexes and that any differentiation whatsoever in law or practice is unconstitutional.

It’s Title VII. Unless it is for a bona fide occupational qualification, the *law* cannot, de jure or de facto, make a disctinction based on gender. People can (except in the case of housing and employment) – allowing such things as segregated bathrooms and men-only 19th holes – but the federal government cannot, nor can they give money to those who do.

So, um, yeah. By law, male citizens must be treated the same as female citizens.

My goal isn’t “plural marriage”. My goal is marriage equality and justice. If someone wants to marry 3 women, it’s none of my business as long as they all consent. The problems with polygamous societies like the FLDS are not fixed by prohibiting plural marriage.

Do you think it’s your business who someone else chooses to espouse, in the absence of coercion (actual or statutory)?

I get back to finally read responses and I see we are now down to the level of turkey baster and pipette. My we are such a bright group.

But it did make me consider evolutionary theories a bit. Here we have lesbians with turkey basters making sure they can have a genetically related child. Our genes desire to reproduce themselves is certainly more powerful than I ever believed. And I thought men were the ones going around trying to impregnate any orifice they could find. It seems gay men are the ones on the short end of this deal??.what, with finding the vagina a disgusting physical attribute. Looks like their genes? only hope is to chase after a lesbian with an empty baster or visit a sperm bank and hope they are accepted.

I?m beginning to think now that maybe gay men should be allowed to marry, but lesbian couples?.I don?t think so.

Excuse me, should read:

“And if, at this moment, I call Mike AN idiot…”

Let’s address this first:

“But unfortunately, we’re not in a thought experiment; we’re in the real world, where there are bigamy laws that neatly deal with the two-wives problem you just brought up by invalidating the second marriage.”

-head explodes-

Let’s go over this again, very slowly.

The point I was making is that changing the law for same-sex marriage is trivial. Changing the law to deal with plural marriage is not.

So I posed a question. Let’s say all of a sudden bigamy is not illegal, and you marry two women. Then you die. Which one inherits?

Pointing to bigamy laws to answer that question is stupid. Yes, we ARE in the middle of a thought experiment. To allow for plural marriage, a lot more has to change than the removal of the “Are the applicants of opposite sex?” step in marriage license approval. Family law is tied right now to the idea that marriage is a two-person, exclusive arrangement – laws and policies about inheritence, benefits, decision-making, and a lot more have been designed with two people in mind for centuries. Because of the legal equivalence of male citizens and female citizens, it is actually tied to the idea of opposite-sex marriage in any practical way.

“Ah, but there again, you argued that procreation or what could happen during procreation is grounds for banning marriages.

In that case, the state is perfectly within its rights to consider the fact that it is impossible for you to create a child that biologically belongs to both parents.”

I did not argue that “procreation or what happened during procreation” was grounds. That is so vague as to be absurd.

I argued that a 30% chance of birth defects (as opposed to the normal rate of ~1%) is a pretty significant argument for child endangerment, where a turkey baster baby is not. Child endangerment is NOT the same thing as “procreation or what happens in procreation.”

Now, whether prohibiting such marriages is an effective way of preventing or discouraging such procreation is arguable – but the distinction does not rely on a suspect class, and is therefore constitutional – even fundamental rights are sometimes restricted, but it cannot be because of suspect classifications.

“You argue that your right to marry should be based on your sexual attractions.”

I do no such thing. I argue that the decision to grant or deny a marriage application cannot be based on the sex of either or both of the applicants.

“Unfortunately, that interpretation neatly renders laws concerning benefits and protections for pregnancy, domestic abuse, and whatnot unconstitutional, as well as “affirmative action” programs that explicitly give preferential treatment to women and minorities.”

If a male becomes pregnant, he’s more than welcome to any pregnancy benefits and protections. Some laws might have “pregnant woman” in the place of “pregnant person”, which would be technically incorrect, and as soon as a pregnant male sues, he’ll win the case.

Domestic abuse laws cover abused males, too. There’s a problem of recognition, taking them seriously, and availability of shelters, but not of lawful protection. As for various “affirmative action” laws, yes, there’s a case to be made that some or all of them are unconstitutional. There’s also a case to be made that requiring educational and employment opportunities to be granted in a way that at least vaguely reflects demographics is a necessary and proper reason to look at a citizen’s suspect classification. Your point is?

“If it were none of my business who someone chooses to spouse, I wouldn’t care about coercion either.

But, since I can care about coercion, the precedent is set that I can care about other behaviors and issues that are relevant to society in deciding who can and cannot get married, and still have it be constitutional.”

Coercion differs from same-sexness in a major way: one denies a citizen freedom, the other doesn’t. You are constitutionally required to care about the one, and constitutionally required not to care about the other.

Duh.

Also, ND30, the verb is “to espouse”, not “to spouse”.

Language is interesting…

You can also espouse a cause, if you’re attached to it – not if you’re the opposite of it in some way.

Two different flavors can marry in a dish, if they meld together to become one flavor. Am I the same “flavor” as my wife, simply because we are both female?

In other words, is marriage about the union of the two sexes, or is it about the union of two individuals? Legally, sex disctinctions do not exist unless there is a compelling government interest that can only be addressed by making such a distinction. Therefore, since restricting marriage to opposite-sex does not promote any such compelling governmental interest in a narrowly tailored and least restrictive manner, the government has no choice but to view marriage as being about the union of two INDIVIDUALS.

You are welcome, and your church is welcome, to disagree. Any truly private facilities are welcome to refuse to serve anyone on any grounds, including this one. But the legal system is not free to disagree just because a bunch of people want it to, any more than my friends and I are free to vote you into jail because we feel like it. That would be a bill of attainder, which is unconstitutional. To take the clause which forbids bills of attainders out of the constitution is possible – as is putting a specific prohibition of same-sex marriages into the constitution. But both actions go against the principles of this country as much as voting a dictator into power would.

Unfortunately, Karen, what you miss is that your argument is that you should be allowed to marry based on your sexual attraction to the same sex.

I say fine; then admit that sexual attraction is a valid basis for marriage, and that it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted.

It doesn’t matter if the sexes, as groups, are treated “equally”, because INDIVIDUALS have rights, not groups.

And every individual may marry someone of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender.

That applies to everyone. End of story.

Furthermore, the basis of the court’s decision in Loving is that distinction on the basis of race makes no sense because there are no outstanding or meaningful differences that exist between members of different races.

Between male and female though, that argument is impossible to make.

Gortunately?

Erm, you know what I mean. Fortunately.