David Boaz notes that Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of "Loving vs. Virginia," the U.S. Supreme Court decion ending state bans on interracial marriage. He writes on the Cato@Liberty blog:
in our own times, Virginia has been repeatedly banning same-sex marriage, not worrying excessively about how much collateral damage it does to wills, custody agreements, medical powers of attorney, or joint bank accounts.
Boaz references "the state's tradition of interfering with private choices," which "flowed from an arrogant desire by the state to control private relationships."
More. Virginia's Supreme Court has just affirmed 18 as the age of consent for "sodomy," whereas 15 is the age of consent for vaginal intercourse. As New York Law School Prof. Arthur S. Leonard writes, the result is "making oral or anal sex illegal for gay teenagers while vaginal intercourse is legal for teenagers of the same age, a patent inequality." The more things change...
40 Comments for “40 Years On”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
A couple of posters in other threads have said that at the time the majority of Americans opposed interracial marriages – does anyone have a citation to verify that?
posted by Fitz on
Same-sex marriage doesn?t give you less government, it gives you more government.
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION
http://www.ali.org/ali/pr051502.htm
LAW COMMISSION OF CANADA REPORT: BEYOND CONJUGALITY
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0172.htm
posted by Throbert McGee on
One point often overlooked when people bring up Loving v. Virginia is that the new Mr. and Mrs. Loving were arrested upon their return to Virginia territory, after obtaining a marriage in Washington D.C.
The Virginia statute against anti-miscegenation was, in other words, a substantially more intrusive law than anything advocated by opponents of same-sex marriage.
posted by Brian Miller on
Boaz is quite right!
Same-sex marriage doesn?t give you less government, it gives you more government.
Ah, but that depends on how you define government.
If you take the Fitz-favored socialist path, than marriage is something that government licenses and regulates, with bureaucrats deciding the makeup and appropriateness of various family arrangements.
If you take the common-sense libertarian path, then marriage is something that needs to evolve back to its historic roots. That means first equalizing treatment under the law for all people, the first reasonable step. The second step is then getting government out of the marriage business altogether — a business that it had no place entering into in the first place (and only did so in order to regulate and ban interracial marriage in the mid-to-late 1800s).
posted by Brian Miller on
One point often overlooked when people bring up Loving v. Virginia is that the new Mr. and Mrs. Loving were arrested upon their return to Virginia territory, after obtaining a marriage in Washington D.C.
The Virginia statute against anti-miscegenation was, in other words, a substantially more intrusive law than anything advocated by opponents of same-sex marriage.
Actually, a number of states including Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia and Alabama could arrest gay residents who obtain a marriage license abroad. Those four states, plus others, call for criminal penalties for any individual considered resident who seeks a marriage within or outside the state that is forbidden by statute or law.
Since all four of those states have DOMA laws, queer residents who obtained a marriage license from Ontario or Massachusetts may indeed return and face arrest.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz said “Same-sex marriage doesn?t give you less government, it gives you more government.”.
Uh, Fitz, the link you provided referred to laws governing cohabitation – it had nothing to do with same sex marriage. Equal marriage for same sex couples gives you the at worst the same level of government or at best less government. Assuming the there are no laws allowing civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. allowing equal marriage for gays gives you exactly the same level of government. If there are such extra-marital laws for gays then allowing equal marriage for gays gives you less government as the extra-marital laws are now superfluous.
posted by Fitz on
“a business that it had no place entering into in the first place (and only did so in order to regulate and ban interracial marriage in the mid-to-late 1800s).”
posted by Brian Miller on
Equal marriage for same sex couples gives you the at worst the same level of government or at best less government.
It doesn’t really do either.
Government interference in our private lives is already far, far too high for a free society. What marriage equality does is reduce the immediate negative impact of that interference — but it doesn’t address the pernicious fact that government, not consenting individuals, is still placing itself as the sole determinant of which relationships are “real” or not.
That can only be handled by getting government out of the marriage business.
posted by Brian Miller on
a business that it had no place entering into in the first place (and only did so in order to regulate and ban interracial marriage in the mid-to-late 1800s)
I’m talking contemporary American government — not British imperial governance-by-decree. It’s interesting to note the year that said marriage regulation stopped — 1776.
Bonus points to the first person who can tell me what happened around 1776, and how that would impact the Crown’s racially-based registries.
It’s also interesting to note that even back in the British days, the primary purpose was segregation of the races. From your link:
The 1678 act exempted blacks, Indians, and mulattos, unless after 1692 their mothers were white women.
So long as those nasty non-whites didn’t attempt to interbreed with the British white folks, marriage registration wasn’t needed — only when they had “white blood” did it become a pressing concern.
posted by Fitz on
Less Goverment?
posted by Brian Miller on
Have you any argument to advance, Fitz, or are you merely in the business of posting tenuously relevant articles with cryptic link descriptors, broken up by the occasional a priori assertion?
posted by Audrey B on
Don’t worry Brian, Fitz is just a troll, an extremely messed up troll if he is gay.
posted by Fitz on
Randi Schimnosky |
“Uh, Fitz, the link you provided referred to laws governing cohabitation – it had nothing to do with same sex marriage.”
Well, the article concerns the merger of co-habitation with marriage in divorce law.
Co-habitation has a relationship with marriage. Gay marriage has a relationship with marriage. It seems anti-intellectual to conclude that these are discreet categories.
Hence Marriage always has something to do with marriage.
The first post sites an article from Great Britain. It seems that just shortly after adopting ?domestic partner? legislation for homosexuals they are already proposing the legal equivalence of co-habitation and marriage.
The other to links in that post, #1. to the American Law Institute #2. To Canada?s Beyond Conjugality recommendations help shed light on the agenda.
Now instead of ?less government? The headline describes it as “equal rights” for cohabitors but what it really is, is a massive expansion of the power of the government to regulate personal relationships.
As predicted my defenders of marriage & as explicitly endorsed by (the two reports and article above) the cultural left has already moved to merging marriage and co-habitation.
If you investigate those reports compiled by some VERY powerful institutions you will find that desire manifest in the documents.
“the value I place on family diversity and on the freedom of individuals to choose from a variety of family forms. This same value leads me to be generally opposed to efforts to standardize families into a certain type of nuclear family because a majority may believe this is the best kind of family or because it is the most deeply rooted ideologically in our traditions.? *
*(Brigitte M. Bodenheimer Memorial Lecture on the Family), University of California, Davis Law Review 31 (1998): One of the three main drafters of the ALI report ?PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION?
The point being, those who advocate gay marriage are mere fellow travelers in a much larger and more influential movement to deconstruct and de-thrown the natural family. Maintaining that such a measure creates ?less government? is manifestly false.. it leads to more government control as the article indicates.
More importantly ?gay marriage? helps lock in and reinforce efforts that deinstitutionalize traditional marriage laws; paving the way for innovations that in turn do more damage still. As a case in point we see Britain making the exact legal changes that were predicted. Rather than strengthening marriage as an institutionalized norm; same-sex ?marriage? has lead to further calls for de-institutionalization.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, Great Britain doesn’t have equal marriage for same sex couples, they have an extra-marital institution which is indeed more government. If they got rid of that and allowed gays simply to marry they would have less government, not more. Allowing gays equal access to marriage at worst means the same level of government – cohabitation is not marriage.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And I should point out that the extra legalities regarding cohabitation are due to heterosexuals cohabitating, not gays, allowing gays to marry has nothing to do with creating these extra legal arrangments for heterosexual cohabitators.
posted by Fitz on
Randi
#1. You ignore the substance of my post that offers ample evidence that refute your contention that “allowing gays to marry has nothing to do with creating these extra legal arrangements for heterosexual cohabitators.”
I agree that this particular co-habitation law does not ?necessarily? follow from same-sex partnership laws as a matter of pure philosophy. My argument is that is HAS followed from same-sex partnership laws as a ideological and political reality. (as forewarned)
#2. Advancing a set of government subsidies, restrictions, and regulations on an entirely new group of people (same-sex couples) under any rubric (marriage or domestic partnerships) cannot ever be properly labeled as ?less government?. It is in fact a great expansion of government into a whole new category of relationships.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, your post doesn’t refute anything, it goes on about institiutions seperate and distinct from marriage. Allowing gays access to marriage does not result in more government as gays are using the exact same “subsidies, restrictions, and regulations” that straights use. The only change is in the definition of a married couple from a “man and a woman” to “two people”. When gays are allowed access to the same institution this removes the need for seperate extra-governmental institutions like civil unions or domestic partnerships thus resulting in less government.
posted by Fitz on
I get your distinction concerning civil unions. Nevertheless, adding a new list of relationships to marriage (no matter the name) is not less goverment.
If I changes Social Security to cover people under 65 as well as over 65, that can hardly be called less goverment.
You seem to have bitten into a lure that Brian likes to flash around concerning his false libertarianism. Now you seem to be defending it for no other reason.
You may want to read my posts again to truly descern my message.
Or your just playing dump perhaps
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz if 50 million straight people get married one year and 55 million straight people get married the next year that can hardly be called more government. Ditto for equal marriage for gays, as long as gays are given equal access to marriage they use exactly the same government institutions and services as straights, that’s not more government.
As far as your posts go they didn’t make sense the first time, they didn’t make the point you claimed they did so there’s no reason to reread them.
posted by Fitz on
“Ditto for equal marriage for gays, as long as gays are given equal access to marriage they use exactly the same government institutions and services as straights, that’s not more government.”
It is an expansion of goverment government subsidies, restrictions, and regulations on an entirely new group of people whose rel;ationships were here to for not included.
If the same status was occorded any two people, brothers, roommates, of polymorous arangments would that be more goverment or less?
posted by Brian Miller on
Great Britain doesn’t have equal marriage for same sex couples, they have an extra-marital institution which is indeed more government. If they got rid of that and allowed gays simply to marry they would have less government, not more.
Not true on many levels.
As a former resident of the UK, I can tell you a bit about the civil partnership scheme. Basically, it has a number of ADVANTAGES over the “traditional government marriage,” including greater ease of dissolution. A lot of straight advocates have demanded access to civil partnerships for that reason (they’re presently restricted only to same-sex couples).
However, in both cases, it’s more government. In the UK, premarital/prenuptual agreements have no legal weight, and the state decides everything from the division of assets to an appropriate level of compensation that one should pay his/her spouse (if that becomes an argument within the marriage).
It’s hardly a model for less government interference. That said, it is vastly preferable to Fitz’ Handmaiden’s Tale. (Talk about damning with faint praise!)
posted by Brian Miller on
It is an expansion of goverment government subsidies, restrictions, and regulations
Which begs the question that Libertarians keep asking conservatives — and which conservatives keep dodging:
Is marriage an “ancient religious institution,” or is it a giant government welfare program of subsidies, restrictions and regulations?
Government marriage is clearly the latter — and as such, conservative advocates of the status quo, especially the status quo excluding gay people, are the biggest advocates of socialism in America today.
Even socialized health care is less of a socialist undertaking than the conservative right-wing position on government marriage. The demand that limitless welfare be provided to oneself and his partisans cannot then be tempered by an argument against “further spending” on “those people.” Either you’re an advocate of government welfare spending or you’re not — plain and simple.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, as long as gays are given access to the same marital institution as straights there is no additional governmental institution, laws, regulations, etc. More people using an institution isn’t what’s meant by more government, more government is additional laws, regulations, institutions, etc.
Brian Miller, what you’re saying is a non-sequitor. Of course the UK civil partnership is more government, the point is that if the UK government allowed gays access to the exact same marital institutions that are already set up for heterosexuals there wouldn’t be this extra government, it wouldn’t exist, there would be LESS government than there is now.
posted by Xeno on
OT: Great News Everyone! The constitutional amendment passage in Massachusetts was voted down!
posted by Brian Miller on
the point is that if the UK government allowed gays access to the exact same marital institutions that are already set up for heterosexuals there wouldn’t be this extra government
The government hasn’t grown because of the CP legislation, and the government won’t shrink after CPs are eliminated in favor of marriage equality. Socialist governments like the British one grow relentlessly for no reason at all. ‘Tis silliness to argue otherwise.
The constitutional amendment passage in Massachusetts was voted down!
Isn’t it great? They couldn’t even get 25% support for the bigot amendment in the state with the lowest divorce rates and the longest average marriages. So much for their claim that they represent “family values” — real people with real family values, who actually live them, just delivered the bigot brigade a much-need swat upside the head.
posted by Audrey B on
Everybody please stop feeding the troll(Fitz)!
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian, a seperate institution for gay unions is more government – you can’t get around that. Eliminating this seperate institution and allowing gays access to marriage means less government – you can’t get around that either
posted by Fitz on
As stated and Ignored (the original question)
If the same status was occorded any two people, brothers, roommates, of polymorous arangments would that be more goverment or less?
Is this LESS GOVERMENT????
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, I don’t no how many different ways I can put this to you, but in the UK they do not allow gays access to marriage. As I’ve stated before that is a seperate institution from marriage and it is indeed more governement. If gays were allowed access to marriage that would get rid of the need for this seperate instituion nad that would be LESS GOVERNMENT.
If you give brothers, roomates, etc. access to marriage that would also use the exact same institution, laws, regulations, etc. that is already set up and that would be the SAME GOVERNMENT.
posted by Brian Miller on
a seperate institution for gay unions is more government – you can’t get around that
Not if it’s administered by the same people, systems and apparatuses (as it is in the UK).
posted by Xeno on
Not if it’s administered by the same people, systems and apparatuses (as it is in the UK).
Not entirely true Brian, otherwise Sir Peter Maxwell Davies wouldn’t have had a problem with getting his wedding ceremony on Orkney Island. There was ‘extra’ training required for Mr. Ridley in order to perform the ceremony, even though the systems are supposed to be the same.
posted by Xeno on
Errata: Sanday Island, not Orkney Island.
posted by Brian Miller on
Not entirely true Brian, otherwise Sir Peter Maxwell Davies wouldn’t have had a problem with getting his wedding ceremony on Orkney Island.
Actually, entirely true. The local council simply broke the law by not providing Sir Peter with his civil partnership as mandated by Westminster.
You *are* aware that the registries are centrally managed by the crown, right?
There was ‘extra’ training required for Mr. Ridley in order to perform the ceremony, even though the systems are supposed to be the same.
“Extra” training of. . . the same government bureaucrats who also do marriages.
One has to chuckle at this line of reasoning. How much “extra training” is required? It’s far more likely that in conservative areas of the UK, such as Orkney and Northern Ireland, that such excuses are used by people who wish to claim a “personal beliefs” exemption from registering civil partnerships.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian said “Not if it’s administered by the same people, systems and apparatuses (as it is in the UK).”.
Brian, if its a different system, and it is, it needs different systems and apparatuses, and at some point more people to handle those different systems and apparatuses. UK civil unions are more govenment. Canada is an example where gays have access to the same marital institutions that heterosexuals have. In Canada there is the same level of government that there was before gays were allowed access to marriage.
posted by Xeno on
BTW, I’m merely playing the devil’s advocate here to raise awareness concerning civil partnerships.
Actually, entirely true. The local council simply broke the law by not providing Sir Peter with his civil partnership as mandated by Westminster.
Are you sure, they stated that they could have sent one of their three ‘fully trained’ registrars to officiate at their location without any problems.
You *are* aware that the registries are centrally managed by the crown, right?
Sure. It’s at the federal level in Canada as well.
“Extra” training of. . . the same government bureaucrats who also do marriages.
Are CPs registered in the same database as marriages?
One has to chuckle at this line of reasoning. How much “extra training” is required? It’s far more likely that in conservative areas of the UK, such as Orkney and Northern Ireland, that such excuses are used by people who wish to claim a “personal beliefs” exemption from registering civil partnerships.
Probably true, however did they didn’t raise personal beliefs as an excuse in this case, and Mr. Ridley had no qualms about officiating.
BTW, Brian, are you aware that the act forbids the officiation of civil partnerships in ‘Religious Premises’? Their excuse was that it was a civil and secular institution, and should be seperated from ‘Church.’ Yet no other civil contracts in the UK have ever been legally forbidden in such locations. IMHO the act was a waste of paper and bureaucratic resources. It could have simply been a simple amendment to the marriage act. And whether the Orkney council broke the law or not, it did allow to create a serious inconvience to Sir Peter and Colin.
posted by Brian Miller on
Brian, are you aware that the act forbids the officiation of civil partnerships in ‘Religious Premises’?
It goes beyond that, actually.
It provides for fines and prison time for religious personnel who attempt to officiate at a civil partnership.
no other civil contracts in the UK have ever been legally forbidden in such locations
That’s because Tony Blair was bending over backwards to accommodate Rowan Williams (and to a lesser extent, the Catholic Nationalists) to demonstrate that civil partnerships “are not marriage and are completely different in all regards.”
As a result, the civil partnerships actually set a number of gay people *BACK* — especially practicing Quakers, reform and conservative Jews, and other religious believers whose own traditions are supportive of actual gay marriage. In those situations, having members of a Quaker Meeting or a rabbi officiate at a CP — or even having it in a meeting hall or synogogue — could land the celebrants in prison.
IMHO the act was a waste of paper and bureaucratic resources
To an extent, you’re correct.
It’s imperfect and I wasn’t hugely enthusiastic about it when I lived there. However, British friends of mine with non-European partners who they were seeking to gain legal residency for were greatly relieved, as the provisions for partnership residency in the past were a total nightmare of documentation and pleading with bureaucrats.
It could have simply been a simple amendment to the marriage act.
That would have taken political courage! And we’re talking about New Labour, here.
Heck, this bill was so watered down and branded as “unMarriage ™” that even Michael Howard was able to get behind it. That should tell you something.
whether the Orkney council broke the law or not, it did allow to create a serious inconvience to Sir Peter and Colin
Of course it did. The only problem is that, in the UK, whether it’s marriage or civil partnership, even if they’d managed to get a speedy ceremony pulled together, the inconvenience would remain. The British crown inserts itself as the final arbiter of the relationship — deciding whether it’s truly over (or whether parties should try and “reconcile”), deciding how much money each partner is entitled to in the family revenue stream (regardless of prior commitments and contracts), deciding who should support the children and to what degree (regardless of prior commitments and contracts), etc.
Getting married in the UK is handing over a large amount of discretion over one’s private life directly to the crown — in a way that would stun even the more theocratically minded in this country. Although, I suspect it’s the direction that the theocrats are taking us long-term as well if they succeed in their socializing of personal relationships.
posted by Brian Miller on
Are CPs registered in the same database as marriages?
Separate field, same database system, same bureaucracy.
The field for “marital status” on Britain’s upcoming Orwellian ID card scheme accommodates “married/civilly partnered” and many government forms that I saw (and I saw a HELL of a lot of forms my brief few years there!) treat the statuses as the same and will typically code someone as “married/CP’d.”
posted by Xeno on
It goes beyond that, actually.
It provides for fines and prison time for religious personnel who attempt to officiate at a civil partnership.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?
In other words, it discriminates by religion. Well this isn’t a novelty to the British.
posted by Brian Miller on
It’s the unfortunate end-result of two policies that feed each other:
1) Omnipresent government regulation — even of one’s most intimate affairs;
2) Separate and sorta-equal institutions that segregate society in an effort to please the unpleasable.
posted by Audrey B on
Everyone, please stop responding to Fitz. You are all wasting your time and energy trying to reason him out of a position he did not reason him self in to. Continuing to try and engage this man (woman?) in a debate will only end in stress and headaches.