Pandagon

I'm of the school that the government should get out of the business of legislating marriage altogether. Allow for the registration of two persons in a "civil union", no matter gay or straight, and leave marriage in the sacred realm where it belongs. If the president is truly concerned about defending the "sacrament of marriage", he would leave the prerogative of marrying two men or two women or a man and a woman up to the churches, without governmental interference. I know it would never happen, but a marriage amendment would be interfering in the free exercise of religion, would it not?

Where is this idea that marriage is a soley religious institution come from? My wife and I are married yet we were hitched by a JoP. Most people in history got married by a process more like a common-law marriage than High Church ceremony. The Church didn't even have a ceremony for marraige until sometime in the 4-5th centuries. Marriage is not a religious entitiy, but an entity that has developed a religious fol-de-ro. Marriage is not made a religious institution just because the Church gets involved, in the same way that Latin is not a religious language just because JPII use it for his bulls. Ceding the word marriage to religion is a cop-out to try and distract the religious wackos instead of beating them down like we should.

Marriage is the setting up of a family and household by two people (sometimes more in some cultures) where the relationship (theoretically)has romantic overtones. It has a legal dimension because law determine the rights and responsibilities of a spouse. It has a religious dimension because religious people like having their god(s) involved in important life-acts (and priests love to play dictator). However, only the legal dimension matters in reality. The law does not care what religion you got hitched under the auspices of, or even if religion was involved, just that you jumped through the right hoops.

Can a constitutional amendment be ruled unconstitutional? Seriously.

Merkin,

Nope. Once it gets ratified, a new Amendment is a seamless part of the document (barring another Amendment repealing it). Which is one reason it is so hard to get one through.

This wording won't hold since it prevents polygamy and Utah Republicans won't allow that to occur.

By gum, you're right. Up until you pointed that out, it seemed to me that states go voluntarily create gay marriage if they wanted. (And that the FMA simply removed an ambiguity that might lead states to believe they HAD to allow gay marriage.) But, again, you're right. Because as soon as a state - even voluntarily - creates a law allowing gay marriage... or gay civil unions that have marriage-like rights... they'd be in violation of the amendment. right?

The real question is, would Kerry be in favor of this amendment? He said that he'd be in favor of one that made room for civil unions, and this one does, technically, even though the term would be made meaningless. This is exactly the kind of issue that would make Kerry equivocate himself into a big knot.

My daughter is 8 years old, she is in second grade. I got a call from her teacher monday afternoon, and went to talk to her yesterday after school.. I had no idea what for. She was concerned because monday, when she asked if anyone knew that there was an election happening this year and what it meant, my daughter raised her hand and said "it means we're going to get a new president." When the teacher asked her if she knew what that meant, my daughter replied: "It means that maybe our new president will let my aunts get married".

Her teacher told me that whatever I teach her at home is my own business, but asked me to talk to her and tell her that talking about gay people is not appropriate for school, especially when they are that young and impressionable.

I'm very proud of my daughter, and I will say no such thing to her. But it does prove that my 8 year old daughter understands life on a level that many, many people never will.

This is DOA. Big mistake for the GOP. The ERA didn't pass, and it had popular support for some time. Most Americans deep down believe in fairness, and when push comes to shove don't want to be on the bigot side.

The inventors of democracy, of the world's first Republics, are all dead.

For no genetic reason, they were all gay.

That, and the single biggest hero of WWII, Richard Turing. Audie Murphy(not gay) may have killed/captured the most Germans, but Alan Turing(gay) broke the Enigma machine code, saving millions of Allied lives.

Ooooooh.... "sacred realm."

Is that an oogah-boogah kind of Sacred Realm, or more of a "roll the 13 sided dice for more hit points, Balfagar" kind of Sacred Realm?

Alan Turing, not Richard.
Alan Turing was fired from the British Civil Service when they found out he was gay.
He allegedly killed himself.

Your daughter kicks ass, dc; to the extent you had something to do with it =) good on ya.

Writers for The Simpsons nailed this a while ago in their parody of Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill":

"But why can't we just pass a law against flag burning?"

"Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we change the Constitution ..."

"We can make all sorts of crazy laws!"

"Now you're catching on!"

MA this morning threw a similar sort of loophole into its Commonwealth constitutional amendment. I don't know the language, but my sense here in Beantown is that a state constitution that one could claim "establishes" het marriage and homo civil unions within one amendment may be enough of a compromise to win the day. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on whether they are one and the same in every sense. Two years ago, it would be called a great success for the gay community.

And this is all coming working its way in MA right now, so it should be interesting

dc, it sounds like you are doing an amazing job of raising your daughter to be a sensitive individual.
Too bad her teacher wasn't raised the same way.
Too bad that teacher is teaching!
Too bad we have to have a word in the English language like bigotry!
Hopefully your daughter will pass her mores on to her children, I know she will.
Peace and have a great day.

This is what the right do, they don't promote more rights, they take rights away.
Their mantra is, only the RIGHT have rights, disturbing yet catchy.

The Western Church (I don't know much about the Eastern Orthodox) began to assert its power over marriage beginning in the 10th and 11th centuries. This is also the time, I think, that the Church really began to go after priestly marriage and concubinage. The Anglo-Saxon priesthood, for instance, was married: I might be wrong on this in the particulars, but the broad picture's right. By 1200, the Church had a pretty good system in place.

But we all know how the Church's assertion of its absolute rights over marriage went over in England in the early 16th century. Henry VIII's wanting to get married to whomever he liked was a blow that I hope the Church _never_ gets over.

Alan Turing ate a cyanide apple, I believe . . .

I sent the following e-mail out the other day:

Dear Mr. Kerry:

I heard your NPR interview the other day and was appalled by the following:

"I think the word marriage kind of gets in the way of the whole debate to be honest with you because marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church – it’s sacramental – or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has and clearly there is a separation of church and state here."

Marriage is a contract with the state that recognizes two individuals as a joined entity for purposes of property distributon and inheritance.

PERIOD!

You seem to be under the impression that athiests can't get married. Well they can -- at any City Hall, Justice of the Peace, or if they happen to be in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. And as long as they've paid the fee, bought the license and signed the papers -- it's marriage. Every bit as valid as the ones performed by religious authorities -- by virtue of the state. The only proviso is that it must be between members of the opposite sex.

I am 57 years old. My lover and I have been together for 31 of those years. Yet in the eyes of the state that means NOTHING WHATSOEVER. I'm scarcely alone in this. This grotesque situation must end. And not through a "separate but equal" side door. I am an American citizen. I pay taxes. And to quote our Founding Fathers, "Taxation without Representation is Treason!"

If you are seriously running for the Presidency of ALL the people of the United States, I would strongly suggest you make yourself better informed on this issue and take a stand that COUNTS!

Sincerely

David Ehrenstein

Jesse, your analysis is right on, particularly the last point about declaring heterosexuality the only valid sexual orientation. In fact, I think the marriage amendment could be used to go after Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court's sodomy decision. After all, that decision was based (as was Romer v. Evans, the Colorado Amendment 2 case), at least in some sense, on the notion that you can't make gays and lesbians second-class citizens with no basis. But the marriage amendment, which enshrines a second-class basis for gay relationships, calls that conclusion into question, no? Just like Scalia said -- with some justification -- that Lawrence could lead to gay marriage, the converse could be true.

The late Yale scholar John Boswell has demonstrated that marriage between two men has had Catholic ceremonies and approval attached since the earliest days that we have records, and that the first versions of such rites are included along with rituals like communion that are part of the foundation of the church today. The gummint has no business deciding what is marriage and what is not. Leave that to the churches, call anything else a civil union, and treat the two as equivalent under the law.

"It's what a lot of anti-gay conservatives have wanted for a very long time - a Constitutional declaration that heterosexuality is the only valid sexual orientation"

Now, I was going to say that this isn't exactly true, because there's nothing in the amendment that would restore anti-sodomy laws- it would still be legal to perform homosexual acts, due to the texas sodomy SC case.
But, here's a theory- this amendment could be construed to allow the re-imposition or continuation of anti-sodomy laws. Remember that anti-sodomy laws, while selectively enforced to persecute gays, are often technically written to prohibit several sexual acts, including heterosexual oral sex or fornication (sex outside of marriage.) If, based on these laws, the right to have sex is defined as a legal incident of marriage, then this amendment could be construed to ban the legalization of homosexual sex (or make constitutional the anti-gay sex laws that everyone now thinks are unconstitutional.)
Disclaimer- obviously I'm not a lawyer, but I could see Tony "counting some people's votes by hand violates the equal protection clause" Scalia making an argument like this.

Shorter SP- "What Glenn said a minute before me."

I just don't think this proposal has legs. I mean, no matter how people may feel about gay marriage, something as drastic as amending the Constitution is right out when it comes down to it. Besides which, I don't think those polls mean too much, since, unless they're only polling regular voters, the data is moot. It's hard enough getting people to vote in presidential elections, for pete's sake.

dc.... the teacher just might have been concerned about your daughter's and your privacy/civil saftey in contacting and advising you. She may very well support the attitudes and personal policies and hope to protect you and your daughter from an unrelenting vindictive air of intolerance that is being facilitated by people stuck in the confusion of purposelessness which would seem to be is the Republican party.

Kevin- the regular voters have nothing to do with it other than their influence on elected politicians, since the amendment itself will never go directly to the voters. It has to be approved by 2/3 of the senate, 2/3 of the house, then 3/4 of state legislatures within a given time period. It is never acually voted on at the ballot box. (Maybe that's why Bush likes the idea of an amendment, doesn't have to worry about them darn voters.)

Here's another way of looking at it:

1) The states are in charge of marriage law. It's rather a key "health, safety, welfare" item.
2) If one state (Massachusetts) permits gay marriage, then all other states are required to recognize it under the "full faith and credit clause," or Massachusetts (in this case) can start refusing to honor marriage contracts--or any other kind of agreement--made outside Massachusetts. Why have a United States, then? The degree of acceptance would be hashed out by the Federal judiciary.
3) This is pretty much a states-rights, libertarian, local government, distributed federalism matter for the Framers. It's not the business of the Federal government. Accuse the bastards pushing it of trying to force states to conform to a Federal standard, an imposition of nationalism. They're weak on this argument, because they're going to try and frame it as "Massachusetts forcing the other 49 to accept gay marriage," which is bullshit: Massachusetts is demanding acceptance of Massachusetts authority over who gets married in Massachusetts. It's the Feds trying to intervene.
4) Dig the bit about "state law." One of the talking points in this campaign is how the courts are forcing this, not the legislatures. But, of course, the amendment deprives the legislatures of the opportunity to write law.
5) I think this issue will not play for the Republicans the way Karl Rove dreams.

You're correct, SP. My mistake. Good thing I haven't started Con law yet. =}

Still, I don't think state reps would be any more likely to desire a Constitutional amendment. Many have been proposed over the years, but the vast majority have been struck down.

Brian, you're correct that "One of the talking points in this campaign is how the courts are forcing this, not the legislatures," though civil rights advances have almost never been predicated upon the legislatures acting first. Brown v. Board of education came down long before the 64' act. Why? Because the extending of civil rights has never been a popular idea. I see nothing wrong with the courts leading the way on this one.

Kevin, I see SP beat me to the post, but even worse is the consideration that how far this piece o tripe gets will in part depend on the "herd mentality" of elected represtatives. Conservatives have been far more able to "scare the bejesus" out of politicians than us lefties have.

"Is that an oogah-boogah kind of Sacred Realm, or more of a "roll the 13 sided dice for more hit points, Balfagar" kind of Sacred Realm?"

I believe the Sacred Realm is where Ganondorf always steals the Triforce.

this is just a sop to the far-right to get them out to vote.
all they think about is man-on-man anal action while in
the voting booth, donchaknow (look at santorum).

they couldn't get a FLAG amendment passed, and that
was (relatively) innocuous (tho still shite, and like FMA,
an amendment that takes away rights).

if it DOES pass, hello Handmaid's Tale!

I think where I was going with my point was that marriage as a titled industry - whatever the hell it is - is being propped up as this sacrament that needs defending from the ungodly forces of the left. If that's truly the case, then just change the name for the purposes of the government. Sure, being "unionized" probably doesn't have the same romantic sound to it, but it would force these dopes to put up or shut up. Is it "marriage" that they want to save? Or is it just that they plain don't like gay people?

dc, Thanks for the story. and David--great email to Kerry. My 55 year old partner of 12 years ended up in the emergency room Monday night. There's nothing that brings the issue home faster. Would they let me see her? Would they give me any information about her condition? How would they react to my telling them i'm her partner? Should I lie and say I'm her sister? I don't want to lie, it's degrading. Stress on top of stress. As David said, in the eyes of the state I am nothing whatsoever to her. This needs to change.

one more time so even preznit drunk and stupid can understand. adding divorce, seperation and infidelity, marriage has an effective failure rate of 70%. why would anyone bother with this obvious failure, and why refer to it as sacred?

Gay marriage has always been legal.
My sister has been married to a gay man for years.

"Alan Turing(gay) broke the Enigma machine code, saving millions of Allied lives."

Grumble, grumble, grumble. It's off-topic, but this is one of my pet peeves. Alan Turing did no such thing, though he did do a lot of work on *improving* the ability to read the Enigma codes. The basic work in figuring out the process for breaking Enigma was done by Polish intelligence before the war, and they smuggled their work out to the French and British right before the German invasion. For all that Brits like to claim that the Americans try to hog all the credit for Ultra, they are remarkably parsimonious with giving credit out to others.

What I think is the most remarkable part of the story is that the Poles who did the initial work fell into German hands, and never let on what they had been working on.

What No one seems to have noticed is that not only is this anti-gay, it discriminates against unmarried hetero couples. Goodbye partner benefits! Now you'll have to be married to get the Significant Other on the company insurance

"What No one seems to have noticed is that not only is this anti-gay, it discriminates against unmarried hetero couples."

Not only that, but it seems on its face to overturn Loving v Virginia, which a generation ago held that state antimiscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

Oh, heck, the darn thing's so poorly drafted, it might be read to bar ANYONE, gay or straight, from getting married

The wording is certainly very broad. Aren't there lots of "legal incidents" of marriage that are already "conferred upon unmarried couples or groups?" There are lots of legal incidents which are conferred by marriage which also apply to your children. Or custody: when a parent dies, the spouse gets custody, or if there isn't a spouse, then the closest relative. But isn't custody a legal incident?

This amendment would definitely require some selective ignoring. Or maybe the "activist courts" would apply it with as broad a brush as it calls for, so it would be repealed much more quickly than it was passed.

David, your letter rocks. I think people should be hammering Kerry on this. He CANNOT afford to waffle, and he's not going to out marriage the Bush team. I just figure most homophobes care more about jobs than they do this issue, and those that don't, well, the true American Christian Taliban will never vote for Kerry anyway.

Tomm, thanks for citing Boswell. He was a medievalist! Studies on sex and sexuality have gone a lot further since him, and I think a lot of his conclusions don't hold as a much water as they used to, but he still, at the least, raised questions about "traditional" marriage that can't be answered by the ahistorial anti-intellectual lowbrows who are against gay marriage. Or straight civil unions, for that matter.

Fuck all, I was drunk and wearing a dog mask when I got married. What can I say? If you weren't doing performance art when you were 26, you weren't doing anything.

This amendment has no chance whatsoever of passing. Its only purpose is to inspire an extra 4 million culturally Southern Christian morons to vote for Bush in November.

There is no way this gets 67 Senate votes and 290 House votes, much less ratification in 37 state legislatures.

It simply underscores that the evangelical church in the United States is a bigoted and hateful group.

I don't get the political logic of this. Surely 2% of the GOP are gay. With the country balanced on a nail electorally, how can the GOP afford to kiss that 2% goodbye?

What does Dick Cheney think of the idea?

"Basically, you could get a civil union, but it would be little more than a piece of paper declaring that you were a part of one. The major legal incident of a civil union would be the civil union itself, making the entire thing redundant."

My city has a domestic partner registry that works something like that. You can declare yourself domestic partners, and all you get for it is an official certificate declaring you are such, though. I found this out when my partner and I registered for it.

Such partnerships are not totally useless, though - while you don't get anything from the city (let alone the state) for it, it does make it easy to prove you're domestic partners in order to get private benefits like domestic partner insurance.

Ironically, though, since my relationship is *heterosexual*, I still can't be on my partner's insurance. If he were a woman, we'd actually have more benefits.