California is set to become the second state to allow same-sex marriages, following a ruling yesterday by the state’s supreme court that struck down California’s marriage laws as unconstitutional.
In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that having different laws ...(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
I'm disappointed to see this article place the Pride Alliance in juxtaposition to the Anscombe Society in the "Students on gay marriage" section. It's hardly constructive to either group's aim to imply that the Anscombes are homophobic or that the LGBT community values promiscuity by causing us to assume that the two groups are in opposition to each other. I've had the same-sex marriage argument one too many times to want to get involved in it here, but I'll just say that as a Californian, I am very proud of my state.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ 09: I do not know if the Netherlands has a common law legal tradition, I would assume that they do not. While that doesn't quite make your example inapposite, I do think it weakens it. I am not quite up to snuff on my knowledge of polygamy law, but I believe there are a series of Supreme Court cases on the subject from the 1920s. A debate I attended discussed the cases and it seemed to me that they would legally foreclose the possibility of polygamous marriages. The person debating that SSM would lead to legal polygamy could have done a bad job, but he was a pretty high up guy from FIRE(.org). Beyond those issues, I do not see any crossover between the legal reasons which might allow for SSM (gender discrimination, equal protection, etc.) and legal reasons which could allow polygamy. As to your next question, the material benefits of marriage can only be acheived through marriage. I believe any bill that tries to mimic the state sponsored benefits will fail in its scope. It will also likely run into trouble with private actors (insurance companies, hopsitals, employee benefits, pensions, etc., etc.). Only a state recognized SSM can give the EXACT same benefits and advantages that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. As for polyamorous couples (err... units?), two of the members can marry. The concept of that kind of relationship would reassure me that if there were a medical problem or other issue, the "married" partner would represent the unit's interest. Not perfect, but at least they can do something (which same-sex partners cannot without SSM). I'm not sure how many polyamorous units there are out there anyway.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@09: If we're talking about the state recognition of certain relationships as beneficial to the state and therefore granting those relationships marriage benefits there are a number of good reasons to allow same sex marriage and disallow polygamy: (WHY SSM) We have an adoption crisis, and most fertile heterosexual couples are unwilling to adopt. A greater proportion of LGBT couples are willing to adopt (because their reproductive abilities as a couple are limited). Therefore the state has a vested interest in granting same sex marriage in addition to heterosexual marriage. (WHY NOT POLYGAMY) Polygamy results in powerful, wealthy, coercive, or physically strong men being able to monopolize the female population, even when women consent to polygamy. This results in the subjugation of other men (read up on the "lost boys" of the FLDS Church for more on that). The state has a vested interest in ensuring that all men have a decent chance of finding a spouse to avoid violence, rape, and other consequences of a sexless male class. Now, of course these are not the *only* reasons to allow SSM and disallow plural marriages, but they are good reasons.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Crusty Alum, I also want to comment briefly on your mention of the "slippery slope argument." What is usually termed the "slippery slope argument" is, I think, a straw version of an argument which is actually sound and valid, and does not rely upon a slippery slope condition at all. The real argument has nothing to do with a prediction of calamities that will occur after we allow SSM (i.e., a ‘moral monstrosity’ argument). Rather, it questions what makes the bond between same-sex couples worthy (or needy) of state recognition. The proposal of SSM challenges us to reevaluate what marriage means in the first place. If SSM is allowed, then we have to concede that there's really no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, in the sense that the state takes an interest in them. If we reevaluate our conception of marriage in this way, we have in principle RULED OUT any legal way of denying polygamists what they want. The argument is NOT that SSM will somehow lead to polygamy (since SSM and polygamy have nothing to do with each other). Instead, the argument is that legalized SSM permits (in principle, though not in law) a lot of things, possibly including polygamy and other potential marital arrangements. This has already played out in the Netherlands, where polygamous civil unions have been taking place. Would you really want to discriminate against polyamorists by denying them state-recognized marriage? What if they WANT marriage? Isn’t their desire for marriage just as sincere as that of same-sex couples, and maybe even of opposite-sex couples? Since we’ve already ruled out love as a criterion for marriage, what is it about SSM that makes it so much more worthy of recognition than other arrangements? I mean that as a serious question, and not as a rhetorical one. If we say that marriage can be granted just because different groups of people want it, then we find that the state’s endorsement of family life shifts from the ‘mother-father-children’ model to ‘whatever people decide they want.’ People have every right to do whatever they want with their relationships, but the state cannot take an interest in arrangements just because people propose them. Also, if couples are looking merely for the material benefits of marriage (tax breaks, visitation rights, etc.), why don’t they just petition for those benefits separately? Why do they need marriage to get them? Lastly, check out “Beyond Marriage,” a radical statement signed by Princeton’s own Cornel West, which advocates for marriage-rights for arrangements of “more than one conjugal partner,” as well as “close friends and siblings who live together.” Speaks for itself: http://www.beyondmarriage.org/
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Crusty Alum, thanks for the reply. I’m glad we found some common ground on the questionable use of political slogans in the SSM debate. While rhetoric itself is unavoidable in any political contest, it is indeed a shame when fine-sounding yet nebulous phrases work their way into the dialogue, and even into the courts. They tend to distract attention away from the real, intellectually relevant ideas at stake in the SSM debate. Alas, that same problem works against those who do not support SSM. If we listen only to the most ‘mainstream’ outlets for our news, we tend to hear ambiguous language in reporting about anti-SSM public figures, too. Most of the time, the media portrays the strongest argument against SSM as its alleged contribution to the instant downfall (or at least the dramatic altering) of society, in particular the ethical values the state is willing to endorse. The state’s approval of SSM, they say, would set a dangerous precedent for all kinds of jurisprudential, religious, and normative societal issues. I’m against SSM, and I have to say I’m always embarrassed when people portray this as the STRONGEST (and perhaps the only) argument against SSM. Heck, for all I know, SSM might cause enormous gradual changes in our society’s norms, but simply stating that fact doesn’t prove anything. I imagine most pro-SSM people would embrace those changes. After all, if they didn’t want those changes, why endorse SSM? On a side note, your claim about religious and non-religious bases for forming an opinion on SSM is a very big topic, rightly placed under the heading “religion in the public square.”
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ 09: Sorry for the late reply. I agree that "love" is not a predicate for a valid, secular marriage (one recognized by a state that has attendant legal benefits). I'm not sure I really grasp your argument about the semantics though. I also understand your frustration with the LGBT movement's infatuation with using terms like "loving, caring, committed relationships." They use this often to make an "equal dignity" type argument with the courts. I was VERY surprised to see almost the exact wording in California's opinion that I have seen them use in their briefs to courts over the past few years. I'm clearly a supporter of SSM, but that argument has never struck much of a chord with me. I understand its background, and fully understand the emotions that go with it, but it doesn't strike me as a strong argument to a court. It strikes me as emotional fluff... honestly, like I perceive the arguments against SSM. I have tried to find a rational argument against it, and have not found one that is not rooted in religion. While I am not saying that religion cannot be a "reason" for any belief, it's one I heavily discount when talking about government or state instutions (like civil marriage as opposed to religious marriage). Do you believe SSM shouldn't be allowed? If so, why not? I hope I don't get the "slippery slope" polygamy argument, but I'm open to hearing anything, and as mentioned above, VERY interested in hearing any reason it should not be allowed.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@09: I was merely responding to your argument against gay marriage. Obviously, without question, the principle of equal opportunity enshrined in our founding documents compels me to support same-sex marriage rights. Your first objection only undermines your original argument against same-sex marriage, not my rebuttal of it. In response to #2, I believe to the contrary, that the burden of proof is on your side. You need to explain why the gender of a person should restrict his/her ability to marry the person he/she wants to marry. In any other place in society, gender is no longer an acceptable quality to consider when assessing a person's rights.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Yay: Your arresting arguments have really shaken me to my core. I'm not sure I can go on polemicizing! After all, you've proclaimed my failure...I MUST be wrong! So tell, me, are you saying that your acceptance of gay marriage is entirely contingent upon the existence of an adoption crisis (i.e., a large 'surplus' of kids needing adoption)? I think that would sound pretty insulting to LGBT people...it sounds like you're only willing to give them marriage in order to fix the adoption problem, and not for more principled reasons. What if there WERE NO adoption crisis? Would your position on gay marriage change? Two other things to keep in mind. 1) Again, it's not your capacity to maintain a long-term relationship or your ability to raise kids that makes you eligible for marriage (there are plenty of non-committal types and people who are bad with kids who you would offend with your claim, and who nonetheless are eligible for legal marriage). 2) The burden on you is to show WHY marriage exists partially for the purpose of recognizing and incentivizing VARIOUS adult lifestyles, as opposed to the usual one. You also have to show which lifestyles are worthy of marriage and which aren't, and give reasons why.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Nice job California: Leading on the environment, leading on biotech, leading on LGBT rights! I feel like a Californian at heart! As for the first commenter, you write, "The state incentivizes long-term marriage and the raising of children because those two things are good for the government, economically and socially." I couldn't agree more. So if it's good to have *some* couples getting married (that is hetero couples) it should be *even better* for the state to grant marriage to *even more* couples (those would be our LGBT friends). They are perfectly capable of having long-term committed relationships and raising children (especially by adopting which is a huge problem that most hetero couples are not willing to address personally). In conclusion, you fail.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@previous: Simply redefining the terms of the argument does not advance your point. What do you mean? I can see that in California, legal "marriage" now means something different than it used to. But are you also criticizing people who use the term "gay marriage?"
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
The word you're looking for is "marriage", because that's what it should be and, from now on, will be called in California.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
If I might respond to "Annoyed." Annoyed, you need to realize that being against gay marriage does not equal homophobia. There are rational reasons for being for and against gay marriage, and there are gay and straight people with both views. Neither view is based on irrational prejudice, as you suggest. Also, it is not an argument to say "it's 2008" or "homosexuality has always been around" or things like that. You're simply making descriptions, and you're not giving anyone any reason to believe your point of view. Remember the fact-value distinction!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@Crusty Alum, I agree with you that that's not the finest argument. I mentioned it because of all the hooplah of the pro-SSM forces who endlessly blather on about "loving, caring, committed relationships," as if that were the reason for allowing SSM. But as you point out, that is surely not the reason, nor is it the reason that heterosexual marriage is recognized. My point is this: If your claim about there being no problem with loveless/sexless marriages is true, then two things follow. First, that love is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for legal marriage, and Second, that there's nothing especially 'gay' about 'gay marriage,' though it is called that. I fail to see why it is called same-sex marriage or gay marriage...shouldn't it just be called OPEN MARRIAGE?
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
Well said Crust Alum!
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
@ 09: "Why can't two men who have no interest in sex or love also get married?" -- Apparently, they can now in California. Just like a man and a woman who have no interest in sex or love can also get married, in any state in the country. There hasn't been a problem with loveless/sexless marriages in the past in order to gain state-sponsored benefits, I find this argument against same-sex marriage to be the weakest, and least thought through. I am surprised that California took such a radical step as declaring homosexuals a suspect class, but I was glad to see the ruling. yes it was a 4-3 decision, but most of the state supreme court decisions upholding a ban on same sex marriage were similarly decided by a one vote margin.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I know how to spell annoyed, but hit the sent key too quickly…
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
I am sick and tired of hearing so much homophobia on this campus. It is 2008...people wake up! There have been same-sex couples going as far back as early recorded history through today. How my partnership threatens you as a straight person is ludicrous. It is just a flowery way to say I don't like or accept gay people. I am deeply threatened by their sexual openness and I am going to use policy to oppress them and keep them down. Also, I know there are far more then 2 people on this campus who supported the California decision, I received dozens of emails from friends yesterday. This article does not seem balanced.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!
If same-sex couples are being granted marriage licenses on account of same-sex relationships, the court has to give an account of what it is about same-sex relationships that gives cause for incenvitizing them. Why can't two men who have no interest in sex or love also get married? What's the difference between that an a 'typical gay couple?' It's not love that makes a marriage...that's only the case with religious marriages. Let's face it, legal, state-sponsored marriage doesn't exist because the government has an interest in promoting love. Oh please. The state incentivizes long-term marriage and the raising of children because those two things are good for the government, economically and socially.
Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!