The new Conservative government in Canada has lost its promised attempt to repeal same-sex marriage. The vote was even more favorable to gay marriage than it was in 2005, with more Conservatives voting for it than last time. This appears to end the matter in Canada:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he heard the message and will respect it.
“We made a promise to have a free vote on this issue, we kept that promise, and obviously the vote was decisive and obviously we’ll accept the democratic result of the people’s representatives,” Harper said.
“I don’t see reopening this question in the future.”
The question put to MPs was whether they wanted to see legislation drafted to reinstate the traditional definition of marriage, while respecting the existing marriages of gays and lesbians.
That Conservative motion failed 175-123. . . .
Ultimately, more MPs supported same-sex marriage than in the last vote on the issue in June 2005.
During that charged vote last year, only three Tories voted in favour of expanding the definition of marriage. Today, the number who approved the status quo was 13, including high-profile politicians such as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon and International Development Minister Josee Verner. . . .
The action in Canada follows what may become a familiar pattern. Same-sex marriage emerges (sometimes through judicial action, sometimes not), which is followed by strong political resistance that weakens over time as the jurisdiction grows accostomed to the idea and sees no ill effects from recognizing gay families in marriage.
The House of Commons has been dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage in earnest since 2002, when the Commons voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage. In 2003, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional.
Gays and lesbians began marrying in the province, and soon other jurisdictions faced similar rulings and began issuing licences.
About 12,000 gay Canadians, as well as foreign visitors, have been married in the last three years.
The previous Liberal government took the further step of consulting the Supreme Court on whether its own legislation would infringe upon freedom of religion. The court responded that the Charter would protect churches from having to officiate such marriages.
A similar pattern emerged in Massachusetts after the Goodridge decision in 2003. There was a swift and strong political resistance to the decision, manifested in a strong initial vote to repeal gay marriage by constitutional amendment in the state legislature. The next year, after an election in which opponents of gay marriage lost seats in the state legislature, there was much less support for repeal and the effort was overwhelmingly rebuffed. Seeing they no longer had the votes in the state legislature, opponents of gay marriage then tried the tactic of forcing a popular vote on the issue. That may still happen, but it probably won't succeed if it does. Almost three years into the recognition of gay marriage, with no evidence of ill effects, polls in the state show majorities now supporting gay marriage.
Vermont followed a similar pattern, too. In 2000, when the state supreme court ordered the state legislature to give gay couples equal benefits, there was strong legislative and popular resistance to the idea. In that fall's election several supporters of civil unions were defeated. But the furor subsided and is now over.
In states where the recognition of gay relationships emerged legislatively -- like California and Connecticut -- popular resistance seems to have been even lower. An effort to place the issue on the ballot in California has so far failed. There has been little or no organized resistance in Connecticut that I'm aware of.
It will be interesting to see whether New York, New Jersey, and Washington state, whose legislatures will likely be dealing with the issue in the coming months, meet much resistance, and if so, whether that resistance also subsides after the state gains actual experience with recognizing gay families in law.
Until, of course, those nations which have established SSM become part of the Caliphate and outlaw homosexuality under Sharia. Times can change.
By the way, one somewhat nice implication of this effect is that it appears a good number of people were being honest when they said their resistance to gay marriage was based on worrying about experimenting with an important institution (in the sense that when such experiments are conducted without great ill effects, they appear to become less resistant).
Good points. I am in the category of people who don't have objections per se to gay marriage, but have strong objections to big changes in customs and institutions. Especially when those are imposed by small numbers upon the larger community. I'm a conservative, but very much an Oakeshottian conservative: I want it made clear that changes won't have unforeseen negative effects. The burden of proof is with the inovators. So, yes, the fact that my straight Canadian bussy and his family are still living the good life in the land of gay marriage is reassuring, and is a good start.
But I'm still willing to wait. I'm not convinced yet. But I can see a time in the future--say next decade--when I would reverse my position against gay marriage.
It has to be noted, though, that the CanCons allowed the democratic process to decide this one. It was not imposed by the decision of five judges in, say, Nova Scotia. This, too, is a model.
It doesn't really surprise me. My sense is that people can reach at least a couple conclusions about gay marriages relatively quickly once the "experiment" begins: (1) gay marriages really don't amount to a large number of marriages relatively speaking; and (2) most gay marriages in many ways look quite traditional (or, in other words, gay people getting married are actually interested in participating in, not undermining, American marital traditions). And once people reach those conclusions, I think many people quickly conclude that gay marriages are quite unlikely to have any broad transformative effects on marriage/society as a whole.
To put the same point another way, I think many people are not sure of the very nature of gay marriage when they initially oppose it (or at least they are not so sure that their minds cannot be changed). So, insofar as they can quickly learn something about the nature of gay marriage from actual experience with gay marriages, they can then quickly reach conclusions about its likely effects.
I suspect that you're right, in general, on both points. On the second point: My roommate from grad school now lives with his partner. They have registered as "domestic partners" in the (quite liberal) Big Ten university town in which they live.
They are both liberal Democrats, perhaps slightly left of the broad mainstream. Now I tweak them for being suburban Republicans. They live just like any other childless couple. They attend city council meetings to try to prevent the opening of new bars that cater to students. They are involved in architectural preservation. And I can always reach them at home on Saturday morning, since they're never out very late on weekends. (The only big difference between me and my wife, aside from the obvious one, is that they take no real interest in the quality of schools. But this is also the case for heterosexual couples who move into my town when they retire. If you don't have kids, you don't worry as much about the schools.)
And, of course, they are not interested in getting married. Which bolsters the first point. In fact, none of their firends have gone through wedding ceremonies at willing churches. I don't quite understand this, and perhaps it will change over time. But as of now, I don't know a single gay couple that are married, or "married."
It's unfortunate that there's no way for a third party to form without a charismatic and rich leader, because there is definitely a social conservative base—and one that is substantially larger in numbers (although not in wealth) than the MoveOn/DailyKos wing of the Democratic Party.
As more as I am an advocate for changing marriage to allow gay marriage, I am uneasy about the courts doing it. The ends may be good, but that doesn't mean it justify the means, or even if it does justify the means that means may not be the wisest of all the other possible means.
An interesting point! As the battle continues to turn against gay-marriage opponents, perhaps they could join a coalition...
It will be interesting to see if gay marriages really "catch on" over time with gay couples. My best guess is that eventually they will, in part because third parties (e.g., families, communities, coworkers, etc.) may start exerting the same subtle pro-marriage pressure on gay couples as they do on straight couples. But I really don't know.
Clayton,
It seems to me the problem with your Social Conservative Party is that it will need allies in order to compete in a system which favors only two parties. So who is it going to be?
Libertarian? Who? (There are some conservatives, but that's different.)
Same-sex marriage is one of the few social issues I feel strongly about, and I would love to see the U.S. move more in the direction of our neighbors to the North.
Professor Carpenter brings up some good examples of deteriorating resistance in states that have somehow recognized same-sex unions. I wonder if the same result could be achieved in the red states of the Bible belt. I have serious doubts.
My impression is that the social conservative faction of the Democratic Party stay with them largely because of economic concerns—the delusion that because the Democrats tell them, "We're the party of the little guy!" that they will look at for the economic interests of blue collar and labor union voters.
But if it were to be judicially imposed, it will remain a point of conflict for generations.
The only other piece of opposition is linguistic--two gay men should not call each other 'husband' and two gay women should not call each other 'wife'. Both words mean what they mean only in correlation to the opposite. A man is a husband only if he has a wife and vice versa. Yup, sounds silly and irrational, but there you have it.
(For the record, the term "domestic partner" has always annoyed me for some reason, regardless of the sex of that partner. Maybe it's because it just sounds so politically correct.)
Pork barrel and open borders I will concede as obviously true. But please name one prominent office-holding Republican who has openly endorsed the cocnept of gay marriage. Even in the Democratic party such people are rather thin on the gorund.
Pork barrel and open borders I will concede as obviously true. But please name one prominent office-holding Republican who has openly endorsed the cocnept of gay marriage. Even in the Democratic party such people are rather thin on the ground.
I'm sorry, perhaps I completely misunderstand your point, but wasn't California one of the first states to place the issue on the ballot? Prop 22 (aka the Knight Amendment) passed easily in 2000, and effectively blocked all efforts at SSM in CA since then.
In 2004 SF mayor Newsom ignored this law; in 2005 Judge Kramer overturned it; in 2006 Kramer was overturned on appeal; and in 2005 the legislature tried to implement SSM, but Arnold said it'd take more than that to convince him.
Current status: CASC may review the case; and the Gov. won't sign anything.
Bottom line: I agree that legislation aids consensus in this matter, I just don't understand how CA is an example of this phenomenon.
When priests in England were hanged, drawn and quartered for saying the Mass that their ancestors had been saying for 1,500 years, England began that descent. But the French carried it a step further, when, under the leadership of Robespierre, the Goddess of Wisdom was pro- claimed in Notre Dame and every priest or nun who would not swear allegiance to an aetheistic regime went to the guillotine, religion in the Western Hemisphere seemed to have reached its Nadir.
Now here we go again. The sanctity of marriage is suffering the reductio ad absurdum by being nothing more than financial considerations.
But in Canada, many of the provisions impacting legally married couples also apply to common law couples (and have for long periods of time). So Canada has never been as tied up about "legally married"
How would the total happiness go down for the 50% if gay marriage is implemented. The day after a judge/govenor/president sign a bill, does the air taste less sweet, does the sky appear less blue? When Steve arrives home from work to his wife Mary does he think now my marriage is now worth less than the day before?
50% of the country may oppose gay marriage but I doubt that there happiness is staked on it. We may have more pressing concerns that affect a far larger percent of the population, but this issue is very important to some parts of our population.
You are right, I suppose that the heterosexual people who support gay marriage will be made happier, and they should be added to the 1.5%. However I think a lot of the support for gay marriage from heterosexuals is trendy. It’s the latest issue in the culture wars, and they don’t care all that much. You might say the same about the opposition, but people have opposed homosexuality for a long time on religious grounds. Nevertheless you point is well taken. Thanks.
There is a social downside to gay marriage. It will increase the amount of marriage fraud. A lot of heterosexual people consent to fraudulent marriages to help someone get into the country or get benefits. Later they get divorced. Sometimes they do it for money. With gay marriage we will see an increase in this kind of fraud because the opportunities will increase. If heterosexual Juan wants to get into the US, he calls his unmarried heterosexual friend John and makes a marriage deal. Later they get divorced. The net result is an extra sham marriage.
Where do you live? My partner and I are registered domestic partners here in our county (which literally gives us no benefits other than a piece of paper). Our state does not allow gay marriages nor civil unions. Neither of the religious denominations in which we were raised performs same-sex cermonies under any name. We would get married if we could, but neither of us are interested in going through either a civil ceremony in another jurisdiction that gives us no status here, nor a religious one in a tradition we aren't a part of.
Have you asked your friends why they "aren't interested" in getting married? How wide is your personal circle of gay friends from which you don't know any married people?
So, you are saying that we should be able to deny any set of privileges and benefits that at least 50% of people oppose so long as we are only hurting a small percentage of the population? So if the majority feels that Native Americans should not be eligible for Medicare, we should be able to exclude them from that benefit since we are only harming a couple percent of the population?
You are saying that the 50% shouldn’t rationally become unhappy, and you might be right. Of course people are often not rational about what makes them happy or unhappy. On the other hand it will cost them money. I don’t know how net income tax revenues would be affected, but medical insurance premiums will surely go up. The impact is small for large institutions, but some small business are sensitive to even a few very expensive illnesses. There is also the fraud factor that I discussed in my prior posting.
Great comparison.
I don't know either. However, in 2004, the GAO estimated the impact. With large amounts of snippage, the summary is:
In other words: The GAO estimates that enacting SSM would benefit the federal treasury and save other taxpayers money.
See: Potential Budgetary Impact...
Not necessarily any set, but this set. Moreover, that’s democracy; the majority gets to determine public policy absent constitutional limitations. Suppose midgets decide they should get a special tax break for being small. It would certainly make them happy to get it, and if the majority wants to pay for it to make them happy then it will be so.
It seems to me that estimate is contingent on a lot of assumptions. Each one of those assumptions has an associated uncertainty. Does GAO give a confidence interval or a standard error for that estimate? I never take estimates seriously without some measure of uncertainty.
The amount in question is so small compared to total tax revenue, I suspect this is a very noisy estimate.
I'm a happily married heterosexual and parent who would be delighted if gay marriage were made legal, not because it's "trendy" but because I believe in the civil rights of gays and lesbians, a theory with significant practical application in my family because my sister is legally married to a (wonderful) woman in Boston. My extended family and my wife's extended family -- all heterosexuals -- all feel the same way. Gays and lesbians have family, friends, co-workers, etc. all of whom would be made happy by the extension of gay rights.
Clayton Cramer:
Got any numbers to back up your claims about right-wing religious voters? From what I've read, the turnout and voting pattern of Christian evangelicals was pretty much the same in 2006 as it was in 2004, but the Repubs. lost the "middle" -- suburban voters, independents, etc.
And if you don't think Rove and state Republican parties were pushing anti-gay rights initiatives in 2004 and 2006 to fire up the base, well, I got a bridge to sell you.
I asked which members of the repub leadership are libertarians.
> They aren't doctrinaire libertarians, but Bush and much of the leadership seems quite intent on allowing large numbers of illegals into the country in support of business interests.
At best, that's not a position that distinguishes libertarians from corrupt biz advocates. At worst, that's wrong. (Some libertarians do advocate open borders, but that's a legal change, not disregarding the law.)
Let's make my question a bit more specific. Name three libertarians in the Repub leadership AND the criteria that makes them libertarian as opposed to corrupt big biz advocates and/or conservatives.
I'll set the bar fairly low - Armey would qualify as Libertarian (but he's not in the Repub leadership).
Insurance Premiums is a legalimite concern, it is actually quantifiable and can be measured in some discrete way and it shows a correlation to a certain action. An entire population happiness is something that is extremely abstract and is unlikely to have any meaniful measurement. Just because it can't be measured doesn't mean it isn't important, but since we can't measure it saying it will decrease without a direct causation is extremely speculative and lowers a quality of a discussion in my mind.
Let’s talk insurance premiums, let’s talk about governmental taxes, let’s talk voting patterns. These things are policy decisions. These things have more connection to our discussion than comparing happiness through some felicific calculus.
or as some senators like to say "On billion here, one billion there, soon your talking real money!"
Sure, the GAO estimate is an estimate. It could be mistaken. Sure, compared to the federal budget, saving $1 Billion a year for 10 years is small potatoes.
You're the one who introduced the financial aspect, suggested same sex marriage would cost people money and that semmed to suggest that financial burden was good reason to block it.
I'm simply pointing out that the GAO's estimate suggests enacting same sex marriage would save $1 billion a year for 10 years. Presumably the goal of saving money remains worthy even if it cuts against your cause?
I’m not sure what you mean by “civil rights” in this context. So far with the exception of Mass and to some extent New Jersey, most courts have ruled against gay marriage as a civil right. Until SCOTUS acts or the US constitution gets changed, we have no omnibus right to gay marriage in the US. It’s a public policy question to be determined by legislatures who are supposed to reflect the will of the majority.
I’ll take what you say at face value, but I don’t think you can dispute that the whole gay marriage matter is trendy. Twenty years ago it would have been considered a joke, or brought up as an example of a slippery slope. Forty years ago even homosexuality itself was a taboo subject in public discourse. But times change. Winston Churchill once said in debate, “We should no more recognize the Soviet Union than legalize sodomy.” Nevertheless we do need to realize that many people oppose gay marriage (and sodomy) on religious grounds. It is a traditional position and not trendy at all.
I read Dale’s assertion differently; “recognition of gay relationships” didn’t mean same-sex marriage (if for no other reason, no state has permitted same-sex marriage by way of legislation). I presumed that Dale was referring to legislative recognition of same-sex families through civil unions or domestic partnerships (or whatever marriage-free phrasing states choose to employ).
California’s history on this is a bit convoluted, but I’d caution against reading the import of Proposition 22 too broadly. When Prop. 22 passed, California already had a statute explicitly limiting marriage to a man and woman. (That law was enacted in 1977 and signed by then-governor Jerry Brown; now attorney general-elect, Brown will be responsible for defending that law before the Calif. Supreme Court... odd little twist of fate.)
Consequently, Prop. 22 purportedly dealt only with a provision of the law that would otherwise recognize any marriage that was valid in some other state in the union. Whether or not the law also somehow recodified the existing statute about who may receive a license in California is a matter of some debate (and an apparent split in the intermediate appellate courts).
I don’t point this out to suggest that if California didn’t already limit marriage to opposite-sex couples in 2000 that the electorate would not have remedied that “oversight.” It seems quite likely it would have.
I agree with Dale that where some recognition of same-sex families develops legislatively, the electorate tends to become comfortable with that change. In California, the Domestic Partnership scheme is extremely popular (roughly three quarters of voters support it). How much of that support might extend to marriage per se is another matter. Were the question squarely before the electorate today it might be a very close call.
This level of support is particularly important at the moment. The camp opposed to same-sex marriage has been trying to get a Constitutional amendment on the ballot with little success. No small measure of their inability to succeed is that the proposed amendments seek to preclude same-sex marriage (as you'd expect) and eliminate the existing D.P. arrangement. That’s a tough political row to hoe in this state.
If those opposed to same-sex marriage were to float an amendment more like Hawaii’s (which simply reserves to the legislature the decision whether or not to grant same-sex marriage), they wouldn’t have such a difficult time of it.
Paradoxically, it would be a sensible enough gambit for those in favor of same-sex marriage to offer an alternative amendment along these lines in the event that the anti-SSM crowd succeeds in putting its amendment on the ballot.
That the legislature has already passed a bill allowing SSM (ultimately vetoed) diminishes the effectiveness of the alternative, but it might be enough to derail the more draconian amendment should it ever reach the ballot.
If the law is to respect the customs and associations of the people, especially those that promote individual rights, economic efficiency, and social stability, it's hard to see why these couples should not be treated as common-law marriage partners. It's a pretty sure bet that their kids are not being helped by creating ambiguity as to their parents' relationship to each other (and to them).
You write:
I’m not sure what you mean by “civil rights” in this context. So far with the exception of Mass and to some extent New Jersey, most courts have ruled against gay marriage as a civil right. Until SCOTUS acts or the US constitution gets changed, we have no omnibus right to gay marriage in the US. It’s a public policy question to be determined by legislatures who are supposed to reflect the will of the majority.
I know the current legal status of gay marriage, but I assume you know that people use the term "civil rights" to describe rights they think folks should have, as well as those already enshrined in law. The "Civil Rights Movement" for racial equality in the 1960s was referring to proposed legal rights for blacks as civil rights before actual laws were enacted.
You also write:
I’ll take what you say at face value, but I don’t think you can dispute that the whole gay marriage matter is trendy. Twenty years ago it would have been considered a joke, or brought up as an example of a slippery slope. Forty years ago even homosexuality itself was a taboo subject in public discourse. But times change. Winston Churchill once said in debate, “We should no more recognize the Soviet Union than legalize sodomy.”
If your point is, "gays/lesbians are in a better position socially and legally now than they were decades ago," I would agree completely. Your term "trendy," however, had a bit of a negative connotation of "faddish," and it is to that sense I object.
Nevertheless we do need to realize that many people oppose gay marriage (and sodomy) on religious grounds. It is a traditional position and not trendy at all.
I realize that. I also realize that many people opposed inter-racial marriage on religious grounds. Fortunately, that trend has mostly passed.
Along those lines, my main point was suggesting that the use of anti-gay marriage amendments to whip up the Republican base may in the medium if not necessarily short term future, be a trend that will pass.
They didn't strongly object to those efforts, which in many states were driven by state social conservative movements. I can tell you that in Idaho, this was indigenous, and driven by the decision in Massachusetts.
If we never changed things without a guarantee there would be no negative outcome, we would still be squating around the campfire by night and running from large, fanged beasts by day.
The UK recognized the Soviet Union in 1922.
According to Wikipedia, the USSR was officially established on Dec. 30, 1922. It got de facto recognition from the British in 1921 in the sense of who controlled the territory, and de jure recognition in 1924. Where does your date come from?
The exact quote was “You might as well legalize sodomy as recognize the Bolsheviks.” Churchill said that to Lloyd George in a private conversation in April 1918. Churchill was the only Allied statesman to recognize the true nature of the Bolsheviks. He was particularly upset when Lenin’s men broke into the British embassy on August 31, 1918 and murdered the British naval attaché, Captain Crombie.
(1) Consistently increasing federal government spending faster than any President since Johnson, including across the board in non-defense discretionary areas and entitlements, easily disqualifies Bush from being any sort of libertarian. That said, I think it is correct that Bush personally has no problems with gay people and likely no real problem with gay marriages.
(2) It is not necessarily the case that legislatures should simply enact popular will. Indeed, that is part of the idea of having a representative, rather than direct, democracy.
(3) "Trendy" also connotes to me some element of temporariness. In contrast, a "trend" could be more permanent. So, while it is certainly true that there has been a consistent trend of Americans becoming more tolerant of gay people, gay relationships, and now gay marriage, I see no reason to assume any of this is merely temporary.
Excellent job; I thank you for the hearty laugh.
Then the problem remains whether there is gay marriage or not. And the way to deal with the problem is to deal with fraudulent marriages, not be eliminating gay marriages.
As for the trendy argument, I can certainly assure you that for gay people, marriage is not 'trendy' and it's not going away, not any time within my lifetime. The fact that the numbers have been going are way supports my contention that this is a long term trend, and within a decade or so, many more states will allow gay marriages.
Um, why? First off, many companies already offer doemstic partner benefits, so it's not as if this will result in large numbers of people gaining medical insurance who do not already have it (and many same sex couples are two-earner couples each with his/her own benefit pacakages at work). Secondly, many such couples may be net payors (paying more into the system than they take out). Finally, "there is no such thing as an unpaid bill". The medical costs of uninsured people are included in the system today. Insuring more people up front will NOT raise overall medical costs because those costs already exist and are being paid for!
Re: Post-election reports were that "values voters"
Good grief, is there any voter who is not a "values voter"? Even leftwing radical atheists vote their values! If you want to talk about the Religious Right call tyem that (or at least call them "social conservatives"). Don't use terminology so broad and general it applies to the whole population!
“Then the problem remains whether there is gay marriage or not. And the way to deal with the problem is to deal with fraudulent marriages, not be eliminating gay marriages.”
Gay marriage potentially makes the existing problem worse by providing more opportunities for marriage fraud. A foreigner seeking entry to the US by fraudulent marriage would have twice the population from which to pick a confederate. Moreover, I suspect it would be easier for a foreign man to recruit a confederate from the US men than from US women. Saying the solution is deal with fraudulent marriages is wishful thinking. It’s extremely difficult police this problem.
Aleks:
“First off, many companies already offer doemstic partner benefits, so it's not as if this will result in large numbers of people gaining medical insurance who do not already have it (and many same sex couples are two-earner couples each with his/her own benefit pacakages at work).”
Many companies don’t offer domestic partner benefits, especially small firms. Many working people don’t have medical insurance, that’s why it’s a big political issue.
“Finally, "there is no such thing as an unpaid bill". The medical costs of uninsured people are included in the system today. Insuring more people up front will NOT raise overall medical costs because those costs already exist and are being paid for!”
If more people have insurance, more medical services will get consumed because most services are elective. You are assuming that the demand for medical services is infinitely inelastic. That’s just not so. Moreover, some people will marry just to get medical benefits. It happens already. People even take jobs they don’t like just for the medical insurance.
The problem with that is that it puts gay rights at the whim of the majority. Sure, if the Supreme Court were to rule that gays have the fundamental right to marry, a very hostile majority could always pass a federal constitutional amendment, but that is a harder threshold to pass, and an unlikely one in practical terms. However, what's fairly certain is that if gay people are going to be waiting for the state legislatures to allow gay marriages, that will be a LONG time ... not ten years, not twenty years, but a LONG time in most of the country. I mean, if the nation had left desegregation to the state legislatures of the south, where would that have led us?
I'm not sure that even rational-basis review would sustain prohibitions against same-sex marriage based on this lame pretext. Most certainly, it would fail under any higher standard.
If anything, immigration argues for the higher standard of review. Currently, binational same-sex couples are often forced to live in different countries and break up as a result, thus denying them a personal relationship which Lawrence concluded all people have a right to. This outcome adds to the argument that the fundamental right to marry recognized in Zablocki should be viewed broadly rather than narrowly limited to opposite-sex couples.
I suspect more than a few of them have no real objection to same sex marriage or are ambivalent or indifferent on the issue but are publicly opposed to it on the grounds that it's a cost-free way to earn some points with The Base.
Much of the leadership indeed consists of advocates for Big Business, but "corrupt Big Business advocates?" No doubt there are a few corrupt ones, but calling much of the leadership corrupt seems to overstate things.
Actually as a fan of linquistic precision, I sort of agree with this. I think a person in a same-sex marriage should refer to the other member of the couple as "my spouse." It's a great word, sadly underused, like the pronoun "one."
If you go with husband/wife you're going to have men who are called "wives" and women who are called "husbands." That does seem weird to me and I support same-sex marriage as a policy position, though I don't argue that it's mandated by the federal constitution.
Here.
here.
The gist of the thing is that if petitioned for a constitutional amendment the legislature can kill it with a three quarters vote, but they must vote. If the legislature doesn't kill the amendment outright the public must pass the amendment twice by popular vote for it to become law (again quite rightly, passions are given years to cool between votes). As the linked article says these particular parts of the MA constitution have been rarely followed by the legislature and never enforced by the judiciary. That doesn't make them void it just reflects our one party state (hey, at least we aren't New Jersey where they
haveget caught for fraud too!)The Massachusetts constitution also says a 50%, not 25%, legislative threshold applies to amendments that reverse judicial decisions. While it is true that by the letter of the law, the proposed amendment does not reverse Goodridge, in spirit it does. Thus, I think the legislature is justified in using parlimentary-blocking procedures that require 50% consent (so long as those procedures meet the letter of the law).
“It doesn't really matter how many percentage points you can muster to your position, irrational animus toward a despised minority is not a sound basis for public policy.”
Institutional same sex marriage is unprecedented in human history. I cannot think of any society that had SSM, including societies that that had no animus at all towards homosexuality. Homosexuality was well tolerated in the ancient world, but not SSM. For example Roman Emperor Elagabus married both a vestal virgin, and his male lover. Both these acts were major transgressions at the time causing enormous outrage among the populace. They were not mad at him for having a male lover, which was common among Roman emperors, but for ridiculing the institution of marriage.
Well it shows you that Internet is full of unreliable information. I think the 1922 date is a misprint. If we believe Wikipedia date of Dec. 30, 1922 as the official birth of the Soviet State it would seem unlikely that Britain would have recognized on Dec. 31. But you never know. Wiki also discussed de facto and de jure recogition, so we have three dates from them which seem consistent. This source also gives 1924 and so does this.
The question was criteria that make them libertarians and not corrupt big biz advocates or conservatives. Open borders and amnesty are big biz positions.
As to gay marriage, the dominant libertarian position is that govt shouldn't recognize marriage.
However, I did make a mistake in ignoring one of the largest groups of repubs, the Rockefellers, aka "country-club" types. Bush is one of them. He's not libertarian.
What’s lame about? We already have a problem with bogus marriages to get people into the country, why make it worse? Perhaps a lot worse. Moreover the rational basis test is a pretty weak test in any case.
“Currently, binational same-sex couples are often forced to live in different countries and break up as a result, thus denying them a personal relationship which Lawrence concluded all people have a right to.”
Lawrence said the states couldn’t criminalize the physical act of sodomy. That’s a far cry from saying the states must recognize all transnational relationships, and grant them marriage status. Suppose a foreign man has multiple male lovers, are the states then forced to create polygamous SSMs so this foreigner can bring them all here to continue their personal relationship? There is a lot of historical precedent for polygamy. In pre-history bands, tribes and chiefdoms had it. Ancient civilizations had it, and once even the US had it. No one, but no one ever had institutional same sex marriage.
I think you are right that I am mistaken on the "two votes" for a constitutional amendment. Readinng this bit of the constitution (page down to "Legislative Substitutes") the legislature needs to vote twice and with a majority to originate a constitutional amendment and put it to the people. It is a "substitute" for a people's petition that must be affirmed by 1/4 of the legislature and then affirmed by a majority of the voters (I think, the MA constitution as presented on that page is a mess). Before the current people's petition for a marriage amendment there was a legislative one that did require two votes and a majority of legislators to get on the ballot (that may be where I got the idea).
I really have no idea what this passage means (on the people ratifying a consntitutional amendment on the ballot).
I think it means at least thirty percent vote in favor even if a majority abstains. That flies in the face of generally requirinng super majorities to amend a constitution. Then again MA is an outlier (and again, at least we're not New Jersey).
Another possible majority confusion is the part in the constitution that that says in a fight between two popularly passed but contradictory laws (eg prohibition and anti-prohibition) the one that had the greater support wins. My mind reels at the amount of lawyering that has gone into the state constitution.
Increasing the pool of potential fraudulent partners from 35 to 70 million is not going to increase a person's chance of finding a willing partner in the scam. The real immigration issue is the harm done to gay people.
Lawrence said the states couldn’t criminalize the physical act of sodomy.
The liberty interest wasn't sodomy, but rather "a personal bond that is more enduring." Of course, the criminal sanctions at issue in Lawrence distinguish it from same-sex marriage. But, I'm not arguing Lawrence directly leads to same-sex marriage. I argue that combining the immigration example and Lawrence is one piece of evidence as to why the fundamental right to marry in Zablocki should be interpreted broadly to include same-sex couples, thus triggering rigorous scrutiny.
You can’t really think that. Let’s say that 0.1% of the 35 million is willing to participate in the scam. Using your figures, that’s 35,000, which would at least double to 70,000 after SSM became legal. You don’t think that makes it easier to recruit a confederate? I suppose it would drop the price since the market expands. I picked 0.1% arbitrarily; the actual figure is probably much higher. If you were doing on-line dating, don’t you think you would have an easier time finding a date at website with 70,000 subscribers than one with 35,000? I guess I don’t understand your reasoning.
No. All 35,000 are willing partners. I only need one.
You are assuming no competition on the demand side. Don’t you think a lot more than 35,000 foreigners want to enter the US? If you double the supply (assuming they are all perfectly willing) you will double the number of bogus marriages. If you went to a bar with 20 guys looking to score, would you pick a bar with 5 women or one with 10 women? I’m assuming you can go to only one bar that day.
I couldn't let your dumb remark about "Republicans acting like Democrats" (re the Repub. accused of beating his mistress) go by without asking you to review the personal lives of pretty much all the leading candidates for the Repub. 2008 nomination (or at least those not named Romney). How many mistresses, divorces, etc. do Gingrich, Guillani, and McCain have among them?
And Christian Evangelicals did vote in the same percentages and numbers in 2004 as they did in 2006. The Repubs. lost the middle.
I don’t know why, but I can conjecture. Immigration is a hot button issue and a lot of people want to stay away from it. The bogus marriage problem also doesn’t get much attention and the pro immigration folks don’t want to remind anyone of the problem.
Credit, were credit is due. That argument was first proposed by my daughter. I merely expressed in a few different ways.
This is based on the highly implausible assumption that all foreigners wanting to get into the US by marrying a US citizen are as equally willing to marry someone of the opposite sex as they are willing to marry someone of the same sex, and to maintain the appearance of a relationship long enough to fool the people around them and federal immigration authorities. Considering most straight guys break into a cold sweat at the thought of even admitting that another guy is good looking, let alone pretending to be married to him, I think this assumption is highly implausible. There just aren't enough gay people around, or straight people willing to pretend to be gay for immigration fraud to be a serious objection.
Given that an ordinary heterosexual man (and that applies to both the foreigner and the American in your example) does not want the world to think he is gay, I very much doubt the above would be the case.
Re: Many companies don’t offer domestic partner benefits
True. Mostly small companies, many of which do not offer insurance at all (or do so only at unafforadble copay rates). Or in some cases they may only offer employee not dependent benefits (or again, the dependent benefits may be unaffordable).
Re: Moreover, some people will marry just to get medical benefits.
That being the case it is hard to see why gay marraige increases the problem. Anyone desperate enough for medical benefits will already be marrying to get them. And see above, my point that the vast majority of heterosexuals will not be eager to enter into sham gay marriages but, if desperate enough, will simply enter into sham heterosexual marriages.
Re: If more people have insurance, more medical services will get consumed because most services are elective.
The cost of these small bore services is fairly negligible (note: although I am now in finance, I spent some years in health insurance; I know whereof I speak) relative to the whole. What drives up medical costs is NOT people going to the doctor for hangnails; it is the cost of chronic and catastrophic illness and injury. And those costs are already present in the system. And in any event the way to handle this whole issue to institute some form of universal healthcare (not necessarily single payor socialized medicine).
Re: Institutional same sex marriage is unprecedented in human history.
If we avoided anything that was "unprecedented" in human history we would still be living in caves and worshipping the thunder.
“This is based on the highly implausible assumption that all foreigners wanting to get into the US by marrying a US citizen are as equally willing to marry someone of the opposite sex as they are willing to marry someone of the same sex…” “…Considering most straight guys break into a cold sweat at the thought of even admitting that another guy is good looking…”
I didn’t say all foreigners. It’s a big world out there and a lot of third-world people want to immigrate to the US, and some of them will go to almost any length to do so. You also seem to think that only foreign men would be involved in bogus marriage schemes. How about foreign women? Surely you don’t think they are going to be breaking into cold sweats. Moreover I think you are projecting your own feelings onto the world’s population.
“The cost of these small bore services is fairly negligible …”
There are lots of elective procedures that are expenseive and not catastrophic. For example spinal surgery for back pain (which often fails) is pretty expensive.
“And those costs are already present in the system.”
You can’t count what you don’t observe. We really don’t know how many people are going to come out of the woodwork for all kinds of medical services once they get insurance. But you can be sure it won’t be zero.
“Anyone desperate enough for medical benefits will already be marrying to get them.”
You seem to think getting married especially for medical benefits is easy. SSM will increase that behavior.
“If we avoided anything that was "unprecedented" in human history we would still be living in caves and worshipping the thunder.”
You are confusing technological progress with social policy. We didn’t have telephones in 200 AD because nobody knew how to make them. But we could have had SSM, but didn’t for no other reason than most people found the idea offensive or unnecessary. And as I pointed out it, had nothing to do with an animus against homosexuality.
Based on my own anecdotal observations in several states where same-sex marriage is forbidden, some gay and lesbian people seem more willing to participate in “sham” marriages than their heterosexual counterparts. (I don’t have much first-hand knowledge about bisexuals in this context.) When I asked why these individuals were willing to contract an apparently loveless marriage, the universal response was that they have no prospect of marrying someone they love (romatically) in the first instance. They variously cited other things, but this was a universal theme.
Now, I’m not proposing that my anecdotal observations can reasonably be projected onto the larger population. Unlike Zarkov, however, I can at least point to some evidence.
Likewise, I question the notion that the participants have nothing to lose (my formulation not theirs), although they don’t have many assets/income at risk, and for whatever reason they downplayed the consequence of the woman becoming pregnant with someone else’s child (which in several of these jurisdictions creates a rebuttable presumption of paternity against the husband). There are, of course, other risks involved. It does, however, cast some doubt on the expectation that people in the aggregate will behave in “rational” ways imagined by people who seem to have precious little experience with the realities we’re contemplating.
As to the “sham” nature of these marriages, that strikes me as a less obvious. As advocates of the status quo often point out, love has nothing to do with marriage in any legal respect. Genitals make a marriage, not love (I find that assertion revolting, but there it is). The fact that the participants are not romantically involved may have little bearing on the (il)licit nature of the marriage. They do, willingly, accept financial responsibility for each other. I’m not aware that any of them have even bothered to divorce years after the fact, and many continue to share a home (if not the same bed).
So, if we’re going to indulge in speculation as to the consequences of sex-specific or sex-neutral marriage, why does the speculation necessarily favor the status quo as curtailing “sham” marriages? For that matter, is the legislative line drawing even rationally related to the claimed interest?
While we're on the topic, what exactly is a "sham" marriage? I concede a marriage contracted exclusively to evade immigration law would qualify. But that's a very difficult thing to prove in the specifics, and an even more dubious proposition to impute to a larger population.
You should introduce your daughter to the genuine immigration issue, that causes real harm to real people.
You don't think the conclusion that SSM is offensive or unnecessary has anything to do with animus towards gay people?
The thread was about a man asking for advice on how to immigrate to the United States. His partner/boyfriend of the last five years wants to return to the United States so he is closer to his family. He is faced with two options that he could figure out and he was disappointed in them and the absurdity of the system.
1) Try to get his employer to sponsor him for an employment visa. This is easier said than done.
2) Perform a sham marriage with a United States women.
When thinking theoretically, it is important to compare a possible future situation to the current one. Sometimes our fears of the future are actually built into the status quo.
I could have elaborated on my point of course to make it quite explicit that I was talking about both technological and socioeconomic changes. The two are not unrelated after all. But to simply consider the latter, if we had avoided all changes based on a reflexive dislike of change since (your year) 200AD then we would still have slavery; governments would set wagse and prices; we would be ruled by oligarchic autocrats; the phrase "human rights" would be meaningless; we would be mostly polytheists; oddball religions could be persecuted; women would be second class creatures if not outright chattel; women, children and animals could be abused with impunity; and unwanted infants could be exposed to their death. Ahh, the good old days!
I think it means at least thirty percent vote in favor even if a majority abstains.
It means that the MA constitutional amendment will pass only if both of the following are true:
(i) at least 30% of the voters who voted in the state election actually do vote to approve the amendment and
(ii) a majority of the voters who voted on the amendment actually vote to approve the amendment.
Since not all voters who voted in the state election might vote on the amendment, (i) places a floor on the percentage of voters who actually do vote in favor of the amendment in the election in order for the vote to be considered. Only if (i) is satisfied is (ii) considered.
It's doubtful that the proposed amendment will get on the MA ballot, though. The state legislature's decision to recess until the afternoon of Jan 2, 2007, the last day of the legislative session, pretty much indicated that, and pretty much "stuck it in the ear" of homo-hater-opportunist Mitt "the snitt" Romney.
BTW, it apparently is not the case that most states require a super-majority to amend their constitutions.
“But to simply consider the latter, if we had avoided all changes based on a reflexive dislike of change since (your year) 200AD …”
You do realize that you are describing both Communism and Islam?
“… we would still have slavery…”
Saudi Arabia had slavery until 1964. We still have unofficial slavery in some places in the world.
“ … governments would set wagse and prices…”
Governments still do this, for example Cuba. The whole Communist block did this (once at least a quarter of the world’s population). Even Nixon did this in 1970.
“ … we would be ruled by oligarchic autocrats …”
When did this stop? What do you call Castro, Putin, Gaddafi, Pinochet, Franco …?
“ … the phrase "human rights" would be meaningless …”
In a way, this phase is meaningless in the modern world. How else do you explain Libya as the chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights? Or the only democracy in the Middle East constantly being the target of criticism.
“ … women would be second class creatures if not outright chattel …”
Would you like to be a woman in Saudi Arabia? Or any Islamic country for that matter.
“ … unwanted infants could be exposed to their death.”
Today instead of leaving an infant in a forest we get a doctor to murder him. Let’s face it, late-term abortion is infanticide, and it’s essentially legal in the US.
“… animals could be abused with impunity …”
What do you call a slaughterhouse? Tell that to Tyson. Now it’s true in the US we do have laws protecting certain domestic animals such as dogs and cats from wanton abuse. To their credit, some cities like New York have an animal police, so I guess we have made progress from the ancient world. But how about pigs? Why do don’t they deserve protection? We still use primates (our close cousins in evolution) for medical experiments.
You missed a big one. Public games where people and animals are killed for mass amusement. However we simulate that today in the movies.
“Based on my own anecdotal observations in several states where same-sex marriage is forbidden, some gay and lesbian people seem more willing to participate in “sham” marriages than their heterosexual counterparts.”
That’s not the issue. We have too few homosexuals to impact the rate of sham marriages. The issue is whether SSM will increase the rate of sham marriages by essentially doubling the number of opportunities. It doesn’t matter whether homosexuals are more or less inclined to participate in these frauds.
“Unlike Zarkov, however, I can at least point to some evidence.”
I don’t know what you mean by “evidence.” We have plenty of evidence that people participate in sham marriages to gain entry to the US. I personally know a number of people who did this. In one case, a heterosexual native-born US woman serially married about four foreign heterosexual men with absolutely no intention of remaining married to them. It was done solely to get them into the country. I met at least one of the husbands, a Swiss citizen who confirmed the deal. I know another woman (herself an immigrant from the UK) who married a homosexual foreign man solely to get into the country. Obviously there were never intimate, and they didn’t live together. They got divorced as when he became a legal resident. Obviously we don’t have evidence of same-sex bogus marriages to gain legal status, but it’s reasonable to assume it will happen, as there are a large number of people who have no respect for the law.
“Likewise, I question the notion that the participants have nothing to lose …”
People commit crimes all the time, even when they have something to lose. Look at Enron.
“It does, however, cast some doubt on the expectation that people in the aggregate will behave in “rational” … “
I don’t understand your point here. What does “it” refer to? People for both rational and irrational reasons commit fraud. The more opportunity there is to commit fraud, the more fraud you get. With the advent of the Internet, we have more fraud. People do it for money, for thrills, for all sorts of reasons. Rich people do it, poor people do it.
“You don't think the conclusion that SSM is offensive or unnecessary has anything to do with animus towards gay people?”
Of course it does. But I know people who are secular, and have no animus towards gay people, yet they oppose SSM for other reasons. I gave you an example from the ancient world, which was completely tolerant of homosexuality, yet the populace was outraged when the emperor married his male lover. Just because some people oppose something for the wrong reason, does not necessarily mean everyone opposes it for the wrong reason.
The position that same-sex relationships aren't worthy of the same status as opposite-sex relationships sounds like animus to me.
“You should introduce your daughter to the genuine immigration issue, that causes real harm to real people.”
Most every country in the world, sans a few European countries, would treat this case in the same way. A homosexual relationship does not constitute a family for immigration purposes. This is an argument for SSM, but again there is the problem of fraud, and the unwillingness of the public to extend marriage to same sex people. A foreign polygamist would have the same problem. The INS (or whatever it’s called these days) would not recognize more than one wife for the purposes of immigration. They might even consider all his marriages as invalid. Do you think we should recognize foreign polygamous marriages to allow a man to bring his whole family into the US? The man could even be a US citizen who married more than one woman in a foreign country that allowed that. Then does he get to remain married to them once they immigrate? That would mean we have to make polygamy legal in the US. Fat chance of that.
It’s also clear that the people involved did not take US immigration laws seriously. If you want a clean record don’t overstay your visa. If you do, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Your response to be posting was a long set of non sequiturs. The fact that ancient evils (I assume you think most of the things I mentioned are at least undesirable, if not evil) still survive in some parts of the world is irrelevant to the discussion. According to your logic (that we should avoid any socioeconomic or political change for which there is no precedent) every part of the world would still be subject to those things.
It's 17 countries (add Spain to the cited list), 6 of them not in Europe. Only 5 Western-Europen NATO nations join the USA in this disgrace.
the unwillingness of the public to extend marriage to same sex people.
Thanks to the unwilling public, families are torn apart.
A foreign polygamist would have the same problem
I would not characterize a man's harem as a family.
That's absurd. The premise is false. It is just as valid to say that a man is a husband because he is married, not because he has a wife. Two gay men married to each other are thus both husbands, because they are both married. Two lesbian women married to each other are both wives, because they are both married.
There is no "linguistic necessity" for a marriage to have only one husband and only one wife. From a legal standpoint, the terminology is more neutral if ALL married people are designated "spouse." But the husband and wife words still apply to gay people. Yeesh.
But gay couples are already using "husband/husband" and "wife/wife" and it works just fine. You simply are not going to see couples deciding "who plays the man, and who plays the woman" -- because it doesn't work that way.
And the original premise is incredibly bizarre -- that there is an objection to gay marriage because there might be some confusion on what to call the people involved? Please. How incredibly petty can you get?
Actually, according to Zarkov's logic insisting we can't change things, the parts of the world still subject to those evils must remain subject to those evils.
The truth is, if something is evil, we should definitely change it. If it is bad on the balance, we should seriously cosider changing it. Doing either is hardly insisting on change for changes sake.
(For the record, I'm not always against change for change's sake. I plan to redecorate the dining room, I'm not going to paint the walls blood red simply because the previous owners picked that color. )
I didn’t mean that. What I said was SSM is unprecedented in human history, and some ancient people were repellent by SSM even though they were tolerant of homosexuality. I say this as a counter example to the assertion that animus towards homosexuals is the primary motive force behind opposition to SSM. We should also give some deference to precedent, tradition and custom as we do in law. This does not mean we are necessarily slaves to precedent leaving evils uncorrected. But you beg the question. Allowing SSM is not necessarily the correction of an evil. That’s the very thing under debate.
It appears to me they were tolerant of homosexual sex on the side, but not of same-sex couples as one example of the primary familial relationship. Doesn't that exlcusion strike you as animus towards gay people?
When I addressed both you and Aleks, I was referring to the "argument" your response to Aleks comment. It was not a comment on any other points you may have made earlier.
Do you really mean to suggest that the long list of currently existing horribles you posted in this comment. is an argument in favor of deferring to precedent?
I should think listing a bunch of horrible things that currently exist is a poor point in favor of being willing set precendet aside. If you want arguments in favor of deferring to precendent, you should list good currently existing things.
It may seem bizarre to you, but the linguistic/definitional argument is at the heart of the argument for gay marriage as opposed to civil unions.
I personally favor letting the government recognize only civil unions (assuming the voting populace wants some sort of recognition), and allowing people to define "marriage" according to their beliefs.
And another thing: *waves dirty old walking stick at the riffraff while neighbors look embarrassed* I know we create Super Happy Fun words like "pro-choice"/"pro-life", "pro-family/pro-gay rights", and so forth to make our positions on specific issues tastier to ourselves, but can we all just set those aside for at least the more intellectual discussions here?
Your general philosophy and feelings on broad topics like civil rights may or may not be helpful to us understanding why you support/oppose some position or another, but it's usually useless and mentally masturbatory to use it to describe your opinion on narrower issues - particularly when using it to denigrate someone who disagrees with you on a matter of policy.
If the above is hard to understand, here's a couple of examples examples:
"I don't think gay marriage is guaranteed by our Constitution like straight marriage."
DOES NOT EQUAL
"I HATE TEH GHEYS AND THEY SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS!!1"
"I think gay people have the same right to marry each other as straight people."
DOES NOT EQUAL
"I HATE FAMILIES AND WILL DESTROY AMERIKKKA!!1"
Maybe I'm a little naive here, but I think most of us can agree on at least a few civil rights like these:
1. People should be able to walk around without being in danger of being killed for the kind of sex they like.
2. People should be able to vote on government; most votes wins.
I'm sure there's a middle ground that we can agree (or at least agree to disagree) on without resorting to the flamboyantly political framing of positions as being pro/anti "choice","civil rights","family", etc. I know and und