So said the Michigan Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision today.
By state constitutional amenment in 2004, Michigan voters barred the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. But the awkwardly worded amendment went further: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
The "similar union" language, along with the "for any purpose" language, was enough for the majority to conclude that it prohibited same-sex domestic partners benefits provided by some 20 state universities and municipal entities in the state. From the dissent: "It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage."
The Michigan decision sets an interpretive precedent that may be followed in the many other states that have banned same-sex marriages and recognition of other relationships "similar" to marriage.
UPDATE: The full opinion is now available here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Michigan Supreme Court Domestic Partner Benefits Decision Available Online,
- Michigan Marriage Amendment Nixes Domestic Partners Benefits:
- Ohio Court Interprets Its State Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Amendment:
- Anti-Same-Sex-Marriage Being Used to Challenge Non-Marriage Benefits:
AFAIK this marriage admendment was completely democratic. What this does show IMHO is the limits of democracy for protecting minority groups. The tyranny of the majority, if you will.
Doesn't the constitution require that each state recognize other state's laws? So if same-sex marriage is legal in one state, shouldn't it be legal in all of them?
Also, since the famous interracial (virginia versus loving?)case has been in the news the last few days - doesn't that case mean that government can't forbid two people to marry so long as they are consenting adults?
Are cohabiting committed heterosexual couples entitled to any real benefits already? Even if they are, I'm sure the people in favor of the policy probably aren't too worried about denying benefits to those who are "living in sin."
Why should we pay extra for a new car [and just about everything else], just because spouses suck up expensive benefits? This is no longer the '50's, with one breadwinner. Two income families are now the norm.
That's certainly how I read it, too: Only the marriage of a man and a woman can be treated like marriage. Should rule out civil unions for hetrosexual couples, too, and arguably put an end to common law marriage.
And I don't think the wording is the least bit awkward: Strikes me as a wonderful example of clear language, even if it expresses something a lot of people don't like.
What's bizarre about this outcome is that domestic partnerships provided by state universities and municpalities are void, yet if a private company offers them, that's okay.
So Michigan still allows gays to have domestic partnerships, even according to this amendment.
"It seems pretty clear that, wherever it has been tested, people don't want gay marriage."
Well, except for Massachusetts and Arizona. Not to mention NJ, Conn, and VT, which allow civil unions.
In your hypo, the k is contrary to the US Constitution. This is just to a statute. Apples and oranges.
I’m not sure why private industry would or should care what benefits State employees are offered. Seems to me that if anything this ruling ought to make those private companies which offer health insurance for domestic partners even more attractive than before to their gay employees (relative to working for the State of Michigan at any rate).
The parallels are certainly there: there is no requirement that municipalities and cities provide domestic partnership benefits, and there was no requirement that cities adopt bans on sexual orientation discrimination. There certainly was a rational basis for Colorado to have a statewide law covering discrimination, as opposed to piecemeal laws by every municipality, rational except to the supreme court. I hope this court decides there is a rational basis for the state to decide who is eligible for taxpayer funded benefits on a statewide basis, and it is rational to limit those benefits to unions recognized by the state.
Answer: we don’t know. IIRC States are allowed to refuse to recognize “marriages” from other States which are contrary to their public policy but it’s unclear whether limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples is something that the Supreme Court would disallow. Congress passed DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the 1990’s but AFAIK, it hasn’t been either upheld or struck down by the Supreme Court. Or upheld by one Court and struck down by a later one when the makeup of the Court changes.
Answer: I don’t believe so. IIRC the holding in Loving was limited to only State bans on interracial marriage but that wouldn’t necessarily stop a later Court from deciding to apply it to other cases such as “marriages” between two people of the same gender or cases of incest or other cases where States don’t recognize “marriages” between “consenting adults” for other public policy reasons.
I'm so glad they had their priorities in place.
So the answer to economic downturns is not tax cuts, increased government spending, regulation reform, or anything of the like. It is as simple as "lets find some more gays." Now that is profound.
Speaking in a gross generalization - yes. My understanding (not sure how broad the polling was) is that among those with college and graduate degrees under 40, fairly large majorities of the population support equal rights for gays (including marriage). I suspect those are the demographic groups that are most creative economically.
HGB
There could be a lot of unforeseen and perverse consequences from this ballot initiative, many of them having little to do with domestic partner benefits.
If it discourages "creative class" types from moving to Michigan in the first place because they perceive the state (rightly or wrongly) as homophobic,* then I can see why industry would be worried. The possible inability to draw the creative class to MI (or wherever) is the reason big business usually opposes these measures when they hit the ballot.
*Yes, Clayton Cramer, you're right to point out that not all members of the "creative class" are gay or gay-friendly. But since this demographic is made up chiefly of young, highly educated people, it's not at all a stretch to say that it's mostly gay-friendly.
There's nothing much more democratic than, "screw the little guy."
I would suggest, however, that the remedy is not to open up the practice of marriage, but to eliminate it entirely.
States should only ever recognize the legal and financial rights in civil unions and marriage should be left to the churches. Marriage should offer no benefits over civil unions outside of a church. Marriage has only ever been about economics anyway, so why should the state care beyond that?
You forgot to mention that their main city would become a dump with rampant crime and a mayor best known for breaking the law by abusing his position to hide his marital infidelities.
It could be interesting although since 5 of the 6 justices who were in the majority in Romer are still on the bench and Chief Justice Roberts provided pro bono assistance to the plaintiffs in the case, I’m not sure the result would be what you’re hoping for.
Disclaimer: I'm part of a cohabiting heterosexual couple, and income taxes and Social Security disability benefits are key factors in determining our status.
Wow. So much for democracy when we can have the tryanny of the minority enforced by violence.
Why do you hate democracy?
I'm on the fence about gay unions, with a slight bias for them, but the idea of gay marriges is absurd. In the entire history of marriage coitus has been a requirement for couples to consumate a marriage, it doesn't matter whether the wedding was in church out of church, or whatever other sexual acts the couple performed. Without coitus it is not a valid marriage and can be annulled 20 or more years later as never having happened. So while gay unions certainly are possible, and maybe desirable, gay marriage is not.
is violence to be condoned when an extra part of my income is taken away by a President Obama through tax increases that I find offensive and equivalent to theft? I will, of course, be in the minority, having not voted for Obama.
If the people of MI don't like this outcome, maybe they should consider amending their amendment. Otherwise, they are probably getting exactly what they want. They aren't causing any harm ( i.e. putting people in jail, terminating employment, etc. ), they are simply clarifying what they mean by "marriage".
So which “big businesses” opposed the measure when it was voted on?
I’m curious because my experience in working with a lot of businesses is that they tend to want to run as far away from cultural battles as they possibly can regardless of the personal views of their officers and directors because picking a side invariably means alienating at least part of their customers.
And let me just say that I find it incredible that in making the decision to relocate to a new job in a new State, that the “make or break” issue would be where that State’s government offers health insurance benefits to the partners of its gay employees. I’m sure you can find someone who claims that was the reason – I’m sure it sounds good when you’re telling the story about how you refused to move to the “homophobic State” to your hipster buddies at the cocktail circuit – but I don’t buy for a minute that any rational person would base such a life-changing decision on something as minor as that.
An irrational person perhaps, but enough to make a difference in a State’s economic recovery. Not a chance.
It seems quite credible if you are in fact a gay person, which is what I took d to be saying.
Yes, it's so bad here that only 1 in 9 Americans live here.
Got a link to that?
I take it that we should score this as a decision based on textualism rather than original intent originalism. But doesn't the awkward language of the text at least open the door to using such statements when interpreting the language even according to original public meaning originalism since the people are the ratifiers in this instance?
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the recognition of marriage or union of persons of same sex or the exention of any right conferred by law upon married person to persons living in relationship with a persom of the same sex
that would preserve traditional marriage from activist judges so long as a simple majority of people in Michigan thinks it should be preserved.
Hm, I wonder whether this case raises a Contract Clause problem. If my understanding is correct, a state law that "substantially impairs" a party's contract rights must be narrowly tailored to a significant and legitimate government interest. See, e.g., Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas P. &L. Co., 459 U.S. 400 (1983).
It seems reasonable to think that the retroactive elimination of domestic partner benefits from certain state employment contracts constitutes a "substantial impairment," but I don't know enough about this area of the law to really say. Does anybody else have thoughts? In any case, I suppose we'd have to see the terms of the contracts to make a truly informed judgment.
That's not how things work around here. Just jump right in with some uninformed opinions. Snark is optional.
Here’s what I’ve found on their website:
FWIW
I voted for it.
Strangely enough, I was working as a 'lawyer for bush' in overwhelming black polling places for the election. Many of those polls had not seen a GOP poll watcher for 20+ years.
One of the things we complained about was that the black pastors were being allowed to walk the line and voting booths giving instructions.
They weren't telling their flock to vote for dems, though. They were telling them to vote for the amendment.
I think you need to start with them. Maybe you could burn their churches and string up their pastors.
[for the humorless, the last sentence is sarcasm, the rest is true]
California is far better off economically than Michigan, and San Francisco is one of the most affluent cities in the United States.
(2) I think trying to extend the wonderful benefits of marriage to all comers is the greatest honor we could bestow on the institution. If I had contempt for it, I would try to limit it as much as possible (e.g. overrule Loving).
(3) Massachussets is in the lowest 5 states for divorce, teen pregnancy and STDs in the country. That's probably because gay marriage eroded our values, eh? We've also proven that the sky does not fall when gays can marry and that somehow straight families are not reduced to begging in the streets. MA also has economic growth better than the national average.
link
I hope this works...
Interestingly enough, while the black community has always been tepid (if not hostile) to gay rights, Obama seems to rack up 92% of their votes while still being quite LBGT friendly. I think that shows that antipathy to gay-rights in the black community is like the Mississippi river -- 1 mile wide and 5 feet deep.
I thought heterosexual marriage was all about spousal benefits, no? Love and family need not be considered.
I take it, then, that all of those hip, progressive, and tolerant folk in places like Austin, TX are streaming out of "intolerant" states like Texas and Florida. And speaking of Florida, only Obama-loving Bobos believe Richard Florida's thesis.
Moreover, I think the MA experience proves (5 years on) that the sky will not fall and straight marriages will not collapse just because queers can tie the knot. I know that disappoints some people that expected Boston to be destroyed by fire and brimstone (or other suitable divine fury) but we're doing just fine.
I can (well, Richard Florida) can correlate the gay population of an area with economic growth (see "The Creative Class", for instance). I don't know about the relevance of homosexual immigration though.
Yes, you are right, gay pride parades are over-the-top and meant to be provocative. They do not do much to advance the cause of the vast majority of gays that want to live quiet, normal lives. Nevertheless, I can identify with their frustration and see how acting out, even in an adolescent way, can be a powerful statement about refusing to be pressured into conforming with sexual norms. My hope is that, as homosexuality becomes widely accepted (look at polls of 18-30 year olds for a clue on how the next decades are going to shape up), the need for these parades will diminish.
Yes. And the First Amendment is an assault on democracy because it prevents a simple majority from deciding that flag burning or hate speech are illegal. The 8th is an assault on democracy because it prevents a simple majority from deciding that we need to be able to torture child rapists. The 26th is because it prevents a majority from deciding that 18 year olds are not mature enough to vote.
Amending a constitution (state or federal) according to democratic processes is NOT an affront on democracy. it is democracy in action. The specific amendment may be a bad idea but democracy produces lots of bad ideas. Goes with the territory.
I’m not sure that’s the case. My understanding is that the amendment in Romer contained a provision which said (paraphrase) that it could never be changed by the legislature which ran afoul of the First Amendment’s protection of the right to petition the government. AFAIK, there is no such provision in Proposition 2 and the people of Michigan are free to change it through the normal process.
The things people will think up to keep their pet issues alive . . .
anyway, whoever said it before is right--it's not an assault on democracy, it merely shows some of the pitfalls of democracy.
If it does, does it prohibit cohabitation in general outside of marriage? Would two people who are not married be allowed to have the same legal address? The State does, after all, recognize my address. It's on my State-issued ID.
There are zillions of things (joint accounts, powers of attorney, authorization to pick up kids from school) that tend to be associated with marriage but that are also common with other sorts of relationships.
I haven't read the decision, so I don't know if it clarifies the more general question of when something is sufficiently marriage-like to be unrecognisable by the State. The Amendment does not.
Thr majority considered such evidence irrelevant, while for the dissent it was determinative.
To all: I’ve emailed Professor Adler alerting him to this new poster’s latest comment. I would suggest not responding until Professor Adler has had a chance to weigh in.
As to the decision, it was absolutely correct. It doesn't comment on whether or not gay marriage or civil union benefits are the right thing to do; it upholds the will of the voters in so denying.
A court upholding the will of the people...imagine that!
I agree that the decision of the Court upheld the will of the voters. Of course the bigots knew exactly what they were voting for. The idea that said bigots were tricked is disingenuous -- why would making the amendment even more odious possibly be undesirable to hateful bigots?
Actually, there is a correlation. In the late 90s, some professor did a study of the cities or regions that were doing the best economically. The top ten included places such as Austin, SF, Boston, NYC, and so on. The bottom ten included places like Louisville, Buffalo, Detroit, and others.
Just a year or so after that study was published, the 2000 census came out. For the first time, officials were able to see where gay couples resided. (It proved, incidently, that gay couples exist in every single county in America). the places with the highest number of gay couples? Austin, SF, Boston, NYC. The places with the fewest gay couples? Buffalo, Detroit, Louisville and so on. There was almost a direct correlation.
Now, we all know that correlation does not mean causation, but the correlation was too strong up and down the line to dismiss it entirely. And this was the basis for Florida's book. Bottomline: the more open and gay friendly a city is, the more likely it is doing well econoically. Ohio, for instance, has a similar amendment, and it's not doing well at all right now.
ego: You really need to get out and meet actuall live homosexuals. We don't bite. But we usually bake a mean torte.
I believe that professor is the Richard Florida referred to earlier in this thread.
There is causation, but in the opposite direction. It is because those areas are economically affluent that they are gay-tolerant. People in more economically deprived areas are generally more angry at the world (bitter, to use Obama's panned word) and likely look curtail rights of people they view as Others.
So your position is that marriage is all about the initial consummation? That's a rather odd position to take.
If I, a gay man, enter into a sham marriage with a lesbian, for instance, and we have no intention of having children and don't even like each other (let's say we married for the spousal benefits only. OR we got drunk one night a la Britney) and we have coitus, that's a valid marriage.
But if two gay men who have been together for years and have adopted children to raise together, and are deeply in love and get married in Massachusetts, that's not valid?
Silly me, I thought marriage was all about marrying the one person in your life that you wanted to spend the rest of your life, to care, nurture and cherish. I guess marriage vows should be changed to reflect your oddball notion, and have the couple promise to engage in coitus asap to validate the marriage.
How odd this all is: We gays are accused of debasing marriage, but it is alwyas just the heteros who keep reducing it to a mere sex act.
BTW, the NY Times magazine did a lead article on gay men who get married in their mid-20s. You have to read it to see just how threatening they are to your marriage!
Really? Every county? Texas has several counties with populations under 500 people. Loving County had only 67 people in it according to the 2000 census with only 54 of them being adults. That does not prove that it had no gay couples in it, but according to its wikipedia article that looks statistically very unlikely.
I know that the religious right has a bad habit of exaggerating statistics (and in some notable cases outright lying, see Paul Cameron) so take the following with a grain of salt. In a column trying to show why gays don't need antidiscrimination protection one religious conservative inadvertently makes the case that homosexuals are civilizational superstars, a model minority out achieving both Jews and Asians. If this is what homosexuality yields, then arguably homosexuality is something society should nurture and cultivate. I doubt her figures are entirely accurate, but there probably is a kernel of truth in them that, on average, gays are more productive, creative and talented than straights, and hence the reason they tend to flourish in a capitalist system with many anti-gays in the populace. Jewish people face a similar dynamic. This is probably why businesses, not government, tend to be on the cutting edge of offering DP benefits.
Well, there's actually, ummm, you know, actually trying to convince people to vote for a change in the law. If you truly have the better argument, it will win out in the end. Marketplace of ideas and all that.
Our firm considered expanding in MI - it was the tax code (including the new business tax that is brutal on labor intensive industries) that finished off that idea - we went to South Dakota instead.
Dishonest or deluded?
Maybe those things occurred in spite of the stance society took towards gays. It's not blacks, but Jews who are the closest analogy to gays. Consider -- a society can be terribly anti-semitic and enshrine that hostility to Jews into its laws and policies -- drive all the Jews away -- and still flourish. But it's not because of its antisemitic policies, rather in spite of them. Likewise Japan flourishes with no Jews; but that doesn't destroy the point that Jewish people tend to do quite well in market oriented systems (and in law, academia, and many other areas of life) and a policy that would drive such disproportionate talent away from those areas would be foolish to say the least.
Yes, it's so bad here that only 1 in 9 Americans live here.
It's doing so well that the Governator is imposing a 10% funding cut on every department including schools. Many urban grades 4th and higher will have class sizes in the 32-35 range. That's not education - it's crowd control.
Full disclosure, life long CA native until 2003, will be moving back soon, love the place for all its faults.
****
It's not so much that gays drive economic growth (not to disregard their contribution, the film business being a star example). Rather they live in affluent areas, which tend to have more educated populations, which are more gay-friendly.
Re: Creative class, Richard Florida's work is probably the best analysis showing gay friendliness to strongly correlate with creative business and urban flourishing.
It makes sense that gays would prefer urban areas. Suburban sprawl attracts parents who want large houses with yards.
For a good example of urban flourishing caused by large gay populations, consider the Haight district of San Francisco. Place was a dump in the '70's. Gays moved in, refurbished the houses, made the place nice to look at (as long as you don't actually go down to Haight street). Property values skyrocketed.
As an aside, I don't know why Michigan gets such a bad rap as a high tax state, at least for individuals. Until a tax increase last year, the income tax rate was under 4% (up to ~5%) in some cities, and the sales tax rate (no local sales taxes) was 6% with numerous exemptions. Property taxes are usually around $2,000-$3,500 for a $200k homestead, depending upon jurisdiction.
Compared to many states with much higher income and sales tax rates, it seems fairly taxpayer friendly.
The thing I didn't like is that, at least in my understanding, you had to be married to get opposite sex partner benefits. There are a lot of disincentives to getting a sham marriage for benefits, but no so many for claiming a friend as a "domestic partner."
Anyone know if marriage is generally required by employers to get domestic partner benefits for someone of the opposite sex? That's what I was told, but I've never been privy to their corporate handbooks.
Then why didn't you just pretend that your roommate was your "domestic partner"? Don't like the idea that folks will wonder how much $$ you might spend on "Astroglide?"
I'm going to go on a limb and not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. The writers just don't know how to draft good law.
Most states would kill for revenues 90% of the size of California's even on a per capita basis.
It's the business taxes (not personal) that are incredibly high. It's not even the nominal corporate rate so much as what the effective tax rate you will pay will be if you do business there. Doing business in MI would have increased our labor costs (compared to other Midwestern states such as SD and WI) by close to 10% due to the new business tax.
MI's tax structure (and it's generally inept government) is far more effective at keeping business out of the state than any boycott effect of the anti gay marriage amendment.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I posted a link earlier to the actual FAQ by one of the main groups promoting Proposition 2 and they were rather clear that they thought it would prohibit the use of State funds for domestic benefits that were based on marital status but there was nothing that would prohibit private companies from offering it to their employees.
What you’ve posted is rather vague as far as what specifically it’s referring to (public or private domestic partner benefits) and isn’t actually a quote from the supporters. So I’m not sure it really works as evidence that a group is “[d]ishonest or deluded” to use a vague statement that wasn’t actually uttered by them against them.
I prefer to think of it in the negative: what we've learned from San Fransisco is that acceptance of gays does not cause the collapse of society. Living Massachusetts will likewise disabuse you of the notion that legalizing gay marriage will cause straight families to collapse or children to start going out of control. Given the horrible things that are attributed to the "homosexual agenda", I think its sufficient to rebut them without claiming the benefits that Florida claims.
I think the idea of heading towards a San Francisco-like culture is probably more of an incentive for many people to vote against gay marriage, not for it.
Regarding domestic partner benefits to gays but not straights, I believe that's the way it is here at the U of Iowa and that's the way it is in a lot of other places too. My fiancee was a university employee and we talked about getting me on her health insurance, but she investigated and was told since I was a man that wasn't possible.
A new question--assuming you don't have a Michigan amendment, is a situation like this an Equal Protection violation?
We have a woman where I work who lives with her boyfriend and says she was able to get him listed on her health insurance as a domestic partner.
I've often said that if the United States passed an amendment that the Supreme Court disagreed with, they'd simply declare it unconstitutional by some hook or crook. This decision gives me hope that our jurists can actually follow the law.
Strange then all the resistance to recognizing gay relationships, or acknowledging that homosexual orientation is not a choice. It seems like people prefer holding onto this caricature of gay people -- I guess it validates their prejudices.
In either case I disagree. The public face of gay America has changed from being an alien subculture to being the boy next door, or nephew, or classmate, or daughter.
Have you ever been to a pride parade? Because what you see on TV is the most outrageous bit of the lot. I wonder why...
Of course, as politics, the visuals stink, but it doesn't help when the TV folks pick out the most over the top example they can find.
I've been to the San Francisco pride parade once, in 2004, with plenty of Dykes on Bikes and others I consider odd but completely harmless. But then came the couples. Hundreds of couples. "Together 24 years" "Together 7 years" "Together 10 years" Many of them had been married by the city (since rescinded). They got -- by FAR -- the biggest ovation of the day (there was a million people in town that day) with the possible exception of Gavin Newsom. And they kept coming, and coming, and coming, overwhelming the oddballs in numbers and respect.
This is the new normal. The MI SC got the law right, I'm afraid, but that law is on the wrong side of history.
PS: among educated younger people and the "creative class," being tolerant or gay-friendly is a proxy for not being a closed minded asshole. However, people in those demographic groups have had enough interaction with gay people to know that the fearmongering was empty in the first place, and don't necessarily approve of gay marriage. Still, I think as a general rule if you have had occasion to get to know a decent # of gay people, you'd find a range of people, some annoying, some admirable, and you'd have no excuse for jumping on the bigot bandwagon or actually thinking the pride parade is the public face of gay America. Really.
Well, I was surprised to read it too. But the source was a Washington Post article, part of a series that analyzed the census. Just goes to show you, we are everywhere, even if we seem to be invisible.
Oren makes a good point, however. OF course, as I stated earlier, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. But on the other hand, communities that are accepting of gays and allow some form of domestic partnership or even civil unions don't collapse. Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey all allow civil unions. Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium all allow full gay marriage. Cities such as Washington, DC, Austin, TX, Miami, LA, SF, Chicago, St. Louis, are all very gay friendly and accomodating to gays, both in law and in society overall. None of these places can be regarded as disasters. They are not Detroit or Flint. So at the least, Oren is correct -- acceptance of gays causes no harm to the community, but in fact can be a great boon.
You don't see Christian evangecals rehabbing homes in the historic districts. It's usually led by gays. You simply cannot have good theater or opera without gay support, gay people on stage and backstage and in administration.
Sure, Texas overall is doing very well, and overall they are not terribly friendly to gays. But have you every seen the average Texan hairdo? Not pretty. If they had better hairdressers, the women might actually gain a degree of sophistication.
Rather, they argued that perhaps communities that are open minded, willing to take risks, artistic, well educated, and populated with young people, are more willing to be welcoming to gay people. In other words, gay people are just part of the mix for a rising economy. New and different viewpoints are often needed to build a better mousetrap, and gays often have viewpoints that are different from the mainstream.
People who are provincial, closed minded, inability to adapt to changin circumstances, intolerant, unwilling to take risks, uneducated -- these are NOT the criteria for building any vibrant economy or community. Gays are not welcome in these places because of prejudices (and make no mistake, it's simply a prejudice, and an unwarranted one at that).
Or, as Garrison Keillor once so aptly put it, there's a reason why the iPod was designed in California, not Alabama.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl? court=mi&vol=supreme\122298\mccready&invol=2
And quite frankly, the Michigan voters knew it. The issue of the wording affecting the creation of local domestic partnerships and benefits was pointed out and got a lot of coverage.
Well said, Good Strategy. Basing your opinions on gays based on a few snippets from a pride parade makes as much sense as basing your opinion on American girls based on "Girls Gone Wild."
However, some people have deep seated prejudices, and they enjoy having their prejudices confirmed, not challenged.
Yes. And the First Amendment is an assault on democracy because it prevents a simple majority from deciding that flag burning or hate speech are illegal. The 8th is an assault on democracy because it prevents a simple majority from deciding that we need to be able to torture child rapists. The 26th is because it prevents a majority from deciding that 18 year olds are not mature enough to vote.
The difference between the Bill of Rights amendments and Michigan marriage amendment is that while the first are intended and have the effect of protecting the individual from governmental or majoritarian opression, the latter is nothing but an instrument thereof.
Amending a constitution (state or federal) according to democratic processes is NOT an affront on democracy. it is democracy in action. The specific amendment may be a bad idea but democracy produces lots of bad ideas. Goes with the territory.
Maybe, if you think that damocracy equals unlimited government by the current majority of the people.
I despise Apple's products, especially their aesthetics. But setting that aside, I really question whether the thesis is really true particularly if one considers economically dynamic but socially conformist/homogeneous Asian countries.
Apple is hardly the only example.
I'm skeptical whether this type of reasoning can really apply to Asian countries, they're just too culturally different. They might be more socially conformist than the US, but they're also far more homogenous and have neither the Christian nor Puritan traditions that we have.
I do recall reading a story once about Google. The father of one of the founders is a Russian Jew and math professor who left Russia because, as he said, he didn't think his son, being Jewish, would ever be able to get a fair deal in Russia. So he came to Northern California with his family and his son ended up founding Google, right here in California. There's a lesson there for the people of Russia and, for that matter, the people of Michigan. We here in California care about what you can do and we don't need to know your backstory - everyone's got one and it doesn't matter. So from our point of view, the Michigan development is a good thing - yet another measure helping California maintain its dominance in the high value added industries.
Where did you get that idea? Marriage originated and still mainly exists as a economic unit that is structured to efficiently raise children and manage the transition of property to children. It had nothing to do with love until very recently in human history. I think that marriage's origins probably started with agricultural societies as method for men to lay solid claim to their offspring to insure access to their labor when they were old enough to provide it.
As to my "rather odd position to take" (heh, good pun), that a marriage isn't valid without being consummated with coitus, I didn't make it up it has been part of marriage for thousands of years across hundreds of cultures.
And please until I make the argument that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage, don't attribute that argument to me. My primary argument against gay marriage is it does not fit the definition of marriage, and if you change the definition of marriage then it is no longer marriage, but something different using the same name. Its as absurd as calling soccer football.
The other argument is that the primary purpose of marriage is an economic unit for raising children and attributing parentage, and since gay couples can not have children together, then there is no need for them to marry.
I have to say that this type of accusatory leap is all too common on this blob among its commenters. For a bunch of supposed lawyers, a lot of people don't bother to respond to actual arguments. But then, that's what they teach in law school nowadays.
You are correct only with regards to the dissolution of a marriage. If it has not been consummated, that is *ground* for annullment, but not a requirement that the marriage be ended.
No state would requires examinations of all betrothed to make sure they can physically consummate the marriage. If you were correct, then surely the state would want some evidence that the couple are able to consummate the marriage, and in order to maintain its validity, require proof (probably in the form of an affidavit) that it has been consummated within a period of time. Again, no state requires that.
Additionally, if you are correct, then you would deny marriage to any person who is incapable of consummation. That would include physically handicapped people, soldiers who were injured in war and so on. Do you really mean that? If you were correct, there would be laws stating that these people cannot get married.
The act of anulling a marriage because of non-consummation requires that at least one party wants out of the marriage. We know for a fact that there are plenty of marriages which are NOT consummated, yet remain valid in the eyes of the state. (Such as soldiers returning from war who had their genitals blown off). History also tells us this -- King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette didn't consummate their marriage for about eight years, and tout le monde knew it. Are you suggesting that their marriage wasn't valid until they did? No one else in Europe, including church, would agree with you.
"The other argument is that the primary purpose of marriage is an economic unit for raising children and attributing parentage, and since gay couples can not have children together, then there is no need for them to marry."
On the contrary, gay couples have been adopting children by the hoards in the last few decades. Those children deserve to have married parents, just as adopted children of heteros do. Or are you suggesting that hetero couples who adopt children are not deserving of marriage either? Furthermore, lesbians are able to bear children, so at least one parent is of the blood, and the other parent is the adoptee.
"Marriage originated and still mainly exists as a economic unit that is structured to efficiently raise children and manage the transition of property to children."
Again, if this were true, then the state would require all married people to have children, or the marriage is dissolved.
Look, you can argue all you want about the purpose of marriage. The fact is that people get married for all sorts of reasons. If you got married solely for the money, and love had nothing to do with it, great! But other people get married solely because they love the other person. Others, it might be a mix. Some people have arranged marriages. All these are valid in the eyes of the law.
The only things a state requires for marriage is two people who agree to get married, a bit of information about themselves, and a fee. You don't even have to have met each other! All these nonsense that you have to have children, or sex in a certain, is irrelevant, because no matter how you answer those questions, the bottomline is that the marriage is still valid.
We want the marriage license and are happy to provide exactly the same things that YOU have to provide: an agreement to marry, some information, and a fee. Nothing more, nothing less. You say that you don't feel your marriage would be threatened, but you are indeed threatened because of this supposed change in the definition of marriage. Well, go to Canada, Spain, MA, Belgium and the Netherlands, and see if marriage has been harmed in any way because they changed the definition there. Get back to me when you have some evidence.
You definitely need a better analogy.
You definitely need a better analogy.