Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a ban on marriage between gays is unconstitutional. I’d have written about it earlier, but I was in the studio all day with minimal access to news (though I did see some very cool stuff). I’ve always considered Massachusetts to be rather weak when it came to the interpretation of the Constitution; just try to get a concealed carry permit and you’ll see how ate-up they are on Amendment Two. However, I do agree with this decision. The state needs to get out of the business of telling people who should marry whom (within reason, of course; that is, minors shouldn’t be allowed to marry, nor should close relations, no matter what gender they are). It’s nobody’s business but the consenting adults involved. Of all the horrible, stupid crap that goes on on a daily basis, it’s mind-boggling that time needs to be spent on what’s really a non-issue for everyone except those of us who feel they have a moral or ethical obligation to legislate what people do in their bedrooms, married or not. What’s damaging to the sanctity of marriage is not the gender of the participants, but rather their compatibility. The commonality of divorce is far more worrisome to me than Bobby having two daddies.
As for the children, I do feel that it’s probably better to have parents of different genders. Despite militant feminism’s most enduring efforts to convince us otherwise, men and women are wired somewhat differently, and in this case, diversity of outlook is a good thing. Nevertheless, this is also pretty much a non-issue as far as I’m concerned; there’re no compelling statistics that I could find that suggest children coming from same-sex marriages are any more or less well-adjusted than any other kind.
John Derbyshire, whose opinions I generally find somewhat congruent with my own, unfortunately has a big problem with gay marriage, which drives him to ask:
1. If “gay marriage” is legalized, will prisoners be able to marry their cell mates? If not, why not?
2. In many jurisdictions, a marriage can be annulled if it has not been consummated. What, exactly, constitutes “consummation” of a gay marriage?
To paraphrase gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, for Derb and many others, homosexuality is what gays do, it’s not what they are. It’s an important leap of logic to get from “do” to “are.” This does not mean, however, that I care to know who does what to whom because of what they are. Like I’ve said, it’s not my business. You want to have a gay pride hayride? Go for it. The caveat is, don’t expect me to want to watch or support your right to pantomime sex acts in the street any more than I would expect you to listen if I were indiscreet enough to publicly describe what I like to do in the bedroom and who I do it with. If that’s unreasonable, please let me know.
I’m also disappointed by President Bush’s stance:
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today’s decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
What can you do? Get off it, George; you’ve got other stuff to deal with.
in other gay news, New York City is the home of Harvey Milk High School, the first publicly-funded high school in the country that accepts only gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered teens. The school was founded in part to protect these types of children from the bullying that heterosexual students inflict. At least, I’m assuming that this is the case; ultimately, algebra is algebra no matter what your sexual orientation may be. The idea of segregating students according to this criterion is horrible enough, but to do so on the taxpayers’ dime is truly appalling. Joel Mowbray reports on a growing crime problem in the school itself:
Last week, police arrested five cross-dressing Harvey Milk students who posed as female hookers and robbed men who approached them for sex. According to news reports, the teens dressed up as female hookers, and when would-be johns approached to solicit sex, other students posing as cops would start ?arresting? the men.
After allegedly taking wallets, cash, ATM and credit cards?and apparently brandishing a gun in at least one case?the students would say something like, ?You?re not such a bad guy,? and ?release? the men. But before the men were set free, several of them divulged their PIN numbers, allowing the Harvey Milk students to withdraw as much as $1200 from each person?s account.
Well, you might say, these kids just happened to be from Harvey Milk High. Okay, what about this:
Last month, three Harvey Milk students were charged with gang assault after a group of teens stabbed a man in the back with a screwdriver in the parking lot of a Starbucks coffee shop across the street from the school. Several of the alleged criminals? classmate?s told the media that the victim had made homophobic remarks, but police told the New York Daily News, ?This was not motivated by him seeking to harass them about being gay.?
The police official also told the Daily News, ?The Harvey Milk students were the aggressors.?
And police officials are holding out the possibility of more arrests to come, saying, ?The case is absolutely still under investigation.?
When thugs used edged weapons on the street, the overwhelming majority of them use screwdrivers. It’s easily concealed, creates horrific wounds, and is available at your local Home Depot for $1.99. At least these gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered teens are working within that demographic.
Mowbray ends with something I couldn’t have said better myself:
Protecting kids who are getting picked on?or worse?is actually a noble goal. But why resort to the bigot?s tool of segregation? Why not just teach gay teens how to beat the snot out of bullies? Wouldn?t that be better preparation for life in general? What?s a gay man or woman to do, for example, if a thug attacks? Run to a segregated area? Of course not. But self-defense training would seem essential in such a situation.
Unfortunately, it’s not just G.W. that is anti-gay marriage. He has many backers in all branches of the goverment. I’ve said it before, but I’ve never said it here: We can only hope to look back on the early 21st century as a time when legal discrimination against homosexuality was finally being phased out. Anti-homosexual legislation is wrong, and the laws against homosexuals must be repealed.
“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.”
This is what really bugs me lately. Yes, many feel that “sacred” marriage is rooted in Catholic traditions, but there have been many different forms of marriage throughout the years. Some as simple as consentual co-habitation. Some as barbaric as a man from one tribe “capturing” a woman from another tribe to be his mate. It would be nice if today’s politicians realized that there are other types of marriage that exist today OUTSIDE of the Church–namely civil marriage. How do these same politicians who are so gung ho “marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman” reconcile the millions of Americans who marry every year in civil ceremonies? I would venture to guess they consider those folks just barely a step above homosexuals because they are promoting a secularist agenda. If you’re going to set up social and financial benefits to marriage, civilly performed or otherwise, these benefits much be made available to all.
Oops–last sentence should read “…must be made available to all.”
Does that mean if I club Britney Spears over the head and drag her home, we’re married?
Hoo, doggies! I’m headin’ to L.A.!
Yeah, but just remember you have live with her after that.
Why limit marriage to between two humans? Why not can’t a man marry a sheep? Why not a chicken? I think it’s discrimination against two consential loving individuals even though one of them can only cluck or “baa” their approval. Why limit marriage to only two people? We can have four or five people live together as long as they love each other. Why not have marriage between a 40-year old man and a 8-year old girl? If they both are happy together, who are we to say that it’s wrong.
I’m saying its wrong. What is happening is that the left wants to blur every single thing that was once considered normal. If we let this go, the family values that were integral in constructing this country will eventually be considered worthless.
What really makes my blood boil is that the left could never get this through a state by letting the people decide on it. They found a group of liberal judges who are willing to go around the will of the people using a loophole.
I personally don’t care what two people do in their own house. Go have a ball. Invite some friends. Paint the walls. Just don’t throw it into my face and expect me to say that it’s normal.
Is this an important issue to me? Absolutely. We are in a continuous fight for the ideals of this country. Every time we look the other way, the easier it is for the next ideal to be brought down. What’s next?
Being someone who has been married for six years, I refuse to let someone water down the commitment I have with my wife without a fight.
What’s being neglected here is that there are people out there, perfectly normal people if you were to meet them, who are only asking for the right to practice that same sort of commitment “normal” husbands and wives do. I can assure you they have absolutely no interest in “watering down” the commitment of other couples, hetero or otherwise. These are people who are in long-term, loving, supportive relationships–just like any other married man and woman. They would just like some of the same rights enjoyed by others who don’t think twice about them: to be able to visit their loved one in a hospital after a life-threatening accident no questions asked, to be able to receive medical benefits as a “spouse,” to be able to have their children referred to their parents as married, and many more financial and legal rights–they’re looking for nothing more than to live a normal life like everyone else. I honestly don’t get it when someone says that the “liberals” are contributing to the downfall of society by encouraging loving and supportive family units that actually encourage traditional conservative family values. Boggles the mind.
I will tell you how the liberals are bring down society with one word: taxes. For the past thirty years, the liberals have attempted social engineering through taxes. The most unholy of them all is the marriage penalty on income tax. The government actually penalizes people for wanting to start a family. The person who came up with this should be beaten through the streets! But I digress…
First, the definition from Meriam-Webster’s Unabridged dictionary:
Main Entry: mar?riage
Pronunciation: ‘mar-ij also ‘mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
From the 14th century on, the definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman. It is the basis of a family. The purpose of being married is to eventually create a larger family through children. The majority of people in this country fit into this category. Why is this? The reason is that IT WORKS. A male figure and a female figure are required to give the child the best chances of succeeding. We change this equation and we begin unravel the base unit of this country. When the base unit falters, the society falters.
And what of the millions of childless married couples? Whether childless by choice or infertility issues, are they contributing to the unraveling of society? Shall we require them to divorce because they can’t procreate? One should actually give them credit for not contributing to the rampant overpopulation problem on this planet.
Regarding the issue of what’s “required” to give a child the best chances of succeding, which is the better scenario for a child? A home in which an alcoholic, wife-beater is married to a woman who accepts this behavior and puts her children in danger and allows them to grow up in a home devoid of love and caring? Or a home in which two parents (you pick the sex–it’s irrelevant) lovingly care for and nurture their children–think of the children as adopted in this example. No matter what the sex of the parents, I believe the most important issue determining whether a child succeeds is his home environment–is he cared for, loved, supported, encouraged, taught, etc. etc. I do feel that if there is a same sex parenting situation happening, then it does help to have role models in the child’s life of the opposite sex as the parents. This just helps in providing a balanced perspective. But can a child succeed with same sex parents? Absolutely!
And actually I personally believe the downfall of society will come about through the misuse of antibiotics, but I’d have to say taxes would be my second choice.
I agree with you completely about antibotics.
As for the scum of wife-beaters and loveless marriages, I agree as well. The country does not benefit from abusive relationships.
I’ll even go as far as saying that there can be a special status for two people of the same sex that allows them to receive some benefits and rights such as hospital visits when one is ill.
However, the best situation for children is when there is one father and one mother. Both sexes are necessary for the proper emotional growth of the child. Will a child be better off if there is some other combination or even a single parent? Of course not. This arrangement was brought about by nature after millions of years of evolution(yes, I believe in evolution).
Even without children(I don’t have children), I still believe the man benefits with a woman at his side and vice versa. Women and men have complimentary skills that make the relationship more than the sum of its parts. It makes the basic unit stronger. I just don’t believe that it is the same with two people of the same sex. I am not saying that homosexuals are doomed to fail, but I just don’t think the same skill set is complimentary.
All I want to know is: who picks up the tab when a gay marriage dissolves in a bitter divorce? If I get divorced, my life is screwed. Before I sign off on gay marriages I need to know that someone from that marriage, be it a man or woman is just as screwed as I am. Fair’s fair, right?
By the way Morgy, the marriage tax IS the most heinous crime ever committed by the Fed.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “change:”
1. a. The act or fact of changing (see CHANGE v. 1, 2); substitution of one thing for another; succession of one thing in place of another.
The nature of “family” changes according to social conditions. It is “normal” that the nature of marriage changes, as well. Obviously, we don’t keep every social condition from the 14th century in pristine condition. If so, we wouldn’t have the 8 hour work day, labor laws, or even any version of democracy that we now take for granted. Even notions of self-evident truths of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness were not clearly formed back then. Families, democracies, marriages… they change. They change because each generation contributes to the changing nature of values. There are a few 14th century notions we have kept: legislation against bestiality and adult-child sexual unions (including adult-child sexual relationships and child marriage), both of which were suggested as waiting for us further down the “slippery slope” of outlawing legalized discrimination against homosexual adults.
Even if the “purpose” of marriage is for creating children, what is the fear of homosexual marriage? Even if homosexuals are allowed to adopt children… so what? Is the fear that we will have a majority of homosexuals and the human race will die out? The percentage of homosexuals in any country is so small as to not even make a dent in population rates. With rising divorce rates, is serial monogamy among heterosexual couples any better a strategy of promoting family values? No. Shouldn’t we outlaw divorce, too? No. Should we force single parents to marry because their children will suffer from a lack of male or female presence in the household? No.
Legal discrimination against homosexuals must end and it will end. Not even G.W. can stop social change.
I don’t have any fear of homosexuality. I think whatever two (or more) people do in the own privacy is their own affair. Two men or two women living together is fine by me. I would have no problem with a legal status that would allow them rights such as power of attorney.
What I disagree with is the complete dismissal of the people’s will. This was not done by a vote. This was not done by a referendum. This was not even done by a council of elected leaders. This was done by a small group of liberals nitpicking a loophole in an existing law.
If you think this is such a great social experiment, put it to a vote. Have the vote in Massachusettes, California or New Hampshire. It will be voted down ever single time. Why? Although most people may be tolerant of homosexuality, they disagree with other people redefining a husband and wife’s commitment to each other.
“Power to the People!!!”
I think we would all be better served if a different term than “marriage” were used to denote a gay/lesbian official union. “It”, meaning an official union between same-sex couples, is different than a traditional marriage. I am seriously not making “different” equate to an inferior level of commitment (once again, who pays if the relationship tanks?), just different.
A marriage is a marriage, no matter what the gender of the participants may be. There’s no need for a new nomenclature here.
I also don’t think that homosexual marriages, as long as they’re done with the same intention to commit as heterosexual marriages, cheapen the institution. The current rate of divorce does more damage to marriage itself than whether or not Bobby has two mommies.
However, there is a small percentage of homosexuals that seek to destroy marriage altogether, and I wrote about it here:
http://www.thewaterglass.net/archives/000185.html
It’s a small percentage, like I said.
Morgan’s point about judicial fiat stomping its boot into the faces of public opinion/desire is well-taken, and that I agree with…to an extent. Like him, I am deeply troubled by judicial activism, especially when the left is concerned; most of them (*cough 9th Circuit cough*) have a social agenda that I feel is incompatible with living a moral life. I hope that sounds extreme enough, because that is how I mean it. Nevertheless, it’s also important for us to realize the difference between mob rule and the backbone of moral clarity and ethical thought that the Founding Fathers so brilliantly wove into this country’s very being when it was formed. Sometimes, the people can be wrong. Josh said that social change is inevitable, and in this case, it is time for a change. Let ‘em marry who they want.
Oh, as for who gets what in the divorce settlement, they can all feel free to send it to me. Otherwise, the main breadwinner will likely pony up, just like in every other broken marriage.
I just wanted to thow in my two cents on this issue. As a strict constructionist on Constitutional issues, I am as disturbed as Morgan and David by lawmaking through judicial fiat. The Constitution is not a vague document and was written with great clarity by James Madison and others. It offends me when judges see things in the Constitution that are not there and fail to see things that are, such as the right to an abortion or the perogatives if the states. In this case, however, I fail to see where the Massachusetts Supreme Court was wrong.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, requires equal treatment under the law for all persons within the United States. It does not seem to me that you can legally forbid people of the same sex from marrying without violating the 14th Amendment. Sure, you can pass laws against incest and polygamy, establish an age of consent and prohibit bestiality bacause such laws apply equally to men and women, homosexuals, heterosexuals and transexuals and do not discriminate against any person or persons. Denying gays the right to marry is when all is said and done an act of discrimination based on prejudice against individuals who are homosexual, a relatively benign human condition that does not warrant legal discrimination. There is no other reason for it and from my strict constructionist viewpoint, it steps all over the 14th Amendment. On top of that, it is simply wrong for government to define love between consenting adults.
Marriage in the eyes of the state is nothing more than a legal cntract with obligations and penalties for breaking that contract. If it becomes anything more, it is up to the individuals involved to make it so. If the institution of marriage and traditional family values are threatened in this society, it is not by a relative handful of gays and lesbians who will tie the knot, but by the 50 percent divorce rate and the vast number of single parent homes in America.
As to the idea of separate schools for gay and transexual kids, the Harvey Milk School is giving a lot of kids the chance to learn and find themselves without being intimidated or physically attacked in a Rah Rah school atmosphere. That does not mean all of these kids are saints or that some of them will not turn into juvenile gonifs that every high school has produced. I strongly disagree with David and Mowbray on this issue. Segregation in education is not in and of itself necessarilly a bad thing. All-male military schools, female academies and African-American institutions like the Tuskegee Institute consistantly turn out some of the best educated graduates with the highest character. Test scores for African-American kids were much higher in the 1950s when school systems were segregated than they are today, although I am not advocating a return to such a system. Gay and lesbian high schools are unlikely and certainly unable to isolate their students from the mainstream world, but just might give them a place where their differences from the majority do not stand in the way of their education and social development. Teaching people to fight as David suggested is not the answer when they are alone every day in a hostile environment. Anyone who remembers high school knows damn well that they are the most socially-conformist and anti-gay social institutions on the planet. Sometimes the results can be tragic as at Columbine. If there is one thing I have learned about people, it is that if you push someone far enough they will strike back and not always in rational way.