Friday, April 3, 2009
Homo "No Right At All"
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Social conservatives sometimes insist that gay people aren't discriminated against when it comes to marriage rights. Don't I have just as much right to marry a woman as my heterosexual older brothers? Or Newt Gingrich? Or Ted Haggard? That argument is bullshit, says the court:
It is true that the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all.
Download a PDF and read the entire decision by clicking here.
Share via
2
Yes, this is the difference between "substantive" and "formal" equality. Formal equality says things such as "both rich and poor alike are prohibited from sleeping under bridges, so it's equal". The marriage right should be phrased as "you have the right to marry the person you want to".
3
I wonder if the Iowa State Supreme Court is looking for a copy-editor, because I need a job and their statute is full of grammatical errors.
4
Marriage is a matter of individual religious preference - the State does not belong in the bedroom in any fashion. Domestic union legislation should be written to apply to both hetero and gay equally and all references to marriage in State law removed.
BTW, aside from the super-rich, DINKS are really the only people who have money these days.
BTW, aside from the super-rich, DINKS are really the only people who have money these days.
5
The marriage right should be phrased as "you have the right to marry the person you want to". .
No, you don't. My grandparents' marriage is illegal in half of the US, with the trend being to prohibit it more and more.
But same-sex marriage -- however necessary and justified -- fundamentally changes the nature of marriage because it lacks the perspective of half of humanity. Calling SSM separate-but-equal is not too far-fetched because of this loss.
No, you don't. My grandparents' marriage is illegal in half of the US, with the trend being to prohibit it more and more.
But same-sex marriage -- however necessary and justified -- fundamentally changes the nature of marriage because it lacks the perspective of half of humanity. Calling SSM separate-but-equal is not too far-fetched because of this loss.
9
The argument flies in the face of logic.
Their flawed logic lies into assuming that it is a right.
Marriage is an institution a vehicle through which social recognition is given to a couple man and woman in order to engage in a relationship and bear and rear children. It is the approval of a public union who will extend human life, protect it and extend it into the future generation.
Their flawed logic lies into assuming that it is a right.
Marriage is an institution a vehicle through which social recognition is given to a couple man and woman in order to engage in a relationship and bear and rear children. It is the approval of a public union who will extend human life, protect it and extend it into the future generation.
12
Go Iowa Supreme Court!
The social conservatives' argument is like saying that people who live in a one-party state have the right to vote. If you can't vote for candidates whose positions you support, then the right to vote is meaningless.
The nice thing about the Iowa decision is (a) same-sex marriage is now no longer a coastal phenomenon, and (b) it's much more difficult to amend the Iowa constitution than the California constitution, say, so this ruling will be in effect at least until 2012, by which time hopefully Iowans opposed to same-sex marriage will have gotten over it.
The social conservatives' argument is like saying that people who live in a one-party state have the right to vote. If you can't vote for candidates whose positions you support, then the right to vote is meaningless.
The nice thing about the Iowa decision is (a) same-sex marriage is now no longer a coastal phenomenon, and (b) it's much more difficult to amend the Iowa constitution than the California constitution, say, so this ruling will be in effect at least until 2012, by which time hopefully Iowans opposed to same-sex marriage will have gotten over it.
13
@ 9, just be brave and say it: Should heterosexual couples who can't or won't have children be denied marriage?
14
@9: Then why don't we pre-screen couples to make sure both parties are fertile before we grant them a marriage license? Or allow infertile couples to marry but then insist they adopt children? Why, it's almost as if marriage isn't necessarily about child bearing and rearing at all...
16
The decision as a whole is quite moving to read. To have a court place preserve our entire form of government by protecting the Constitution above anybody's wishes or feelings, and find that as a result there is absolutely no alternative to voiding that (meanspirited) law...glorious.
"As was observed by Justice Robert H. Jackson decades ago in reference to the United States Constitution, the very purpose of limiting the power of the elected branches of government by constitutional provisions like the Equal Protection Clause is “to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”
"As was observed by Justice Robert H. Jackson decades ago in reference to the United States Constitution, the very purpose of limiting the power of the elected branches of government by constitutional provisions like the Equal Protection Clause is “to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”
17
My defintion:
"The institution of Marriage shall refer to the union between two consenting adults."
Now wasn't that easy? No Polygamy, no bestiality, no pedophilia. It doesn't get much simpler than that, and there's no bullshit "slippery slope" argument for freepers to stand on.
"The institution of Marriage shall refer to the union between two consenting adults."
Now wasn't that easy? No Polygamy, no bestiality, no pedophilia. It doesn't get much simpler than that, and there's no bullshit "slippery slope" argument for freepers to stand on.
18
@9: Also, with the world fast approaching 7 billion people (200,000 new screaming mini humans being added each day)I'm pretty sure we're in no danger of failing to produce the next generation. Frankly we could use more relationships that don't produce offspring and (if they so choose) adopt instead.
19
Better say "adult humans", although I don't see why it has to be limited to two. Hmm, although legal polygamy would probably make the tax law even more complicated than it already is.
20
@19 That's what the word "consenting" is for (well, that and arranged marriage under duress). Animals cannot legally consent to anything.
21
More delight from the decision, summarizing the Court's consideration of what it describes as the "unexpressed" religious basis of many Iowans' objections to same-sex marriage...
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our
constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our
constitution requires.
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our
constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a
woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the
same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our
constitution requires.
22
Dan,
#9 has a point. I agree that marriage is an institution. Yes, I agree that gay marriage should be allowed but as Stefanie Coontz in her excellent book: "A History of Marriage: From Obedience to Love", remarked marriage was an institution created to establish legitimacy for children ie. heirs. This predates the notion that marriages were designed necessarily for love. I agree with the partnership notion of marriage (ie. you should be able to marry your partner, Terry and have adopted children. But, I am very uncomfortable with surrogate parenthood for gays or straights). However, I am also for voluntary polygamy of persons over eighteen. We essentially have it in some states.
#9 has a point. I agree that marriage is an institution. Yes, I agree that gay marriage should be allowed but as Stefanie Coontz in her excellent book: "A History of Marriage: From Obedience to Love", remarked marriage was an institution created to establish legitimacy for children ie. heirs. This predates the notion that marriages were designed necessarily for love. I agree with the partnership notion of marriage (ie. you should be able to marry your partner, Terry and have adopted children. But, I am very uncomfortable with surrogate parenthood for gays or straights). However, I am also for voluntary polygamy of persons over eighteen. We essentially have it in some states.
23
Dan,
Please excuse my not taking the time to read all the comments posted here....
time is money some say...
as one of the obvious clanging thoughts here is...
" what... people only get married to have children and they never marry to solidify fortunes ? ".
Please excuse my not taking the time to read all the comments posted here....
time is money some say...
as one of the obvious clanging thoughts here is...
" what... people only get married to have children and they never marry to solidify fortunes ? ".
24
Because they're first cousins, and American pseudo-science says their children will have three heads.
26
@3,
Maybe you should apply, but be warned. Legal copyediting is labor intensive. You have to go line by line, preferably while using a ruler, and most of that stuff will put you to sleep.
Maybe you should apply, but be warned. Legal copyediting is labor intensive. You have to go line by line, preferably while using a ruler, and most of that stuff will put you to sleep.
28
@9, and anyone else who proclaims the "Marriage = kids" hypothesis: Can you quote the relevant section of marriage law which states that marriage is explicitly for the purpose of procreation?
29
5 & 24 --
Actually, your grandparents' marriage isn't illegal anywhere. Yeah, there are states where first cousins may not marry, but if they marry elsewhere, their marriage will be recognized by every state and by the Federal government.
Your grandparents marriage is acknowledged in all 50 states. No state is going to claim they aren't really married. No one puts scare quotes around their "marriage" (oops, sorry).
Now, my marriage on the other hand, is not recognized in most states and it is not recognized by the Federal government.
Solution for first cousins who want to marry: travel to a state that permits it. Your own state will accept it as valid.
This solution does not exist for same-sex couples.
Actually, your grandparents' marriage isn't illegal anywhere. Yeah, there are states where first cousins may not marry, but if they marry elsewhere, their marriage will be recognized by every state and by the Federal government.
Your grandparents marriage is acknowledged in all 50 states. No state is going to claim they aren't really married. No one puts scare quotes around their "marriage" (oops, sorry).
Now, my marriage on the other hand, is not recognized in most states and it is not recognized by the Federal government.
Solution for first cousins who want to marry: travel to a state that permits it. Your own state will accept it as valid.
This solution does not exist for same-sex couples.
30
@27 I left it at two because the inclusion of polygamy would leave fodder for conservatives... an admittedly shitty reason, and one I'm not entirely comfortable with since I personally have no qualms with plural marriage (as long as it stays between consenting adults).
Another issue (as 19 partially pointed out) would be the subsequent loopholes in tax law associated with allowing marriage between an unspecified number of people. Undoubtedly there would be unscrupulous individuals willing to band together for no other reason than to avoid the IRS.
Another issue (as 19 partially pointed out) would be the subsequent loopholes in tax law associated with allowing marriage between an unspecified number of people. Undoubtedly there would be unscrupulous individuals willing to band together for no other reason than to avoid the IRS.
32
@28 unfortunately this is the very reason sited by our cowardly state supreme court in their refusal to overturn Washington ban on same-sex marriage.
33
32: That makes sense, see. Because if two gay people are not allowed to marry each other, then obviously they will have to resort to marrying someone of the opposite gender so that they can have children. Thus the decision "furthers the state's interest in stable, child-producing unions" as stated.
34
The Fauxlygamy concern troll is back, yeehaw!
"Well, why stop at 2? If you're arguing for 2 but not 5, what legal ground do you have to stand on? How about 15? Can we have 15? No? Then why should gay people be able to marry? What if it's 3? No? Stupid gay people!"
"Well, why stop at 2? If you're arguing for 2 but not 5, what legal ground do you have to stand on? How about 15? Can we have 15? No? Then why should gay people be able to marry? What if it's 3? No? Stupid gay people!"
35
Elderly couples that can't produce children could've done so in the past and cases of elderly couples bearing children although rare are not unheard of because the constitute the basic pairing that allows for such miracle to happen, man and woman. infertile couples reverse their affliction through medical help in the future. Couples that don't want children when they marry can and have changed their minds.
The concerns about reproduction is at the core to why government and society at large restricts the choice of marriage partner and has never allowed a persons of the same sex to marry each other. They are all identical when it comes to this simple essence. The sexual union of all of them is the same type that allows for reproduction of the human race to happen, even if it doesn't happen in their particular cases. There's no mockery in them.
If marriage had nothing to do with reproduction our government wouldn't be involved in regulating and protecting it. Close relatives , plural unions, man with animals and marriages of children would be allowed.
Only those places in which these safeguard are in place have seen a steady population growth. As we have seen here, that's why western Europe (were mock weddings have been recognized) has such low birth rates and no country can sustain itself with a low population growth.
The concerns about reproduction is at the core to why government and society at large restricts the choice of marriage partner and has never allowed a persons of the same sex to marry each other. They are all identical when it comes to this simple essence. The sexual union of all of them is the same type that allows for reproduction of the human race to happen, even if it doesn't happen in their particular cases. There's no mockery in them.
If marriage had nothing to do with reproduction our government wouldn't be involved in regulating and protecting it. Close relatives , plural unions, man with animals and marriages of children would be allowed.
Only those places in which these safeguard are in place have seen a steady population growth. As we have seen here, that's why western Europe (were mock weddings have been recognized) has such low birth rates and no country can sustain itself with a low population growth.
36
Elderly couples that can't produce children could've done so in the past and cases of elderly couples bearing children although rare are not unheard of because the constitute the basic pairing that allows for such miracle to happen, man and woman. infertile couples reverse their affliction through medical help in the future. Couples that don't want children when they marry can and have changed their minds.
The concerns about reproduction is at the core to why government and society at large restricts the choice of marriage partner and has never allowed a persons of the same sex to marry each other. They are all identical when it comes to this simple essence. The sexual union of all of them is the same type that allows for reproduction of the human race to happen, even if it doesn't happen in their particular cases. There's no mockery in them.
If marriage had nothing to do with reproduction our government wouldn't be involved in regulating and protecting it. Close relatives , plural unions, man with animals and marriages of children would be allowed.
Only those places in which these safeguard are in place have seen a steady population growth. As we have seen here, that's why western Europe (were mock weddings have been recognized) has such low birth rates and no country can sustain itself with a low population growth.
The concerns about reproduction is at the core to why government and society at large restricts the choice of marriage partner and has never allowed a persons of the same sex to marry each other. They are all identical when it comes to this simple essence. The sexual union of all of them is the same type that allows for reproduction of the human race to happen, even if it doesn't happen in their particular cases. There's no mockery in them.
If marriage had nothing to do with reproduction our government wouldn't be involved in regulating and protecting it. Close relatives , plural unions, man with animals and marriages of children would be allowed.
Only those places in which these safeguard are in place have seen a steady population growth. As we have seen here, that's why western Europe (were mock weddings have been recognized) has such low birth rates and no country can sustain itself with a low population growth.
37
Anyone unhappy with what they think the decision means might very well be comforted by actually reading it. Dan posted an easy link to download the whole thing. Go for it.
38
@35 - so if a gay person has had a child in the past (either through an opposite sex relationship, or artificial means), that means he can marry whomever in the future? That's your justification for allowing infertile seniors to marry, after all.
39
Loveschild, what about gay couples that adopt and care for children not their own? To me, that's why God made gay people & made them want to marry and have families - to care for orphaned and/or abandoned children. It truly is part of his wonderful plan. To deny gay marriage is to hurt children who could otherwise be brought into a loving home.
40
Yes @35/36, because, as EVERYONE can clearly see, those low birth-rate countries in Europe are all literally teetering on the verge of imminent social collapse, because they're not squirting out teh babies at a furious rate like sausages on an assembly line.
42
Pages 54-60 of the decision (brilliantly) address the question of children and procreation. I suggest that everyone read those pages.
44
@30: Actually, in a country with progressive income tax, and rules for couples filing separately or jointly that make no mention of the number of people in a couple, creating a couple with 20 people in it and filing jointly would be a very *bad* idea, tax-wise.
45
Would that all people had the common sense of the Iowa court.
That's a fantastic except from their decision.
Thanks for posting, Slog.
That's a fantastic except from their decision.
Thanks for posting, Slog.
46
How come whenever there is some debate and the hard core christian/right wing/conservatives comes out on the losing end they start spouting off about abortion? Always! You know what you stupid asses? Gays don't abort fetuses!
Also, in my religion our folk don't go around telling other people what to do. How about you all worry about your own fucking souls and shut the fuck up! YOU don't want an abortion? Don't get one! YOU think marrying someone of the same sex is wrong? Don't marry someone of the same sex! I'm so sick of these damn religious people always trying to impose their ideals on the rest of us. Suck It Losers!
Also, in my religion our folk don't go around telling other people what to do. How about you all worry about your own fucking souls and shut the fuck up! YOU don't want an abortion? Don't get one! YOU think marrying someone of the same sex is wrong? Don't marry someone of the same sex! I'm so sick of these damn religious people always trying to impose their ideals on the rest of us. Suck It Losers!
48
The decision suggests, in its reasoning, that if gay marriage is banned to protect children, then gay people who don't want children should be allowed to get married. Ha!
49
@ Loveschild #9: "Marriage is an institution a vehicle through which social recognition ....."
The funny thing I've learned about people like you is, you now use the argument that marriage is "socially recognized" as between a man and a woman, but when society finally recognizes same-sex marriage as being the same institution, you'll change your argument point that society has no right to change the "natural" law, and blah, blah, blah.....
As tiring as your posts have become, you will lose this war. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, and maybe not next year. But you and your kind will lose. It's only a matter of time. In time, level-headed, equality minded people will make same-sex marriage a reality. And, as we all know, time is, as it always has been, on our side.
The funny thing I've learned about people like you is, you now use the argument that marriage is "socially recognized" as between a man and a woman, but when society finally recognizes same-sex marriage as being the same institution, you'll change your argument point that society has no right to change the "natural" law, and blah, blah, blah.....
As tiring as your posts have become, you will lose this war. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, and maybe not next year. But you and your kind will lose. It's only a matter of time. In time, level-headed, equality minded people will make same-sex marriage a reality. And, as we all know, time is, as it always has been, on our side.
50
Gays CAN reproduce. At the moment they may not necessarily be able to do so directly with each other, but as Loveschild points out, medical assistance is acceptable when a given couple is infertile. Surrogate mothers and sperm donors can presently facilitate reproduction in gay families, and soon we'll be able to facilitate biological reproduction through the creation of female sperm or male eggs. Viola!
Of course, on the federal level, this is moot. Turner v. Safley already defined that the right to marry is not based on the ability to reproduce (by defining that inmates may marry regardless of circumstances such as children already involved, or the possibility of parole) and before that Griswold v. Connecticut secured a married couple's right to use contraceptives, ensuring they could choose to not have children, if they so wanted.
So it's bogus to assume gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce.
Of course, on the federal level, this is moot. Turner v. Safley already defined that the right to marry is not based on the ability to reproduce (by defining that inmates may marry regardless of circumstances such as children already involved, or the possibility of parole) and before that Griswold v. Connecticut secured a married couple's right to use contraceptives, ensuring they could choose to not have children, if they so wanted.
So it's bogus to assume gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
Was This On Slog Yesterday? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS