In reading through the comments on my recent post about the electoral result in Maine (The Lessons of Maine), I could not help but notice that many defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage argue that marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, that there's no reason to change that traditional definition, and that gays and lesbians should be satisfied with having all the rights married people have, without insisting on re-writing the dictionary.
I have several thoughts about this. First, of course, gays and lesbians do not have "all the rights married people have." Only eleven states currently recognize civil unions (or same-sex marriages). The other thirty-nine do not in any way grant gay and lesbians "all the rights married people have." Moreover, because of the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), even those states that do recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions cannot grant gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," because many of the most important of those rights are determined by the federal government, which refuses to recognize the legality of either same-sex marriage or civil union, even when they have been legally recognized by a state. Thus, the assumption that any gays and lesbians in the United States have "all the rights married people have" is unfounded.
But that is not a fair response to the objection. The objection basically argues that gays and lesbians should work to get "all the rights married people have," but in doing so they should not ask for the word "marriage" to be extended to their relationships. They should be content, in other words, to achieve the substantive content of marriage, without also asking for the name. What, after all, is in a name?
So, let's suppose we were to limit the word "marriage" to relationships among same-race individuals. Civil unions between a black and a white or a white and an Asian could not use the word "marriage." What, after all, is in a name? Or suppose we were to confine the word "marriage" to Christian marriages, and used the word "civil union" for Jewish and Muslim marriages. No big deal, right? Or suppose we were to define the word "marriage" to include only Protestant marriages, and relegated relationships among Catholics to "civil unions." Surely, Catholics wouldn't object. After all, what's in a name?
The point, of course, is that words do matter. Words can insult, degrade, shame, and hurt. Moreover, words shape reality. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if we artificially give different names to two varieties of roses, over time we would come to think of them quite differently. And in the same-sex marriage context, there can be no mistaking the implication of the use of a different word. It is, and is meant to be, insulting, degrading, shameful, and hurtful. As the Supreme Court observed in Brown v. Board of Education, "separate but equal" is inherently unequal.
Those who object to changing the traditional definition of "marriage" will point out that the examples I posited earlier are all distinguishable from the same-sex marriage situation, because we have not traditionally defined mixed-race marriage, or Catholic marriage, or Jewish marriage as anything other than "marriage." Therefore, my examples contracted the traditional definition to exclude what were once included, whereas in the same-sex marriage situation the opponents argue that the traditional definition should not be expanded to embrace gays and lesbians. However specious, or superficial, this distinction might seem, it is not wholly without merit. It is somewhat different to take away a right than to refuse to grant it. in the first place Tradition counts for something.
But for how much? Certainly, in the law, the meanings of words change constantly. The meaning of the word "search," for example, changed over time. At one point, the Supreme Court held that wiretapping was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, because wiretapping does not involve a physical invasion of the target's home. Forty years later, however, the Court held that wiretapping is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, because it involves an invasion of the target's privacy. I could offer endless similar examples, including such elemental terms as contract, property, torture, obscene, divorce, rape, harassment, militia, and equal.
Of course, the meanings of common words change constantly as well. "Nice" once meant ignorant; "awful" meant amazing; "girl" meant a young person of either sex; "brave" meant cowardice; "bad" once meant bad; and "gay," well, gay once meant carefree. The point is that there's nothing sacred about definitions. They change.
The real question, then, is why some people are so hung-up about the definition of the word "marriage." If someone truly supports granting gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," why would she bristle at throwing in the word that goes along with the rights? Tradition can't be the answer, because we're really not all that wedded to traditions that hurt and insult people. We've learned to change from coloreds to Negroes to blacks to African-Americans; we've learned to change from chairman to chairperson or chairwoman or chair; we've even learned to change from fag to homosexual to gay. So, what's the big deal about "marriage"?
The answer, I suspect, is that many people think of "marriage" as a religious rather than a legal term. If Christians suddenly started celebrating their birthdays as "bar mitzvahs," it would probably upset some Jews, who would see it as insulting. If atheists started wearing crucifixes to signify their atheism, it would surely perturb some Christians, who might see it as blasphemous. The real flash point about the word "marriage" is that some people strongly associate the word with their religious understandings, and those understandings most definitely do not embrace same-sex relationships. Thus, even if they are willing, as good citizens, to grant gays and lesbians "all the rights married people have," they can't stand the thought of seeing a "sacred" word, and concept, brutalized.
This is a real dilemma. Certainly, such people have no constitutional right to have the state adopt their religious definition of "marriage." Although they may have a strong religious identification with the word, the word has long had a secular meaning and, indeed, has never belonged to any particular religion or even to religion generally. "Marriage" in our society is a secular term. It may coincide with religious beliefs, but in the law it is not a religious concept, nor could it be. Religious organizations and individuals are authorized to officiate at weddings, but the legal concept of marriage is entirely secular. The phrase "by the power invested in me by the state" is revealing. It is the state that bestows legal recognition to the marriage, not the religion.
Those with religious objections to calling same-sex unions "marriages" are essentially insisting that the state must adopt their religious definition of a legal concept. That is fundamentally incompatible with the separation of church. It is not for religion to define legal concepts.
As I see the situation, there are two plausible solutions to this dilemma. First, those who think gays and lesbians should have "all the rights of married people" but want to deny them the word "marriage" must understand that the distinction is untenable. It is demeaning and insulting to gays and lesbians in the same way any system of "separate but equal" is offensive and hurtful, and it is ultimately grounded in religious beliefs that cannot properly be the basis of legal meaning.
Second, both gays and lesbians and those who object to applying the term "marriage" to same-sex relationships can agree to strike the term "marriage" from our laws. Instead, all legal marriage-like relationships would be described as "civil unions," whether same-sex or opposite-sex, and different religions would then be free to use the term "marriage" as they see fit, without government involvement or endorsement. Of course, even this would insulting to gays and lesbians (in the same way that closing the municipal swimming pool to avoid racial integration was insulting to blacks), but it might nonetheless be a compromise worth considering.
Michael Roth: Remember the Maine Elections
Under law it is between the partners and society. The law sets priviliges and responsibilities of marriage. We are talking of civil rights.
The ceremony ends "By the authority vested in me by the state of **, I now pronounce you ..." That is the crux of this discussion. The authority comes from the state.
Uner the XIV Amendment and the I Amendment denying people their "...equal protection of the laws..." Imposing laws based on religious doctrine is "...law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Can anyone show me satisfactorily how any of the purposes of our country are undermined if people committing to sharing a life together the rights and priviliges and title enjoyed by every other couple that have made that committment?
If churches wish to deny homosexuals the sacrament, the fellowship and the community of your church that is their right. The 1st Amendment assures their right. To deny anyone the protection of the law is an abomination under heaven and on Earth. It must not be allowed to exist. Anyone who disagrees with that is well within their rights to leave.
~;^}>
This is going to be my last reply to you, because I'm tired of banging my head against a brick wall when someone won't listen to ANYTHING.
Everyone has a right to procreate. No one can tell them who to procreate with, ESPECIALLY not the government.
If the government were able to tell people who to procreate with, then I wouldn't be able to walk outside of my marriage and procreate with any person who will have me.
Placing restrictions on the "right" of married gays to procreate with each other is a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. This makes it illegal.
And one more time, just because you feel "icky" around gays, doesn't give you the right to restrict THEIR rights!
I don't feel icky around gays, I am proposing a way to extend full federal recognition and enable Civil Unions to be passed in all 50 states that are exactly like marriage except do not license attempting to procreate together with the couple's own genes. I feel icky about genetic engineering and eugenics, and have made the case that it is bad public policy and bad for equal rights and dignity.
Note that Professor Stone didn't find ONE area of disagreement with me on matters of law, he simply thinks same-sex conception should be allowed. I think he is taking a very self-interested lawyer view of the issue, he'd find it interesting in ten years to blog about labs being sued for not performing some new genetic engineering technique. He probably opposes laws that try to maintain good public policy in general.
Professor Stone, what do you think of the legal argument I am making? I am not asking you to give your opinion on the science or the ethics of same-sex conception.
I have to say, I'm a man married to a man--after 30 years together we finally got that right--and we have two children and two grandchildren.
I can assure Mr. Howard although my spouse and I know what procreation is, I have no idea what he means by same-sex procreation, or how my marriage somehow compromises the 'gametes' or 'sperm-and-egg' of heterosexual couples. What I do know is that my family and I are thankful that after 30 years and 3 generations our little family is happy for the chance to have us, finally, married.
Professor Stone and LeftRight think you need the right to attempt to procreate together more than you need federal recognition, and more than you need your union to be recognized in all the states. They're using you and your family for their transhumanist agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v_board_of_education
Where the Supreme Court of the United States decided that "Separate But Equal is inherently Unequal"
THAT'S the point that you keep missing!
That's not some minor little demand, that is the demand that would change the game, if people knew that it was what was being demanded. It would be unsafe, cost too much, waste too much energy, etc etc. It ought to be the last thing on the list of priorities that humanity needs to get to, it is completely unnecessary and unwise, and yet you are declaring there to be a right to do it without any discussion or debate. Isn't the procreation of new people a matter of public policy?
But at least you've addressed the issue now, and you've chosen the first of the two possible results of same-sex marriage: declaring a right to attempt same-sex conception. That's the more radical choice, but also more pure and principled. But when you say "assuming it is safe" you show that you are also choosing the second possible outcome: declaring that marriage does not protect the right to attempt to conceive children from the couple's own genes. Who decides when it is "safe", the couple, the government, who? And since when is safety a concern regarding reproductive rights, anyhow? Would your system also mean that some hetero couples should not be allowed to procreate because it might be deemed "unsafe" for their child?
Marriage can encompass any of three aspects: religious, legal, and social. In the US, the legal aspects cannot constitutionally be based on the religious aspects.
If two persons are married by a clergyman/woman who does not have a state license to perform marriages, then the marriage is only recognized by the church and the social circle thereof.
If two persons are married by a judge, justice, or magistrate, the church does not have to recognize that marriage (ask any Catholic), although in society at large it is usually recognized.
If two persons live together for a long period of time and present themselves as a married couple, then society can treat them as married even if the law and the church do not. Such is the basis of a common law marriage. If it becomes necessary to make it legal, they can petition for legal recognition based on the social acceptance.
If adults love and are devoted and commited to one another, there is no reason why they should not be able to get legal recognition of that commitment, be it race, ability to have kids, or genders.
All this focusing on procreation regarding same gender marriage is complete nonsense.
What do you think of the idea of federally recognizing as marriages state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights"?
What do you think of the idea of prohibiting attempts at creating a human by any method other than joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man?
And what do you think of the idea of affirming in federal law that all marriages must be allowed to attempt to conceive with their own genes?
A lot of people say we can have same-sex marriage and decide same-sex procreation later, but doing that means either we have to allow same-sex married couples to conceive offspring together from their own genes, or it means that we don't have to allow hetero marriages to conceive offspring from their own genes. I think those are both unacceptable outcomes!
But if he agrees with you, at least he'd be admitting that marriage rights must include conception rights as a matter of principle.
Perhaps when I write "all marriages must retain the right to procreate with their own genes" I need to immediately add "and everyone must retain the right to marry the person of their choice who consents to marry them", so that people won't think I'm trying to limit who is allowed to marry.
I know that I've typed the phrase "unless there is a supportable basis to prohibit that type of relation" a thousand times, cited Loving, pointed out that we don't have the right to marry our siblings, etc. And I know I've pointed out how a basis has to be public, apply equally to all people, not be based on any private genetic tests or have age limits, etc. I've made it clear that the whole point is to preserve everyone's equal conception rights.
So the fact that you both think I need to be told that all people have procreation rights is rather surprising, but is a fact, and the blame must be mine. Here I say it again:
Being allowed to marry and the person of your choice and procreate children using your own genes and your spouse's own genes is a basic human right.
Really, procreating with your sister is less dangerous and unethical than same-sex conception.
You REALLY need to stop lying about what you've said before..... Don't you realize that we can just look back at what's been said before and realize that even though you're claiming you didn't say anything of the sort, that we know you WERE saying it!!!!!!!!!!
Let me ask you, would you accept as a final outcome, full equal marriage in every state, recognized federally, etc, and heck, throw in enacting EDNA, repealing DADT, if there was a ban on attempting to conceive with someone who wasn't of the other sex? Or would that still be a homophobic bigoted denial of gay people's basic rights? I think the justification and reasoning you give for equal marriage rights would apply also to equal procreation rights, so surely you would still be unsatisfied and would still demand equal procreation rights using any new technology.
One thing that establishes is that we agree that they can't really be separated. It makes no sense, it wouldn't satisfy anyone. I agree that if we allow same-sex couples to procreate together (combining their own genes - i have to keep clarifying that over and over), we should allow them to marry. It makes no sense to approve of two people procreating together, but not let them marry each other. And I think you'd agree that it makes no sense to let couples marry but prohibit them from procreating together.
What you propose though is removing one type of bigotry only to add another type. That's a poor choice. You're singling out same-sex couples and suggesting they be explicitly denied rights that others get.
What if instead same-sex couples were allowed to marry, but NOBODY was allowed to use genetic modification of humans? That's separated the two issues you've been merging together again and again, but that's probably acceptable to a lot of people. I think the number of people who actually want to be able to modify gametes to merge genetic material of two same-sex partners is likely pretty small. The vast majority of same-sex couples who have children don't use genetic engineering. Actually, I can't say that I'm aware that this is currently being done anywhere.
Then the same-sex couples can marry and share all the legal and economic rights that confers, while at the same time the genetic engineering issue is pushed back to its own separate discussion. If in the future it's decided that such engineering is safe and controllable, that people won't abuse it for eugenics, and that the issue from such processes are healthy, then future legislation could allow for that. That remains however a wholly separate issue.
But, as long as you accept that only unmodified genes should be allowed to be used, and that that means same-sex couples would not have the right to attempt to procreate together, don't you see that it is silly and dangerous to go ahead and call them married? It separates marriage from procreation rights in a way that has never been done in history and makes all marriages vulnerable to also being prohibited and forced to not use their own genes.
Below, they refuse to say that married couples have a right to use their own genes to procreate, and they insist that people have a right to conceive with anyone that agrees to conceive with them (including siblings!) usig whatever technology they want.
They've made the standard misdirection arguments about unmarried procreation, infertility, donor gametes and adoption and other irrelevant topics, but their argument ended up coming down to demanding a right to attempt same-sex conception, expressed above by LeftRight:
"I have EVERY right to procreate with WHOMEVER I wish, provided that the other person wishes to procreate with me. EVEN IF THE OTHER PERSON IS A MAN!!!! The only problem that exists is that currently I cannot PHYSICALLY procreate with a man (being a man myself).... But if the technology were to catch up with that, then I would STILL have every right to procreate with whomever I wished, provided that the other person ALSO wished to procreate with me!"
Same-sex marriage means... people of the same sex getting married. You've struggled in vain repeatedly to show that it leads to other things, but have convinced nobody but yourself of this.
It's still the case that all adults already have the right to legally procreate. No matter what you wish were true, that's the reality of the situation. Married couples don't have any special right to do this - no law grants this right, which already exists for all adults anyhow. No matter how many times you repeat this, how many times you try to muddle the differences between sex and procreation, this remains the truth.
You'd raised a lot of inarticulate points which you later stressed weren't important to your arguments, without of course having the good grace to admit that you were mistaken about the facts or misguided in the inferences you drew. You've ignored both logical and legal evidence again and again. In the course of this discussion I have to confess my own perception of you has suffered a steep decline, from a rational person who simply lacked factual knowledge to a bigot who doesn't care what the facts are and insists that his views should supersede reality.
- continued -
And you repeat the claim that marriages do not have a special right to conceive children together, which is also an unacceptable claim. Yes, I accept that an unmarried couple can have a right to procreate, if they also have a right to marry. But couples that may not marry each other do not have the right to procreate together (even if they are not punished for doing it), and couples that are prohibited from procreating with each other do not have a right to marry. All married couples should have the right to procreate together, and it is unacceptable to deny that they do, yet people are claiming that they do not have a special right to procreate.
That you can look at the mass of coherent arguments against your position and still maintain that you were somehow vindicated is frankly astounding. That you sum up literally dozens of arguments by multiple people with one quote, which you then hope to somehow discredit (without argumentation or logic) and by extension discredit all the other unrelated arguments, speaks volumes about your approach to discussion. Sadly, those volumes were penned by Dr. Seuss.
You don't like gay sex. We understand your position. You don't think anyone should strive to have babies in any way, shape, or form, but should only accept babies that just happen without planning or special effort. We understand your position. You wish that the government would rescind the rights granted to all adults to have sex and to procreate, and then grant those rights only to heterosexual married couples. We understand your position.
Your positions however remain bigoted and out of touch with reality.
same-sex couples should not be allowed to attempt to create biological offspring from their own genes.
all marriages should have a right to attempt to create biological offspring from their own genes.
That's where the disagreement is regarding marriage and gay rights. Those are both very seriously bad things, and all you want to talk about is my positions on other issues that are not at all relevant.
You have asserted again and again that because certain relationships are illegal, that means that procreation is only a right allowed to married straight people. I will show you where you are wrong in that assertion:
Incest laws in the USA are not based on procreation. If they were, then you could get sterilized and then marry your close relative. Instead, even if you were sterilized, it would STILL be illegal to marry that close relative. Since the laws care not about your ABILITY to procreate, they are OBVIOUSLY not ABOUT procreation. Thus the whole of your argument is based on a foundation of sand, and the argument falls down around your ears.
And, the idea that there can be a prohibition on the means to procreate for siblings and other couples, but the couple is nevertheless allowed to procreate together, is unconstitutional. It would be putting a "substantial obstacle" in the way of someone's rights, like getting the husband's permission for an abortion, or requiring a three day waiting period (I think that was O'Connor's ruling in Casey v Planned Parenthood). If someone has a right to procreate, you can't forbid them from having sex, or even from marrying (that was the ruling in Zablocki v Redhail).
I also didn't say that incest laws were entirely about procreation, I agreed somewhere down there that there were lots of other reasons besides prohibiting procreation that we prohibit incestuous sex, but that prohibiting procreation was certainly one of the biggest reasons. (I also stated that the reason we prohibit their procreation is not just because genetic risk, but because the whole situation would be an unethical circumstance to be born into, even if there were no extra risk of birth defects).
The fact that you cannot seem to understand (perhaps you need to go back to school and take a logic 101 class...... Or maybe that might be too advanced, take a logic 075 class....) is that procreation is a right granted to EVERY SINGLE PHYSICALLY MATURE PERSON ON THE PLANET. It doesn't matter if you're married, it doesn't matter if you're gay, it doesn't matter is you're sterilized, you have a RIGHT to procreate!!! The ONLY limiting factor is that you must find someone else who is willing to procreate WITH you! And even THAT doesn't require marriage, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally MILLIONS of children born out of wedlock EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!!!
If referring to DOMA as justification for his position, DOMA makes “procreation” a requisite condition for marriage, and suggests two positions:
First, that federal law should limit marriage to the legal union of one man and one woman who are capable of conception.
Second, that all heterosexual couples should be issued a marriage license ONLY if they are pre-screened and found viably fertile.
After all, since an average of 2,200,000 heterosexual couples marry each year and approximately 7.5% of them are infertile. The federal government should deny them recognition of their marriage. Why?
Annually denying 331,000 infertile HETEROsexual couples access to marriage achieves the “four asserted government interests” stated in DOMA:
First, infertile HETEROsexual couples are NOT capable “of procreation and child rearing.”
Second, “traditional notions of morality” require humans to procreate, therefore precluding infertile HETEROsexual from marriage.
Third, denying marriage to infertile HETEROsexual “advances the government’s interest in protecting state sovereignty.”
Fourth, denying infertile HETEROsexual pension and “social security benefits,” tax exemptions, etc. “advances the government’s interest in “preserving scarce government resources.””
I am SO glad "JohnHoward" wants to deny infertile HETEROsexuals access to marriage.
And then there's my daughter, the lesbian, who is being told that she cannot marry the one that she loves!
Reading your posts for the past number of days, I wanted to say, "Thank You!" for your unflagging determination to take an opponent to task. Your words are resectful, but firm and reasonable.
The fight for equality for all LGBT people can be daunting and, at times, discouraging. I suppose one of the things that strikes me most in your posts is your love for your family and community.
I believe more than anything that love and personal integrity will bring us to our goal. The more of us who contribute to the fight against prejudice, ignorance, intolerance and inequality, the sooner our hope will be turned into reality.
If you were here, I'd like to give you a hug. Instead, here is a "fan" and a "fave"....
But in your case, the argument is that you think we should allow people to be created any way a scientist decides would be fun to try, and I think we should prohibit creating people from genetically modified sources, and preserve equality and everyone's equal right to procreate with their own genes.
Marriage has always been understood to have two functions: procreative and unitive.
Same-sex spousal unions can fulfill the unitive function; but not the procreative.
Too often, the procreative function has been given priority over the unitive function, especially in traditionalist religious sects; but that is no reason to err in the other direction.
Perhaps everyone should receive a certificate of "civil union" from the State. A civil union certificate would entitle couples to the same rights and impose the same legal obligations on them whether they are heterosexual or same-sex spousal unions. The Churches, Synagogues and Mosques could perform traditional heterosexual marriage ceremonies.
The Catholic Church does not canonically recognize a civil divorce in the case of a valid sacramental marriage. There is no reason why civilly sanctioned spousal unions cannot be renamed Civil Unions and "marriage" can become a covenanted spousal committment with personal spiritual as well as juridical responsibilities.
Formal religious institutions could decide whether or not same-sex spousal committments violate their normative collective moral tradition. Religious believers could seek membership in the formal religion that supports their personal moral convictions.
Gay, lesbian and transgendered citizens should be free to follow their consciences; but so should heterosexual citizens. There is no need to redefine the word "marriage" to provide freedom of conscience and equal civil rights to a minority group.
The fact of the matter is that the term "Marriage" in its various forms is the ONLY word that we know to be what we mean when we are describing a civil union or a religious union. Therefore the ONLY acceptable thing to do is to have the states keep issuing marriage licenses to every couple who asks for them, and start including gay couples in that mixture!
Actually, it is possible, using stem cell derived gametes, for same-sex couples to procreate together. Researchers at Stanford just announced they created sperm cells, and predicted it would be possible in five years (they've been saying five years for a few years now).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/same-sex-marriage-and-the_b_347593.html?show_comment_id=34197385#comment_34197385
My apologies....