Burnt Orange Report

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jim.... it's good to hear from you. I appreciate and understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm quite worried about the push for gay marriage in an election year. I'm a political pragmatist above all and I realize that Civil Unions and ENDA are what has public support right now, and that's what Democrats ought to push for, but various issues have forced the marriage issue upon us. I wish that this (MA, SF, etc.) would have happened next year as opposed to this, so it wouldn't be an election year issue, but it happened this year and we'll have to deal with it. Having said that, I'm quite pleased with what is going on in MA and SF. Gays and Lesbians are getting married in SF and they will in Mass, and how will it effect traditional marriages in that state? It won't have any effect. None. It will be one of the biggest non-events in American history. Gays and Lesbian couples will get their marriage licenses and how will it effect straight married couples? Life will go on... It will have no effect. Kos has a great line (referring to a picture of two 80ish lesbians (the first to be married in SF)): "Apparently, this scares the beejezus out of people. Supposedly, this will destroy the institution of marriage. Funny, though. I don't feel compelled to call a divorce lawyer just yet."

How do gays and lesbians marrying threaten the marriage of heterosexuals? They don't. We're not about to go recruit your children. Get over it. Geez.

The last time I checked, there were substantial differences between men and women, what they're capable of doing, and surely that's got to have some bearing on things.

I've debated this topic a lot, and this sounds like the beginnings of the biological imperative argument--that marriage is a construct largely meant to aid in family stability and since homosexuals can't procreate, then they don't need marriage.

I'm not suggesting that's your argument. I hope it's not, because it's an empty one, since not only are homosexuals able to form family units either through adoption or through IVF or surrogates, but also since it would preclude any heterosexual union that couldn't produce children, whether due to age or to say, a partner having a tubal ligation or a vasectomy.

There's a growing number of gay couples raising families these days--my ex-wife is doing that right now--and those people deserve the same federal protections and privileges that any couple that wishes to enter into a union receives. To ask them to accept anything less than full equality in this matter is comparable to asking them to sit at the back of the bus.

In the abstract, marriage isn't a right. In the real world, however, it confers rights and privileges on people that single people don't enjoy. If my girlfriend is in intensive care and the hospital says "family only" they can keep me out, regardless of the fact that we've lived together for 3 years. We have the option to marry, so if that situation occurs, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Same-sex couples don't have that option, and will never have that option as long as we deny them the opportunity to join in that union.

Sorry--I went on longer than I planned here, but it's because I feel that this issue gets shunted aside because of long-held but not completely thought out prejudices.

Hi Incertus --

Well, in a sense, it's the same "opening move" but it's not the same argument (which is perhaps why I think I lose people when I start making it).

You are absolutely right to note that there are a number of same-sex families out there, but as you noted, the circumstances involved (aside from children from previous marriages) are, adoption, IVF, and surrogates. To put the issue bluntly, that is not the way most of us come into this world; and hence I'd argue that there's a somewhat different set of circumstances. In some cases this might even entail some special rights, e.g. when it comes to surrogates. Other situations in which I could foresee issues might spring from, say divorces (should assets held by two men be divided differently than assets held by a man and a woman?). Remember that the entire structure of matrimonial law built up throughout American jurisprudence has been built upon the presumption of gender inequity! And this is supposed to be the panacea?

In short, I don't argue that there's a negative "biological imperative" that justifies not doing something. I'm just not sure that the set of circumstances best suggest that the same institution be adopted. While we should reject the "Heterosexual couples have kids and GLBT couples do not" dichotomy, I think it might be reasonable to explore the issue further.

I suppose it's worth clarifying however that this is purely academic at this point, since the real hard-core opposition is going to wage total war. They don't want marriage, civil unions, or debates. They want to freeze things where they are.

Given that option, I think it's definitely better to see marriage through, even if takes a little getting used to.

Remember that the entire structure of matrimonial law built up throughout American jurisprudence has been built upon the presumption of gender inequity!

Yep--any man who's ever gone through an ugly divorce knows exactly what you're talking about. My divorce was more a relief for both of us, and we had no assets, so we agreed on a visitation schedule and child support on our own and handled it civilly. I know we're the vast minority.

The only thing I can say is that judges need to change as well, especially family court judges. These issues will undoubtedly arise, and will have to be dealt with. It will be the next step toward breaking down traditional gender roles, which is another step we eventually have to take as a society. It won't be easy, but it will happen eventually.

"Remember that the entire structure of matrimonial law built up throughout American jurisprudence has been built upon the presumption of gender inequity!"

This is a rather troubling rationale to explain an uncomfortableness with gay marriage. It is essentially a argument of "life has always been unfair, so deal with it."

I am a pragmatist, but I am also not one to sit on my hands while a manifest injustice takes place. Call me a dreamer, but I refuse to accept an injustice, whether it be a denial of legal status rights based on gender, sexuality, race, or whatever.

Second, the assumption that American matrimonial jurisprudence is rooted in gender inequity is only half accurate. Yes, women used to have no legal rights apart from their husband and, for example, could not own real property in their own right. (And if that is the kind of gener inequity-based martrimonial jurisprudence that makes you feel comfortable, then you need help.) However, these vestiges of legally enshrined gender discrimination have been eliminated. Old habits die hard and judges often prefer to award kids to women, etc. However, the law is neutral on its face, if not in its application. Many times, the application is "gener biased" just because most couples still follow the "traditional" model - bread winner dad and homemaker mom.

For what it's worth, I'm ultimately for what Jimbo calls the "hyperlibertarian solution." When I got married, we went to the county offices and said, "We want to get married." They had us fill out a form, we wrote a check for the license fee and that was it.

In other words, the government wasn't sanctioning our marriage, because that's not government's job- it was simply recognizing the existence of that marriage, and making a few bucks on the nominal license processing fee.

Government's job regarding civil marriage is as a recordkeeper, recognizing the legal union for legal purposes like tax brackets, visitation, assets, whatever.

There's no compelling interest for the government to act differently regarding gay civil marriage; in fact, I've heard arguments that there are compelling interests to provide equity (the children of gay parents, for example, can qualify for higher amounts of federal aid for college, because they aren't allowed to claim both parents on their FAFSA form).

My solution's probably not going to shut Mitt Romney up, but I feel pretty good about it. :)