Gays can get married in Iowa!

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-09-04 06:21am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Spin Echo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:There is an old saying: "the cynic is right 90% of the time, and pleasantly surprised the other 10%". Never has it been more true in my lifetime than during the Bush administration, and I can't bring myself to be even mildly optimistic about any aspect of this situation.
This is a battle I'd rather had not been won at the moment. Iowa is a swing state, and I fear the likes of Mitt Romney wooing the voters with rhetoric of "stopping those activist judges bent on overthrowing the will of the people."
If you read the OP, most people in the state oppose a constitutional amendment.

I will be honest. I cant think of a way that the SCOTUS legally could deny an equal protection claim to gay marriage. I know the probably will, but legally I just dont know how they can. The 14th amendment is pretty damn clear in the matter. And not just on marriage.

Marriage is but one of the many rights which we as gay people are systematically denied in this country. Everyone is protected by state and federal hate crime legislation. Everyone is protected by anti-discrimination laws. Everyone can get married and obtain the legal protections that marriage provides. Everyone but us. This flies in the face of the american ideal that everyone is equal. Not only that. It flies in the face of the Constitution.

The first section of the 14th amendment reads as follows (if a tad abridged).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States.... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

There are only three ways our current second class status can be justified. 1) That we are not human beings 2) we are not citizens. or 3) there is a section of the 14th amendment I am missing. The part after "nor deny to any person... the equal protection of the laws" where it says "except for faggots"

I will be blunt. I am fucking sick of it. I am so god damn sick, and tired of looking at breeders flaunting rights that I dont have. Just the other day I was reading the University paper, and saw a story about an ASU couple who won the contest to get married on the Tonight Show. Was I happy for them? No. I couldn't help but cringe and mutter "So this is the sanctity of marriage that my rights are trampled to protect? Fuck them"

These two breeders take it as their natural right to get married. They probably never thought of the possibility that the option could ever be closed to them. He probably did something like propose to her in a nice restaraunt, and when they were making their wedding plans they probably thought something innocent like "Hey, let's send in an application. It would be really cool if we won, probably wont happen though"

Note: I am 21, and not in a relationship, any references to such are hypothetical
I cant get married on the tonight show. I cant have the massive marriage celebration with a white gown and too many sequenz. I cant even quietly go down to the courthouse with my beloved and have a nice ceremony with friends and family in a little gazebo at the park. Nope. None of that. I wont be able to visit my lover in the hospital, it wont matter that we were together for 30 years. If my Power of Attourney gets challenged in court by his homophobic parents, I will lose. And wont even have that if we are outside our state of residence. Same goes for any other document that would offer us some smidgen of protection. We wont get the social recognition of being in a committed relationship. And when asked if I am married, I wont simply be able to say "yes" I will have to explain that I have been with a man for 30 years, or use embarassing euphamisms if I want to be honest and not out myself. For fuck's sake. This past election year Arizona my home state was the first to defeat the Abomination known as prop 107, which was a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and anything that looks like marriage (which could nullify things like Power of Attourney if you get an asshole judge). Want to know how it was defeated? The Human Rights Campaign had to play down how it was an abomination that cruely targeted gay people for second class citizenship and play up how the second clause (the one that banned that which looks like marriage) hurt straight people and call it "over-reaching"

Yeah. You read that right. Our own lobby group, was forced to put people on television to say (and I paraphrase) "I dont care about gay people's rights as human beings. But I am straight and Sally and I couldnt be bothered to get married, and instead took advantage of the pittance of protection that gay people have managed to secure for themselves in our municipality, and this amendment would hurt us. This law is over-reaching and too broad"

And it still failed by a measely 30 thousand votes. Half of ASU's undergrad population.

Even if we get civil unions, we are still inferior because we are apart. What support for civil unions tells me is "I pity you that you dont have the same legal protections that I take for granted. But you still are not good enough for marriage"

But of course I still have to vote for one of those politicians, because it is either them, or people who think they can find that missing part of the 14th amendment with a bit of lemon juice and some light heat.

ANd that doesnt even go into hate crime legislation (My friend Brent got beaten up last weak for being gay) and anti-discrimination laws (where getting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act through committee was considered a victory a couple years ago, something it had never done in the DECADES it has been introduced regularly for)

Sorry for the rant... but this sort of stuff sets me off. I am going to go to sleep now.

As screwed-up as it is, I've heard people put forth the argument that gay people have the right to marry already - but marriage by definition is between two members of opposite genders. A gay man can marry any women he wants, and vice versa.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-09-04 10:46am

As screwed-up as it is, I've heard people put forth the argument that gay people have the right to marry already - but marriage by definition is between two members of opposite genders. A gay man can marry any women he wants, and vice versa.

Qualitatively different. I would not WANT to marry a woman. My marrying a woman would defeat the purpose of getting married in its entirety and that argument is so disengenuous as to be disgusting.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-09-04 11:02am

Oh, and in addition to that... IIRC that argument was used against interracial marriages. So no dice.

And something I forgot. In states where gay marriages are legal, IIRC the federal government does not recognize them due to the Defense of Marriage Act. So even when we are equal in a state, we arent equal. Just another way we get stepped on.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-09-04 11:50am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Oh, and in addition to that... IIRC that argument was used against interracial marriages. So no dice.

And something I forgot. In states where gay marriages are legal, IIRC the federal government does not recognize them due to the Defense of Marriage Act. So even when we are equal in a state, we arent equal. Just another way we get stepped on.

I don't think the argument is valid - it's just a response I've heard to the "equal protection" bit. I like to point out that it'll be equal if gay marriage is legal, as well - every man will have the right to marry any man they want, and any woman to marry any woman, as well as and man marry any woman and vice versa. Total freedom would have increased, while maintaining equality...but they rarely see it that way.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-04 11:52am

It's an argument of convenience. They don't seriously believe in it; they just think it's a clever way to befuddle an opponent. Sort of like solipsists, not one of whom takes that bullshit seriously; it's all about trying to come up with a clever rhetorical trick.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-09-04 02:16pm

Molyneux wrote: As screwed-up as it is, I've heard people put forth the argument that gay people have the right to marry already - but marriage by definition is between two members of opposite genders. A gay man can marry any women he wants, and vice versa.

There wouldn't be such a thing as polygamy if that was the definition of marriage.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-09-04 06:47pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
Molyneux wrote: As screwed-up as it is, I've heard people put forth the argument that gay people have the right to marry already - but marriage by definition is between two members of opposite genders. A gay man can marry any women he wants, and vice versa.
There wouldn't be such a thing as polygamy if that was the definition of marriage.

With a limit of one marriage per customer, I meant. Any given unmarried man would, if gay marriage were legalised, be able to marry any consenting unmarried man or woman; any unmarried woman would be able to marry any consenting unmarried woman or man.

The fact that heterosexuals wouldn't use said additional freedom has little weight, given that homosexuals don't use their 'freedom to marry' now.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-09-04 07:49pm

'They can get married the same as the rest of us' was the same rhetoric used with laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Inara · Post by **Inara** » 2007-09-05 05:27am

Jebus. When I first read the article I was pretty psyched... Now, after reading through the previous comments... I'm just feeling bitter and cynical again.
Gorramit.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-09-05 07:11am

Inara wrote:Jebus. When I first read the article I was pretty psyched... Now, after reading through the previous comments... I'm just feeling bitter and cynical again.
Gorramit.

Hey, civil rights has always been a 'two steps forward, one step back' kind of gig. The fact that the judge ruled that way in the first place is cause for some good feeling, even if it gets overturned.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2007-09-06 04:24pm

The 'they have the right to marry' argument goes both ways.
As John Scalzi said, the right to marry someone of one's own gender is a right all of us would have.
Further, it is a right I want to have, as unlikely as I am to use it (being happily married to a woman and all), much as I am very attached to my rights to worship, bear arms, to refuse to have soldiers quartered in my home in peacetime, etc., despite the issue that I have not actually exercised these rights, and do not expect to do so.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-09-06 06:07pm

Ok, I have a question here that is an honest "I'm not clear on this" question rather then an attempt at arguing a point, and this seems like as good a place as any to raise it. (mods, please split if not)

From time to time on the issue of gay marriage the point of "just call it something else" is brought up and the response is the point of separate yet equal. But I'm not clear on how that is appropriate here. It is one thing to be talking about public restrooms, but another of marriage - a bathroom is a public building, but marriage is a private religious ceremony that is accompanied by a legal notice. And for the purposes of rights and legalities, it is the license that matters, not the religious ceremony. How would changing the name of the license so it could be issued equally be a violation of separate yet equal? In fact, considering the issues of separation of church and state, shouldn't it be called something different? After all, calling it a marriage license instead of a ketubah is indirectly promoting Christianity over Judaism (off topic: doing research for the term to use here has opened my eyes to a whole mess of worms about religious bias in American law WRT marriages). It would be similar to how we call it a circumcision instead of a brit milah - it accomplishes the same thing, but divorces it of the religious traditions and restrictions. So why exactly would it be an example of separate but equal to change the name of the civil part and allow gays to get the public license and then have to hunt on their own for someone to do the private ceremony?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-06 06:09pm

Ender wrote:a bathroom is a public building, but marriage is a private religious ceremony that is accompanied by a legal notice.

Wrong. It is a legal contract that is sometimes commemorated by a religious ceremony. It is pure bullshit historical revisionism to claim that marriage has always been a religious ceremony.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-09-06 06:13pm

Exactly. When you get married you have the option of either having a justice of the peace marry you in a secular ceremony or get married by a priest but both options require you to go down to City Hall and pay the fee for the legal document entitling you to get married. Now I may have left out a few options but as far as I know if you want to get married you have to have that marriage license.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-06 06:20pm

Oh, and on the other point:

Ender wrote:After all, calling it a marriage license instead of a ketubah is indirectly promoting Christianity over Judaism

That's actually promoting English over Hebrew. It's a language issue, not a religious issue. The word "marriage" is an English word, and if you look it up in the dictionary, it in no way requires religious participation.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-09-06 06:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ender wrote:a bathroom is a public building, but marriage is a private religious ceremony that is accompanied by a legal notice.
Wrong. It is a legal contract that is sometimes commemorated by a religious ceremony. It is pure bullshit historical revisionism to claim that marriage has always been a religious ceremony.

What societies had some kind of civil union that was not initially religious in nature? I thought most could trace back to theocracies if you went back far enough, and that splitting the secular and religious was a relatively modern concept?

Cpl Kendall wrote:Exactly. When you get married you have the option of either having a justice of the peace marry you in a secular ceremony or get married by a priest but both options require you to go down to City Hall and pay the fee for the legal document entitling you to get married. Now I may have left out a few options but as far as I know if you want to get married you have to have that marriage license.

Right, but most of the jackasses I meet down here get uppity because to them marriage = Christian sacrament = God's approval. So why not just change the name of the license to remove the religious connotations and then distribute it equally?

Darth Wong wrote:Oh, and on the other point:
Ender wrote:After all, calling it a marriage license instead of a ketubah is indirectly promoting Christianity over Judaism
That's actually promoting English over Hebrew. It's a language issue, not a religious issue. The word "marriage" is an English word, and if you look it up in the dictionary, it in no way requires religious participation.

Yes, but as it shares the name with the sacrament, it has religious overtones, much in the same way my name reflects a Judeo-Christian background even though I'm an atheist. Changing the name of the legal document would divorce it of that connotation.

I understand why issuing a separate civil union license would be in violation of separate but equal, but why not just change the name of the license and issue it so people can't complain about it?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-09-06 07:10pm

Ender wrote: I understand why issuing a separate civil union license would be in violation of separate but equal, but why not just change the name of the license and issue it so people can't complain about it?

Because that would be destroying the legitimacy of marriage!

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-09-06 07:13pm

Ender wrote: Right, but most of the jackasses I meet down here get uppity because to them marriage = Christian sacrament = God's approval. So why not just change the name of the license to remove the religious connotations and then distribute it equally?

Marriage simply means a union of two people. I see no reason to change the term because a section of the populace in your country is to immature to handle the fact that some others choose not to include religion in that. Why punish the rest of society or bow even more to the religious right than has already been done? I think that's happened enough. I mean it's a perfectly good term.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-09-06 07:15pm

Wait, I missed your point. I think the only reason to continue to call it a marriage license is tradition. You could call it a civil license and accomplish the same thing.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-09-06 07:27pm

The problem with coming up with some "separate-but-equal" term for gay marriage is that it would allow regressives to gradually chip away at the rights afforded to pseudo-married people without affecting heterosexual couples. Expanding regular marriage to include homosexuals, on the other hand, would ensure that they'd always have the same rights as everyone else.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-09-06 07:32pm

I think what Ender means is that you have the marriage license, extend it to same sex couples but change the name to something else. That's what I got out of it anyways. I'm not a big fan of the civil unions for gays, marriage licenses for hetros myself.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-06 08:06pm

Ender wrote:What societies had some kind of civil union that was not initially religious in nature? I thought most could trace back to theocracies if you went back far enough, and that splitting the secular and religious was a relatively modern concept?

The fact that modern systems of law evolved in Europe during a time of theocracy means that you are correct ... assuming that the entire world is Europe. However, it is not.

Right, but most of the jackasses I meet down here get uppity because to them marriage = Christian sacrament = God's approval. So why not just change the name of the license to remove the religious connotations and then distribute it equally?

Because your society should at least maintain some slight pretense of not being a Christian theocracy, perhaps? Of course, I'm just speaking as the person of Asian descent who comes from a long line of people who proudly call themselves "married" without being Christian or realizing that some idiots think "marriage" means "Christian".

Yes, but as it shares the name with the sacrament, it has religious overtones, much in the same way my name reflects a Judeo-Christian background even though I'm an atheist. Changing the name of the legal document would divorce it of that connotation.

No, changing the name of the legal document would represent a huge concession to religious supremacists, whereby they are granted exclusive ownership of the concept of marriage even though they had no such exclusive ownership before.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-09-06 08:30pm

From time to time on the issue of gay marriage the point of "just call it something else" is brought up and the response is the point of separate yet equal. But I'm not clear on how that is appropriate here. It is one thing to be talking about public restrooms, but another of marriage - a bathroom is a public building, but marriage is a private religious ceremony that is accompanied by a legal notice.

The religious element is completely and utterly irrelevant. The legal and social institution is what matters. By creating something with a seperate name, the state sends the message to me that I am inferior, because I am not worthy of the prior-existing legal and social institution known as marriage. It is faux equality.

And for the purposes of rights and legalities, it is the license that matters, not the religious ceremony. How would changing the name of the license so it could be issued equally be a violation of separate yet equal?

See above.

As for the separation of church and state, it doesnt matter. We will never get the whole institution changed.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-09-06 08:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Ender wrote:a bathroom is a public building, but marriage is a private religious ceremony that is accompanied by a legal notice.
Wrong. It is a legal contract that is sometimes commemorated by a religious ceremony. It is pure bullshit historical revisionism to claim that marriage has always been a religious ceremony.

Some countries don't even recognize religious marriages, even if you have the license. Doesn't matter if the Pope himself married you, your marriage ain't legal until an official of the government seals the deal.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2007-09-06 09:32pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:I think what Ender means is that you have the marriage license, extend it to same sex couples but change the name to something else. That's what I got out of it anyways.

Pretty much.

Darth Wong wrote:The fact that modern systems of law evolved in Europe during a time of theocracy means that you are correct ... assuming that the entire world is Europe. However, it is not.

Ok. Can you point me in the right direction so I can do some more research then? I was under the impression that every culture from the aztecs to the chinese empire involved the holy man/witchdoctor/priest in it's marriage and leadership ceremonies.

No, changing the name of the legal document would represent a huge concession to religious supremacists, whereby they are granted exclusive ownership of the concept of marriage even though they had no such exclusive ownership before.

Ah. Hadn't considered it from that angle. I was thinking it would force a dialog on the issue while removing most of the rhetoric base and slimming the bigots support. I hadn't thought about it benefiting them.