Delaware 11th state to support marriage equality

[amigocabal]

I just find it somewhat embarrassing; I'm from Wisconsin, and despite the fact that we have both the first woman senator and the first openly gay senator in Tammy Baldwin, we're also stuck with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or civil unions. It's going to take forever to get rid of that.

The continued validity of that constitutional amendment would depend on how the Supreme Court rules in the DOMA case.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I just find it somewhat embarrassing; I'm from Wisconsin, and despite the fact that we have both the first woman senator and the first openly gay senator in Tammy Baldwin, we're also stuck with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or civil unions. It's going to take forever to get rid of that.

The continued validity of that constitutional amendment would depend on how the Supreme Court rules in the DOMA case.

The DOMA case deals specifically with section 3 of the law that provides that the Federal government cannot recognize same-sex marriages. Even a favorable decision from SCOTUS would not affect the validity of any state-specific anti-marriage laws.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Very true Pinto, also as I have said before, the "slow but steady" approach to marriage equality is by far the best way to go.
Any sort of large sweeping nation wide decision that suddenly tried to impose gay marriage across the country would only lead to the same sort of backlash that has been stocking the fires of the Anti-abortion people for the last 50 years.

Incidentally, I saw a quote online in regard to the marriage equality debate that made me chuckle:

God has a way of defeating the ambitions of Christians.
Christians opposed the ending of slavery, but God prevailed.
Christians opposed equal rights for women, but God prevailed.
Christians opposed interracial marriage, but God prevailed.
And state by state, God is putting Christians in their place.
You'll notice that the states leading the way on gay marriage are the same states the lead the way on interracial marriage as well.
Remember: Christ is the way, but Christians are the enemy.

It is funny how the most ardent supporters of God ALWAYS seem to end up changing their minds.
I am sure in the next 10 to 20 years, church goers will be saying "Gay Marriage, of why of COURSE God is in favor of that! people were just being 'silly' earlier."

[amigocabal]

I just find it somewhat embarrassing; I'm from Wisconsin, and despite the fact that we have both the first woman senator and the first openly gay senator in Tammy Baldwin, we're also stuck with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or civil unions. It's going to take forever to get rid of that.

The continued validity of that constitutional amendment would depend on how the Supreme Court rules in the DOMA case.

The DOMA case deals specifically with section 3 of the law that provides that the Federal government cannot recognize same-sex marriages. Even a favorable decision from SCOTUS would not affect the validity of any state-specific anti-marriage laws.

The specific issue in that case is the denial of the estate tax benefit to the estate of Thea Spyer, who was married to someone of the same sex, while permitting such benefits to the estates of persons married to those of the opposite sex. The equal protection guarantee under the Fifth Amendment has identical effect to the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 217, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995)If Wisconsin has an estate tax benefit for married couples, its marriage amendment would require its denial to those married to someone of the same sex, thus having precisely the same effect that DOMA had on the estate of Thea Spyer. It is difficult to see how the U.S. Constitution can permit one but not the other, given Adarand Constructors.

It is funny how the most ardent supporters of God ALWAYS seem to end up changing their minds.
I am sure in the next 10 to 20 years, church goers will be saying "Gay Marriage, of why of COURSE God is in favor of that! people were just being 'silly' earlier."

And in 40 years, or even 21 years, would church goers say the same about polygamy?

Would not polygamy be a more accurate comparison to same-sex marriage than interracial marriage would be? After all, interracial marriage was recognized under common law, and, as the Sixth Circuit noted, "marriage as it was recognized by the common law is constitutionally protected" Vaughn v. Lawrenceburg Power Sys., 269 F.3d 703 at 711 (6th Cir. 2001) But polygamy was not recognized under common law, and "this protection has not been extended to forms of marriage outside the common-law tradition" id.

Furthermore, the moral arguments against same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, are eerily similar to the arguments against polygamy. Consider these quotes.

Sodomy and same-sex marriage tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man

Bigamy and polygamy are malum in se, i.e., immoral and corruptible in its nature without regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state. They are abominable and detestable crimes against nature.

Actually, I changed a few words around. here are the quotes and citations.

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man

Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 341 (1890)

Sodomy is malum in se, i.e., immoral and corruptible in its nature without regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state....Any teacher who advocates, solicits, encourages or promotes the practice of sodomy"in a manner that creates a substantial risk that such conduct will come to the attention of school children or school employees" is in fact and in truth inciting school children to participate in the abominable and detestable crime against nature.

National Gay Task Force v. Board of Education, 729 F.2d 1270 at 1276 (10th Cir. 1984) (Barrett, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

[Metahive]

Would not polygamy be a more accurate comparison to same-sex marriage than interracial marriage would be?

No, you fucker. Why? Because in interracial as well as in homosexual marriage it's about two consenting adults. Polygamy has quite a lot of different kind of problems attached to it, especially social such as artificially reducing the pool of potential spouses. They are nothing alike.

What comes next? Saying that gay marriage leads to Dog Marriage and later Shoebox Marriage or somesuch shit?

[amigocabal]

Would not polygamy be a more accurate comparison to same-sex marriage than interracial marriage would be?

No, you fucker. Why? Because in interracial as well as in homosexual marriage it's about two consenting adults. Polygamy has quite a lot of different kind of problems attached to it, especially social such as artificially reducing the pool of potential spouses. They are nothing alike.

Uh, if people could marry more than one spouse at a time, does that not logically increase the number of potential spouses, since one could marry someone who is already married?

And I already explained above that polygamy and same-sex marriage were not recognized by the common law, while interracial marriage was. Only forms of marriages recognized under common law were constitutionally protected. Vaughn, 269 F.3d at 711 Furthermore, as I pointed out, the arguments against same-sex marriage are eerily identical to arguments against polygamy. People did, and do argue that polygamy will harm the institution of marriage. See Davis, 133 U.S. at 341

The only argument against polygamy that I could think of that would not apply against same-sex marriage is the possibility that its social acceptance might sever the link between fidelity and marriage.

[Civil War Man]

For starters, polygamy is an inherently unequal relationship, whereas same sex marriage is not.

Secondly, for quite a while interracial marriages were illegal. They were not recognized as lawful marriages. And when people fought for the right of interracial marriages, people who wanted to keep them illegal argued that them would damage the institution of marriages.

[Metahive]

Uh, if people could marry more than one spouse at a time, does that not logically increase the number of potential spouses, since one could marry someone who is already married?

Riddle me this, if a man marries a woman that's already married to another man, will he be married to that man too? See, there's a bit more problems involved with polygamy than with gay marriage. Your argument isn't half as clever as you think.
Also, considering the sexist attitudes of society today, polygamy will in most cases mean polygyny, so the pool of marriagiable people will indeed suffer shrinkage.

And I already explained above that polygamy and same-sex marriage were not recognized by the common law, while interracial marriage was.

Something which carries exactly zero relevance. Past law forbade all sorts of shit that's legal today and granted shit that's illegal today. Been to a slave auction lately?

[Simon_Jester]

Polygamy wouldn't necessarily damage the institution of marriage, but it'd sure make it a lot more complicated legally. The obvious examples are things like inheritance, tax benefit status, and so on.

Gay marriage would not cause any new legal complexity, because it's still a legal relationship between two and only two people. Since the law recognizes no differences between the rights of men and women, it doesn't have to ask idiot questions like "who's the husband?" and "who's the wife?" about a gay marriage. So there is no extra complexity.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Very true Pinto, also as I have said before, the "slow but steady" approach to marriage equality is by far the best way to go.
Any sort of large sweeping nation wide decision that suddenly tried to impose gay marriage across the country would only lead to the same sort of backlash that has been stocking the fires of the Anti-abortion people for the last 50 years.

I happen to think that a large sweeping nation wide decision would probably not turn the issue of marriage equality into one similar to abortion in 50 years time since the issue is much more similar to racial segregation in the US, which had the very opposite effect after the definitive Supreme Court rulings(Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, etc.). The main point of this issue has to do with homophobia and its decreasing grip on US society. Abortion, on the other hand, is a more perceived complex and nuanced issue.

I know a lot of people like to point to California as an example of moving too quickly on this issue. But I would like to remind you that California have had domestic partnerships for almost a decade prior to the California Supreme Court ruling (In contrast, Washington state only had theirs for three years prior to enacting marriage equality legislation). We had moved "slow but steady" but it was simply not enough. In many respects, Prop 8 was an unfortunate but necessary step for our community.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The DOMA case deals specifically with section 3 of the law that provides that the Federal government cannot recognize same-sex marriages. Even a favorable decision from SCOTUS would not affect the validity of any state-specific anti-marriage laws.

The specific issue in that case is the denial of the estate tax benefit to the estate of Thea Spyer, who was married to someone of the same sex, while permitting such benefits to the estates of persons married to those of the opposite sex. The equal protection guarantee under the Fifth Amendment has identical effect to the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 217, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995)If Wisconsin has an estate tax benefit for married couples, its marriage amendment would require its denial to those married to someone of the same sex, thus having precisely the same effect that DOMA had on the estate of Thea Spyer. It is difficult to see how the U.S. Constitution can permit one but not the other, given Adarand Constructors.

While a follow up case may determine that the anti-marriage state constitutional amendments violate the US constitution, the DOMA case specifically is still narrowly tailored to address whether section 3 of DOMA is constitutional. And thus, if the court rules that it is not, state anti-marriage laws still remain in effect. Married gay couples in those states will have their marriages denied by the state while honored by the federal government until SCOTUS says otherwise in what will likely be in a separate case.

[Terralthra]

Michelle Bachmann said she'd leave Minnesota if they legalized gay marriage. Win/win, really.

[PKRudeBoy]

Although, I actually wonder what coherent arguments could be made towards polygamy being immoral. Unsustainable? Sure. Incredibly difficult to implement for little gain and a high risk of fraud? Absolutely. But actually immoral? Considering the Religious Right's favorite go to against gay marriage is the OT, which is hard to go a chapter without running into a polygamist, I'd love to see the logical contortions they would have to go into. Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines for fucks sake!

Now, this obviously doesn't include those fundamentalist pedophiles out in Utah, but relationships between consenting adults.

[Simon_Jester]

It's easier to argue that polygamy is immoral from a modern perspective, really- it lends itself so easily to unequal power relationships, and to relationships that favor one part over another.

[PKRudeBoy]

Perhaps in it's most commonly thought of form it may, but polygamy=/=polygyny. Go have a group marriage, or a line marriage, or whatever the hell was going on at Oneida. Can there be unequal power dynamics? Of course there can be, but it's a rare relationship where it'll be split straight down the middle anyway. Yes, a situation with, say, a crazy cult can be an issue, but thats because it's a crazy cult, not because people aren't pairing up 1:1.

[amigocabal]

It's easier to argue that polygamy is immoral from a modern perspective, really- it lends itself so easily to unequal power relationships, and to relationships that favor one part over another.

This assumes that unequal power relationships are inherently immoral.

Last time I checked, the state does not forcibly dissolve relationships merely because of unequal power.

[Simon_Jester]

Perhaps in it's most commonly thought of form it may, but polygamy=/=polygyny. Go have a group marriage, or a line marriage, or whatever the hell was going on at Oneida. Can there be unequal power dynamics? Of course there can be, but it's a rare relationship where it'll be split straight down the middle anyway. Yes, a situation with, say, a crazy cult can be an issue, but thats because it's a crazy cult, not because people aren't pairing up 1:1.

My actual point, which seems to have been missed, is that it is easier to argue that polygamy is immoral using a modern philosophical framework. Not that doing so is ironclad.

In a patriarchy where women are basically a form of animate property, it's hard to present a coherent argument against polygyny. In that frame of reference there's just not a lot to explain why King Bob isn't justified in 'having' as many women as his resources let him maintain.

When people are treated as equals, some forms of polygamy (the historically common ones) begin to look a lot less moral. Does this mean all forms of polygamy are immoral, that this is somehow required? No, it does not. My remark is simply that we should not be surprised if opposition to polygamy comes from, say, feminists whose ideas date to the 20th century. Not just from fundamentalists whose ideas date to the 10th.

It's easier to argue that polygamy is immoral from a modern perspective, really- it lends itself so easily to unequal power relationships, and to relationships that favor one part over another.

This assumes that unequal power relationships are inherently immoral.

Why yes, it does! Would you like to actually call that assumption into question, or are you just pointing it out?

You might actually think it's not a morally relevant question that a class of marriage lends itself to, say, the subjugation of women. I don't know.

Last time I checked, the state does not forcibly dissolve relationships merely because of unequal power.

Last time I checked, the state does not enforce moral action on all people.

[amigocabal]

You might actually think it's not a morally relevant question that a class of marriage lends itself to, say, the subjugation of women. I don't know.

Monogamy has historically led to the subjugation of women- or at least the forms which have at least one female partner.

[Aasharu]

You might actually think it's not a morally relevant question that a class of marriage lends itself to, say, the subjugation of women. I don't know.

Monogamy has historically led to the subjugation of women- or at least the forms which have at least one female partner.

By that logic, doesn't that mean that gay marriage is the most ethical form of marriage, since one gender wouldn't be able to subjugate the other? Just throwing that out there.

[amigocabal]

You might actually think it's not a morally relevant question that a class of marriage lends itself to, say, the subjugation of women. I don't know.

Monogamy has historically led to the subjugation of women- or at least the forms which have at least one female partner.

By that logic, doesn't that mean that gay marriage is the most ethical form of marriage, since one gender wouldn't be able to subjugate the other? Just throwing that out there.

Specifically, male same-sex marriage.

[xthetenth]

No, same-sex marriage of either variety since there isn't a gender difference to lead to subjugation of any sort. If the premise is that polygyny and heterosexual monogamy lead to subjugation of women by men, then how does a homosexual female one do it without men present?

[amigocabal]

No, same-sex marriage of either variety since there isn't a gender difference to lead to subjugation of any sort. If the premise is that polygyny and heterosexual monogamy lead to subjugation of women by men, then how does a homosexual female one do it without men present?

Women can subjugate other women.

[Civil War Man]

No, same-sex marriage of either variety since there isn't a gender difference to lead to subjugation of any sort. If the premise is that polygyny and heterosexual monogamy lead to subjugation of women by men, then how does a homosexual female one do it without men present?

Women can subjugate other women.

And men can subjugate other men. Clearly, in order to protect the sanctity of marriage, we must make it illegal for anyone to get married.

The main problem with polygamy is that it makes it a lot easier for those power imbalances to occur.

[chitoryu12]

Michelle Bachmann said she'd leave Minnesota if they legalized gay marriage. Win/win, really.

I have this amusing image of every state Michelle Bachmann moves to legalizing gay marriage, causing her to run around the United States in a panic from an advancing wall of rainbows as she runs out of places to live until she finally dives into the ocean to escape.