I’m not 100 percent sure, but I think this is the first national poll to have support for marriage equality even with opposition:

Time Magazine, 808 RV, July 31-August 4, 2008

Should gay couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 47%
No 47%
Don’t Know 6%

Support anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment?

Yes 35%
No 58%
Don’t Know 7%

The numbers on support for marriage equality have moved rapidly and decisively, and the trendlines are unmistakable. Despite the unwillingness of Democrats to take any sort of leadership role on this issue, the American people have been willing to move toward tolerance all on our own. No doubt, the experiences in Massachusetts and California — where gay and lesbian couples have now been married without the states bursting into flame — have been instructive. After all, it’s now apparent that gay marriage is a lot like straight marriage: it’s two people who love each other and want to bind their futures together. It’s not scary, it’s sweet.

I’d love to think that numbers like this would finally convince Democratic politicians to do what they should have been doing five years ago: turn and go on offense, push for marriage equality, work assiduously to ensure that the federal government recognize marriages conducted in states where marriage equality has been achieved. I’d love to think that, but I know better. At the very least, it looks like the American people are willing to head in that direction with or without leadership. As has been evident for some time, marriage equality is coming. It’s just a question of when.

Post whatever you like, for as long as you like, with whomever you like. Self-linking is encouraged.

* * *

Amazon readers review a gallon of milk.

* * *

Some library patron objects to “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a children’s book which includes a same-sex marriage. Her librarian, Jamie, replies with unusual thoughtfulness and thoroughness.

* * *

Punkass Blog argues being anti-war is feminist

* * *

And if that’s your cup of tea, be sure to check out “Ode To Joy” (love the detail of the top-left Beaker being frightened of the lower-left Beaker’s drumming) and “The Blue Danube Waltz.”

And then, for geek heaven, watch the Star Wars episode of “The Muppet Show.”

This is the second poll I’ve seen recently showing that California voters may not want to amend their constitution to keep marriage bigoted. If this remains true in November, then we’ll have two states in which same-sex marriage is legally recognized.¹ That’ll be two states in which lesbians and gays married and the sky didn’t fall.

I wonder which state will be next? New Jersey? Connecticut?

Quote from the article under the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

1. Two and a half, if you include New York. (back)

It’s obvious¹ that laws that allow only opposite-sex couples to marry are sex discrimination. If an employer refuses to hire Mary, but is willing to hire equally-qualified Bob, that’s sex discrimination; if a state refuses to marry Mary to Lucy, but is willing to marry Bob to Lucy, that is likewise sex discrimination.

I’ve been disappointed that this argument hasn’t had more traction in the debate over same-sex marraige, either in popular discussion or in the courts.

Andrew Koppelman writes:

It remains puzzling why the California Supreme Court, in its recent same-sex marriage decision, rejected the most formally powerful argument for its result: the argument that denying licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination. The weakness is made clear in this recent column by Steve Chapman, who writes: “while the California Constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of ‘sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin,’ it does not forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The justices somehow found something in the document that the authors thought they omitted.” As I’ve explained earlier, the Court had to work very hard to reject the sex discrimination argument, using tired old arguments that had been used long ago to defend miscegenation laws: since both blacks and whites [both men and women] are equally burdened, there’s no discrimination. [...]

I don’t understand the resistance to the idea that the homosexuality taboo is about sexism. Homosexuality and deviation from gender norms (which, of course, are relentlessly hierarchical) are so tightly connected with each other in popular culture that each is normally and easily taken as a marker for the other. A “faggot” or a “dyke” is a person who fails to conform to normal gender norms; the term is routinely applied to people without regard to their sexual behavior.

The court’s reluctance is, I think, evidence that Jack Balkin is right about the dependence of the law on the wider culture in order to determine the crucial question of which arguments are within or outside the bounds of legitimate argumentation. The sex discrimination argument is unfamiliar to people. A few of us have made it in academic journals, but it hasn’t been trumpeted much in the popular culture, and so judges, who one might have expected to be influenced primarily by the soundness of legal argumentation as such, shy away from it. It’s not enough to craft good arguments. You need to be out there, working the media and making these claims repeatedly, thereby making them familiar.

1. Obvious to me, at any rate. (back)

Glenn Greenwald responds to the “judicial tyranny” objection to the California Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

This reasoning — that it undermines “democracy” and constitutes judicial tyranny when a court strikes down a popular law — is so pervasive every time there is a controversial court decision. But it is as woefully misinformed as it is common.

That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court’s decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law’s enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes’ extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That’s because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a “democracy” as much as it a “constitutional republic,” precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities.

Oh my fucking God, yay! It’s so nice to have GOOD news!

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A sharply divided California Supreme Court today legalized same-sex marriage, a historic ruling that will allow gay and lesbian couples across the state to wed as soon as next month and inflame the social, political and moral debate over gay unions.

In a 4-3 ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the Supreme Court struck down California laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, finding that it is unconstitutional to deprive gays and lesbians of the equal right to walk down the aisle with a marriage license in hand.

The California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts are now the only top courts in the country to uphold the right of gay couples to marry.

“The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” the court observed in a 121-page decision.

The reaction was immediate.

A spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sent a simple e-mail to his press staff: “We won.”

When the news was signaled to the more than 100 people gathered on the steps outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco by a thumbs up, they let out whoops of joy, and some broke out in tears.

From the ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George: “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation like a person’s race or gender does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental consitutional right to form a family relationship, the California constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.”

Mildred Loving would be happy today.

UPDATE: a few more choice bits from the ruling, as selected by my fiance.

“One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignityand respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. [...]

First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.

Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

RICHMOND, Va. - Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Almost a year ago, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v Virginia decision, Mrs. Loving released a statement. Here’s part of what she said:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

I hadn’t realized that Mildred Loving was a supporter of same-sex marriage rights. She’d be a hero regardless, but finding that out makes me admire her even more.

(I’m already wincing at the thought of the political cartoons that will be appearing. My guess is that several cartoonists will do Mildred and Richard, reunited at the Pearly Gates, while Saint Peter comments that no one will be able to keep them apart now.)

Related link: NPR page on the 40th anniversary.

Curtsy: Shakes.

Once upon a time, social scientists showed that couples who lived together before marrying, were more likely to divorce than couples who didn’t live together until marrying. This was true in Europe, Canada and the USA.

This surprised a bunch of people, and seemed to disprove the “try it on before you buy it” theory of marriage.

This did, however, greatly please those social conservatives who prefer to go though life in a constant panic, screaming “the marriage rates are falling! The marriage rates are falling!” They felt this proved their theory that sex without God’s blessing introduces some sort of intrinsic rot into marriages and made them more likely failures.

Then the shacking up effect seemed to go away in some of Europe. For instance, a social scientist showed that although it used to be the case that shacking up made divorce more likely in Denmark, once shacking up became more commonplace, it stopped having any relationship with divorce. Couples who shacked up before marrying were no more likely to get divorced than couples who lived apart until the wedding.

This supports the theory that when shacking up is a radical, unusual thing to do, the people who self-select into shacking up are also the people who, due to their unconventional preferences, are less likely to remain married.

Now shacking up has become the norm in the USA; slightly over half of all American women live with someone before they get married. And the most recent data (.pdf link) shows that Americans who shack up before marrying aren’t more likely to get divorced.

This seems to put the kibosh on the “living in sin = doomed to divorce” theory.

Oh, and Americans getting married for the first time have a 33% chance of getting divorced someday — not “over half,” as is often claimed. In fact, the US divorce rate is lower than it’s been in decades — and it’s lowest of all in Massachusetts, home of same-sex marriage. Wait, wasn’t same-sex marriage supposed to destroy marriage rates?

For more discussion, see Pandagon.

Curtsy: Ezra Klein, Marginal Revolution.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), speaking to rally attendees in Medford, Oregon on Saturday, took issue with how recent political campaigns have used wedge issues to divide the electorate, but have ultimately done little to make a real difference, especially when there are more important things to worry about.

“I mean, think about what these last few election cycles have been about,” the Senator said. “We argue about immigration, but we don’t try to solve the immigration problem. It’s an argument that is all about people’s passions instead of trying to figure it out.

“We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We’ve got a war that is bankrupting us. And we’re going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn’t make any sense.”

I have three responses to Obama:

1) It’s not an either-or choice. Caring passionately about equal marriage rights doesn’t preclude me from caring passionately about Iraq, or about the environment.

2) It’s too easy for heterosexuals to decide that equal legal rights for lesbians and gays is trivial. Obama has never been treated as a second-class citizen because of his choice of life partner. He doesn’t have to worry about whether the hospital will acknowlege him as a relative if Michelle is injured or sick. He doesn’t have to worry about his two girls receiving the message that their family is less legitimate and real than their peers’ families because of the sexes of their parents.

So of course he sees the issue as trivial. But that doesn’t mean it is.

3) Fuck you, Barack Obama. Seriously.

* * *

P.S. And a word to Clinton supporters: Try not to get smug over this. Clinton never has and never will lift a finger to support equal marriage rights for lesbians and gays, and she never will (until she retires from politics, a la Al Gore.) Clinton and Obama both suck on this regard.

But unless Obama clarifies his statement, I think he’s the suckier of the two.

UPDATE: By the way, an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment, which is worded so broadly that it would probably effect civil unions, just passed out of committee in the Pennsylvania Senate. Since both Clinton and Obama are very concerned with Pennsylvania right now, let’s see if either of them has the guts to speak out against this. I bet that neither of them will.

I just received a phone call from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), who wanted to ask me an important poll question: “As a Republican, are you willing to cede the White House to Hilary Clinton in 2008?” I told them no.

The call also featured a recorded message from Representative Tom Cole. According to Cole, “True conservatives in Washington have been quiet for too long” when it comes to criticizing Hilary Clinton and the liberals, but they’re going to stop being so reticent in 2008, if I help by donating some money. It strikes me that Cole himself is a conservative, and he spends most of his time in Washington. Why does he need my money to cease being quiet — couldn’t he just, you know, start talking?

Also, Cole says Clinton intends to legalize gay marriage. I wish! Not for the first time, I find myself wishing that the fantasy Democrats conservatives argue against existed in real life, so I could vote for them.

From the Boston Herald:

A Boston man who failed the Massachusetts bar exam has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his refusal to answer a test question - related to gay marriage - caused him to flunk the test.

Stephen Dunne, 30, is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the “inappropriate” test question violated his religious convictions and his First Amendment rights. Answering the question, Dunne claims, would imply he endorsed gay marriage and parenting.

The suit also challenges the constitutionality of the 2003 SJC ruling that made Massachusetts the nation’s first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Dunne, who describes himself as a Christian and a Democrat, is seeking $9.75 million in damages and wants a jury to prohibit the Board of Bar Examiners from considering the question in his passage of the exam and to order it removed from all future exams.

The lunacy of Dunne’s position is obvious; because a lawyer disagrees with the law doesn’t exempt her from knowing the law. Dunne’s moral claim — that answering a factual question about a law implies agreement with the law — is similarly groundless.

This illustrates the sense of entitlement held by many fundamentalist Christians today. Consider the fundamentalist pharmacists and emergency room doctors who refuse to fulfill the duties of their job, but push for laws exempting them from the consequences of that decision; or the Christians who have objected to biology exams that ask questions about evolution.

No one can force Dunne to answer an exam question he prefers to leave blank. But being Christian shouldn’t exempt Dunne from having to pass the bar exam if he wants to practice law. Unfortunately, Dunne’s attitude — which can be summed up as “let’s make a special law exempting Christians from the ordinary consequences of not meeting requirements” — seems increasingly common among right-wing Christians.

UPDATE: Zuzu at Majikthise continues the mockery. As does Daddy, Papa and Me.

This is kind of old news, but I missed it at the time, and maybe some “Alas” readers did too. Wyoming State Rep Dan Zwonitzer, who is straight and a Republican, in February of this year voted against a measure that would have forbidden Wyoming from recognizing opposite-sex same-sex marriages performed in other states.

As Pam said:

What makes Zwonitzer inspiring and so deserving of praise is that the risk he took, in Red State America, as a straight ally. He was willing to put his neck and political career on the line to do what is right — he is a Republican doing so at a time when Democrats in much more favorable political environs are spineless, calculating and treating us like ATMs and pariahs as it suits them.

The text of Zwonitzer’s speech is below the fold:

Read the rest of this entry »

From Reuters, under the headline “Catholic politicians must oppose gay marriage: Pope”:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Church’s opposition to gay marriage is “non-negotiable” and Catholic politicians have a moral duty to oppose it, as well as laws on abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict said in a document issued on Tuesday.

In a 140-page booklet on the workings of a synod that took place at the Vatican in 2005 on the theme of the Eucharist, the 79-year-old German Pope also re-affirmed the Catholic rule of celibacy for priests.

In the “Apostolic Exhortation” Benedict says all believers had to defend what he calls fundamental values but that the duty was “especially incumbent” for those in positions of power.

He said these included “respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built on marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.”

“These values are not negotiable,” he said.

There are hundreds of similar articles in the mainstream media today, mostly focusing on the Pope’s “not negotiable” opposition to same-sex marriage. ¹ I’ve also seen some mentioning his opposition to abortion, and one mentioning his opposition to divorce. But defending human life until “natural death” is pretty clearly an anti-death-penalty statement, and this too is (according to the Pope) “not negotiable.” Yet I’ve been searching in vain for a single news story pointing out that the Pope called opposition to the death penalty “not negotiable.”

This confirms to a general rule the mainstream media follows: Events that highlight a split between Catholic teaching and liberal policies are news, and are reported on prominently. In contrast, events that highlight a split between Catholic teaching and conservative policies are not reported on at all.

Then again, maybe the media silence is more truthful than the Pope’s statement. Despite what the Pope said, opposition to the death penalty is negotiable. Has there been a single case of a Bishop refusing communion to a politician — or to local activists — to object to their public support of the death penalty? Will the Church leadership criticize pro-death-penalty Catholic politicians with one-tenth the passion that they’ll devote to fighting same-sex marriage? Of course not. For the Pope — and for most right-wing Catholics — supporting discrimination against queers is much more important than opposing the death penalty.

There’s also a very notable omission from the Pope’s 140-page discussion; he doesn’t call on politicians to oppose torture, nor does he call for the Eurochrist Eucharist to be withheld from politicians who support torture, even though he must know that many prominent politicians have been pressing for laws to accommodate and support torture. In fact, Benedict didn’t mention torture at all. It’s not surprising that the Pope is such a moral coward when it comes to standing up to the right wing, but it is disappointing.²

So maybe the media has it right after all.

1. Why are so many reporters using the phrase “non negotiable,” when the official text of the statement says “not negotiable”? It’s a mystery. Anyhow, here’s the relevant paragraph, quoted from the Vatican’s website:

   Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232).

   (back)

2. Contrast Benedict’s silence on torture this week to the words of the Second Vatican Council:

   Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator.

   (back)

While reading Family Scholar’s blog, I noticed Elizabeth’s quoting of a New York Times article. Here’s the complete text of Elizabeth’s post:

RACE AND SSM

In a new University of Chicago study:

Fifty-eight percent of blacks opposed legalizing same-sex marriage compared to 36 percent of Hispanics, and 35 percent of whites.

Elizabeth’s partial quoting of the paragraph from the news story obscures the striking correspondence between homophobia and opposing marriage equality. Here’s what the complete paragraph in the Times story says:

In addition 55 percent of blacks felt homosexual activity was always wrong compared to 36 percent of Hispanics and 35 percent for whites. Fifty-eight percent of blacks opposed legalizing same-sex marriage compared to 36 percent of Hispanics, and 35 percent of whites.

So in all three populations, according to this survey, the rates of homophobia and the rates of opposing equal marriage rights are virtually identical. Although I doubt Elizabeth left that out of her post on purpose, the strong popular connection between anti-gay bigotry and opposition to marriage equality is certainly a subject that she avoids discussing.

So why are blacks more likely to oppose SSM — and gay sex — than whites? I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet the fact that blacks attend church more than whites (I don’t know what the stats are for Latinas) has a lot to do with it.

A group called The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is proposing to modify Washington state’s marriage laws to better comport with a recent anti-gay-rights marriage ruling by the Washington state supreme court:

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would… require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled.

Initiative 957 is actually the first of three planned initiatives; “The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.”

The Defense of Marriage Alliance (”DOMA” - hee hee) website explains:

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

I don’t know if this is politically wise or foolish, but I do think it’s hilarious. Elizabeth at Family Scholars doesn’t agree:

Absurd. No one says marriage exists for the “sole” purpose of procreation. But some of us do say that gutting marriage of any legal or cultural relevance to encouraging men and women who make babies together to stick together for the sake of the baby and each other — that gutting marriage of that could be a very bad thing for children overall.

But there’s no logical reason to believe that state recognition of same-sex marriages would have that effect, any more than state recognition of infertile couples’ marriages currently has that effect. Recognizing same-sex marriage logically requires rejecting the view that heterosexual reproduction is the sole purpose of marriage; but it doesn’t require rejecting the view that encouraging women and men to become committed parents who stick together is one purpose of marriage.

Elizabeth goes on:

Also a weird touch of envy that heterosexual sex MAKES BABIES.

Thank goodness queers have heterosexuals like Elizabeth around to use their magical gay-mind-reading powers to let us all know what queers are really thinking! Why, without heterosexuals like Elizabeth around to tell us what the gays are thinking but not saying, we might actually have to listen to what non-heterosexual people say! The horror, the horror!

But I really want to address Elizabeth’s contention that “No one says marriage exists for the ’sole’ purpose of procreation.” If that’s not precisely what anti-gay activists have been saying, they’re certainly coming awfully close. Here’s Elizabeth’s friend Maggie Gallagher wrote, in a Weekly Standard piece entitled “What Marriage is For”:

Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. [...] The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up.

Next, here’s what Margaret Somerville — one of the best-known and best-respected academic opponents of equal marriage rights — says marriage is for (pdf link):

Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.

Here’s what On Lawn — who frequently commented in support of Elizabeth’s anti-marriage-equality views, back when Elizabeth’s blog accepted comments — wrote on his blog yesterday:

It is the 800lb gorilla in the room that marriage is about responsible procreation. Every benefit and provision of it intersects in that single purpose.

Next, here’s what the Family Research Council blog says:

“Is marriage solely for the purpose of creation?” My tentative answer: Yes and no. I agree with natural law thinker Robert George, who says, “Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of person that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect…” He adds: “Although not all reproductive-type acts are marital, there can be no marital act that is not reproductive in type.”

A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry–both gay and straight–must be willing and able to engage in “marital acts”, acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.

Blogger Thomas Shawn:

Human nature defines the properties of marriage as between a man and a woman with the primary purpose of procreation and the education of children.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Marriage exists so that the spouses might grow in mutual love and, by the generosity of their love, bring children into the world and serve life fully.

These are hardly unique or even unusual examples, and many of them represent the intellectual leadership of the anti-equality movement. The best thing that can be said in defense of Elizabeth’s statement is that not all these people are saying that procreation is the “sole” purpose of marriage; there’s some wiggle about whether these folks consider reproduction the “sole” purpose or merely the “primary” purpose.

But if Elizabeth’s argument is based on the word “sole,” then Elizabeth’s case is awfully weak. After all, DOMA’s argument doesn’t change much if we strike the word “sole” and stick in “primary” instead. (”And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole primary purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.”)

Other blogs yakking about this ballot proposal: Shakespeare’s Sister, Bring It On!, Pam’s House Blend, Goosing the Antithesis, Lunkhead’s Diary, Eclectism, Feministing, and the Republic of T.

It’s good that same-sex marriage happened in Massachusetts first, because the Massachusetts constitutional amendment process is designed to move slowly, encouraging deliberation and second thoughts. In Massachusetts, ballot measures amending the state constitution can’t be sent to the voters until after a quarter of the legislature votes in favor of the amendment, in two sessions in a row. So if the SSM¹ ban passes the Massachusetts legislature tomorrow, then it has to pass it again in 2007, and only if it does that do the voters get a crack at it - in 2008.

This has put anti-equality activists, who have no rational arguments on their side but who excel at harnessing bigotry and fearmongering, at a disadvantage in Massachusetts. It wasn’t possible for them to pass a SSM ban were unable to take advantage of the initial shock following the Massachusett Supreme Court’s Goodridge decision.² And now that Massachusetts voters have seen firsthand that the sky doesn’t fall when lesbian and gays legally marry, it seems unlikely that an SSM ban could pass there. From the Boston Herald:

State House News Poll results released Sunday show 56 percent of respondents say that when the Massachusetts Legislature meets in Thursday’s Constitutional Convention, members should advance a ban on gay marriage. However, if the ban reaches the ballot, 63 percent of poll respondents would vote against it and 31 percent would vote for it.

It’s sad that SSM bans are passing in so much of the country - but in the long run, these bans won’t stop equal marriage rights. Marriage equality wasn’t really on the table in Tennessee or Georgia or even Oregon anyway (although I expect we’ll have civil unions in Oregon soon). I don’t ignore the real harm those bans do, but I don’t think they’re the whole story, either. Massachusetts is the front line, and it’s where marriage equality will be won. Massachusetts is where reality defeats fearmongering.

Every night, anti-equality activists go to their beds praying for catastrophe in Massachusetts; praying for divorce rates to skyrocket, for children to be in pain, for families to collapse, for disaster and horror to swoop down on every family in Massachusetts. They clutch their little hands and screw shut their eyes and fervently beg God to make Massachusetts families suffer, suffer, suffer. Because they know that if this doesn’t happen, they’ve lost. Married queers in Massachusetts are winning the fight for marriage equality, just by leading ordinary lives, rather than being harbingers of the Apocalypse.

Over the coming decades, as each new generation is less homophobic than the last, and as the Massachusetts sky stubbornly continues to unfall, the fearmongering arguments against marriage equality will become more and more embarrassing. The anti-SSM votes we’ve seen - all of them - will be undone. The 63% who oppose banning SSM in Massachusetts today are the mainstream of America by 2050.

(Curtsy: Marriage Debate.)

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction. If your comments aren’t being approved here, try there.]

1. SSM = “same sex marriage.” (back)
2. Unable to take advantage of it in Massachusetts, I mean. They certainly took advantage of it in the rest of the country! (back)

Other people’s elections have two important elements that make them better than my own, first my emotional detachment and my intellectual detachment match. In NZ elections I know Labour sucks, and I know it’s not going to matter that much, but I still end up caring, and I find that frustrating. The other thing is that other people have first past the post voting systems, which while fundamentally undemocratic, are really fun to watch.

I think it’s basically the geek in me that likes elections. I suspect the part of me that decided that all X-files episodes that began with the letter ‘P’ were of superior quality (this was back in Season three, I make no claism f), is exactly the same part of me that loves knowing that the thing to do is watch New Hampshire 2.

Of course an election is no fun if you can’t support a team. I find if you look there’s always something to care about: in Britain it was the fate of Plaid Cymru,¹ in America it was the ballot measures, and knowing if the Democrats took back the house no-one will be able to do anything for two years.

According to CNN all states that had minimum wage increases on the ballots succeeded (often with large margins), that’s far more than any New Zealand election has done. Plus the news on the abortion rights front is all good - two parental notification clauses knocked out, and the South Dakota abortion ban overturned. If they can’t ban abortion in South Dakota, then that has to be a good sign.

The rest is less fun (although go Arizona for being the first state not legislate Homophobia), also I’m not sure that I believe CNN, when it says that it’s covering the key ballot initiatives. I read somewhere that some state voted to investigate bringing in the death penalty. I think that’s key and I don’t even know what state it is.

As for the actual results, I’m generally fond of the US government not being able to do anything, really I am. I might even have the desire to kind of hope that the Democrats take the remaining two Senate seats, if I thought they might use them not to confirm people, but I don’t.²

It’s not that I wouldn’t vote. The thing I like best about my own elections is voting. I’m reasonably pragmatic about voting, and I love making really complicated theories about the best way to use my vote (or really complicated theories about how to answer polling questions - once I was supposed to say that I was going to vote for NZ First, I can’t remember why).³ It’s just that they’re the Democrats; they suck beyond the telling of it. There are probably even occasions where I’d vote for a Democrat in a national race (although I think in the unlikely event that I moved to America I’d make sure I lived somewhere like Mississippi or Massachusetts, so I’d never be tempted to vote for president). I can also think of circumstances that I’d be glad they won. But none of this makes them an fraction more left-wing, or an ounce less of a corporate party. I don’t think it’s elections that bring about meaningful change, but organising.

This election has reminded me everything I find weird about American elections. Top of the list is the fact that you use a different voting system in each part of the country, and it’s elected officials who decide on the voting system.

But second is the fact that Americans vote for everything. In New Zealand all the power is totally centralised and the only thing we vote for is central government (we do occasionally vote for local government but they don’t control any of the most important services such as education).

So I have a question for everyone there whose just voted for the Secretary of State in California, or their local DA or the Insurance Comptroller (what on earth is that?), what difference do you think it makes that these positions are . I imagine that mostly it wouldn’t make a difference, but when would it would mean that . NZ has pretty much the same level of violent, racist, rapist cops across the country. Somewhere you have to elect the sheriff, there would be places where that would encourage violent, racist, rapist cops, and other places where it might not stop it, but it might curb it. Is that people’s experience?

1. Chalk that up to things you didn’t know about me - I’m enough Welsh to support the Plaid (if not Welsh to reliably pronounce it). (back)
2. It sounds like the Virginia Senate race actually resembles the Tauranga Electorate race - which my friend Larry described as sexism beating racism on the day (although it sounds like racism is going to beat sexism in Virginia - isn’t that special). (back)
3. My favourite was that friends who were too principled to vote for Labour or the Greens, but wanted Winston Peters out of a job should vote for the Maori party, on the grounds that the Maori party would have an overhang so voting for then would mean that they wouldn’t get any extra seats, but would make it less likely that NZ first would reach the 5% threshold. Then it was pointed out to me that voting for the Libertarianz would achieve the same result, and I was sad, because that was a really complicated bit of logic out the window. (back)

There’s been a lot of fussing over this statement, written by some LGBT activists, which calls for a broader debate over what kind of families will be recognized by the government. Here’s a sample:

To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

· Senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Grandparents and other family members raising their children’s (and/or a relative’s) children

· Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

· Blended families

· Single parent households

· Extended families (especially in particular immigrant populations) living under one roof, whose members care for one another

· Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

· Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Care-giving and partnership relationships that have been developed to provide support systems to those living with HIV/AIDS

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.

I’m pretty much in agreement with this entire statement. The world isn’t limited to two-person couples who want to get married; there are other kinds of families, and they are also deserving of legal and economic support. Frankly, to me this seems like a no-brainer.

But obviously not everyone feels that way. Anti-gay-rights activists - from relatively moderate opponents of equal rights, like Elizabeth Marquardt, to full-on anti-gay extremists, like the folks at the American Family Association, are claiming that this statement shows the “real agenda” of “tak[ing marriage] apart.” Here’s Elizabeth’s take:

What do I find both amusing and infuriating about all this? The dance. The same people who want to extend marriage to same-sex couples are quite often the same people who want to take the thing apart, redefining and inflating it in ways that attempt to cover all sorts of human needs with virtually no regard for one of the most basic: the need for children, whenever possible, to be raised by the mom and dad who made them. For a while, the “take the thing apart” folks have been operating full steam ahead in academia and fringe advocacy but getting little attention elsewhere.

But what the “Beyond Marriage” statement calls for is not an expansion of marriage (although it leaves open the question of expanding marriage to same-sex couples), but for legal recognition of non-marital families, in ways other than marriage.

How is saying “forms of family other than marriage deserve recognition” anti-marriage? This is a consistent (although not universal) logical flaw in the so-called “marriage movement”; they see family as a zero-sum game, and believe that if any family form other than their own is given any respect or recognition, that will cause dire harm to their own families.

It’s true, as Elizabeth says, that most children will be best off being raised by their own parents. But nothing in the “Beyond Marriage” statement denies that. Once again, Elizabeth sees a zero-sum game where none exists: recognizing and caring about support systems for children raised by same-sex parents, or in shared households, does not require in any way that we stop caring about or stop providing legal and economic support for children being raised in conventional nuclear families.

It’s also notable that Elizabeth herself supports “civil unions” for same-sex couples (although she rarely mentions this support except when she’s arguing against marriage equality). So when the Beyond Marriage folks propose that family forms other than marriage be given legal recognition, that’s “taking the thing apart” and bad; but when Elizabeth proposes that family forms other than marriage be given legal definition, why is that any different?

The American Family Association statement is, as you’d expect, a good deal less intelligent and sophisticated:

Pro-Homosexual Marriage Proponents Go Public With Their Agenda

We have repeatedly said the agenda of those pushing homosexual marriage will lead to polygamy and a total devaluation of marriage. Not content with “the narrow terms of the marriage debate,” the pro-homosexual advocates are now declaring, “Legal recognition for a wide rage of relationships, households and families - regardless of kinship or conjugal status.” They also demand, “Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs, including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance, and welfare assistance.”

In short, they want to totally redefine our society by eliminating the very concepts of marriage and family, and the battle to redefine traditional marriage is just the beginning. The proponents of homosexual “marriage” admit it and they have posted their manifesto online.

The big error the AFA makes, that Elizabeth doesn’t, is to implicitly assume that all homosexuals share an “agenda.” This is, of course, a common view of bigots. A non-bigoted person, when seeing that queer group X produces a statement which in some ways disagrees with the statements put out by queer group Y, would come to the conclusion that queer group Y and queer group X disagree on some issues. In contrast, a bigot like the AFA writer assumes that all queer groups agree on everything, and any apparent disagreement indicates that there is a unified “real agenda,” and that statements from queer groups that don’t agree with this “real agenda” are lies. (Oh, those tricksy trisksy queer groups!)

But note also what Elizabeth and the AFA share in common: the zero-sum mentality, which falsely assumes that the very act of recognizing or respecting “alternative” family arrangements will do terrible harm to “conventional” families.

UPDATE: Check out this response to the AFA and other hard-right anti-gay groups at Good As You.

UPDATE 2: Amanda at Pandagon comments:

Naturally, conservatives are claiming that this is evidence that progressives are trying to tear down traditional marriage. But what I noticed about the family types that conservatives are giving the hairy eye to and claiming shouldn’t have full rights as bona fide families is that they are often family arrangements that are made by people who are not WASPs and/or people who don’t have the financial means to divide up into households based around a straight couple, a gaggle of kids, and a white picket fence.

In other words, conservatives oppose opening up the meaning of the word “family” for reasons other than strict sexism, but in fact have very classist motivations. They want special rights for family living arrangements that are often only available to people of means. The fetishizing of the housewife is the biggest clue that this is about proclaiming that people of means are morally superior to people without, but beyond that, everything about the culture wars starts with the assumption that middle class WASP culture is morally superior to all others and that everyone else should aspire (or be forced to aspire) to the lifestyle of our social superiors.

Now I’m not saying that people who do have nuclear families are morally inferior by any means. Just that they are not morally superior to other people, and yet it’s still largely assumed that the nuclear family is the morally superior option, even though the expense and burden of it is too much for some of us. It’s the 21st century and it’s still so widely assumed that male-dominated nuclear families are so morally superior to the rabble that it’s still traditional for politicians to trot out the wife and kids in front of the camera to assure Americans that they are morally strong enough to be leaders. Single mothers, people who live with friends, people who live with extended families all need not apply.

[Crossposted at Creative Destruction, where the moderation is lighter and all the children are above average.]

A new addition to the list of the stupidest arguments against marriage equality. From the New York Times article on the House of Reps debate over same-sex marriage:

Another Georgia Republican, Representative Phil Gingrey, said support for traditional marriage “is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”

I’m trying to imagine what would have to be going through someone’s mind to make “we should ban same-sex marriage to send a message to the Middle East” seem like an even remotely rational argument.

Was he thinking that if there’s anything wrong with the middle east, it’s that the culture there is too accommodating of homosexuals, and so we must set a good example by not accommodating our local queers? Was he thinking that the reason people kidnap Israeli soldiers is because lesbians and gays in Massachusetts are getting married, and so we should therefore attempt to placate them by assuring them we hate gays, too? Was he too high on crack to be thinking anything at all? It’s a mystery.

UPDATE: By the way, this is far from being the most repulsive, bigoted, anti-queer statement to come out of an elected Republican this week.

[Cross-posted on Creative Destruction, where the moderation is lighter.]