This week, gay couples in two states experienced a “new birth of freedom,” as both Iowa and Vermont recognized the right to same-sex marriage. Vermont’s victory is notable for the mode of its delivery. While gay rights advocates elsewhere have depended upon the power of the state courts for relief from the strictures of a suspicious populace and an ideologically disinclined federal bench, in Vermont the people themselves recognized the right to marry, acting through their elected officials, over the governor’s veto.
Majoritarian recognition is a major step forward. While critiques of “activist judges” certainly miss the point – it is emphatically the province of the judiciary to guard unfairly maligned minorities against a capricious majority – a legal equality built on judge-made law is neither permanent nor tenable. California discovered the former problem, and at least from the 1950s through the 1980s, African-Americans experienced the latter. Courts can create legal equality, but they can only do so much, and no-one but the populace at large can accord minorities full social equality. That gay rights can win in the marketplace of ideas, unaided by constitutional law, is a sign that old prejudices are dying. At least in Vermont.
But one more victory – the D.C. Council’s decision to recognize out of state gay marriages – in fact serves as a solemn reminder of how far we have yet to go. In the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” (Orwellian, fearmongering names are a GOP specialty), the Republican Congress stood the Full Faith & Credit Clause on its head by proclaiming that no state need recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. As long as DoMA stands, a marriage legally performed in Massachusetts or Vermont evaporates for the duration of the happy couple’s sojourn to an unenlightened jurisdiction – like, say, Nevada, whose truly vindictive “mini DoMA” explicitly strips gay couples of any rights as soon as they cross state lines. Take a look at the map (and Human Rights Campaign data) to see what the United States looks like to a gay couple planning a vacation:
When a happily married couple literally cannot travel more than three states from their home without risking accidentally dissolving their marriage – and subjecting themselves to all the risk that entails – clearly we have a lot of work ahead of us still. ((Red states are those that don’t recognize out-of-state gay marriages. That rolls in some states, like Oregon & Washington, that accord limited same-sex rights but define marriage as to include a man and a woman, and would thus (presumptively) refuse to recognize an out-of-state union. Grey states, inversely, recognize out-of-state unions but don’t provide for their own.)) There are still a lot of minds to change, and a lot of tragedy worldwide left to stop. ((There’s more nuance in state law worth exploring. Apparently, these laws make the U.S. pattern on gay marriage look like the early U.S. pattern on abolition!)) Luckily, the President is (at least symbolically and rhetorically) on the side of justice, but ensuring equal rights for all Americans is still the work of a lifetime.
Don’t get me wrong, this week was a major and unhoped-for coup for equal justice. But let’s not make the mistake of sitting on our laurels.
From Ames: “As long as DoMA stands, a marriage legally performed in Massachusetts or Vermont evaporates for the duration of the happy couple’s sojourn to an unenlightened jurisdiction…”
‘Unenlightened jurisdiction’ ? And the Left wonders why conservatives ridicule them for elitism.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 8, 2009, 8:07 amThat was meant to come across as tongue-in-cheek satire… :(
Posted by ACG | April 8, 2009, 8:44 amSo says the liberal lawyer from NYU…
Anyway, I’m glad you recognize that legalizing gay marriage through democratic processes verses judicial rulings is a much more defensible act. I imagine the fed is going to have to rule on this soon because of interstate commerce laws, etc. As Rod Dreher says though, let’s just hope they protect religious institutions first.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 8, 2009, 9:18 amBy not allowing gay marriage polygamy is possible. I have it all planned. I go and marry another girl in new york, and then I come back to Oklahoma and marry my actual fiancee. I wouldn’t marry her cause I love her, I’d marry her cause I can, and because the state and federal government have restrictions against recognizing that the marriage would even exist.It would still exist as far as new york is concerned tho, making it legal polygamy.
Isn’t one of the biggest anti-gay arguments “it leads to polygamy!!!” like being gay or having multiple people that can help raise children and provide income is a bad thing?
So I’m gunna seriously laugh if it takes polygamy to make a big enough dent to overturn DOMA.
Posted by Lexi | October 12, 2011, 4:33 pmAgain, protect them from what?! Please respond without quoting NoM.
Posted by ACG | April 8, 2009, 9:58 amReally, “protect religious institutions”? This isn’t about religion. It’s about civil marriage as the Iowa ruling so deliberately spelled out. Religious institutions have always been and will always be allowed to decide whom to marry in their religious ceremonies. This is about civil marriages and the secular rights accorded to couples in such a union. Civil marriages do not purport to grant a couple, say, the right to have sex without sin if they are Christian – you still need the religious blessing for that. Civil marriages concern visitation, inheritance, joint obligations and privileges, confidentiality, and slew of other things that have nothing to do with anyone’s god.
The government can no more force any church to wed two gay dudes than they can force a Catholic priest to preside over a marriage between a Jew and Mormon.
Posted by Kris | April 8, 2009, 10:14 amhere, here!
well said, kris! i am so sick and tired of gay marriage being crafted as a fatal injury to religious belief and church sanctity.
Posted by didionsmommy | April 8, 2009, 11:09 amAmes, what’s your source on that map? Maryland’s same-sex marriage laws were struck down, and whoever colored it in forgot the part of our fair state that extends to the west.
Plus, there’s no D.C. on that map.
Posted by Jack | April 8, 2009, 12:13 pmWell said, Kris.
There is no religion argument against allowing gay marriage that is legally plausible.
Let me repeat: there is no religion argument against allowing gay marriage that is legally plausible.
Civil marriage is about civil rights, not religious privileges.
Mike, you’re arguing against the meanings of the words themselves.
Posted by Teleprompter | April 8, 2009, 12:19 pmThe point all of you miss is that there is a very real possibility that as gay marriage becomes more widespread then religious organizations will be forced to honor these marriages. There are plenty of religious organizations that provide secular services (adoption, hospitals, etc). Before any federal recognition of gay marriage or equivelant civil unions each state needs a religious concience exemption.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 8, 2009, 12:33 pmMike,
Religious organizations qua religious organizations cannot be forced to “recognize” gay marriage. Religious organizations that perform secular services are operating qua secular organizations. They can either get out of the business or suck it up. Unless you really believe that having gay parents is worse than having no parents, I don’t see why you would argue this point.
Posted by Erik J | April 8, 2009, 2:03 pmErik J,
Thank you for acknowledging that point.
When a religious organization performs a religious function, the government cannot interfere. When a religious organization performs a secular function, the government has every right to interfere. That’s an excellent distinction to remember.
Religious communities do not have to recognize civil marriages; they do not have to grant religious marriages to homosexual couples if they are not so inclined; religious organizations performing a secular function are fair game.
Posted by Teleprompter | April 8, 2009, 2:27 pmWhile I agree with Erik and Teleprompter that that’s how the law should work, I don’t think that’s how it actually works. Unless I’m wrong – and I’ll have to do research to check – I think there are some explicit shield laws that let religious charities operate as they see fit, even where it contravenes otherwise important interests, or possibly some case law on the subject. It’s within a fair interpretation of the First Amendment, at least, so I doubt the argument hasn’t been made somewhere.
W/r/t Jack – JACK! Hi! But yeah, I went from the Human Rights Campaign log, linked above the map, which purports to be accurate, and where I was suspicious I double/triple-checked. I’ll check Maryland again. Forgive me for impugning your tiny-but-lovely state.
Posted by ACG | April 8, 2009, 3:19 pmEric J,
Religious organizations provide a lot of services that frankly, the government is not good at doing. A take it or leave it attitude over gay mariage is sort of like cutting off one’s nose… You would force gay marriage on religion-affiliated institutions or drive them out of business. How terribly short-sighted.
There have been religious concience exemptions regarding most anti-discrimination laws for years with no ill effects. These just need to be extended to gay marriage before a federal ruling. This isn’t rocket science.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 8, 2009, 3:20 pmACG,
It looks like our posts passed each other in the inter-space. I agree with your assesment. My one fear though is with the Obama administration poised to remove religious concience exemptions regarding abortion…my fear is that it will also apply to gay marriage.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 8, 2009, 3:37 pmACG,
IIRC, there was a case in Massachusetts about, oh, four years ago centered on just this issue. I have in mind specifically adoption agencies rather than something like a soup kitchen — in the latter case, of course a charity is free to dispense its largesse however it sees fit. In the former case, though, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. I may be misremembering and IANAL, but I think that’s how the Mass. case went.
Mike,
Which services, exactly, do religious charities provide better than properly-organized secular institutions could? Obviously we would want to exclude salvific activities, since those are pretty clearly outside any rationally-described secular magisterium, but other than that, I’m drawing a blank.
Posted by Erik J | April 8, 2009, 4:18 pmWe’re not talking about ‘properly organized secular institutions’…. we’re talking about the government. Schools immediately come to mind. Outreach to the poor is another.
I assume by making that point you would be willing to sacrafice religious-run institutions if the alternative is that they didn’t have to offer their services to gays?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 8, 2009, 6:13 pmMike,
Schools? Definitely, with caveats below. “Outreach to the poor”? Well, now I’m going to have to ask what you mean by “the government”. Do you mean the present government in the USA? If so, sure. There are way too many nutjobs — see the posts immediately preceding and following this for evidence — in power to trust their ability to adequately minister to the less fortunate. Because — and this is important — it’s all about the fortune of your circumstances at birth.
Posted by Erik J | April 8, 2009, 11:52 pmBefore we get off track here Eric, let me again ask the question: Is it correct that you would be willing to sacrafice religious-run institutions if the alternative is that they didn’t have to offer their services to gays?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 9, 2009, 8:34 amMike,
(it’s erik with a ‘k’, actually) — I’m not sure where you’re going with this “sacrifice” rhetoric. While I am of course aware that de facto religious institutions provide a lot of services that are not salvific in nature — hospitals, schools, and so on — I would be happy to require that those secular services be provided without regard to the recipient’s color, creed, sex, gender, baldness, or handedness. The alternative, if the religious institution operating qua secular institution really, really hates teh gayz, is not to shutter the existing structures but to find new management.
There are more options than those you present, is all I’m trying to say.
Posted by Erik J | April 9, 2009, 2:14 pmErik,
The difference though is that these religious-based organizations are not seeking out gays. Gays do not have to apply for employment there, they do not have to use them for adoption services, etc. As long as there are other purely secular organizations that provide the same service, then I don’t see a faith-based exemption as problematic. And it’s not discrimination, since as mentioned above, there are already faith-based exemptions in that realm.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 9, 2009, 2:49 pmMike,
I admit a fair amount of ignorance about how adoptions work, but I have been under the impression that each “service” has a specific and unique pool of children to match with prospective parents. If this is the case, then each particular adoption is a sui generis event which cannot be performed by anybody else, and so just as a matter of fact a gay couple who wants to adopt a specific child may be denied. If that’s not how it works, then maybe things are better.
But then there are other problems — and many of these are also problems with existing “conscience” exemptions. If one hospital — say, the only hospital in the area — refuses to recognize certain marriages on religious grounds, that’s at least a prima facie harm to certain patients and their families. I’m sure you can fill in a wide variety of other examples in this area on your own.
Lastly, it is really strange for you to claim that the existence of faith-based exemptions means that either those existing exemptions or further ones are not discrimination. Of course they are. They’re protected discrimination for the moment, but they’re certainly discrimination.
Posted by Erik J | April 9, 2009, 6:26 pmErik,
(While I may be Catholic, I took Spanish in school…not Latin. I appreciate highbrow dialogue, but really? Having to google phrases after reading your comments is taxing.)
In most adoption cases the biological parent chooses the adoptive parents. A simple statement to the biological parent before the process began which explains that the agency does not facilitate adoptions by gay couples would allow that person to go elsewhere if they had a problem with that. So the biological parent is the one ultimately making the decision to limit the adoption to hetero couples, not the agency. Now unless you want to also make it illegal for a biological parent to not consider gay couples…it seems to me that the decision of the parent trumps everything else.
As for hospitals, I am not so much talking about medical care. I’m talking about staffing, health benifits for that staff, etc. Basically, they shouldn’t be forced to hire a gay secretary when that would also mean they have to provide health benefits to their same-sex partner.
Is it discrimination to not allow a 16 year-old to buy alcohol?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 10, 2009, 7:35 ami didn’t realize prima facie and sui generis, etc. were THAT obscure.
IMHO, if one wants to engage in a debate on legal issues, perhaps one ought to familiarize oneself with some basic legal terms, so to assist in that endeavor:
qua: in the capacity of
de facto: in reality
prima facie: on the face of
sui generis: its own thing; unique
Posted by didionsmommy | April 10, 2009, 7:57 amWhy not just say:
” If this is the case, then each particular adoption is a unique event which cannot be performed by anybody else…”
or
“The alternative, if the religious institution operating in the capacity of a secular institution…”
DM – I know that some people are impressed by intelligent-sounding jargon….but I’m not. I’m sure we all have important-sounding phrases that come with our particular field. When discussing subjects in a common forum, courtesy is to refrain from using them. I don’t see this blog described as a ‘legal’ blog so perhaps for the bonum commune communitatis or for those of us without your academic pedigree we could just agree to speak in simple English…
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 10, 2009, 9:16 amthis site has a very liberal policy with respect to comments. it is also very welcoming of people of all backgrounds, educational levels, professions, and life experiences.
if in the course of debate one needs to perform additional research to understand the point of another, then terrific: knowledge is power. even better? sharing that accrued knowledge with others.
also, rather than critiquing one’s use of language, another could ask for clarification. i am certain, considering the very collegial atmosphere on this site, a wonderful hallmark cultivated by its founder, any commenter would be more than happy to offer additional information to promote understanding.
Posted by didionsmommy | April 10, 2009, 9:33 amSonidos como un gran plan DM. Nos pienso debo todo el intento nuestro mejor impresionar uno otro con nuestro conocimiento de la terminología no-Inglesa.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 10, 2009, 10:24 amfor anyone not familiar with spanish, our amigo mike has replied (somewhat brokenly) that he thinks my previous comment sounds like a good idea and that he hopes we all try to impress each other with our knowledges of non-English languages.
Posted by didionsmommy | April 10, 2009, 10:43 amTo chime in on the side issue:
Those snatches of Latin aren’t used entirely literally – they’ve developed important distinct meanings in law/philosophy, and they actually save a lot of time.
‘Qua’ can just pick out one aspect of a complex idea, but it’s also about the consideration of a thing’s ‘essential nature’. “Being in the capacity of being” sounds like gibberish, but “being qua being” is an important philosophical concept. There are times when it feels more correct to use ‘qua’ than to use its literal translation.
De facto implies counter-intuitiveness – it’s implicitly set up opposite de jure. You wouldn’t say that a policy having its obvious and intended effect was having that effect de facto.
Prima facie communicates not just that something seems to be true on face, but also that this appearance of truth is sufficient evidence for belief absent any evidence to the contrary.
Sui generis is a particular kind of uniqueness/independence. It requires that the thing being considered not have an effect on other, broadly similar events.
Posted by Gotchaye | April 10, 2009, 12:54 pmserious thanks, gotchaye!
Posted by didionsmommy | April 10, 2009, 5:16 pmMike, DM, Gotchaeye,
Sorry for my use of high-falutin’ language. My usual audience these days is a philosophical one; I suppose I’ve fallen into bad conversational habits as a result. Mea culpa.*
Mike,
You say, “Now unless you want to also make it illegal for a biological parent to not consider gay couples…it seems to me that the decision of the parent trumps everything else.”
I do. I am not convinced, overall, that parents have a special ability to accurately decide what’s best for their children — especially when the subject in question is one like “Do gays make good parents?”, where one of the answers (“no”) will only be given by the ignorant or bigoted.
I’m afraid I don’t see how there is a relevant difference between requiring a hospital to treat gay people no differently than straight people and requiring a hospital to provide the same benefits to gay people as straight people. Of course, my preferred solution involves single-payer government health care, but that’s neither here nor there.
Finally, yes, of course it’s discrimination to forbid the purchase of alcohol by 16-year-olds. Not all discrimination is bad — but the burden must always be on the would-be discriminator to provide justification for the discrimination, especially when we’re talking about enshrining something in law. There are good reasons to forbid minors (though I’m not convinced about, for example, 18-year-olds) from sweet, sweet whiskey; I cannot see any good reasons whatever to exalt Pauline bigotry. Of course, I could be wrong — but there is, in the philosophical and legal literature, a complete absence of any good argument for treating homosexual couples differently than straight ones.
*Yes, I meant to do that. I can’t help myself.
Posted by Erik J | April 10, 2009, 6:23 pmJust in case anyone was wondering if the religious exemptions are a serious concern:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54J6BK20090520
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 21, 2009, 2:11 pmI’m torn about these “religious exemptions.” They’re redundant and therefore unnecessary, which makes them functionally harmless. But by framing them truly as exemptions for religious institutions, it obscures the fact that this is only about civil marriage and doesn’t concern religion at all. By conceding to demands that religions be “exempt” from gay marriage perpetuates the myth that gay marriage is itself a threat to religion.
What I would prefer is a statement in the legislation clarifying its impact on religion (none) , as opposed to exempting religion. “As this legislation concerns only civil marriage as established by the state, it does not impact the power of religious institutions to determine those couples who may marry within a faith.”
You cannot be exempt from something that doesn’t apply to you.
Posted by Kris | May 21, 2009, 4:33 pmIt’s not just about being forced to marry couples Kris. It’s about having to offer them services, benefits to the gay spouses of employees, etc. No matter how much we want to believe that the line is clear, religious organizations play secular-type roles (offering counseling, for example).
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 21, 2009, 8:10 pmYou’re right, Mike, and it’s a nuance that’s important but that I didn’t get to. I didn’t get to it because it’s almost never what’s mentioned when talking about religious exemptions. How it concerns religious charities and other organizations is something we need to consider, but the issue of being potentially forced to marry gays in a church shouldn’t even come up, and yet it gets into legislation.
So what religious exemptions do people want, how far does it go? If it errs far on the side of religion, then we will end up with Christian hospitals (of which there are so many as to be nigh impossible to avoid) refusing visitation rights, which is one of the big arguments for gay marriage in the first place.
In what situations would religious organizations really need our protection? For there to be a concern about having to provide benefits to a same-sex spouse, then we have to be dealing with an organization that already employs gays., and it’s not like gays are an entirely protected class when it comes to employment discrimination. Either religious organizations already have some leeway when it comes to hiring practices, and therefore they can shield themselves, or they don’t have that leeway, and they already have to deal with hiring people of faiths and orientations they do not agree with. If these religious organizations are secular enough that they can deal with – or have not been able to get out of – employing gays, then they can deal with providing benefits, too.
Posted by Kris | May 22, 2009, 12:53 amAnd again, when it comes to offering services, such as counseling, then the organization either already has leeway to refuse based on grounds such as “you do not belong to our religion”, or the organization is sufficiently secular that they do not deserve special treatment.
Basically, I cannot think of compelling examples where an organization is sufficiently non-secular as to require consideration of its religious objections and yet at the same time is forced to provide its services in a universal and non-discriminatory manner.
Posted by Kris | May 22, 2009, 12:58 amAdoption services would be the most obvious example. And with regard to employees – I don’t know about you but I wasn’t required to reveal my sexual preferences to my employer on my application. So we can assume there are cases where they hired someone they didn’t know was gay. Once you ask for benefits for your same-sex spouse, then it is a bit more obvious. Then what does the religious organization do?
That’s really what it boils down to. If someone comes into the emergency room of a religious-affiliated hospital for treatment, their sexual preferences aren’t asked, just like they also don’t ask them if they attend church regularly and pray the rosary. If it gets to a point of decision-making or visitation, then I have no problem with state law trumping a religious exemption. But in non-life threatening situations, like employment or counseling, the exemption is both necessary and prudent.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 22, 2009, 6:46 amThen what does the religious organization do?
Then they pay the benefits to the same-sex spouse in a way consistent with the treatment of opposite-sex spouses. This is a matter of secular law saying who is entitled to benefits as a spouse, not who is entitled to have their marriage sacrament recognized by god. Divorce and bastard children are no-nos, but I don’t hear religious organizations decrying that they can’t deny dependent coverage to childrent born out of wedlock.
And why don’t religious organizations ask your sexual orientation or churchgoing habits when they hire someone? Is it because they don’t care, or because it’s against the law? If they only aren’t discriminating because it’s against the law, then why should we bend to them now, on this? If they don’t discriminate against gays in hiring because they don’t feel they should, then why should they get to discriminate against said gays’ spouses when it comes to uniform application of benefits?
And I don’t think the religious adoption agencies have any more to fear if gays can marry than they already do. Is the adoption policy against gays currently only that they aren’t married? No. So if they can currently refuse to adopt to gay parents because they’re gay, how will them being married change that? Are adoption agencies required to hand out babies to anyone with a marriage certificate?
Posted by Kris | May 22, 2009, 11:59 amReligious organizations should, by law, be allowed to decline to offer anything they want to people on whatever grounds they want. If they want to offer insurance to out-of-wedlock kids but not gays, isn’t that their perogative as a non-secular institution?
Let me ask you this: let’s say gay marriage passes in all 50 states. Do you think that they will all just put down their picket signs and go home, being now satisfied with their place in society?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 22, 2009, 1:09 pmMike, that’s one of the crazier things I’ve ever heard, let alone heard from you. What horrible thing do you think “THEY” will do after winning marriage rights? Maybe secure the right to be free from discrimination – MY GOD NO.
This sounds like one of the earlier justifications for Jim Crow laws: “if we don’t keep them down, they’ll try to enslave white people!” Get a life.
Posted by ACG | May 22, 2009, 2:17 pmAmes, Do you honestly think for a moment that gays only want marriage and their agenda doesn’t extend beyond that? That’s fairly naive. Do you honestly believe there will not be some who try to push the envelope with religious organizations even after civil marriages are legal?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 24, 2009, 9:25 pmI *do* think they only want sensible things, like marriage, and I don’t think you have any evidence for the converse. It’s just naked alarmism. Let’s do an analogy: although women were granted suffrage, and the protection of antidiscrimination laws, while I think there’s still a lot of work to be done there, there’s been no serious, organized, angry push for women to break into, say, the Catholic clergy. While women have been allowed into the clergy of some churches, these have largely been organic outgrowths of the theology of these sects. I don’t think you can cite anything to the contrary.
Also – for what it’s worth – I don’t think “OMG WHAT WILL THEY WANT NEXT GAY SPACESHIPS OR WHATEVER” is a good reason to draw the line at marriage.
Posted by ACG | May 25, 2009, 12:10 amAgain – I think you’re being incredibly naive Ames. otherwise, why would they be so opposed to these religious exemption rules? Do you think that they are just standing in opposition because they really care about potentially duplicitious legislation? If that was the case I think they would find it harder to reconcile hate crimes legislation.
I’ve already seen a lot of chatter on various web sites about the cowardice of states like Washington that is moving towards equivelant civil unions instead of marriage. i’ve always believed that the gay marriage movement has a certain component that is more interested in the social trophy than the legal rights. It will be the same with other areas. In that respect they are far different than the civil rights movement or the women’s movement.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 25, 2009, 10:59 amAh yes, the social trophy of equality.
…
The reason people are opposed to the religious exemptions is that they’re duplicative and insulting, in that they impute some sort of malicious intent to gay Americans who just want to be treated the same as everyone else. It’s like writing a gay marriage bill that ends, “PROVIDED that none of them thur gays can have their own gays-only military just to wage unceasing war on straight people.” The religious exemptions address an equally improbable, equally insulting scenario that relies upon treating gays like dangerous outsiders.
Posted by ACG | May 25, 2009, 11:03 amAnd in each case that gay rights activists have sought the term “marriage” in the statutory language, it was for the legal importance of the word, and the avoidance of the “separate but equal” problem, and never implied that they could force churches to recognize them.
Posted by ACG | May 25, 2009, 11:04 amFor example – you’re married. As in, “opposite marriage.” But just because you have that legal status, and that particular word defining your relationship, doesn’t mean you’d be entitled to walk into an Orthodox synagogue and force them to recognize and re-solemnize your union.
Posted by ACG | May 25, 2009, 11:05 am“PROVIDED that none of them thur gays can have their own gays-only military just to wage unceasing war on straight people.”
I’m curious…why do those hypotethical statements always have a Southern accent? Is it just easier to type, or do you just assume it’s only Southerners who are worried about these sorts of things?
Ah yes, the social trophy of equality.
They would have ‘equality’ with civil unions, wouldn’t they?
But just because you have that legal status, and that particular word defining your relationship, doesn’t mean you’d be entitled to walk into an Orthodox synagogue and force them to recognize and re-solemnize your union.
I’m really not worried about churches being forced to marry gays. My concern is that they would be forced to hire them, give their spouses benefits, facilitate adoptions, provide counseling, etc.
Ames, the law has already spoken on this. Religious exemption clauses are in place in many states with regards to job applicants and other situations. All we’re asking is that they be expanded to cover new scenarios that would arise as a result of gay marriage becoming legal.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 25, 2009, 1:54 pmThe problem with “marriage” v. “civil union” is that it reeks of separate but equal. If the intent of the separate term is to stigmatize or convey the impression that this sort of lifestyle is not preferred, that’s not a legitimate reason!
And, where do these exemption clauses exist, at all? And when has a church ever been forced into hiring or counseling anyone, ever? I’ll admit that adoption is a different case: if churches are state-funded and accredited adoption providers then, yes, they may have to choose between funding and having some discretion in whom they place where. But I won’t shed any tears over that.
Posted by ACG | May 26, 2009, 2:44 pmThe government’s role in mariage is to provide certain legal rights and also tax policy. Does it really matter what they call it if it’s just about gaining access to those rights? If we’re talking about a simple matter of terminology, then it sounds to me like gays really just need to hear Uncle Sam say, ‘gay marriage is okay’.
I believe the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, if passed, will include a religious exemption. The CT and NH gay marriage laws include religious exemptions.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 26, 2009, 3:41 pmMike: “Does it really matter what they call it if it’s just about gaining access to those rights? If we’re talking about a simple matter of terminology, then it sounds to me like gays really just need to hear Uncle Sam say, ‘gay marriage is okay’.”
Don’t they, though? Does it really matter if the colored restrooms are just as clean and accessible as the white restrooms? The clear purpose of the distinction is to prevent colored folk from contaminating white space – the whole point is to send a message that one group is better than another. That there’s no material difference between the two restrooms only makes the separation harder to defend, since no purpose other than communicating this message could be being served.
Posted by Gotchaye | May 26, 2009, 5:08 pmThat there’s no material difference between the two restrooms only makes the separation harder to defend.
And as was the case under “separate but equal” there actually often was a material difference between white and “colored” facilities and services.
Posted by Kris | May 26, 2009, 6:01 pmIs this the part where we start comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement?
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 26, 2009, 7:23 pmIt seems to me that this is the next wave of the civil rights movement, so yes.
Posted by Corry | May 26, 2009, 10:19 pmRegardless, no one made that comparison. It was pointed out that your reasoning would seem to legitimize ‘separate but equal’ policies, and I gave an example of an actual policy that you seemed committed to finding permissible. Kris then pointed out that, often, de jure separate but equal arrangements end up decidedly unequal.
Posted by Gotchaye | May 27, 2009, 12:41 amLet me first point out that the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement are not the same. In the first case blacks had the right to vote, marry, etc and then discrimination was specifically written into the law. In the latter, gays never had those rights so they can’t argue that they are being denied something they used to have. They are arguing that they are being denied something they should have. Fair enough, but it’s not the same thing.
With regards to ‘separate but equal’… the arguement from the Left has always been rooted in legal rights. Gays can’t make health decisions, get tax breaks, etc. Fine. It’s not that difficult to highlight those legal rights in a digital copy of a state’s marital law, hit Ctrl C and paste into a new section under ‘Civil Unions’. There are plenty of watchdog groups that can make sure that process continues as new rights are added or subtracted from the marriage section. So if we are honest we can all admit that if the state decides on equivelant civil unions only, it is easy enough to ensure compliance.
If this is really about the implication of inferiority by not using the term ‘marriage’ then we get into the social trophy aspect I mentioned above. That’s why I suggest gays would continue to push as hard as possible on other social barriers even after being granted marriages.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | May 27, 2009, 8:52 am