A landmark ruling from the Supreme Court this week. Remember this case- - Lawrence v. Texas From the New York Times: "Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy By JOEL BRINKLEY WASHINGTON, June 26 The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law today that forbids homosexual sex, and reversed its own ruling in a similar Georgia case 17 years ago, thus invalidating antisodomy laws in the states that still have them. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 Texas decision, said that gay people "are entitled to respect for their private lives," adding that "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer agreed with Justice Kennedy. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sided with the majority in its decision, but in a separate opinion disagreed with some of Justice Kennedy's reasoning. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent and took the unusual step of reading it aloud from the bench this morning, saying "the court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," while adding that he personally has "nothing against homosexuals." Joining Justice Scalia's dissent were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Scalia said he believed the ruling paved the way for homosexual marriages. "This reasoning leaves on shaky, pretty shaky, grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," he wrote. The court's actions today would also seem to overturn any law forbidding sodomy, no matter whether it deals with homosexual or heterosexual activity. The case, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102, was an appeal of a ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals, which had upheld the law barring "deviate sexual intercourse." The plaintiffs, John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner of Houston, were arrested in 1998 after police officers, responding to a false report of a disturbance, discovered them having sex in Mr. Lawrence's apartment. Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner were jailed overnight and fined $200 each after pleading no contest to sodomy charges. In its ruling today in the Texas case and its revisiting of the 1986 Georgia case, the Supreme Court made a sharp turn. In 1986, the justices upheld an antisodomy law in Georgia, prompting protests from gay rights advocates and civil liberties groups. But in the 17 years since, the social climate in the United States has changed, broadening public perceptions of gays and softening the legal and social sanctions that once confronted gay people. Until 1961, all 50 states banned sodomy. By 1968, that number had dwindled to 24 states, and by today's ruling, it stood at 13. Even though the court upheld the Georgia antisodomy statute which had applied to heterosexual as well as homosexual conduct a Georgia court later voided it. But the justices' ruling on the legal principle behind the Georgia statute continued to stand, so today the court, voting 5 to 4, issued a new ruling overturning its 1986 decision in the Georgia case. Of the three current justices who were on the court when it initially ruled in the Georgia case, in 1986, Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor voted to uphold the Georgia law in 1986 and Justice Stevens voted to strike it down. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which works on behalf of gay rights advocates and related groups, brought the appeal of the Texas ruling to the court, arguing that it violated equal protection and due process laws. It described sexual intimacy in the home as an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Constitutional guarantee of due process. Today's ruling "will be a powerful tool for gay people in all 50 states where we continue fighting to be treated equally," the Lambda fund's legal director, Ruth Harlow, said. "For decades, these laws have been a major roadblock to equality. They've labeled the entire gay community as criminals and second-class citizens. Today, the Supreme Court ended that once and for all." Some lawyers for the plaintiffs wept in the courtroom as the court made public its decision today. Several legal and medical groups had joined gay rights and human rights groups in their challenge to the Texas law. But traditional-values conservatives reacted angrily to the court's actions, particularly regarding the prospect that they could open the legal door to gay marriages."191 responses total.
I think the Court made the right and just decision. The case involved a gay couple in Texas whose house was raided by mistake, and police inadvertently saw them having sex and prosecuted them under Texas's anti-sodomy laws. They'd have to register as sex offenders if they moved to any of several other states that have such laws. But the Court sided with them, and admitted what should have been obvious-- that two consenting adults who love each other have every right to a private life and engage in sex. The government shouldn't be telling any two consenting adults what they can do with their lives, or that they can't have sex. This should pave the way for legalization of same-sex marriages, which were recently legalized in Canada. I'm happy that our country is finally coming into the modern age, and I'm especially happy for my gay friends who have lived under the spectre of these arcane, hateful, laws all their lives. I applaud the decision. And I *really* didn't like Scalia's dissent where he spoke openly of the 'homosexual agenda' I really don't want to see that guy become the next Chief Justice, although he probably will be
The house wasn't raided by mistake, a neighbor with a grudge filed a false report.
Probably jealous that the guy couple's house was the coolest on the block. (Sorry.)
You're welcome.
and I have heard soem nambla people openlyh praising the decision as a step towards their agenda. Thank you very much (not!)
What is nambla? I have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't remember what the a's expand to, but the "MBL" is "man-boy love".
resp:6 NAMBLA= North American Man/Boy Love Association. [http://www.nambla1.de/] (It's unclear why [http://www.nambla.org/] redirects to this German address, but it does.)
For a straight married guy, Bruce, you seem awfully interested in NAMBLA. :)
Re #5: So what? They're full of shit. This decision was about the privacy
rights of two people who are legally capable of consent. Children
are not legally capable of consent. This decision does *nothing*
for NAMBLA. *Nothing*.
The decision also doesn't help people who are into bestiality
(animals aren't capable of consent either).
If I were you, I wouldn't take legal analysis by NAMBLA members
seriously. If they think this decision helps them, they're morons.
I can't believe that anybody is making a big deal out of this. For all I know, NAMBLA people are deliriously happy about the Bush tax cuts, because they get more money to promote their cause. It's a big step for them. Do you want to reverse the Bush tax cuts if this is true, Bruce?
Bush is giving tax cuts to people who have children.
Does this mean I can own a firearm in the privacy of my own home?
As long as you only use it in the privacy of your own home, and no passing person on the street can in any way experience any evidence of your use of it.
The decision is good, how it relates to same-sex marriage, that I don't get
what about prostitution and drug use? Are these now going to be legal in the privacy of your own home?
Drug use in the home requires drug production and dealing outside it, which would not be protected under the privacy rationale. A similar argument would be made about prostitution. While I'd personally like to see both of those activities legalized and regulated, this decision won't aid in that at all.
It does appear that the logic behind this decision should also apply to prostitution activities carried out in private homes. They would also be described as actions carried out by consenting adults (so long as both parties are indeed adults and consenting).
I want to know why bruce is so interested in what folks do in their bedrooms. resp:17 - well, probably a person *could* grow pot in their home just for their own use but I dont see anyone using this precedent in a drug case.
Prostitution is only a public problem when it involves coercion or crime. In a sense, the current sexual mores involve a lot of private, pro-bono prostitution (i.e, young (and old) people sleep with each other for fun). This is certainly outside the pervue of law (or should be).
Prostitution also contributes to the spread of disease.
Well, unregulated prostitution does anyway.
Prostitution is commerce, and some things which are legal to swap via non-commercial exchanges are unlawful to ask money for (e.g. children, human organs). None of that is going to change, so prostitution's status isn't likely to either. Prostitution also involves issues of public health, in the same way that any kind of promiscuous sexuality does. For that reason, it deserves to be regulated.
If you regulate it, does some inspector make sure that condoms are used every time? For instance watching through a one-way mirror or a TV circuit?
I think Nevada has had success with regulated prostitution.
Re the SCOTUS decision, about time, imho as an interested observer (no, that doesn't mean i'm gay).
...Not that there's anything wrong with it....
I've heard that Scalia is one of the brightest minds on the bench.
(A powerful witch, but a bad witch.) Does he really not realize
that this has no more to do with the "homosexual agenda" than his
objections are part of the "'moral majority' agenda"?
Actually, here's what he said:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf
[The Court] has largely signed on to the SO-CALLED homosexual
agenda by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual
activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has
traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
Well, by that standard, a majority of Americans support this "agenda".
But in the next paragraph, Scalia makes reference to the "culture war":
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the
culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral
observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders
in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their
families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and
destructive.
I see. That many of these same people similaraly "viewed" miscegnation laws
seems to be lost on Scalia. Not to mention that they are just "protecting
themselves" from falling property values should a mixed couple (let alone a
full-blown black couple) move into the neighborhood, even if as boarders....
The truth of the matter is that it was the Court, in the 1986 Bowers v.
Hardwick case, which took the wrong side in the culture war. It lost,
precisely because that was a bad decision based on an "agenda" rather
than one made as "neutral observer". (That was a 5-4 decision, and Justice
Lewis Powell later stated that it was his one vote he wished he could change.)
It's almost surprising that the most egregious of sodomy laws (which
prohibit sexual behavior unequally, prohibiting it only to homosexuals)
managed to stay on the books for so long following the ruling that
Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional.
Most of these sodomy laws were never really strictly enforced anyways. Probably better that they should go.
Not just "probably" - absolutely.
So vote them out? So vote for legislators that repeal them. This is the way it is supposed to work. The Texas legislature voted the law in the first place, it ought to be up to them to repeal it.
That doesn't work. Legislators don't want to spend time getting rid of old laws, because they want to focus on passing new ones to protect their special interests. They almost never go back and get rid of old ones that aren't being enforced much anyway.
Besides, it IS THE JOB of the SCOTUS, under the balance of powers principle, to invalidate legislation which violates the constitutional priciples on which this country is founded, however the SCOTUS interprets them. Since citizens of the various states are citizens of the union, state laws are subject to invalidation for the protection of the rights of all citizens.
This is not some musty old hardly-noticed law we're talking about. Texas enacted it in the late 1970s, and I think it went into effect 1/1/1980. Moreover, the case came to the Supreme Court because TWO GUYS WERE PROSECUTED under it. The same law also makes dildos illegal in Texas.
This response has been erased.
Re #27: Everyone who reads Scalia's frothing dissent should remember that this is the guy Bush has pointed to as an example of the type of justice he wants to appoint. Read the whole thing, too -- he spends a good chunk of it arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Re #30: I believe a Michigan state rep has proposed legislation to repeal Michigan's anti-sodomy law. His reasoning was that the law is now invalid, and repealing it will prevent the state from having to spend money in a doomed attempt to defend it later if someone decides to try to prosecute under it.
Wow, unusual sense from a Michigan state rep. Probably doomed though; I'm sure the republican majority will argue to keep it anyways for "symbolic" value.
Could be. I don't remember right now who introduced the legislation, but it was a Democrat.
Hmmm...would this mean that it will become legal for Valerie and me to live together without being married? Last week I was called for jury duty. I just missed being selected. If I had been selected, I would have been asked if I was married. I was trying to figure that out. "No" would have been a factually correct answer, but my life is pretty much indistinguishable from a married person. "No but I'm living with a person as if we were married" would have been precisely accurate, but it would have been admitting to a crime in to a judge in court. That would have been the option I'd have taken, and I presume nothing would have come of it. Still, I wouldn't mind if that law up and left. Of course, if it didn't exist, we'd probably be married under common law.
A sure way to get removed from jury duty on grounds of being an unpredictable weirdo would probably be to respond to "are you married?" with "on the advice of my attorney, I decline to answer."
re: back a few responses....actually the cover of Newsweek this week specifically poses the suggestion that Lawrence v Texas could lead to the legalization of gay marriages in the u.s. Being that the sodomy laws that lawrence v texas has invalidated were a main argument against legalizing gay marriage, that one thing sanctioned the other and if the other was illegal than marriage should be illegal. This won't be the case anymore. Canada has already legalized gay marriages. I see no reason why it must continue to be an issue in the U.S. now
Re #38: Possibly. Michigan's never had common-law marriage as far as I
know, so even if they changed the obsolete cohabitation law, it's
not clear that we'd have common-law marriage.
Re #40: If that were the only argument, you'd be right.
Another arguement is that this may end up making incest legal. Keep in mind that it was legal in michigan until just recently (1980s?) when some guy and his daughter were caught in a relationship that bore az number of children, and they could not be prosecuted under state law. Keep in mind I am talking about between consenting adults, not forcing a minor.
so what?
I don't see much point of simularity. Last I heard, gay men were not known for becoming pregnant, accidently or otherwise.
Re #42: That's the first one you've come up with that could actually be an
issue. There is a legal justification for barring incest that can
produce kids, but it becomes more interesting if fertility is out
of the picture.
However, was it really worth making millions of gays and lesbians
into felons to stop a relatively small number of consensual adult
incest cases? Or is it better to deal with incest as a separate
issue?
Whew. That's a relief. I thought we were doing something wrong. I believe it was Chris Kolb who introduced (? or spoke of?) legislation to repeal Michigan's sodomy laws.
Aa I recall it, when Michigan's rape law was revised in the 1970s, they didn't see the point of outlawing adult incest as such. Then, a few years ago, that poster couple in Hillsdale came along. Not only were they father and daughter in an incestuous relationship, not only did they produce numerous offspring, but they seriously neglected or abused the children. It was this last issue which brough them to the attention of the authorities and media. It was at that point that Michigan's status as the only state where adult incest was legal became a serious embarrassment, and the law was changed.
Which leads nicely into the real reason that Michigan's sodomy law is unlikely to be repealed under a Republican majority. None of them want to be identified as having supported the repeal of a law against homosexuality.... regardless of the actual or imagined costs.
So various opponants of this ruling keep trotting out all sorts of other things that could be made legal by it. Some of them are far fetched, having very little to do with privacy. For those that really fall under the same justifications of this ruling (adult incest, I suppose, if it were really non-coercive and didn't produce children, polygamy, etc.), why not? They're not my sort of thing, but I find it hard to make the case that they hurt anybody else.
Re #48: The nicer way to look at it is that politicians have a limited
amount of time each legislative session, and spending some of it
repealing laws nobody's going to get prosecuted under anyway is
wasteful. (Remember, the Democrats didn't get rid of it back
when they had control either. And we still have a blasphemy statute
which is completely unconstitutional.)
At least the Democrats repealed the criminal syndicalism statute.
To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a time consuming issue, or a controversial one. I'm not naive enough to think politicians will see it that way, though.
51: (Not to be confused with criminal cynicism...)
The main argument against adult incest being legal is that of inbreedin, and the dangers of incestual couples producing sickly children. But while that is a valid concern, I'm not sure it should be a legal basis for disallowing two adults from engaging in private behaviour they both consent to.
It would if there's a significant risk of children coming about as a result.
This response has been erased.
the question is are the Constitutional rights of two adults involved in an incestual relationship different from anyone else's? Same argument made in Lawrence v Texas about gays in a relationship. The answer is no. They are adult citizens of the United States and all adult citizens have the same rights. I believe that if it were found that this father and daughter in Michigan had resumed their sexual relationship, and they were prosecuted under current Michigan law, that it would not hold up in court anymore than Texas's sodomy laws did. The government isn't the church or your parents. The government isn't there to be your moral guardian or conscious or judge of your private life. Unless of course Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania becomes President. Because he wants to be Pope, not President
This response has been erased.
The idea of a legislative body which is tasked with repealing laws, mandatory sunset provisions, and the like have been proposed in minarchist/libertarian circles. This seems like a good argument such schemes.
A logical compromise would be to make incest legal so long as both parties are 18 or over and not mentally incompetent. However, it should be illegal (and aggressively enforced) to give birth to a child which results from incest. This would serve to allow the state to guarantee the care of children unfortunate enough to be born under such circumstances, and would also serve to discourage practicioners of incest from reproducing thusly.
A lot of incest is non-consensual, actually or legally. These should be crimes. Consensual incest between adults I would think is pretty rare. Its probability is probably reduced in part because of the common knowledge of the possible birth defects that may result. Then, making the rare remaining instances also criminal - probably doesn't do much good, as people will do what they want to do regardless. What is then needed is not punishment but having the persons assume responsibility for offspring.
1) Non-consensual sex, whether incest or not, is already illegal and should remain so. 2) Making incestual parents responsible for the offspring of their stupidity as a punishment for such stupidity is even more stupid than than the offense itself. That only victimizes the offspring, who is the only one in the scenario not at fault.
I wonder if the incest laws are actually being used to prosecute
consensual sex, or as Rane points out, primarily rape.
Re #62: what do you propose to do about the parents of the offspring of incestual cohabitation? (I did not say that making them responsible was *punishment*: in fact, I said what is needed is *not* punishment. I also not say that those parents should have custody of such offspring, only responsibility for them.)
It's my understanding taht women who are over 40 [1] when they have children are much more likely to have children with birth defects. Perhaps we should prohibit them from having sex, too. For that matter, I understand stupid people are more likely to have stupid children than smart people. Wow, this is a gold mine. We can control all kinds of people's sex lives this way! [1] or 45, or whatever that age was. Heck, I'm not even sure where I heard that. At any rate, that's not the point.
Are you suggesting that the odds of birth defects from incestual pregnancies and from pregnancies of women over 40 are comparable? Are you suggesting that stupidity is a birth defect? My suggestion reduces state control over people's sexual activities and enforces responsibility for the consequences, which I think is a far superior method of social conditioning. And, I do believe that the state has a legitimate interest in picking up where social conditioning through THIS PARTICULAR taboo has previously assured the general diversity of the gene pool. I can accept this particular restriction where I would not accept others because of the comparatively extreme anti-survival effect on the gene pool of this particular kind of breeding practice. I consider it a reasonable species self preservation mechanism.
I seem to recall that a recent study found that the risk of birth defects from many forms of incest wasn't notably higher than for non-related people. Cases like the British royal family only arise when generation after generation breeds within a small gene pool. I think the study dealt with first cousins, though, not brothers and sisters.
I think the relevant definitions are sibling and parent-child.
re #66: I'm not suggesting anything about the relative likelihoods of birth defects from older mothers and incestual relationships. I'm suggesting that perhaps we ought not to be grasping quite so desperately for reasons to regulate people's sexual behavior. To spell it out, I think that what kind of children a couple is likely to have (in the event that they have children) ought to have absolutely no bearing on whether or not they are legally allowed to have sex. I haven't the slightest idea what your proposal was. Is stupidity a birth defect? I'm strongly tempted to claim it is, just to see what you say.
To which I would be tempted to respond that such a claim would not be worthy of response unless accompanied by evidence of reputable origin de- linking intellectual performance from environmental factors.
I dunno, conventional wisdom seems to be on my side. The burden of proof rests with you, I'm afraid. :)
You can fully expect the Lawrence v Texas decision to be a major issue in next year's election. With conservative fears that laws against gay marriage are now in jeopardy, Bush and his political advisors are said to be salivating over the idea of introducing a new proposed Amendment to the Constitution, which would spell out a ban on gay marriages They'd probably word the proposal something like: "The government of the United States of America hereby recognizes that marriage in this country can only be entered into by two persons who are heterosexual, and who are not close blood relatives" They'd include the incest part to blunt criticism that it is just an anti-gay Amendment, and to make it politically more potent. Bush would come out strongly in favor of such, and try to turn the entire election into a referendum on the institution of "marriage" If his opponents say they are against this Amendment proposal, then his spin doctors will say "Bush is FOR the institution of marriage, and his opponents are against it, that his oppenents are "for" gay marriages and incestual marriages. Even though this might not have any chance of actually getting the required votes to become an Amendment to the Constitution, Bush's folks will surely think that simply having the proposal out there serves its purpose. To portray Bush as the protector of the institutions of family and marriage. Get out the Maalox, there's going to a lot to make you feel ill during this next year's election cycle...
**going** to be?
There already exists in federal law the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA, 1996). Up until then, marriage laws had been left up to the States, although a number of federal law referred to the married status, for certain rights and privileges. The origin and wording of the DoMA are presented at http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Federal_.htm It still leaves the definition of marriage up to the States but rather concerns recognition of States for the marriage laws of other States if the marriages are between persons of the same sex. An amendment would probably use part of the language of the DoMA.
true but a Constitutional Amendment would be the federal government specifying the definition of marriage, to head off more progressive states from making gay marriage legal as is bound to happen particularly given the recent Supreme Court decision.
So you expect marriages between close relatives to be banned because they might produce children, and marriages between people of the same sex to be banned because they can't produce children? How about banning marriages between other people who can't product children (infertility, menopause, having been sterilized)? Banning marriage with anyone having a known genetic defect in their family?
I seriously doubt that anybody would use an anti-gay constitutional ammendment as *the* major campaign issue. As something done in the background to score points with a certain group, likely, but not as the major issue of the campaign. The Religious Right is going to vote Republican anyway. Among swing voters, such a push would tend to turn people off.
what about legalizing incestual marriage IF the husband could provide documentation that he's had a vasectomy and/or the wife could provide documentation that she's had her tubes tied. And both sign sworn statements saying they'll never attempt to have said procedures reversed and will never have kids? Then what would the objection be? So long as they are not having kids, they are still consenting adults, so whose business should it be whether they are in a relationship? you don't have to approve of a lifestyle to accept other people's rights to live it if they choose so long as issues of mutual consent are satisfied (i.e. no beastial relationships, or adult-minor relationships or other types where one party isn't capable of legally consenting)
Ditto #73. The total lack of reasoning evident in the responses of the likes of Sen. Santorum has been making me queasy for years. (Similar lack of reasoning is evident on the left on their own set of topics, but I haven't been hearing as much from them lately.)
If such an amendment were adopted, I think it would be an enormous spur to creative family arrangements through other legal means and maybe even a bigger flight from "marriage" because of the greater availability of alternatives that may have significant financial or other advantages.
There is a statistical phenomena known as "deviation to the mean" that suggests two smart parents tend to have dumber children and vis versa. The ancient hawaiian ali'i practiced sibling incest although didn't exclusively procreate thusly. You might have many children but only those via your sister or brother could be heirs. They also culled all defectives. Their culture existed for thousands of years with a very limited gene pool. Just as one may amplify an bad gene one may similarly a good one. There are other scientific example. Thus one might conclude that a "scientific" arguement against incest is flawed or even false and not the basis upon which to pass law. (#79 slipped in) Santorum's published out of context remarks are not 'unreasoned'. I would suggest that his remarks re: the texas case would indicate that both you and he (and even I) would have a lot in common. For example, his "state's rights" arguement is very close to a "libertarian" position which I believe you hold.
This response has been erased.
Richard seems rather obsessed with incest.
Re #76, last sentence: That used to be done, here and elsewhere. It was called "eugenics", and it acquired a bad reputation. I can think of ways that the benefits might be achieved without either the evil connotations or coercive nature of past attempts.
Re #81: Santorum is making a slippery slope argument, but he's making the
dumb kind because there's a significant difference between the
acts that have been legalized and the ones he claims will have to
be legalized next.
Dan Savage, in his column Savage Love, has come up with an alternate
definition for the word "santorum" (in lower case) that makes #85 particularly
funny.
Re #81: I think the expression you wanted was "regression to the mean". And it doesn't mean that two smart parents tend to have dumber children, but rather that measurements of "smartness" contain significant error components, which cancel out as more data are obtained.
I'm aware of eugenics, and if you read my post, you'd notice that what
I'm suggesting is FAR from:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 :
eugenics
n : the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by
selective breeding (especially as applied to human
mating) [ant: dysgenics]
I am merely suggesting that modern mechanisms of social conditioning be
applied in a very specific and valuable way where traditional methods are
failing due to the breakdown of social taboo.
Re 81. Infanticide is common in island cultures due to limited resources. Inbreeding plus ruthless culling works for farm animals, but humans don't usually act this way. Re eugenics: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court, Buck v. Bell (1927), upholding sterilization of "feeble minded" individuals. (Since overruled.)
This response has been erased.
The word has a lot of bad associations based on people who've
"supported" it in the past. Much like Darwinism did from "social darwinism",
which had precious little to do with Darwin's theories, and had much more to
do with a pseudoscientific attempt to justify the status quo which latched
on to a then-fashionable term.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of having healthier, more
intelligent, capable children.
It's what people have done in the name of that that's wrong.
This response has been erased.
Michael Kinsley in Slate has proposed getting government out of marriage. Let any church or organization or individual marry however they please, he suggests, and base the financial and childrearing issues on contract instead. See http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127/
This response has been erased.
Ironically, Todd in #92 suggests one of the darker things that the
Eugenicists tried to institute, restricting who can breed. I hope it's
sarcasm.
This response has been erased.
Re #93: What about obligations of third parties, which currently exist
toward married couples (e.g. companies providing benefits to
spouses, the spousal testimonial privilege, allowing next of kin
to visit in the hospital)? None of those will exist toward the
kind of contractual relationship you're describing.
This response has been erased.
How would a contract between the two spouses obligate people or organizations other than them?
This response has been erased.
The contract is currently between the couple and the State, which takes care of all these issues. I'd want to keep that. A contract just between the couple means almost nothing since, if they can make the contract, they can amend it (unless the State is involved, which would mean it is a contract between the couple and the State.....). The Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist really showed his true colors, and the intent of the Republicans, when he referred to marriage as a "sacrament". It is only a "sacrament" in religions, so apparently he doesn't think much of the First Amendment and "separation of church and state".
Re #100: Yes, your employer could agree to provide benefits to your
"contracted spouse." But the government won't, and your employer
won't be required to (or required to give you leave under the
FMLA if I remember correctly).
This response has been erased.
#83...no I am not obsessed with incest, sheesh...I wasn't even the one who brought it up in this item. I was just, as with the topic of gay marriages, attempting to address people's objections as I think the best way of dealing with these things isn't always to simply outlaw private behaviours that really aren't the government's business. Doesn't mean that I don't think incest is a sick behaviour, or that I condone it. Like I said, you don't have to condone something to accept people's rights to do it
This response has been erased.
Re #103: I think you do have to tell them who you're taking leave to care
for, though, and it may have to be a relative by blood or marriage.
This response has been erased.
Re #81: I doubt it. "State's rights" originated as a code-phrase for denying individual rights; I'm all about telling government that huge areas are None Of Their Freaking Business, and "Congress shall make no law..." applies to their capitols too. States don't have rights, anyway; they have powers. And you mean "regression to the mean".
(I'm no expert, but I believe that the risks of genetic defect in children of incestuous couples is not nearly as high as popularly believed. I'd readily believe that doing substantial smoking or drinking during pregnancy are compariable risks. I think basing an argument against incest solely on the risk of defects in children would be a dubious proposition.)
Re #107: Well, then the Feds won't enforce the FMLA for gays taking care of
their partners, now will they?
Re #109: Drinking, definitely. A friend of mine reports that some large fraction of Inuit children in the far north are born with FAS or FAE (and I am not talking about 2%, I recall something like 30%). I understand that Everclear now comes laced with a bit of an emetic, to prevent people from overdosing on it quite so easily. Perhaps the same would justify adding RU-486 to all alcohol; I cannot see a coherent claim that a right to reproduce includes the right to damage one's children prenatally, and the people who cannot control their consumption probably wouldn't make good parents anyway. The current situation is already selecting against susceptibility to alcoholism, but damn, would that put evolution into overdrive!
Um. I have a feeling that RU-486 isnt really all that safe for men or even for women to take on a regular basis. I do get your point though. If there were a safe substance to put in alcohol that prevented pregnancy, it would be an interesting idea.
What about RU-Pentium?
How about a safe substance to put in alcohol that eliminated any interest in sex?
Its called ethanol.
It takes too long to start working.
Re #93: I've favored something like that for a long time, and I think I've suggested it before on Grex. I think the contract issues would have to be made much easier than they are now -- perhaps something along the lines of a "civil union" law. Right now getting just some of the legal benefits of marriage without actually marrying (you can't get them all) involves about half a dozen different legal documents. Only a lawyer could love that situation. I don't think this has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, though. The religious right would spin it as an "anti-Christian" move. Re #114: <hums "Too Drunk to Fuck" by the Dead Kennedys>
Hahahaha.
I don't think Sindi meant in the quantities the Kennedys drank.
This response has been erased.
Re #112: RU-486 is a relatively simple HCG antagonist. I seem to recall that it has found use in cancer treatment (in men), to name one thing that drives the anti-abortion crusaders nuts - if it is approved for any medical use, doctors can prescribe it "off label".
Well, this was predictable: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/18/gay_customs030918 Canadian gay couple barred from U.S. Last Updated Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:32:16 TORONTO - A married gay couple say they were refused entry into the U.S. because an American customs officer wouldn't accept their clearance forms as a family. Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell said they ended their trip to Georgia because the customs official at Toronto's Pearson airport insisted they fill out separate forms as single people. Bourassa said he complained to a customs supervisor and was told the couple wouldn't be allowed to enter the U.S. as a family because the country doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. Bourassa, who works as an advocate for same-sex marriage, said the couple made the decision not to fill out separate forms because they felt it was an insult to their dignity. Bourassa and Varnell were heading to Braselton, Ga., to speak at a human rights conference. The couple married in 2001, before last June's Ontario court decision that recognized the right of gays to wed. Their marriage was recognized as a legal union in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. The couple's lawyer, Doug Elliott, said he has spoken to Ottawa on the issue and is investigating whether legal action can be taken against the governments of Canada and the U.S.
Canadian citizen legal action against the US goverment for *this*? BS! You don't get to dicate another country's rules for entry. Don't like it, stay away. Wounded dignity? Get over it, and just fill out separate forms, if you're really more interested in entering the US than playing the martyr.
Granted, though I bet if it were another country not recognizing U.S. marriages the U.S. government would make a big stink about it.
The same "big stink" that our noble Department of State has made over legal issues such as custody disputes over children who have been abducted by their fathers to Saudi Arabia?
They should have tried to enter via Vermont. Then a State's rights issue would also be involved, since same-sex "marriages" are recognized there. (I recognize that immigration is a federal matter, but having a state involved might lead sooner to a better resolution.) It has been the international norm to recognize the legal forms of other nations for many things - including different-sex marriages, driving licenses - lots more. There is no good reason not to recognize Canada's laws in this respect.
This response has been erased.
I think it was Customs because they were only coming to the U.S. for a few days, not trying to relocate here.
had bruse been accounted for?
This response has been erased.
/crosses arms in haughty and righteous fundamentalist christian indignation THEY DERSERVED IT! >< --
LOL. Even if they were coming in for a few days, I'd still think they had to go through INS? Or is it different with Canadian citizens? They don't go through an INS checkpoint at all at the border, where their passports are checked?
This response has been erased.
bru works in an airport now?
If they were just coming as tourists, how did their relationship even come up? Each person has their own personal identification, tickets, etc. When my wife and I travel nobody raises any questions about our relationship.
This response has been erased.
They should have written "none" - unless they did seek to test the system. In which case - more power to them. The system should be changed.
They're activists. Of course they were trying to test the system.
Even if they did say they were married, and it turned out that the customs officer didn't agree with the relationship, why would they be denied entry? (Were they denied entry in the first palce?)
The issue here is not gay marriage, it is compliance with bureaucratic regulation. They were denied entry by a bureaucrat who was defending the petty fiefdom he rules against those who would force him to alter his routine.
Re #138: They were denied entry because they refused to fill out forms listing them as single instead of married. The customs official was unwilling to accept a form stating they were a married couple.
(Hmm...come to think of it, if they *had* declared themselves as single, wouldn't they be guilty of lying on a Customs form?)
Exactly. I'd think if your country of citizenship saw you as married, you're married.
This response has been erased.
Don't know of any country that condones polygamy except the Muslim ones. And if theri country is ok with it, I don't see why any other government should object. Now if they wanted to become citizens of the US, I can see why a stink would be raised.
Why?
Gay marriages aren't condoned by the federal govt. If you're a citizen, you need to abide by the rules. (If you become resident of a state that allows gay marriages, I guess it would be ok)
Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture are now merged into one organization. We have not changed uniforms yet, but we have all always been crossed trained in other departments. Customs ghas always had the right to make such decisions. Think of it as working in a department store. You are an expert in one area, but you can still act in another. Customs also has immense power at the border. That is why we get to search your cars and individuals (even strip searches) without warrants. Fine, they wanted to provoke a confrontation and they got one. Whether it stands up under federal law is one for Ashcroft and his attorneys to decide. My guess is that it will hold up. I am sure the inspector did not make this decision in a vacuum, that other supervisory inspectors were there to advise him. Also, i would have to look this up, but it is my belief that people from countries that allow multiple wives, are only allowed to claim one unless they are a diplomat.
The Defense of Marriage Act, adopted and signed in 1996, is the only relevant federal law. It has not, however, been tested in the courts (but that is developing). There are unconstitutional aspects of the Act, among which is the constitutional requirement of "full faith" between states and their laws. The major opposition comes from religious organizations, for religious reasons. These are arbitrary and certainly not automatically relevant to the common social good. Most important, there are no sensible reasons to forbide such marriages. It certainly has zero effect upon opposite-sex marriages and, in fact, it furthers the wish of many to increase the stability of families. One argument used against same-sex marriages is that marriage is concerned with procreation and the protection of children. However it is not also argued that married opposite-sex couples must have children, or even attempt to have children: certainly no laws mandate that. In addition, same-sex couples currently adopt children, and provide them with stable families, a desirable social goal. More states are adopting laws that convey legal rights to same-sex "married" couples. I expect that when it finally reaches the Supreme Court, the Act will be found unconstitutional. This is why there is all the frantic effort by religious organizations to further a constitutional amendment. If that even comes to the states, I expect the majority of people will have concluded that there is no harm to anyone from same-sex marriages.
I'd be quite shocked if the Defense of Marriage Act were invalidated by the current Supreme Court..
Don't several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children (for known medical reasons, or she's just too old)?
once you start talking about folks far enough out on the fringe to warrant putting scare quotes around "Christian" you could be talking about groups with nearly every kind of marriage practices you can think of..
Re: #151 I suggest that you start reading more. Start by Googling on "Henry", "Roman Catholic Church", and "Church of England". You may also want to read a bit about the words & deeds of Jesus in the first three gospels and compare them to the behaviors of various self-styled Christian churches. The freaky fringe is the only place where you can find people actually trying to follow the teachings & example of Jesus. For a quick example, read Matthew 6.
We find Mr. rcurl, once again, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
re #152: > I suggest that you start reading more. You got me.. Ask anyone who knows me and they'll definitely tell you I'm nearly illiterate and notoriously misinformed.. Perhaps you can help clear up some of my notorious ignorance by explaining (in short, simple sentences, please..) how you think the schism which divided the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic church applies to your point that 'several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children.' I am unaware that either the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church follows such a policy and am so benighted that I was under the impression that Henry's dissent with the Roman Catholic Church was over the Church's refusal to annul a marriage on grounds of infertility, not over refusing to *perform* one on grounds of infertility.. > You may also want to read a bit about the words & deeds of Jesus in > the first three gospels and compare them to the behaviors of various > self-styled Christian churches. The freaky fringe is the only place > where you can find people actually trying to follow the teachings & > example of Jesus. For a quick example, read Matthew 6. This still doesn't explain to me why you insisted on the odd scare quotes around "Christian" in your previous response. Perhaps you intended them to convey some impression other than the one that I formed, in which case your intended meaning escaped me utterly.
Yes, please do come up with something specific about any "Christian" sect that would forbid marriage based on inability to have children, where that can't be know ahead of time, given that both husband and wife enter the marriage as virgins. Go ahead, give it your best shot.
Fire away!
Apparently a right-wing group has filed a lawsuit, based on the Michigan 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, against the Ann Arbor Public Schools because of their provision of health benefits to same sex partners, which the plaintiffs claim equates those relationships with marriage in violation of the law. So, the fucking idiots will eat into the already strained resources of the school system just because they know that the schools might concede the point rather than engage in a protracted and expensive court fight.
This response has been erased.
I didn't say they weren't. And I don't agree that what they're wasting money to stop is indeed a waste. I believe it is an investment in improving the quality of the education available to students in the AAPS.
It is indeed a waste on from both sides. If they are going to extend domestic partnerships, they shoulkd offer it to everyone, no matter their orientation or situation, or just give it to those people who are married.
(Re: #154/155/etc. Start with the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, Book 4, Part 1, Title 7, Chapter 3, Can. 1084. If you prefer, i can use 'Christian (sic)' instead of '"Christian"'. Would you view either 'People's Democratic Republic (sic)' or '"People's Democratic Republic"' as valid (if editorial) usages in the context of a Stalinist dictatorship?)
This response has been erased.
The extension of health and other benefits to domestic partners would make most sense if such partnerships were also legally recognized in Michigan. It makes sense for married couples because of the legal rights and responsibilities between such couples. This would also be the case with same-sex married couples. Therefore an objective should be the adoption of a Michigan law equivalent to Vermont's and California's, creating unisex marriages.
re #161: are you talking about the same Canon 1084 that specifically states: "Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage"? [We began this rather pointless digression when Walter posed the question 'Don't several "Christian" religious groups forbid heterosexual marriage in cases where the couple wouldn't be able to have children' and I expect from his decision to introduce Roman Catholic Canon Law to support his point he believes the Catholic Church to be one of the "Christian" groups he has in mind.] As to your latter point, whatever it may be, whether you write it as ' "Christian" ' (with scare quotes) or 'Christian (sic)' I still don't understand what you're trying to imply, unless it's that Roman Catholicism isn't legitimately Chrstian by your own personal definition. If that's where you're going with this I'm willing to concede ahead of time that I'm not at all interested in debating you over your own private usage rules.
Re #147: Bru, any comment on whether they'd be guilty of a crime if they lied on their customs forms by indicating they were single? This strikes me as a bit of a catch-22 situation. Re #149: Me too. But on the other hand, they did overturn Texas's anti-sodomy law. (Which surprised me.) Re #162: Does their policy favor homosexual partnerships over other partnerships? It seems to me they're just elevating partnership relationships to the same status as marriages, which is of course what the lawsuit is about. The fair thing to do, of course, would be to simply not provide health benefits to anyone except the employee. This would save even more money in the budget you're so concerned about.
It seems to me that an employer should be able to compensate their employees anyway they wish. Gull is right of course that the only really fair thing is to simply not provide health insurance benefits to anyone except the employee. Otherwise married people end up with total compensation packages that are greater than those for single people. In other words, they end up being paid more.
"...an employer should be able to compensate their employees anyway they wish." For example, by giving less compensation to non-Caucasians for the same work?
This response has been erased.
re#167 - good point. Employers should compensate all employees who do the same work equally. Which does make me think that maybe it is just better for employers to stop offering health insurance to spouses/live in partners etc. Either that or they can say that the employee is covered as well as any one other person that employee chooses to have on their insurance. Tod says in resp:168 - "Giving benefits to one particular group of "partners" without providing to all "partnerships" is favoritism. " So if they offer benefits to spouses (which is just one particular group of "partners") then it wouldnt be fair to not extend the benefit to any other partnerships such as same sex domestic partners.
This response has been erased.
Offering benefits to spouses effectively means that married people get paid more money than single people or people living in domestic partnerships.
This response has been erased.
I had to pay for my extra coverage (for Bruce and kids) for the whole time I've had health insurance. When I finally took Bruce off it this year, I went from paying $60 plus/week to only $19/week for my health insurance. Why is that unfair to my coworkers, since if they were single, they would have been paying the $19/week all along (or whatever the current price was over the last twenty years)?
I think what they mean is when insurance ispaid for by the employer. That's when it's unfair, when the spouse is covered in the policy also. Single people do not have this benefit.
I think that there is confusion over "providing health care to spouses". This can be simply including them in the same group health insurance plan but still charging for the extra persons (as anderyn illustrates). The most important part of company health insurance plans is the creation of a "group" - of mostly healthy (i.e., gainfully employed) workers. This reduces considerably the actual costs to the insurer (and company).
Does anyone KNOW whether the benefit is for all domestic partnerships or just for homosexual ones? I strongly suspect that anyone assuming the latter is doing so without any evidence, despite the illogical nature of the assumption.
This response has been erased.
Which then gives rise to the question- when do domestic partners of homosexual couples get to the point where they're considered a spouse? And if this distinction isn't there, this is unfair to single heterosexual people in live-ni relationships.
This response has been erased.
Or they should allow homosexual marriages, so there's a strong distinction between a gay spouse and a gay live-in lover.
Of course if we had a national health care system where everyone was covered, none of this would be an issue.
What myxcat says in #180 was the substance of my #163 - but she has restated it more succinctly. 8^}
Sometimes the simpler the words, the better it is comprehended ;) I haven't been keeping up with this item,really, till maybe about 5 responses ago.
This response has been erased.
I'll second the idea of leaving marital status entirely out of it and letting employees put a specified number of people of their choice on the policy, depending on what the company decides to offer and|or what the union manages to negotiate.
I came into the discussion about the gay couple, beginning with resp:121, late because I was out of town last week. It seemed to me that some were objecting that the customs officer shouldn't have prevented the couple from entering the country because it's wrong US law doesn't recognize gay marriages. I wonder if those who argued that way would also say that, if the law is changed, it's okay for the customs officer to refuse to obey the law, and keep gay couples out because he feels *that* law would be wrong? I'm afraid I don't have any regard for foreign people who won't obey US law when they come to our country. This is our country, and we'll dang well set whatever laws we want.
I think the question was if you're a national of another country, and that country recognises you as a married couple, why should the US govt object to let them in if they are entering the country as tourists? I can understand if they were looking to become permanent residents or citizens or even stay for an extended period of time to work, but telling them they can't enter the country because their marriage isn't recognised in this country, never mind that they are legally married in the country of their origin? I don't think thje question of "obeying" the law comes up here. It's not like they're coming here to get married.
This response has been erased.
I don't agree with banning the couple from the country. That seems foolish to me. It shouldn't be national policy. My point is solely that it is not up to a foreigner to determine US policy. If they came here to make a point, as it surely seems, then I don't think they had any business doing so. I don't mind that they were sent home in that case. I assume they could have just complied with the law and been admitted. Now that they've been sent home, though, it's US citizen's business to change the law so the same doesn't happen again. I'm not interested enough to become an activist on the issue myself, but if others here are moved to get involved, you can have my support.
I think there's exactly zero chance of changing that law under the current administration. In fact it wouldn't surprise me to see it toughened.
Not if the Supreme Court voids it.
You have several choices: