Same sex marriage is a constitutional right for all USAians, regardless of the homophobic, religiously-motivated bigotry in 14 state legislatures.
Chief Justice Kennedy writing the 5-4 decision:
“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person,
… under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
.. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry,
… [They] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. </blockquote>
And Antonin Scalia displays his usual regressive Catholic assholishness: <blockquote>The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,
Suck it, Popey-boy.
HT: Chris Clarke, image, and Ophelia Benson
Edit: Should have been Justice Kennedy, not Chief justice Kennedy. Thanks for the reminder, Kantian Naturalist :).
The only halfway reasonable argument I heard against SSM was that employers would have to subsidize insurance for a new population of spouses, increasing the cost to everyone else. That’s pretty much beside the point now.
Religion got in bed with government ages ago and is now feeling what it is like to be on the receiving end of law making. Too bad.
We are not talking about the same thing. To me, it’s not about whether they should or shouldn’t marry. It’s that they can’t – by definition.
To me, there are no married bachelors and no square circles, but you apparently would argue that they should have equal right to exist along with unmarried bachelors and circular circles. We inhabit different conceptual universes, Elizabeth.
Yes, I did. I do not know a way to upload a pdf. You can easily link to one if you can find a site to host it.
walto,
I found this: PdfSR.com
If your pdf is less than 10 MB (which is almost certainly the case), you don’t have to register.
Oh, you poor little dear. Hint: there’s a reason wikipedia editors have agreed on the gender-neutral “spouse” instead of “husband and wife” or “man and woman” to describe each of the partners in the marriage.
Second hint: it’s not because they agree with your dinosaur definition.
This typical conduct of yours is more disgusting than any obscenity.
Thx–I’ll have a look. I was thinking of uploading an excerpt from a scan of an unpublished 1947 book-length manuscript by Everett Hall–hopefully short enough to satisfy “fair use” restrictions. It’s largely a response to Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, and I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of Patrick, aardvark, and other libertarians here.
Re Erik’s last post about just not understanding whatever Lizzie and others could possibly mean by two women marrying:
Keep trying, it’ll come to you. It’s actually not that much like a square circle. More like a bright religious person. It’s hard, but you can get your head around the concept, if you really work at it.
ETA: I’m not sure I can find anything short enough to be appropriate. The chapter I was thinking of excerpting is 32 pages long, and I don’t have a sense how to cut it without killing it. My sense is that a lengthy excerpt should not be put up on the internet, but I have not been able to get a clear answer about what permissions might be needed and how I might obtain them from the Archive at SIU. I guess I’ll have to shelve this idea for the present.
Naughty, naughty, Erik.
Everybody knows that it is exactly about whether or not they should marry. And there’s no reason why you’d spend days kicking and squealing about the “definition of marriage”and trying so desperately to limit it to (sexually active, procreative) heterosexuals if it weren’t for your ingrained bigotry against the “defective” gays.
Fess up and move on. You just look stupid this way.
Took me a minute, walto, but I got it and I snorted coffee. Thanks.
walto,
I dug a little more, and it turns out you can upload pdfs to TSZ. Just go to the dashboard, mouse over the little camera/notes icon in the black sidebar, and click on ‘Add new’.
It claims to be for media files but it will actually accept pdfs. I tried it with a random pdf I grabbed off the Web.
Once you’ve uploaded your pdf, you can reference it by URL. For example, this is the URL of the pdf I just uploaded:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/UndergradPhil.pdf
Thanks, but see the ETA to my above post on this.
Yet some of the people in my circle of friends are squares.
Meanings change.
If you don’t think that meanings change, then may I ask you to go persuade your friends that the 2nd amendment is about the right to bear 18th century muskets.
Lizzie:
Erik:
Erik,
Could you flesh out your rather confused analogy for us?
It appears that
a) car = heterosexual person,
b) driving on the highway = marrying a person of the opposite sex,
c) pedestrian = gay person,
d) walking in the middle of a lane = marrying a person of the same sex.
Pedestrians walking in the middle of the lanes would cause traffic congestion, accidents, and injuries or deaths. So to complete the analogy, please tell us:
e) traffic congestion = ?
f) accidents = ?
g) injuries or deaths = ?
Also, a better (though still imperfect) analogy would be something like this:
There is a highway system in the state of West Dakota. All the cars are two-seaters that won’t operate without both a driver and a passenger. For as long as anyone can remember, the West Dakotans have insisted that every car carry a man and a woman, with the man typically in the driver’s seat.
One day someone suggests that it’s silly to restrict driving to man/woman pairs. They note that transportation is just as valuable to a pair of women or to a pair of men as it is to a mixed-gender pair.
A mean-spirited and rather dim-witted fellow named Derek splutters that this is a blatant attempt to redefine driving, and that all sorts of unspecified horrors will follow, such as cars with three people in them!
The more level-headed citizens of West Dakota tell Derek to stop worrying about who’s in the other cars and to keep his eyes on the frikkin’ road. He ignores their advice and continues spluttering.
He is eventually stuffed and displayed in the West Dakota Museum of Natural History.
File under “we told you so”:
Now that the christian dominionists have lost, guess what the worst of the spitwads are doing to strike back? Now they’re denying all heterosexual couples the right to marry in order to continue to deny the gays equal marriage rights.
County Clerks under the supervision of local judges in (some parts of) Kentucky and Alabama have decided to stop issuing any marriage licenses. That’ll show those dirty gays! Oops, it’ll hurt a lot more heterosexual couples total, but what’s a lot of sacrifices in the name of a righteous temper tantrum!
A Utah state legislator has drafted legislation to stop the entire state from issuing any marriage licenses. Mississippi State Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson (two guesses which party he belongs to) hasn’t drafted any legislation yet, but he’s proposed the same idea as Utah. No legal marriages in the entire state.
Ooh, doesn’t that just make the christian rightwing look like welcoming examples of their supposedly-loving god’s care for all his children. Err, no, the other thing: it makes them look like spoiled children who would throw all the food off their plates rather than share with a hungry child.
See, we told you it wasn’t going to be the gays who ruined marriage by working for equality. It’s the bigoted non-gays.
Then there is the answer. Simply edit Wikipedia to change the definition and there is no longer any problem.
So you don’t refer to the bible or anything similar to define it?
Excellent!
Tee hee.
Yep, Erik is all about “rationally-established concepts”. And “tradition”. And “original meaning”.
Should be an easy task for him to undertake. But I’m not holding my breathe awaiting the results.
By one specific definition.
There are many. For instance, by some definitions of marriage, the second wife of a polygamist can’t be married.
By other definitions of marriage, a widow cannot be married to her husband’s brother.
By your “procurement of children” definition, two sixty-year-old’s can’t marry.
Definitions change with use, Erik, all the time. A library used to be a collection fof books. Now it can be a collection of electronic files.
Often, as you say, there is a “core” to these overlapping concepts; sometimes not. In this case, core to most (but not all) of the definitions, is: “a lifelong contract between two consenting adults”. Doesn’t cover polygamy; doesn’t cover forced marriage; doesn’t cover child brides. But why should it?
Obviously, but I’d rather inhabit mine, than one in which concepts were defined permanently in wikipedia and used to inform the law. Or one in which gay married couples were denied equal right to exist along with their heterosexual peers.
Your entire objection (at least the overt one) seems to be that you think that the word “marriage” should not be used to cover gay partnerships.
But apparently do not object to its coverage of child brides and forced marriages.
If you have been reading my posts, then you know that the way I give content to the concept of marriage is to look at its connections with family, children, parents, and the like. Marriage is inseparable from the concepts of husband, wife, and family. Family irreducibly consists of mother, father and children. Marriage, being a social institution rather than a matter of personal preference, entails spousal and parental commitment, so words like fidelity and adultery also have concrete meaning. Etc. To me the maxim “The family is the nucleus of civilization” has solid meaning.
So, I simply put one and one together. Since marriage is a multifaceted concept, I have to put one and one together several times over to get all the nuances. But it’s worth it. In the end there’s conceptual clarity. Nothing remains vague and I don’t have to give as my best argument something like “things change” or “you are a bigot” or “the supreme court voted in my favour, neener neener”.
I’m not going to get into yet another hand-wringing, long-winded debate about why anyone’s “tradition” has priority over revising secular law to expand a pluralism about conceptions of the good — not even if one insists that one’s tradition is “rational”, or more precisely “RBISS” (Rational Because I Said So).
Instead, here’s a nice article that I commend to your attention: The Real Reason Why Conservatives Like Ross Douthat Oppose The Gay Marriage Ruling. One interesting point that Marcotte makes here is that what is at stake here is not a “re-definition of marriage” per se, but rather a codification of a long-coming revision in our implicit norms and practices concerning marriage:
Along related but more philosophical lines, check out Suzanne Pharr’s “Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism”.
That said, I will also happily note that criticisms of the SCOTUS ruling coming from liberals and leftists. Kennedy’s opinion extolled the virtues and goods of marriage by way of some not-very-subtle single-shaming, as pointed out in SCOTUS Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage: Wiser Views Than Those of the Justices, Eric Schliesser raises some philosophical concerns about Kennedy’s praise for the institution of marriage at On Marriage…some second thoughts, and finally, a perspective which I consider too extreme but still worth of consideration, a radical Marxist/feminist criticism of the SCOTUS decision at My Sad Trombone Blows For The SCOTUS Decision (Which Also Blows).
“Only that which has no history can be defined” ~ Nietzsche.
Mic drop.
Dare I ask whether this has a snowball’s chance?
To complete the analogy, you would have to think like a moral realist. Moral realism has been out of fashion for over half a century, so I don’t expect you to be able to pull off the thought exercise.
The way I see it, the decline of the prestige of marriage started long before the LGBT community entered the stage. The decline was foreshadowed by the wildly popular decadent bohemian subculture of the 20’s. Then came the prostitution, rape culture and war romance of WWII. Then came the “sexual revolution” of beatniks and hippies and “liberation of women” by feminists. Each of these phases has successively contributed to the decline of the prestige of the institution of marriage, and the LGBT movement is effectively finishing it off by redefining it.
I would prefer the concept removed from laws, just like slavery and nobility have been removed earlier. From the point of view of moral realism, people are dangerously debasing themselves when they ridicule marriage. The trend is at its pinnacle right now. So, traffic congestion, accidents and injuries in the analogy would be conceptual confusion related to marriage, inability to comprehend family values and be committed to them.
Erik,
Your last sentence is not logically defensible.
I mentioned earlier the son of some friends of mine who is raising two children with his husband. Each of the children is genetically related to one of the fathers. Both sets of in-laws are delighted with the man their son married.
How dare you say they are not a family?
Erik:
But of course gays and lesbians, like straights, do understand and commit themselves to family values — loyalty to one’s spouse, love for one’s children, and so on.
You”re left with the “conceptual confusion” complaint, which boils down to “you guys don’t agree with me about what a proper marriage is.”
Uh-oh. Someone disagrees with Erik. Make it stop! Harm is being done!
If J. Edgar Hoover were alive today, he could marry.
I’m from the moderately deep south. We’ve had gay men and women living together since forever. Just don’t ask, don’t tell. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil has a moderately accurate depiction of how that worked.
I find it amusing that people on every side of the political spectrum are always eager to tell other people what to do. Just different stuff.
“How dare you” is pretty much the opposite of “logically defensible”. Effectively, you are saying, “don’t put up any defence, or else…”
I don’t have to teach basic words to you as if you were a kid. Besides, kids usually know what mother and father is. It takes some special education to cease to attribute any value to mother and father. Kind of sad.
My mother told me what some basic words meant when I was a kid. Some of them mean something different now. Words like “black” and “gay” and “adult” and “liberal” and “disinterested” and “mall” and “highway” and “partner” And when I moved to Canada, some of them meant something different there, too: words like “nappy” and “sidewalk” and “pavement”. And as I’ve got older I’ve discovered lots of new ways in which people use words: words like “bootstrap” and “bond” and “other”.
I don’t find it the least bit sad. I find it quite sad that you do. Words change their meanings over time with use – it’s the mark of a living language.
This seems important to you.
First of all, why do you think that anyone is “ridiculing” marriage here? Far from it – gay people are regarding it as something they want to do. Do you think that gay people who get married are doing so to “ridicule” it?
But more importantly: what is the danger that you see here? Several people (myself included) have asked you about this, in one way or another. So can you explain? What risk, to anyone, is posed by gay marriage? In your view?
ETA: you say:
Leaving aside the “conceptual confusion” (I see no “conceptual confusion” about marriage being defined as lifelong commitment between two people who love each other), what “family values” are not being “comprehended” here? Can you be specific?
@Elizabeth,
Yes, I have completely understood your argument – “things change”. I will consider it relevant to marriage as soon as homosexuals begin breeding.
Meanwhile, a question to you too. Should transgender/transsexual people have (A) their own restrooms (separate transgender restrooms in addition to male and female ones) or (B) should they pick the restrooms of the gender they most lately/most closely identify with or (C) do they have the right to enter restrooms of both genders? Or (D) let’s have unisex restrooms all over the world (and those who want to keep traditional separate gender-based restrooms are bigots).
Hotshoe. Want me quote him?
Again, want me quote hotshoe?
You think “same-sex marriage” is conceptually possible. To me it’s like saying square circles are conceivable and they have the same rights as circular circles. Sorry, but square circles are a contradiction in terms and circular circles are a tautology. There are two distinct incompatible things – squares and circles. Similarly, there is no “heterosexual marriage”. There’s just marriage, and “same-sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms.
You still don’t see it? Then there’s nothing further to explain.
Stemming from your conceptual confusion, you have already denounced the concepts of husband and wife. The next logical step is to denounce mother and father. ‘Nuff said.
I think this is an important subtext. The abolition of couverture was a far bigger change to the traditional definition of marriage than gay marriage is. But gay marriage makes explicit that change.
I suspect that one reason some feel uncomfortable, perhaps below explicit conscious awareness, with gay marriage is that they already feel uncomfortable with the idea of marriage as a contract between equal partners.
They breed already, Erik. While many straight couples don’t.
B.
Next?
You actually wouldn’t, you know. If gay couples could take a pill that would allow them to procreate, you’d just say that was not what you meant by “procreate,” and make the same silly arguments to defend your obviously religious position.
Anyhow, I’m bored now. Not sure why your silly remarks are getting as much play here as they have already. You’ve been really lucky. A couple word response (once) and a chortle is about all they’ve deserved.
ETA: BTW, I don’t think your answers to the transgender bathroom question were exhaustive. There’s another quite popular proposal about this. I’m guessing it’s your own, in fact.
Well, I don’t know enough about Utah state politics to guess. I’ll guess anyways that it has a chance to get through the lege as political grandstanding aimed at ginning up campaign donations from the OMG-Judicial-Activism crowd.
But of course it will be ruled unconstitutional if it passes, because, duh, Equal Protection clause. It would mean that only those who are temple members and can have a “religious” marriage would be able to call themselves married after that. And that will absolutely never fly with the Federal courts.
It’s fine for the religious nuts to want a special ceremony that means they’re really married in the ey
I’ve met a number of gay people who have been married to people of the opposite sex and have had children. Quite a few, actually. Some were divorced and some not.
The restroom quandary is mostly a problem because women don’t feel safe going into a men’s room or having men in the women’s room.
As I’m guessing both you and Elizabeth know, that’s not what Erik meant by “gay couple” above.
Well, I don’t really know enough about Utah state politics to guess. I’ll guess anyways 🙂 It bet it has a chance to get through the lege as political grandstanding aimed at ginning up campaign donations from the OMG-Judicial-Activism crowd.
But of course it will be ruled unconstitutional if it passes, because, duh, Equal Protection clause. It would mean that only those who are temple members and can have a “religious” marriage would be able to call themselves married after that. And that will absolutely never fly with the Federal courts.
It’s fine for the religious nuts to want a special ceremony that means they’re really married in the eyes of the Lord. Not at all fine if they act like Aesop’s dog in the manger and deny everyone’s rights out of pure spite.
No it doesn’t.
What you assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Family has never been irreducibly “mother father and children”in any period of human history.
Yes, please do quote me, you poor little sap. Please do demonstrate that you can’t read for comrehension.
Oh, yes, I didn’t think of that.
I’m now revising my hypothesis the Erik is inherently homophobic and replacing it with the hypothesis that he’s either inherently homophobic or sexist.
Sorry, Lizzie, I know that’s not why you made your point and I don’t mean to step on it. But it suddenly sheds so much light on other people’s bizarre behavior!
I’m definitely against D. Otherwise men would have long waits standing in line to urinate. Selfish of me, I’ll admit.
I don’t see a problem with B.
I think I have been around enough to know what’s implied and what’s intended by various words.
My point — the only one I’ve tried to present on this thread — is that sexual mores are based on power. Originally, marriage and procreation was encouraged by those in power in order to maintain succession of power and to maintain the size and strength of the tribe. The religious definition of marriage descends from this tribal “need.”
Open homosexuality has variously been outlawed or discouraged. Still is, for most of the world. In my youth, gays of both sexes lived together openly, but dared not talk about their sexuality.
Also, gays of both sexes often married in order to cover up their preferred sexuality. Women married for financial reasons, and men married to preserve their social status. I seriously doubt that the coming out of gay people has changed anyone’s preference or resulted in any drastic increase in gay sexual behavior. (Maybe for women, but I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on that.)
There are lots of biological variations. Chromosome variations, developmental variations. Denial of this is akin to flat-earthism. There was a time (very recently) when anyone born with ambiguous genitalia was assigned a sex and surgically “corrected” at a very early age. Sometimes the child did not accept the assignment. I personally suspect we have not yet arrived at any best solution for in-betweeners.
I think Utah should be allowed to do this. They can have their Holy Matrimony in their temples.
And then, when they file their tax returns, if they check the “Married” box they should be charged with tax fraud.
Did they think this idea through?
Any state or municipality that stops issuing marriage licences will simply have its citizens travelling to marry.
I’ve lived through a number of Supreme Court crises. Brown v Board of Education, Roe v Wade. It takes a few generations for dinosaurs to realize they are dead.
Do you mean heterosexual mores? Are homosexual mores not sexual mores and therefore not based on power? Or, if homosexual mores are also sexual mores and therefore based on power, what then?
Doesn’t bother me. The main reason for separate bathrooms is that it saves space because urinals are more space efficient than cubicles, and women don’t really want to see a lot of stranger’s dicks.
Although in some French bathrooms you have to go through the men’s to get to the women’s .
Also it’s nice to be able to have a gossip and put on make-up in women-only company, but I have no problem sharing that with a trans woman.
Ah, but words mean things, and according to Erik, not necessarily what the speaker thinks they mean.
Point me to a country where homosexuals outlawed heterosexuality, imprisoned or killed people for the crime of having sex.