Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Spineless Judges Uphold Same-Sex Marriage Ban

... and the ruling is as confused as Ricky Martin's girlfriend.
Posted by at

19 comments:

Malnurtured Snay said...

If Ricky Martin has a girlfriend, isn't he the confused one?

Tue Sep 18, 11:01:00 PM EDT
Maurice Bradbury said...

maybe he needs a 'beard' so he won't get bashed by the "machos"!
Marriage is for procreation, there's some news, does that mean impotent heteros can't get married now?
The state needs to just get out of the marriage business entirely.

I wonder, if you get married at the courthouse, what vows do you say?

Tue Sep 18, 11:22:00 PM EDT
ppatin said...

Or what about heteros who wish to remain childfree?

On the positive side of the gay marriage thing, Maryland is a very liberal state. I don't think it'll be all that hard to get some sort of civil union/domestic partnership/whatever you want to call it bill through the legislature in the next few years.

Tue Sep 18, 11:39:00 PM EDT
Gor said...

I agree that the state needs to get out of the marriage business, but I have a question about the agrument that marriage is only about "love", not procreation. If we legalize same sex mariage, could two brothers marry each other?

Wed Sep 19, 12:52:00 AM EDT
ppatin said...

There are all sorts of other reasons to keep incest illegal. Check out what Dan Savage has to say about it, he can make the argument far better than I can.

Wed Sep 19, 12:57:00 AM EDT
Gor said...

Two related males "doing the nasty" isn't going to result in some six-toed, 30 IQ, glassy-eyed off-spring. So why shouldn't they be allowed to marry if "they love each other"?

Wed Sep 19, 01:31:00 AM EDT
Malnurtured Snay said...

Gor, why haven't you been asking why a brother and sister can't get married? Y'know, since they're opposite genders and all. I don't see how making same-sex marriage legal would alter any of this.

Wed Sep 19, 06:03:00 AM EDT
Caederus said...

The state should stay in the marriage thing for one reason. Marriage involves common property, and other rights (health care decisions, inheritance...) in exchange for a promise to help support the other person. It's just like any other contract. The state has rules to identify those who are officially married, and those who are not officially married, just like they have rules to identify partnerships, and companies that have been formed in the state through a legal contract. This aids in a clearer and quicker decision making process when things go wrong in the agreement. Just imagine a contested divorce where there is no court oversite. For example the number of parents who just leave with the kids would skyrocket.

Having said that I personally don't see what sexual orientation has to do with the whole thing. 2 lesbians getting married will in no way diminish the rights my wife and I share. So why not let them have marriage.

Wed Sep 19, 07:32:00 AM EDT
Marc said...

cy, I agree with you that the state should get out of the marriage business. A guy wants to marry another guy, two other guys - I don't care. As long as it was witnessed and notarized, the state should recognize it.

But it was the spinelessness of the General Assembly, not the courts, that led to this. The left-leaning Democratic leadership wants gay marriage to happen, but they don't want to pay the political price of actually passing a bill.

So they decided to sit back and let the courts do their job for them. Well, it looks like the courts just said, "Do you own dirty work."

Wed Sep 19, 12:57:00 PM EDT
ppatin said...

Maybe they should just eliminate marriage entirely, then Smyth Jewellers will get rid of those horrible "Your Girlfriend Wants Me" billboards. Hey, if Republicans are anti-gay marriage why can't I be anti-all marriage?

Wed Sep 19, 01:13:00 PM EDT
Maurice Bradbury said...

Marriage being about love is a pretty recent and historically unprecedented development (so I read in Stephanie Coontz's excellent book on the subject) but it is and has always been about legal property rights. So you get married by Elvis or whatever, then you register your contract with the state, like a car title or LLP or what-have-you. The only reason it isn't this way is because of the religious fanatics who are seemingly unable to believe what they believe without passing judgement on everyone else.

The Don Dwyers of the world apparently believe is that we'd all be better off if gay people stayed in the closet and married and procreated with unsuspecting spouses. Or lived hermetic guilt-filled lives flagellating themselves just for existing. Now that is fucktified.

Wed Sep 19, 08:19:00 PM EDT
Maurice Bradbury said...

... and leads to airport men's room glory holes, apparently

Wed Sep 19, 08:20:00 PM EDT
Bruce Garrett said...

If we legalize same sex mariage, could two brothers marry each other?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry whenever this argument comes up. Two brothers are already recognized by the state as family in a way a same sex couple can only dream about in most states.

I'm gay, single, no kids, both parents are passed away. My closest still living relative as a matter of fact, Is my brother. Which makes him my legal next of kin. I could not bestow that status on a same sex spouse in Maryland at the moment, or in most other states.

I still have a will that mentions him of course. And a medical directives document that specifies that he can make decisions...just in case. But still... He is, as far as the law is concerned, family to me: a status I cannot at the moment, bestow on a same sex spouse.

Wed Sep 19, 10:59:00 PM EDT
Gor said...

"Two brothers are already recognized by the state as family in a way a same sex couple can only dream about in most states."

That's only true if a man has only one family member. If there are other family members, like parents, than the wishes of the brother is not taken into account, even if the man has an esranged relationship with them.

The reason I did not ask about brother and sister is the agrument of incestral inbreeding would cloud the subject.

I believe my question is very uncomfortable to those that support same sex marriage (which I do not oppose), but people need to know of what kind of slippery slope we can get into when we change laws and attitudes without thinking the consequences though.

If being in love is the only criteria for marriage, who are we to tell related family members that they can not marry or that anyone can not have more then one spouse.

To the people who want to change our laws to allow same-sex marriage must be aware it won't stop there. So cry if you must bruce, but when same sex marriage becomes legal my question won't be so far-fatched.

Thu Sep 20, 01:33:00 AM EDT
Maurice Bradbury said...

for heterosexuals, there's no criteria for marriage! you could marry someone for any reason at all, as long as they're not your same gender, a relative or already married!

As for the incest thing, I don't get your argument. Sisters and brothers can't marry now, why would same-sex marriage change that? or have anything to do with polygamy? I don't get the connection.

Thu Sep 20, 10:02:00 AM EDT
Bruce Garrett said...

That's only true if a man has only one family member.

No...the brother would still be family, regardless, and entitled to some legal recognition, though I'll allow that the degree of it probably depends on the state you're in. In some cases, depending on what other members of my family may still be alive, he might not be my legal next of kin, but he would still be legally part of my family. So my point stands: brothers are already recognized
by the state as being family, in a way same sex couples can only dream about.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they're...slippery. It's a cheap way of ducking an issue. Instead of arguing about what X is, say, why not start an argument about what X is not? Same sex marriage? Well what about incest then? The possibilities for begging the question are endless, limited only by the paranoia of the begger. Back in the day, some wondered if allowing mixed race marriages would lead to (insert your favorite boogyman here). Well here we are, and if we're on a slippery slope I'd have to say we started down it a long, long time ago, when as Stephanie Coontz points out, love started entering into it. If you want to argue that love has no place in marriage, because that could lead to incest, be my guest.

I'm not crying, because I am single and all this is still a tad theoretical for me. Mostly, I'm just angry. But the last time I was dating, and madly in love, I worried about asking someone to be mine, really be mine, and I his, in a climate where everything we might ever work for, every little hope and dream, could be ripped to little bloody bits in a legal system that insists no matter what, that we must be strangers to one another. How do you ask someone you love, to step with you into that minefield? I've seen what it's done to other couples.

Thu Sep 20, 10:26:00 AM EDT
Maurice Bradbury said...

Well, the good news is, if you get married in Massachusetts, or Canada, Belgium, Spain, etc., that contract will be recognized here, right?

hey what happens if two opposite-sex people get married and then one of them has a sex change? Are they still considered married by law?

Thu Sep 20, 01:05:00 PM EDT
Gor said...

My point, like I said at the beginning, was the argument by the supporters of same sex marriage is that "love" should be only factor in getting married. If that is true, then any two or more people who "love" each other should be able to marry using the same reasoning, right?

What is so hard about that?

Thu Sep 20, 07:05:00 PM EDT
Maurice Bradbury said...

Oh, I've never heard anyone argue that "love" should be the only factor, that's why. If someone's using that argument they're misguided, marraige is, and has always been, a contract about property and child custody. In a lot of cultures love has zero to do with it.

Marrying just because you feel romantic love for someone is a pretty stupid, no matter what your orientation is. Just because you feel la-la about someone does not mean you should immediately give them access to your bank account.

Thu Sep 20, 11:07:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)