California Proposition 8

[Pookster]

OK. Just wanted to make sure.

An increasing number of people agree, but gay marriage laws become a tough sell. You are basically saying that there is a fundamental right to something that shouldn't exist.

What I see occurring is the Government allowing certain privileges by recognizing what it defines as marriage. I believe marriage exists with or without Government. But the way things are setup, the Government denies some pretty significant privileges that civil unions don't provide. While same-sex marriage was "legal" for a time in California, the Federal Government still didn't recognize it as being within their definition.

Of course, I am referring to the state-defined institution of marriage, as opposed to whatever personal relevance people place on it. At the one gay marriage ceremony I attended, the officiant acknowledged that this wedding wasn't recognized by the state, but expressed the opinion, shared by the happy couple and most in attendance, that this made it no less "real" than any other wedding.

Epilogue: Sadly, four years later, they are now divorced, but they saved some money and time on paperwork, since the state didn't recognize the existence of the marriage in the first place.

This caused me to remember a joke I've read a few times -- why should homosexuals get favorable treatment by being excluded from the hell that comes with marriage.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. But the horse has long been out of the barn on that one.

Damn You, Hammurabi!

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not being obtuse or splitting hairs, the case you mentioned said that the civil right was procreation.

Regardless, the UN Article which covers far more of the planet than just the US is the better one to use, firstly because it's international and secondly isn't talking about procreation with marriage sort of thrown in as a secondary thought. Strange thing, the rest of the world doesn't use US law of their constitution for figuring what are civil rights, thus the UN Article is the better reference.

And it also has little legal force anywhere. In the US the precidents matter, they do not matter for anywhere else sure, but does the UN Article matter anywhere? Where have people used it to support the rights of homosexuals?

 

[chipmunk stew]

So...it has an interest in defining marriage because it defines marriage?

This is in danger of getting into a semantic meta argument. Define "define" etc.

What you really mean to ask is, does the state have an interest in discriminatory legislation based on marriage status. My answer to that is yes.

We know it does all those things, but should it? If so, why? See my reply to Pookster.

Yes. A strong case can be made that marriage contributes to stable communities and an environment for upcoming generations to thrive. On that basis, the state has an interest in incentivizing marriage.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

OK. Just wanted to make sure.

An increasing number of people agree, but gay marriage laws become a tough sell. You are basically saying that there is a fundamental right to something that shouldn't exist.

Of course, I am referring to the state-defined institution of marriage, as opposed to whatever personal relevance people place on it. At the one gay marriage ceremony I attended, the officiant acknowledged that this wedding wasn't recognized by the state, but expressed the opinion, shared by the happy couple and most in attendance, that this made it no less "real" than any other wedding.

Epilogue: Sadly, four years later, they are now divorced, but they saved some money and time on paperwork, since the state didn't recognize the existence of the marriage in the first place.

But in some areas (like CA) it DID exist and was state defined. And I have been to Gay weddings that are legal and recognized by the state. However now that the religious fanatics are getting their way, there's a chance those marriages may no long hold. I guess somehow ending their marriages benefits some heterosexuals somehow.

PS - I can say I got to attend the first legal Jewish Lesbian wedding. I wasn't really sure which side of the temple to sit.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think it's somewhat silly to argue whether the state has any business defining or legislating marriage.

They have, for as long as this country has existed and millions of citizens depend on the systems set in place around state sanctioned marriage. There is absolutely zero chance of hetero couples rising up to dissolve those laws and benefits that address marriage.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And it also has little legal force anywhere. In the US the precidents matter, they do not matter for anywhere else sure, but does the UN Article matter anywhere? Where have people used it to support the rights of homosexuals?

As I have pointed out elsewhere what the US courts decide is a right in the US is irrellevant to what is a Basic Human Right. c.f. the Right to Bear arms. This is considered a right in the US, but is not considered so by much of the rest of the western world. Whether the UN Article has much legal force or not, it is a better indicator of what is a Human Right that the US Courts because the US Courts system means nothing outside the US, the UN Articles are at least in theory supposed to be subscribed to by all members of the UN.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes. A strong case can be made that marriage contributes to stable communities and an environment for upcoming generations to thrive. On that basis, the state has an interest in incentivizing marriage.

I happen to agree that these are two reasons why the state ought to incentivize marriage.

Therefore, any proposed modifications to marriage laws (for example, allowing same sex marriages) should be able to be justified by noting how those changes further these legitimate state interests.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes. A strong case can be made that marriage contributes to stable communities and an environment for upcoming generations to thrive. On that basis, the state has an interest in incentivizing marriage.

Are you saying that couples who are unmarried, but in commited long term relationships, are unable to contribute to a stable community or provide an environment for upcoming generations to thrive?

 

[chipmunk stew]

I happen to agree that these are two reasons why the state ought to incentivize marriage.

Therefore, any proposed modifications to marriage laws (for example, allowing same sex marriages) should be able to be justified by noting how those changes further these legitimate state interests.

I don't think the state should be limited by its original and main reason for incentivizing marriage, though. Often, the state's actions have unforeseen effects that should be considered as a community changes. One of these is that by incentivizing marriage, the state has given special status to married people, and by leaving out gay and lesbian members of the community, they have denied them that special status. This, IMHO, is non-trivial and should be included in the calculus, even if broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples does not clearly further the original purpose. (I believe it does, BTW, but I don't believe that it's essential to the argument.)

 

[chipmunk stew]

Are you saying that couples who are unmarried, but in commited long term relationships, are unable to contribute to a stable community or provide an environment for upcoming generations to thrive?

No. The idea of incentivizing marriage is to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship. It's by no means the only reason people do so, and it's obviously not perfect. But it is one effective means to increase the rate of committed long-term relationships.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No. The idea of incentivizing marriage is to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship. It's by no means the only reason people do so, and it's obviously not perfect. But it is one effective means to increase the rate of committed long-term relationships.

But it clearly isn't working since nearly half of all marriages ends in divorce. In fact the number of Americans "living in sin" i.e. in a de facto relationship has increased tenfold since the 1970's while the number of marriages has been decreasing. If these incentives are supposed to help encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, they obviously don't work. Could it be that many people are actually getting married simply for the incentives and then when the relationship fails they divorce? Isn't that something that is also being encouraged?

Besides, if the idea was purely to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, why not consider ALL commited long term relationships, rather than just those that sign a marriage licence. How is a 15 year long de facto relationship any less commited than a 2 year long marriage?

 

[chipmunk stew]

But it clearly isn't working since nearly half of all marriages ends in divorce. In fact the number of Americans "living in sin" i.e. in a de facto relationship has increased tenfold since the 1970's while the number of marriages has been decreasing. If these incentives are supposed to help encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, they obviously don't work.

On average, people who are married stay in committed relationships longer than people who are not. There is a lot of data that supports the idea that marriage encourages stability. Note: This does NOT imply that NOT being married DIScourages stability.

Could it be that many people are actually getting married simply for the incentives and then when the relationship fails they divorce?

Some, perhaps, but I can't imagine the number is very high because holding a marriage license represents responsibilities as well as incentives, and divorce isn't as easy as you make it sound.

Isn't that something that is also being encouraged?

Besides, if the idea was purely to encourage people to stay in a committed long-term relationship, why not consider ALL commited long term relationships, rather than just those that sign a marriage licence. How is a 15 year long de facto relationship any less commited than a 2 year long marriage?

It's not. If the people in that 15-year-long de facto relationship wants to take on the privileges and responsibilities that come with a marriage license, there is nothing stopping them, so what's the problem?

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think the state should be limited by its original and main reason for incentivizing marriage, though.

Neither do I, but I think that any change ought to be for some sort of legitimate state purpose, even if it that purpose was not one of the original purposes.

One of these is that by incentivizing marriage, the state has given special status to married people, and by leaving out gay and lesbian members of the community, they have denied them that special status.

They have also denied single people that special status. That's kind of the point of an incentive. It creates a special status, or provides a gain, or does something that people want. The state has decided to encourage people to get married. (Or have they? See next post.) If they gave it to other people, there wouldn't be an incentive.

So, the question is what purpose is served by granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Making them feel special? Personally, I don't think that's enough.

(I believe it does, BTW, but I don't believe that it's essential to the argument.)

Well, in my opinion, some furtherance of state interests is necessary in order to justify a change in law. You noted, and I agree, that marriage promotes a stable society and an environment for the next generation to thrive. That's a pretty powerful interest. Any adjustment to something so significant ought to be justified.

 

[PhantomWolf]

On average, people who are married stay in committed relationships longer than people who are not.

I accept that this is true, however the reason is not clear to why. A Canadian study by Anne-Marie Ambert notes that those that choose not to marry tend to have less issues with having affairs and also that religon is a stablising factor in a marriage and that most rreligious people get married rather then cohabitat. Socially people who plan to be commited for a long time are "expected" to get married as well, so this is also a factor, that people who would otherwise not have been married, do for social or benefit reasons rather then stay in a de facto relationship. Of course this is the reason for having a time requirement on an RDP.

There is a lot of data that supports the idea that marriage encourages stability.

Is it that marriage encourages stability, or that people in stable relationships tend to move towards marriage because society expects them too?

Some, perhaps, but I can't imagine the number is very high because holding a marriage license represents responsibilities as well as incentives, and divorce isn't as easy as you make it sound.

Have you ever experienced one (parents/self?)

It's not. If the people in that 15-year-long de facto relationship wants to take on the privileges and responsibilities that come with a marriage license, there is nothing stopping them, so what's the problem?

Why should they have to though? Why should they be discriminated against because they don't want to be married?

 

[Meadmaker]

Some, perhaps, but I can't imagine the number is very high because holding a marriage license represents responsibilities as well as incentives, and divorce isn't as easy as you make it sound.

Exactly. The "incentives" to marriage are, in my humble opinion, highly overrated. At least, the state provided incentives are. Meanwhile, the responsibilities are, in fact, fairly extreme. The state has to make divorce at least moderately difficult in order to get people to remain in the marriage.

Thought for the day: The state prohibits people other than gays and lesbians from getting married. There is a class of people who are in love, and would very much like to spend their lives with a partner of their choice, but the state prohibits them. I believe their number is far greater than the number of gays and lesbians who would prefer marriage. It's a bit of a trick question, but a little thought will allow most people to get it. Still, I'll put the answer in a spoiler, so as not to reveal it too quickly. Why does the state prohibit these would be lovers from marrying?

They are already married to someone else.

Marriage restricts peoples behavior in the most personal ways.

Given the opportunity, many people have opted out of it altogether. Given the opportunity to leave it once they are in it, with little or no penalty, many, many people get out of it, despite the "incentives".

 

[chipmunk stew]

Neither do I, but I think that any change ought to be for some sort of legitimate state purpose, even if it that purpose was not one of the original purposes.

As I said above, I believe that expanding marriage to include same-sex couples does further the original state interest of promoting a stable community for the next generation to thrive. But I also believe that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting equality, and discrimination from a state-sanctioned incentive program based on sexual orientation runs counter to that, and I believe that that is reason enough on its own to expand to definition.

They have also denied single people that special status.

What I meant is a class of people. People who are denied entry into such an arrangement because of something inborn.

That's kind of the point of an incentive. It creates a special status, or provides a gain, or does something that people want. The state has decided to encourage people to get married. (Or have they? See next post.) If they gave it to other people, there wouldn't be an incentive.

So, the question is what purpose is served by granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians? Making them feel special? Personally, I don't think that's enough.

You don't believe that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage undermines the goal of stability in the community? I do. I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.

Well, in my opinion, some furtherance of state interests is necessary in order to justify a change in law. You noted, and I agree, that marriage promotes a stable society and an environment for the next generation to thrive. That's a pretty powerful interest. Any adjustment to something so significant ought to be justified.

I agree. And I think in this case, it is.

 

[Meadmaker]

I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.

Hmmm.....must ponder.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I believe that encouraging any class of people to separate from the larger community undermines that goal.

And yet you support the discrimination against unwed couples unless they conform to what everyone thinks is normal to show they have a commited and stable relationship.

 

[Bob Magness]

I wasn't surprised, just look at the demographics. Barrack Obama being on the ticket was likely the impetus for the black community showing up to the polls in record numbers. Now, there is a group of Democrats that would be expected to have voted for Prop 8: religious Democrats. I would venture to say that the majority of the black community falls into this group.

So while I think most of us can agree that a President Obama will be a much better friend to the gay community than a President McCain, the fact that Obama was on the ticket probably lead to Prop 8 being passed.

I would like to go on the record as saying I was wrong in my above analysis after reading this break down from Daily Kos. It is pretty lengthy, with rhetoric of its own, bu the analysis seems solid.