Posted on Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:59 a.m.
14th Amendment wrong way to go when arguing the case for same-sex marriage
By Guest Column
Amy Walters | Dreamstime.com
Will Warner is a Lodi Township resident.
Of course, some beliefs do make one a bigot. But I’m going to argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is not necessarily bigotry. It is perhaps more concerned with a universal phenomenon of human societies: sexual taboo.
First, consider the legal strategy of same-sex marriage supporters. For them it is a civil rights issue, a question of equal protection. The 14th Amendment famously guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens. Denying a marriage license to two men, the argument goes, denies them equal protection.
More broadly, the equal-protection argument implies that any two, single, adults must be permitted to marry, because any two, single, adults can make the same appeal for equal protection. Yet, in no place is this the case. Even in the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, two men will be denied a marriage license if they are first cousins or brothers, even though no state interest is served by the denial. There is no coherent way to employ the principle of equal-protection to justify this state affairs for the simple reason that equal-protection is not achieved by this state of affairs.
I’m pretty sure that most proponents of same-sex marriage don’t realize that their principal argument is really a call for ending the enshrinement in law of sexual taboo altogether. My guess is that they think we have outgrown the homosexuality taboo, but not necessarily the others. If I am correct, they should advance a different argument — one that is coherent and intellectually honest.
Instead of demanding that we "lose-the-line," they could make the case simply to "move the line”: acknowledge that for whatever reason societies maintain sexual taboos, and merely ask that the current demarcation be moved so that unrelated same-sex couples and unrelated heterosexual couples are on the same side of it. I know many think this is the argument they are making, but it isn’t. Once it is established that equal-protection trumps taboo, it trumps all taboos.
People use the civil-rights-discrimination-equal-protection narrative when they want to imply that there is no other way to view the issue and to think otherwise is ignorance.
People use the civil-rights-discrimination-equal-protection narrative when they want to imply that there is no other way to view the issue and to think otherwise is ignorance.
I’m not implying that homosexuality is equivalent to incest, for example. I’m saying that until very recently both have been taboo, and, consequently, stigmatized and even criminalized. We can choose now to de-stigmatize one and not the other, but not through application of the equal-protection principle.
In a world of perfectly equal protection, what would be the grounds for preventing the marriage a brother and a sister, say, if both are adults and one or the other is infertile? What compelling interest of the state would it serve? None, really, but contemplation of the relationship repels us so it is outlawed. Well, if the thought of such a union makes you uncomfortable, I could accuse you of bigotry, but I recognize that people internalize the taboos of their society, and outgrow them at different rates.
Will Warner lives in Lodi Township. He can be reached at warnerwm@aol.com.
Comments
Middle America
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 10:28 a.m.
The author's views are as outdated as his aol.com email account.
pseudo
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 11:37 p.m.
clearly Will - you aren't an attorney and using engineering-style logic leaps to make either a legal of philosophical statement like this missive...its a non-sequitur. Clearly you are hearing just the flutes in a complete orchestra and while some of the previous comments are rash - many of them give you a historical context of both marriage and taboo so maybe you can understand how this makes you look to be more bigot than legal scholar.
Will Warner
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.
Lori, in support of your charge of bigotry, could you cite in my column where I register opposition to same-sex marriage or support the continuation of the homosexuality taboo? If you choose to reply, please also cite the "leaps" you reference. The line "hearing just the flutes" is good.
bedrog
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 6:54 p.m.
Even though most have stopped reading this thread here's one more irrefutable factual and logical point that renders the op ed rather trivial: 'Taboos' only exist in cases where without them people would be inclined to practice what the taboo forbids...otherwise there'd be no need for them ( e.g. no society says " you must not hold your breath until you pass out" since noone does that! Taboos do exist where 'tabooed ' behaviors are implicitly deemed fun, albeit socially destructive .....the latter being a not always objective assessment, as in the case of gay marriage ). and accordingly "taboos' change and are eradicated when enough people start to question their wisdom...as is happening on the gay marriage issue.
bedrog
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
My point differs substantially from the oped in that it suggests the article need never have been written.. and that a given taboo is an utterly moot issue when enough people decide it is. the author in contrast was arguing that all taboos are equally either sacrosanct or questionable...which is simply not the case at any given point in time and probably never was anywhere in history. at the moment no-one is suggesting the reversal of 'thou shalt not burn down your neighbors house", although gay marriage seems to be a 'taboo' on which a tipping point has already been reached, if not passed.
garrisondyer
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
It's a day later and I don't feel like re-reading the article and all the comments. Can you explain which part of the op-ed piece disagrees with this last comment you've made? Because from how I remember reading it yesterday, this seems to be one of the points Will makes in the first place.
1bit
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 12:19 a.m.
Will, you crack me up! Your article is an ironic exercise in syllogistic logic. On the one hand, you bemoan the us-versus-them argument which equates either being for same-sex unions or being a "bigot". On the other hand, you are (gently, perhaps) equating being for same-sex unions as being for incest. I think the more ready solution than the "taboo" argument is the realization that "marriage" means different things to the State than it does to many religions. For many, marriage is a religious sacrament. For the State, it is a mechanism to apportion property, taxes, and other material things of interest to the State. As such, there really is little that should be "taboo" in the latter. If Leona Helmsley wishes to bequeath her fortune to her dog then so be it. But, of course, you were meaning sexual taboos. But regulating sexuality seems to be an oxymoron. I believe the easiest solution would be for the State to get out of the marriage business. Everybody could choose one single partner for a civil union. If you want to be married, then have that done in the religious denomination of your choice.
Dennis
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:31 p.m.
Your argument is a joke. Marriage is a legal status this that allows for certain privileges. Denying that status and the privileges that go along with it to a certain segment of society is discrimination. It's the exact same as saying someone can't vote because they are gay, no difference.
Martin Church
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
it is also about what we believe is Normal Human expression. At what point do we draw the line. If the equal protection applies to same sex attraction then what about pedophilia. That too would then be legal. Bestiality legal. Multiple partners - Legal. Upon what do we draw the lines on acceptable human behaviors and upon what will we anchor that belief. My self I draw upon historical and biblical examples. roman accepted these behaviors and was destroyed. Sodomon accepted these expressions and was destroyed. Well Written article Will
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.
bedrog :"this far fetched hypothetical and repeated " married brothers" thing of yours" You're probably right I have worn that one out. It is just a device for getting people to focus on the principles involved.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
martin church : 'Sodomon"?? if you're gonna cite the bible get it minimally right as to text. It's "sodom and Gomorrah"...two cities described in Genesis that incurred the wrath of god more for their inhospitality to strangers ( notably a tendency to rape them--- including heterosexually !!) than anything else. yeah -- i'd agree that any municipality with rape as its chamber of commerce come-on should have it's rights ( and budget) severely scrutinized...but what this has to do with gay marriage eludes me....as so much about homophobia does.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.
will warner..re your question to me: .asked and answered in my previous. If there is demonstrable social harm, no 'rights'... if not, there should be discussion and possible accomodation. this far fetched hypothetical and repeated " married brothers" thing of yours rivals another posters obsession with coed bathrooms...... and both are totally off the wall in terms of real people asking for real rights.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
begrog, just answer this question: Once it is established the people in prohibited relationships can plead for equal-protection, on what grounds will you honor the pleas of some but not others? Won't you have to show that some prohibitions serve a legitimate state interest, and some do not? What will be the upshot for two brothers who wish to marry?
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:16 p.m.
This whole discussion is a school of red herrings... as presented by the anti- gay side. Noone has ever suggested that 'equal rights' is a blanket , literal 'right ' that confers privileges to all and sundry ( "murderers rights", 'arsonists rightts" etc...) There has always been, and should always be, additional qualifiers that show that those gaining rights are not demonstrably socially harmful...as gay marriage indeed is not. ( and as racial blackness is not, as voting women are not .etc. and, Redwing-- on the subject of arson/ unjust accusations in Rome you refer to, Nero was as demonizing of the then small Christian sect as you folks are toward gays... happily after his suicide a slew of halfway decent pagan emperors from Vespatian on restored the place and added to its luster for the several centuries until Christian emperors ( aided by gothic and hun invasions) presided over it's rapid decline into the 'dark ages' .
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:45 p.m.
@johnny. I haven't looked this up, but my guess is that bestiality isn't actually "legal"; rather it is not specifically outlawed in those states. I"m sure they use other laws (e.g., animal cruelty) to prosecute.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.
@Will. my statement was phrased that way specifically to address "person" reference. The intent of the clause is to provide equal protection to all persons. singling out a group, whether it is by race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc. violates the clause. Let's re-phrase the law similar to your example: Homosexual couples may not own property, obtain a driver's license, health insurance, or vote. Isn't your re-phrasing the same as saying "persons whose sexual preferences differ from the majority may not marry...or vote...or drive a car...or..."
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:36 p.m.
Wrong again Will. The law would be no person shall be allowed to marry another person PERIOD. As for Martin Church, I will explain this slowly to him Bestiality IS legal in 23 states. That being the case, there is absolutely NO way for an animal to give consent. PERIOD. A minor child can not give consent either. A 40 year old str8 guy can not have sex with a 12 year old girl even if she says yes, because she lacks capacity to give consent. It has long been established that children are NOT considered equal under the law. They are not required to file income taxes or work. They can not be held to a contract if they decide to rescind it for any reason. All of them are treated EQUALLY.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
SEC Fan: "if you ban all persons from something, then they are all treated equally..." What if the law said "No person shall marry a person of the same sex"?
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:06 p.m.
@martin. Please read the amendment. The equal protection clause only requires that state laws treat all "persons" equally. if you ban all persons from something, then they are all treated equally...
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
@bedrog- were the people who were blamed for burning Rome actually the arsonist's?
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:52 p.m.
Leave me out of the religous argument, please.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
in fact Rome really went into a nosedive in terms of political dominance after it embraced Christianity and added internal sectarian infighting between arians and athanasians over nonsense like 'transubstantiation', the nature of the trinity etc to external pressures from barbarian tribes and its long established civil wars within elite families.. and the statistical 'normalness' of anything human is almost always grossly misrepresented by those who talk the loudest about it...as my 2 posts at the top of the thread point out.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.
"A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."
garrisondyer
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
At the risk of being demonized, I feel the need to stick up for Will. I think his point about "taboo" is being vastly misunderstood. I'm quite certain he is saying that when society decides it's time to move the "taboo line" to allow gay marriage, then it should be moved, but just that far. And that people on both sides of the debate are too quick to use arguments that are literally advocating for unintended societal consequences, such as erasing the "taboo line" altogether. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the take-home point I got from reading this. I think it's a valid point. For the record, I'm not trying to advocate for or against gay marriage here. Just trying to make sense of a bunch of online comments that struck me as missing the point that the author was trying to make.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:13 p.m.
maybe it should...find the loving brothers you reference and have them challenge the law.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.
"disagree with his rationale. I believe that once a law is created that treats a specific portion of the population unequally, it violates the 14th amendment. Strike it down!" I agree. Why doesn't the law in Maine that denies a marriage license to two brothers who wish to marry not voilate the 14th amendment?
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:12 p.m.
@harrisondyer. I understand his piece somewhat differently. He's stating that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment cannot be used to overturn laws that define marriages (or ban gay marriages). His rationale is that doing so would open a "can of worms" so to speak because there are numerous laws on the books that address what is considered today as taboo (children marrying, marrying your sister, etc.). I disagree with his rationale. I believe that once a law is created that treats a specific portion of the population unequally, it violates the 14th amendment. Strike it down!
garrisondyer
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
Haha, another valid point! Thanks for the reply, Some Guy!
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
We all can't meet those high expectations, right @someguy?
Some Guy in 734
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.
I'm quite certain that sex (of any type) is less fun when there isn't at least a soupçon of taboo. I mean... if you're ready for sweaty time witcha clothes off, how much of a bummer is it to think that the government AND God are both rooting for you? I'm all in favor of whatever consenting adults wish to do with each other, but as for me, I want it to stay JUST a little dirty.
KarenH
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.
I waited a few minutes to let my blood pressure drop before commenting, but I cannot wait any longer. No, equal rights for GLBT Americans are not merely "moving the line" of "taboos." You say you are not comparing homosexuality to incest, but you are implying that moving the line (presumably down) is pulling society closer to accepting that next "taboo" of incest. Calling them both "taboos" is by itself comparing the two. Certainly you don't call heterosexual marriage taboo. But somehow gay marriage IS taboo. In your words (though admittedly taken out of context): "you either support same-sex marriage, or you're a bigot. There is no other way to view the issue and to think otherwise is ignorance." I would add to that... if you are an intelligent person and you have been offered all of the information available and you know gay people who would benefit from being afforded equal marriage rights and you still do not think gay people should have the same marriage rights as straight people, then you are a bigot. There is no other way to view the issue and to think otherwise is willful ignorance.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
@Will. it matters, legally, because nothing is "unconstitutional" until a court says so. Your argument that applying the equal protection clause opens up some "can of worms", so to speak, isn't applicable because the way the system is designed. The constitution is, in general, vague. The check for constitutionality (the Supreme Court) is, generally, very specific. First, they're specific about which cases they will hear. For example, if they don't believe it is of national importance or particularly important that two brothers cannot marry, they simply won't hear the case (assuming it could be challenged that far). Second, when they rule, their ruling is typically very very specific (for example, look how many times the issue of police search and seizure keeps coming up...how many times has this been addressed, yet, there are still challenges). And frankly, Ump 3 is right, isn't he. Similar to the constitution, it's a matter of how it's interpreted at the time (he saw it as a strike or a ball and that's how it's called). Can a "reasonable person" make a judgement? Laws are ruled unconstitutional because someone (who wrote it and those who voted for it) thought it was ok (their judgement)...
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
SEC Fan: Why is it important whether the court hears a case or not? Your argument reminds me of a debate between thre umpires: Ump 1: "Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call 'em the way I see 'em" Ump 2: "Some are balls and some are strikes, and I call 'em the way they ARE" Ump 3: "Some are balls and some are strikes, but they ain't nothing until I call 'em" You go with Ump 3? Are you saying that a reasonable person could not make a judgement as to whether state as a good reason for defining marriage they way it does, and then predict what decision the evidence would compel if the court did hear it?
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:04 p.m.
@redwing. Let's not forget, the equal protection clause only applies to laws written by the states...there is absolutely no requirement that state create laws (defining marriage). It's only when they do that the clause becomes relevant.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:58 p.m.
@redwingshero. No, it wouldn't be a violation of the equal protection clause. that clause applies only to the states, not the federal government. Additionally, which cases the court hears is not a law and therefore the clause isn't applicable. Besides, the pure number of cases petitioned to the Court every year makes it physically impossible for them to hear them all. They have to have some criteria in place to decide cases they will hear. Right now, that is the "rule of 4"...4 must agree.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:50 p.m.
Culture cannot be appealed to as there are many cultures throughout the world, all with different moral standards and practices; there is no way to ascertain which culture is morally 'correct.' Culture merely displays what "is" with respect to morality. Even the famous skeptic of religion, David Hume, stated that humanity cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" where morals are concerned. Moreover, how does one determine what culture dictates? The voters of California thought that with Proposition 8, the majority should dictate whether homosexual marriage should be permitted, but it turns out they thought wrong. If a majority-rules method cannot be used for culture, what can? The third choice of the individual deciding what's morally right and wrong is a disastrous alternative, as it only takes the problem seen in using cultures as a moral compass and compounds it exponentially. What about using science as a moral compass? Some atheists say science should dictate moral behavior. However, intellectually honest secular scientists admit that science is a descriptive discipline and not a prescriptive one. In addition, its empirical methods are impotent to answer such moral questions as if the Nazi's were evil. Einstein summed up the correct position in this matter when he said, "You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality." So, in the end, when Cheryl Jacques says polygamy is wrong because "I don't approve of that," it really is all she can fall back on.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.
Once a standard is established, a moral authority is then also needed so the question of "says who?" can be answered. An authority is needed because it alone is the entity that has the right to impose the obligation of acceptance for the proposed standard, and therefore enforces that it be adhered to. Whether it is homosexual marriage or any moral issue, to what standard and authority should we look to answer the question of whether something is ethically "inferior" that therefore should be cast out? Thinking through the question will bring forward four possible answers. The first three are found within the secular humanist worldview, and the fourth is found within the theistic worldview. The only options available to the secular humanist where a standard and authority are concerned are: (1) the natural universe; (2) culture; (3) the individual. Right from the start, the natural universe can be ruled out because amoral matter cannot produce moral beings nor prescribe moral behavior.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:47 p.m.
I think it still does deal with a standard/or lackthereof for marriage. If no standard was given, (without screaming pandora's box-I'll try), it would trump any state ban on say marrying multiple spouses. If that's the argument, you would agree with me that with the same reasoning, it would apply right? I'm not trying to invoke reductio ad absurdum to make my case. To be effectively answered, the ethical question concerning homosexual marriage needs to be bumped up to the larger question of: "Is there anything wrong with anything, and why?" To answer that question requires a source for an absolute moral standard and a moral authority. A standard is needed because a standard determines how something is measured or determined, and/or if something is rejected. If the judges in the Proposition 8 decision claim it is wrong to say homosexual marriage is inferior to traditional marriage, they need to put forward a standard for marriage that can be used as a reference.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.
@SEC FAN-Ok, I understand your point, so that would mean that the USSC at some point decide not to hear a case on the same merits that it heard another case and ruled on it? Say a gay marraige group and a bigamy group (which as I refernced, Kody brown will not face prosecution for breaking state laws in Utah) or other examples. If they pick and choose, isn't that a violation of equal protection for that group or that persons?
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.
@redwingshero. I understand what you are saying. I would ask that you read my post above (at 8am this morning). It has nothing to do with a lack of marital standard. The equal protection clause is invoked when a law is passed that (among other things) treats a portion of the population detrimental to the rest of the population (e.g, blacks can't attend the same schools as whites, blonds can't vote...). As for the courts, the Court (Supreme) is very specific when it chooses cases to hear. They have a defined set of criteria. They simply won't hear every case. Specifically, Section 3, Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules states that is is "not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion" as to whether the court will hear a case. So yes, they do "pick and choose" what they will hear and by default, whose cause they will take up.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
@SEC FAN, it was a federal appeals court in SF that heard the challenge against Prop 8, not the USSC. The judges in the Proposition 8 case believe the standard that settles the case is the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Thus, the judges reference no actual standard for marriage, but instead appeal more broadly to the 14th amendment, which does not address the institution of marriage specifically at all. However, if that is the standard that will be used, Cheryl Jacques and anyone opposing polygamy must bow to the arguments of Kody Brown and his wives and accept polygamy as equal to a two-person marriage; it cannot be classified as "inferior" in any way. Nor can any of the other possible sexual/marital options. If "liberty" in the 14th amendment encompasses all desired sexual practices, any argument put forward against any practice or wished-for 'marriage' must be cast aside due the standard used by the Proposition 8 judges. How can the courts pick and choose which "group" fighting what "cause" can justfity using the 14th Amendment and nullify the use of the equal protection clause to others, if it truly applies to all?
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
Cheryl Jacques, the first openly lesbian member of the Massachusetts state senate and one-time president of the Human Rights Campaign (a group championing homosexual marriage), was once asked why polygamy was wrong. Her response was, "Because I don't approve of that." Is that how it works? Is that how the question of what marriages are in and which are out is answered? So the 14th Amendment can only be used to justify homosexual marriage only? It's like putting out a Thanksgiving feast on the table and proceed to throw everything in the trash except for the cranberry sauce and "oh well, that's all you can have".
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:01 p.m.
@ Will, I cannot accept your statement (1). If that were the case, then the equal protection clause could NEVER be applied to anything. see my posts above...the Court is very specific in its rulings and has the prerogative to hear only the cases it wants to.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
The problem again is a lack of marital standard. If Prop 8 has shown us anything, it's that proponents of gay-marraige gave no marital standard for fighting the ban and the california supreme court also cited no standard for "marriage" just the unconstitutionality of the ban by referencing the equal protection clause. This issue won't go to the US Supreme Court. It will go state by state. It is clearly offensive to call someone a bigot for not agreeing with your point of view. By comparison, all opponents of gay-marriage should now and forever refer to those proponents as heterophobic. Is that ok? By the way, did you hear today that Kody Brown (husband with 4 wives from the Sister Wives show) will not be prosecuted for bigamy charges? I'll give you 1 guess as to why he won't be prosecuted Big hint-it has been referenced a lot in the inital post and responses.
Olive
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.
Well said, KarenH!!
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
1. I was not discussing the merits of same-sex marriage. I was critiquing the equal-protection rationale for striking down laws that don't permit it. I claim that argument carries implications that people can't face, and denying the implications of your argument is the quickest way to incoherence. 2. It is not I who says what should be taboo, I only observed what is, or has, been taboo.
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.
This is utter nonsense. 1. I have NO ISSUE with people who are first cousins marrying. Prior to the civil war it was not banned in ANY state in the union. So that "tradition" is really not that old. I will also point out that first cousins were allowed to marry in ancient Rome. If two cousins, brothers, sisters and brother or father aand daughtter want to marry, I have no problem with it AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS. 2. Polyamorous relationships are fine as long as ALL parties agree and are not coerced. I will also point out with marriage comes RESPONSIBILITIES. The divorce that may happen involves all parties 3. Based on your "sexual taboo" argument, it could be said that a black man and a white woman is sexually taboo. Do we ban their marriage? In some religions marrying a non virgin would be considered sexually taboo, do we ban non-virgins from marrying? The ONLY reasoning that can be made is that the government MUST show a compelling reason to ban same sex marriage. Here are all the arguments I hear: The children? So if there are no children, a marriage is void? My mother is 67 and can not procreate any more, can she not get married again? Sanctity of marriage? Oh like 36 hour weddings in Vegas? How does a same sex marriage change YOUR marriage in any way? Will it make you suddenly decide to leave your wife for a man? I doubt it. God's law is over man's law- last I checked god's law does not rule this country, but I am sure it does in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. I want to marry my dog- A stupid argument at best, since no animal can give legal consent to any contract. The bottom line, it is bigoted to deny people EQUAL rights. You can rationalize your bigotry all you want if that makes you feel better, but it is still bigotry. If you do not believe in same sex marriage, do not have one. Nobody has ever tried to deny your right to marry a woman, because quite frankly it is none of my business who you marry. Yo
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.
Will,. As I have said repeatedly, I see no reason for the government to ban two brothers from marrying, multiple partners from marrying, or any combination of CONSENTING adults from entering any legally binding contract. If I knew of a movement that wanted to bring about two brothers marrying, I would support them. I actually think people using the fact that Romneys relatives had multiple wives against him is wrong. As wrong as the argument that Obama is a Muslim (which he isnt), but it would not matter to me if he were)
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6 p.m.
I wonder who was the last person to violate the "dueling" penal code.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.
@redwingshero. No, I'm not sure (I didn't look it up)...but I am sure if one were to look through the various state laws one would find similar laws.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:36 p.m.
*or a local municipal*?
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
@SEC Fan, are you sure the whole not cutting women's hair is a state law of a local municiple law. Big difference. A lot of those silly things like that and "must have a leash on your aligator" are city ordinances, not in state law or penal code. Now, adultery and dueling on the other hand, are still on Michigan's penal code.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.
just an fyi... as recently as 1967 it was illegal in some states for a black man and a white woman to marry. In something like 19 states, 1st cousins can legally marry (and, no, they're not ALL southern states!). @Will. Actually, your 2nd statement isn't 100% accurate. The Federal Government and States can pass any law they want; there is nothing to stop them. The question is whether these laws will stand up in court. I would wager a great deal of money that there are hundreds of laws that would be found to be unconstitutional if challenged AND if heard by the Court. For example in Michigan (so I've read, but haven't actually looked up) a woman cannot legally cut her hair without her husband's permission - apparently her hair belongs to him.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.
"The ONLY reasoning that can be made is that the government MUST show a compelling reason to ban same sex marriage." Then it MUST also show a compelling reason for banning the marriage of two brothers. If there is one, let's hear it. Yet, no state permits this, even those that recognize same-sex marriage. Yo!
mixmaster
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
I could never understand how any single state could pass a law that restricts any citizens rights as defined in the constitution. Equal Protection is just that. US Constitutional Rights are equally protected across all state borders. Secession is the only recourse and all that kind of talk is right wing blather.
northside
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
Constitutional rights aren't absolute. They involve a mix of general principles and social norms; those norms certainly change over time. Use of the 'whatever goes' incest comparison is a disingenuous way to say the gay rights movement can't make use of the 14th Amendment and the principles of equal treatment. Take the 2nd Amendment. Does it allow someone to own a F-16 or nuclear device? No. It is a general principle but exists within social norms and a context of what is generally defined as reasonable. The same holds for the 1st Amendment: there are restrictions on free speech that relate to social norms and change over time. Just because you can't yell fire in a crowded theater doesn't mean that free speech advocates can't reference and make use of the 1st Amendment.
Stephen
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:52 p.m.
Good view point Will, don't worry about the Trolls.
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.
I would agree. A cogent argument, leaving religion out of it.
mixmaster
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Laws are intended to be interpreted liberally. Not in the sense of a political label, but to be interpreted broadly and inclusively instead of narrowly and constrained by the prevailing legislative politics. Remember that the pendulum swings both ways. That, dear readers, is democracy in action
DonBee
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 2:15 a.m.
mixmaster - Some would argue that laws are supposed to be interpreted strictly, with no room for wiggling. Others, like yourself want a law to be interprted broadly, until the law's interpretation would hurt their freedom, then they want the narrow view of the law. No one is truly interested in a broad interpretation of all laws.
mixmaster
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
I see that Mr Warner is commenting on the comments. Double add to the hit counter!
craigjjs
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.
Mr. Warner's analysis seems to miss a step. His process seems to be that if the Court finds failure of equal protection, the law is unconstitutional and thus, the prohibited act (and apparently any similar act) is legal and we will soon have men marrying goats. In actuality, the Court must closely look at the specific law and specific conduct that is outlawed. The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way: Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin or infringes a fundamental right): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest. Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause So, in this case, the Court held that the law was unconstitutional because it was not substantially related to an important government interest. The Court held that a government depriving citizens of the the right to marry based upon their gender is unconstitutional because the law was not substantially related to an important government interest. This does not mean that laws against other "taboos" will necessarily not be substantially related to an important government interest. At least for the time being, the goats are safe.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
First, Craigjjs, I refer only to "any, two, single adults." I didn't think it was necessary to mention that "adult" connotes "person." Second, I acknowledge (and did in the column) that even if equal-protection is used successfully in this case, the other taboo-laws could survive, if a compelling state interest is served by them. But because I can't see what state interest is served by preventing the marriage of two brothers, say, I suggested that an appeal for equal protection is available to them also. Do we agree?
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.
In fairness to Mr. Warner I'm the guy who dragged goats in to this sordid little affair.
Peter
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
Marriage equality needs to be codified at the federal level. "State's right's" has never been used for anything but institutionalizing inequity.
Peter
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.
You are correct, but with yet another federal appellate court ruling against it recently it shouldn't be left standing much longer.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.
Unfortunately it was in 1996...by the "Defense of Marriage Act".
Arboriginal
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
And no, I couldn't make it all the way through. Thanks just the same for sharing!
Arboriginal
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
Wow. This wins for most yawnerific opinion of all time. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1 p.m.
@northside: "Enlighten us, Will. What are the correct, rationally sound ways to argue for gay marriage?" One could say ... "People, can't we agree it is time to outgrow this antiquated taboo?" And hope that the majority of people agree. If they don't agree and you use the equal-protection principle to move forward without their agreement, then you'll have to face the implications of trying to use the concept of equal protection selectively against only one taboo.
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Yes Will, if two brothers in Maine decide to marry they can in my mind. The overall question should be, what does it matter to you and what would it matter to the government. There are str8 marriages that are done for nefarious reasons (citizenship, financial, convenience) and as long as the brothers are BOTH committed to it and agree to the terms why would it be wrong. That is the difference between you and I. I do not care who people have sex with, as long as they are consenting adult human beings. You somehow think it is your business to be involved. The OVERWHELMING reason for marriage equality has everything to do with the over 1000 benefits that the federal government bestows upon married people. If I had my choice, all marriages would be null and void and those benefits would end,. Either way, the ONLY acceptable solution is equality
northside
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
Constitutional rights aren't absolute. They involve a mix of general principles and social norms; those norms certainly change over time. Your use of the 'whatever goes' incest comparison is a disingenuous way to say the gay rights movement can't make use of the 14th Amendment and the principles of equal treatment. Take the 2nd Amendment. Does it allow someone to own a F-16 or nuclear device? No. It is a general principle but exists within social norms and a context of what is generally defined as reasonable. The same holds for the 1st Amendment: there are restrictions on free speech that relate to social norms and change over time.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
two brothers in Maine can try. That is why we have courts to decide. I just don't buy in to the slippery slope argument. You keep using it but deny that you are. Do you object to interracial marriage? If not what argument would you have used other than the 14th amendment ?
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
Now tell me why two brothers in Maine can't use it.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
coincidentally that's how interracial marriage was legalized in all 50 states. arguing the 14th amendment despite general public objection.
mixmaster
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:45 p.m.
Mr Warner is becoming annarbordotcom's conservative voice? Is this the best that they can find to represent the far right?
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.
*right
redwingshero
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.
The guy didn't even bring the religon argument into it and you are labeling him as far right? The guy didn't even bring up Leviticus, Romans or Corinthians and he's far left huh? When you attack someone personally and not their argument, it shows that you are at a stalemate and resort to non-argument rhetoric.
mixmaster
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
One more chapter in Will Warner's book on what's wrong with this country.
northside
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:38 p.m.
Enlighten us, Will. What are the correct, rationally sound ways to argue for gay marriage?
James Aldridge
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.
If miscegenation laws didn't come under the equal protection clause then it is impossible to argue same sex marriage does. See: http://www.federalistblog.us/2009/02/equal_protection_of_the_laws/
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.
Not sure what purpose this website serves, but if you read the article, it's not completely "honest" in it's information. For example, it cites the amendment's initial language as defining its "true" meaning. If that were true, then they wouldn't have changed the language. Regardless, your statement that miscegenation laws didn't fall under equal protection is flat out wrong. I remind you of Brown vs. Board of Education, McLaughlin v. Florida, and Loving v. Virginia.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
"I'm pretty much a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but......I can't keep quiet." "....I recognize that people internalize the taboos of their society, and outgrow them at different rates." whats all that mumbo jumbo in between? I think its you telling us your not really a "live and let live guy" rather your struggling with your internalized taboos.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.
"700 words to suggest why the 14th amendment isn't applicable to gay marriage (rights)." My claim is that the equal-protection argument carrys implications that it's users won't face. If it is time to outgrown one taboo and not the others, fine, but that can't be done using the equal protection argument.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.
What if the first cousins are both men? No concerns about genetics there, and yet is is still prohibited.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
but the point is the laws were instituted based on a scientific concern at the time. That is what I read this morning from a couple sources. Again I'm not an expert on the history. I may ask you if your a Constitutional law expert? You started your 700 plus word essay saying your a live and let live guy then proceeded to use the bulk of the rest of the 700 words to suggest why the 14th amendment isn't applicable to gay marriage (rights).
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:31 p.m.
you keep kicking around the first cousin thing. I'm no expert on the topic but as near as I can figure the first cousin taboo in this country was post civil war based on the "science" of the day concerning recessive genes and genetic mutation. Fast forward to now and there is still some concern in that area although I will differ to a genetic science expert as to the degree of concern and whether it warrants laws.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.
The stuff in between is called "reasoning" and insistence on coherence in thought. Do you continue to struggle with averson to the thought of first cousins marrying?
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.
Repost: first and foremost, my personal opinion: - I have no issue with gay marriage; I support it. - Marriage is a state "issue" (i.e., to be defined by states - while conforming to Federal laws/Constitution) - I am against any amendment that defines (prohibits) any marriage. Who can and cannot marry should not be a specific constitutional "law". That being said, the issue of laws or state constitutions that define (or ban) marriages must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The sooner, the better. Why? The ramifications of the ruling can be quite large: The (U.S.) constitution was not designed to specifically include/exclude every possible "right"...our Founding Fathers knew that would be a losing proposition. Complimenting this philosophy are the Supreme Court rulings, which tend to be very specific (not always, but usually). Which is why we tend to see the same "issue" come up before the court time and time again (police searches and seizures for example). This leaves many things up to States to define; marriage being one of them. The U.S. Constitution (and subsequent amendments) are the overriding guide to these State laws. Now come the arguments. Supporters of constitutionally defining (banning) marriage generally refer to my comments above as their rationale (i.e., there is no constitutional "right" to marriage). The Opposition typically refer to the Equal Protection clause (1st section) of the 14th Amendment which prevents any state from denying "ANY person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Personally, I agree more with the Equal Protection argument. That will be the basis of any court decision and that is where the can of worms will be opened. What do I mean?
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.
@Johnny. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
@Johnny. Where is the term "adult" defined in the Constitution? I don't recall ever having seen it defined. Also, the only reference to age and voting in the constitution is the 26th amendment, which states that anyone 18 or older cannot be denied the right to vote (on account of age). Note, this doesn't prohibit states from allowing someone under 18 to vote.
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:14 p.m.
1. The CONSTITUTION defines adult. It is written in as an 18 year with the right to vote. THAT makes them a citizen and affords them the opportunity to vote, therefore clasifies them as an adult. The other major issue that comes to bear, is if I marry a girl who is 14 in a state where is is legal, I am given SPECIFIC FEDERAL benefits. No matter if I move to a state that does not allow it (full faith). The exception of course is gay marriage. My Michigan drivers license is valid in Ohio. It would seem to me, that since the driving laws of the state of Ohio may differ from Michigan's it would be WAY more important to have to pass an Ohio test as well as a Michigan one than it would be to allow a peerson to marry in New York state and then suddenly not be married once he is in Michigan according to the federal goveernment
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.
I have a few Wolverine jokes of my own :-)
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:17 p.m.
well stated....despite your moniker. I am struggling to refrain from some first cousin crack. Gotta keep my sports and social issues separate......but equal. ;)
SEC Fan
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:02 p.m.
...Every state dictates who can and cannot marry (whether they have a Constitutional amendment or not). Typical requirements include: cannot be currently married, of a certain age, etc. So where is the line drawn regarding Equal Protection? Again, the clause states "Any person". So why can't 12 year olds get married? why can't I have two spouses? If any one person can be married, "equal" protection should afford that "right" to "any" person within that state; if taken literally. That's why the court decision - when it comes - will be very specific... A good example is the current Michigan amendment. It states: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Yet, you must be 18 (16 with parental consent) to get married in Michigan. So why isn't it unconstitutional to prevent a 15 year old from getting married? Equal protection? Since when did children lose the right to equal protection? My point is that we create laws that technically go against the equal protection clause all the time and no one makes a fuss over it. This issue is a belief / morals issue (or how some people define morals). This is an issue because some people are religiously against or just plain bigoted against gay marriage. There is no reasoning, no data, no anything that will change that person's mind. Over time, though, these mindsets will become fewer and we can focus on challenging other aspects of the law. So please, Supreme Court, take this one up (California Prop 8, etc.), set a precedent, and depending upon the court's decision, let people in all the states with amendments start challenging them. Again, I am for allowing gay marriages. Sometime in the future - as someone else here posted - it will be allowed
Silly Sally
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.
My favorite is if the equal protection clause were to be used for everything, there would be boys in the girls lockerroom in high schools across the nation, and nothing we could do about it. That is the "slippery slope" that @Craig Lounsbury is laughing about. Not farmer Jack's goat. Will is very right. The debate is about if a sexual line in the sand has shifted. Has a former taboo changed, or not. We still have a need for taboos and such, but some standards do change, and we do have a mechanism to allow for this. This 14th admendment is an attempt to do so without a broad general support from the population. Will has pointed out some of the flaws in allowing this to happen. I don't want boys in the girls lockerroom! Not silly!
bobslowson
Tue, Jun 5, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
Silly Sally is just obsessed with bathroom behavior
Middle America
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 10:54 a.m.
This is the second article where "Silly Sally" commented about separate facilities for men and women - the previous time, she repeatedly talked about men's and women's bathrooms. Bad comparison to use in her argument or sort of creepy?
johnnya2
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 6:08 p.m.
No, the analogy would be if you had a girls locker room that had small cube lockers, while the boys locker room had giant spacious areas for them to spread out. In point of fact (something the right wing has no use for) there already IS a law called Title IX which provides EQUAL access to sports for girls. This is a good thing. By the way, what added benefit other than prurient interests happens if boys and girls have separate locker rooms? THIS is the big problem you people do not see, marriage equality is NOT about sex. The sooner you get that through your thick skulls the sooner this country will join the modern age.
Peter
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
Your scenario is purposefully disingenuous, methinks.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.
@Craig "ah yes the old slippery slope argument... I'll tell you what...old farmer Jones is going to want o marry his goat." Craig, I specifically say "any two, single, adults." I say it twice. And there is no slope. Tell me why Maine will grant a marriage license to two men, but not if they are first cousins? What state interest is served by the denial? If none, the equal-protection principle mandates that the license be given. Does the equal-protection hammer make a bigger dent than you intend?
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.
your the one who said "Once it is established that equal-protection trumps taboo, it trumps all taboos." That is a slippery slope argument. There were "taboos" codified in to law against interracial marriage too.
snoopdog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
Thanks Will, I will use this thinking as I've always wanted 25 wives but the government won't allow that. Best part is, when I marry them all, I can add their 98 children to my health insurance policy and my company cannot deny the benefits ! Good Day
craigjjs
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
25 wives? 98 children? Heaven help you.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.
You want 25 women nagging you about how much football you watch on Saturday and Sunday? And you'd be paying for at least 400 pairs of shoes per year. Are you nuts?
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:26 a.m.
"Once it is established that equal-protection trumps taboo, it trumps all taboos. " ah yes the old slippery slope argument. Free the slaves and eventually they want to ride in the front of the bus and drink out of the white peoples drinking fountain hey Will? If we let gay people marry whats next? I'll tell you what...old farmer Jones is going to want o marry his goat. Then when farmer Jones has a massive stroke his goat will be wandering the halls of the hospital making end of life decisions.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
ah yes, the old ah yes response to an ah yes response. I hope the Internet isn't running out of room. ;)
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
ah yes and old ah yes response opener.
Will Warner
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:19 a.m.
@bedrog: "Sorry will. Your argument is the one that's a bit disingenuous ( to be charitible) , in treating "sexual taboo" as if it were the same thing in all societies, which it most emphatically is not .… so again the op ed writer is badly overreaching and grossly mis- interpreting in his "one size fits all "notion of 'sexual taboo" I don't treat sexual taboo as if it is the same in all societies. I say only that the phenomenon of sexual taboo is universal. And I recognize that taboo changes over time. But whatever form taboo takes, my point is that if equal-protection trumps taboo, it trumps all taboo, unless the maintenance of a taboo in law serves a legitimate state interest that cannot be achieved in another way. So the equal-protection appeal is available to adults in any kind of currently banned relationship. If this is what people intend when they invoke equal protection, fine, but I don't think it is.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.
Will: by that reasoning ( in your above response to mine) there is no law in this or any other country that DOESN"T violate some "taboo" elsewhere in the world/history ( from universal suffrage, to animal cruelty to bearing arms , to speaking out in public etc etc). A civil rights/fairness argument based on our own laws and ideals continues to be an appropriate one on which to argue the matter in the here and now .. and its also apt, as i did, to cite the anthropological data when opponants inaccurately raise matters of "taboos" ( which you indeed implied were universal in certain ways... and which i noted are most definitely not).
ChrisW
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:16 a.m.
Those anti-sodomy laws were thrown out by The Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas. A Constituonal Amendment allowing gay marriage would certainly be a better way to legalize it, but there's no way the religious right would stand for it, at least not while they cherry-pick verses from the old testament to follow.
jjc155
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:12 a.m.
.gov has no business regulating marriage, gay or straight, period.
DonBee
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 2:09 a.m.
YpsiLivin - Sorry you had me until the end. Multiple parties enter into property rights contracts all of the time in the commercial world. The current arguement by the LGBT community works equally well for plural civil unions. Since some churches condone plural marriages, this means that the ban on plural marriage and civil unions should fall at that SAME TIME as the bans on same sex marriage, otherwise, we still do not have equal protection under the law.
YpsiLivin
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 1:12 p.m.
The government has a legitimate interest in regulating marriage because it has a legitimate interest in assuring that the rights of all persons are recognized and preserved. When a marriage dissolves, for example, the government is asked to determine the custodial and property rights of the parties involved and to ensure that all children of the marriage are provided for as required by law. For me, marriage is a sacrament. It is a religious rite, not a civil one. If the government wants to use the dispensation of this sacrament as affirmative proof that my spouse and I have entered into a binding agreement with each other and it works for the government, that's fine. On the other hand, if two parties want to enter into a binding agreement like marriage without the religious rite, the best the government can offer is a civil union. Per the 14th Amendment, the government must offer the ability to create a civil union to everyone who is eligible to enter into one when there is no legal basis for denying it. Who ISN'T eligible to enter a civil union? Minors - because they do not have the privilege to enter contracts Mentally incapacitated persons because they do not understand or cannot consent to entering into a civil union. People who are already married to someone else because they have a prior agreement with that party, and the government cannot assure the personal and property rights of all parties involved in cases of polygamy/polyandry. Closely related persons because they may not be able to enter into a civil union freely and voluntarily, and because children of such a union would be at high risk for catastrophic medical conditions that the government would be required to provide care for. So yes, the government does have legitimate reasons to "regulate" civil unions, but the genders of the parties involved isn't one of them.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 10:42 a.m.
Sorry will. Your argument is the one that's a bit disingenuous ( to be charitible) , in treating "sexual taboo" as if it were the same thing in all societies, which it most emphatically is not . While most known societies , then and now, do have regulations about sex they aren't remotely the same ones, or even universal in a particular society. e.g brother sister marriage was approved for ancient egyptian and polynesian nobility ( to keep divinity in the family) but not for commoners...or us. likewise what we view as creepy dirty old man -ism ( elderly guy/young to pre pubescent girl) is a normal marriage pattern among, say, many african pastoral tribes like the samburu of n. kenya. polygyny ( one guy/several wives); polyandry ( the reverse)...the anthropological literature is filled with this stuff which is far more common than rigid monogamy . so same sex marriage is perfectly amenable to a debate on civil rights grounds , tax fairness grounds, as well as those that correctly note that there's no particular harm to it....and indeed the definite benefit of discouraging promiscuity which in an age of SDSes for both hetero and same sex people. And its a debate same sex- proponants deserve to win.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 8:27 p.m.
correction to my original..i said 'SDS' when i meant 'STD'.......the inherently extremist nature of the subject matter ( on all sides) must have caused a flashback to the 60's.... amazing none of the carpers ( including moderators!) picked this up.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:02 p.m.
silly: my lack of capital letters ( an energy saving procedure....less calories used, less food eaten, less foreign oil imported!) is no more worthy of comment or condemnation than your mis-spelling of 'society". and enough 'obscure' examples totally undercut inaccurate blather about 'universals" from people who wildly overreach in their claims about what supposedly is and isnt in human affairs..
Silly Sally
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.
@bedbug - is there something wrong with using capital letters for "European" or "Egyptian" or "Polynesians", instead of "polynesians" sic, ? Or, even the author's name, Will, "will"sic? You missed his point completely, it seems. Your example, were obscure ones, and still show that soceities have sexual standards.
bedrog
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 11:04 a.m.
p.s. to mine above: the very use of the word 'taboo' by this writer is unintentionally ironic/funny since it's a term native to the polynesisan region of the Pacific where it referred to anything verboten , from food to behavior) and where ( as i noted above ) brother-sister marriage was not only practiced but approved among the nobility. As to other sexual mores many polynesians were so open and flexible about sexuality that it led to their decimation once european venereal diseases were introduced by folks like straitlaced ( but hypocritically only at home!!) quaker whalers from new england, Bounty mutineers, the horny sailors of explorer captain Cook etc. No less than Herman Melville writes about all of this from his happy memories as a whaler in the Pacific in books like' Typee' and 'Omoo'....like wise Samuel Butlers "erewhon" ( " nowhere" backwards) is a sardonic paen to the islands as opposed to the repressed, Victorian society of his day . so again the op ed writer is badly overreaching and grossly mis- interpreting in his "one size fits all "notion of 'sexual taboo".