And as usual, I'm posting the entire thing here as well. Also as usual, here I post the column as I sent it in. I haven't noticed any editorial changes but sometimes they happen. In any case, enjoy.
In keeping with the spirit of the political season, I am now willing to compromise on one of my dastardly liberal positions. Certain elements of our society are seeking to insure the sanctity of (their view of) marriage by writing a constitutional amendment that describes marrige as a legal union between one man and one woman. Their purpose is to deny gays (and general contrarions I suppose) the ability to marry someone they love who happens to be of the same gender as they.
Ok. I'm willing to support their constitutionally defined version of marrige if (ok, big IF) and only if they will agree to one little change that I have in mind. In actuality, the change I would make to the amendment would further strengthen the sanctity of marriage. The only possible downside is that it requires one to have faith in their verbalized convictions. That isn't going to be a problem for you good Christians out there is it? No? Good.
My condition, my addition to the amendment, is simply that divorce be abolished. That's right, unconditionally abolish divorce and I will support the idea of marriage as a one man/one woman only gig. You want sanctity? This will give marriage sanctity to spare.
Just think (boy is that good advice!), your husband's 17 year old girlfriend comes to your home and shoots you in an effort to get you out of the picture. You survive, you stay married, forever. The supermodel looking and industrious female you married puts on a couple of hundred pounds and just lays around the house watching Jerry Springer? Life's a bitch and it looks like you married one, you stay married, forever. Just found out your spouse is, and always has been, gay? Bummer dude but, there is nothing prohibiting gays from marrying as long as it isn't a same sex thing. You stay married, forever.
Come on people, I know you can get behind this. After all, with the help of the constitution, your heros would not have been tempted to make the mistakes that I'm sure they now must surely terribly regret. Newt Gingrich(R Scum) would not have been able to inform his cancer ridden wife that he was leaving her for a younger woman. Rush Limbaugh(R Serial Liar) would not have the weight of worrying about the moral implications of multiple divorces distracting him from his important work of (mis)informing the mentally deficient.
It just occurred to me that while we're at it, we could undo some of the damage already done. We could make this whole no divorce thing retroactive. Anyone with only one marriage is still married. If you have multiple marriages, only the first one is valid, anything after that is automatically annulled by this amendment. (In the interest of fairness, attorneys will get to keep their earnings for divorces which are no longer valid. With no more divorce, they will have to look for new ways to earn a living and the fees we let them keep will serve to tide them over.)
Marriage will once again be a special thing. A couple will know that when they promise to be with each other until death do them part, they will have the full force of the Constitution of the United States of America reinforcing their vow.
I know no one is thinking that this could lead to an increase in the spousal murder rate. Such a thought would indicate a cynicism about love and marriage that is unworthy of those to whom the sancity of marriage is a serious concern. On the other hand, it may be that former divorce attorneys could now specialize in investigating any suspicious deaths of married people. They might also represent married and incompatible couples in their legal actions against the dating services that put them together to start with. If that doesn't work out, I'm sure that there would be a strong need for additional marriage counselors so, they might want to think about getting out of the legal field entirely.
There may be those of you out there that are thinking my proposal would be unnecessary meddling in the private affairs of the citizenry by the government. The idea that the government would have final say in the issue of with whom you spend your life offends you. You believe that is not something that the government ought be concerned with. I could not agree more
CAFKIA
How about making adultry a punishable offense?
Posted by: Tracey | November 14, 2004 at 12:41 PM
Would that be adultery as Jesus defined it? Cause he said if a man divorces a woman for any reason other than infidelity, he causes her to be adulterous. And any man who marries such a divorced woman commits adultery. It ought to get real interesting. If you choose the biblical definitions, will you also choose the bibilical punishments?
Actually the point of the column is that we do not want government having micro control over our lives. Deciding who we may have a relationship with is just not a proper function of government. It is a function of religion only if we subscribe to that religion. Otherwise, it is purely a function of personal choice. I think I like that way best.
Posted by: CAFKIA | November 14, 2004 at 02:38 PM
For the people to define marriage as a certain legal arrangement through their legislatures is not the same thing as the legislature defining whom we can have relationships with. The legislature simply defines what relationships the people will put its imprimatur on.
Apples and oranges.
Posted by: poortvliet | November 14, 2004 at 02:48 PM
Ok, so now you want governmental microcontrol over with whom we can execute contracts. Will we also make it illegal for one to leave one's worldly belongings to someone of the same sex?
How exactly are your apples less scary and invasive than my oranges? I simply believe that if you think Gay marriage is wrong, you should not do it. You probably don't think much of adults marrying children (21 or over marrying 17 or under) but where is the push for the constitutional amendment there? It has been going on a hell of a lot longer. What happens if those involved do not call themselves Gay? Will we have a legal encyclopedia directing just what kind of people can execute a personal contract with what other kind of people. And of course, we will have to have clear legal definitions of just what constitutes specific kinds of people.
If, as happens sometimes, a person is born with indeterminate gender, who exactly can they execute a personal contract with, or not?
This is clearly a can of worms and only those who do not bother thinking can think it is a good idea. For further evidence of the effectiveness of legislating morality, see prohibition and the war on drugs.
Posted by: CAFKIA | November 14, 2004 at 03:15 PM
How about making adultry a punishable offense?
I recommend stoning, castration or decapitation as the uniform sentence.
People need to get over themselves and recognize the difference between prejudice and moral objection. There is no threat to sanctity of anyone's religious sacraments from our government, since the government has no divine power. I think it would make most evangelicals happy if we simply renamed the marriage license a "civil union license." The marriage could remain a sacrament within each religious tradition that would be bound by whatever rules they chose (although I recommend they check with God first, they so rarely do). If any church wanted to require an additional marriage certificate issued by a qualified member of clergy in order to perform the ceremony, there would be nothing stopping them. Many Catholics are required to go through pre-marriage counseling before they can be married in their church.
This is not the big deal it's being made out to be. It's far less contentious than the debate over abortion, and I predict that multiple states will offer same sex unions before the end of Bush's term.
Posted by: lobbygow | November 14, 2004 at 04:47 PM
Heck, as a Baptist getting married to a Catholic by a "neutral" Presbyterian minister I had to go through counseling. I think I was stoned at the time though. Fortunately it worked out.
Posted by: skb | November 14, 2004 at 05:08 PM
That sir is an interesting and not unreasonable solution. Having both civil unions and marriage. Would all marriages be civil unions as well? Or would marriage simply be religious and a civil union could be an optional additional service offered only if the couple has a valit civil union liscense? If a couple opts for religious but not civil status, how does that affect "community property"? Would bibilical (according to the religion) rules for divorce apply?
Interesting concept, a bit more complicated when I think about it but still, probably not unworkable. I like it. Lets make marriage religious and take the government out of it completely.
I propose, Rev Lobbygow, that in anticipation of just such a move, we establish a church with individual spirituality as its cornerstone and which promulgates the study of multiple religious teachers rather than basing all on one. As we would be outside of any Christian church structure, we would not be limited to their rules. As a matter of fact, under the spirit of freedom of religion, there is a lot we could do.
Time to build a doctrine my brotha!
Posted by: CAFKIA | November 14, 2004 at 05:12 PM
Having both civil unions and marriage. Would all marriages be civil unions as well?
The legal status conferred to "civil partners" would be the same priveleges and accountabilities currently enjoyed by "married" couples with a few exceptions*. This status would be conferred to anyone who files the duly witnessed paperwork with the secretary of state, which should be available on-line with proper security and identity controls.
EXCEPTIONS: Priveleges that are specific to a specific religious or cultural tradition cannot be attached to this state conferred legal status, even if they have been traditionally associated with "married" couples. For example, a church could not be sued for refusing to allow a same sex couple to christen their child. They would have no standing. A child born to two Jewish mothers, would not have to be recognized as a Jew if the faith decided the union was not legitimate in the eyes of God.
Posted by: lobbygow | November 14, 2004 at 08:06 PM
Ok, so now you want governmental microcontrol over with whom we can execute contracts. Will we also make it illegal for one to leave one's worldly belongings to someone of the same sex?
**Heck no. Just the opposite. Homosexuals can execute contracts right now, binding (no pun intended) one another to whatever terms they choose. They can execute wills, leaving all their worldly goods to the other person, they can purchase property and open bank accounts, investment accounts, whatever, in joint tenancy, and they can issue powers of attorney to one another such that if one of them becomes ill or is in an accident, the other one can act for them, visit them in the hospital, make funeral arrangements, whatever. They can make each other the beneficiary on life insurance policies and their retirement proceeds. All the stuff they claim they want to do can already be done. They don't need no stinkin' marriage certificate to accomplish the bidness end s of the deal. The only thing they can't do is obligate anybody who isn't a party to the contract(s), such as forcing employers to enroll the non-employee partner in ongoing insurance benefit programs, like health care. The only other thing they can't do unless a court grants a petitioner standing is to sue for wrongful death, partition suits, things like that.
How exactly are your apples less scary and invasive than my oranges? I simply believe that if you think Gay marriage is wrong, you should not do it. You probably don't think much of adults marrying children (21 or over marrying 17 or under) but where is the push for the constitutional amendment there?
Ages of consent are established by state legislatures. Already got it covered.
What happens if those involved do not call themselves Gay? Will we have a legal encyclopedia directing just what kind of people can execute a personal contract with what other kind of people. And of course, we will have to have clear legal definitions of just what constitutes specific kinds of people.
Not at all. As I just explained, any two people, or three or four or ever how many want to be joined this way, can enter into the contracts right now, already, as the laws in states stand now as to contracts. If the entire gang down at the local bathhouse want to unite themselves through the contracts and documents I've explained, they can do it. They've been doing it for years. Homosexuals buy property together, they leave their property to the other, they have powers of attorney to get them into the hospitals, etc.. Listen, this crap about how the law is somehow keeping them from enjoying the societal benefits of marriage is a load. Not only that, when they split up (and their relationships are very transient, no matter what load of hogwash you've bought into - no, not all of them, but somewhere around 85% of them do), all they have to do is dissolve the contract. They don't have to file for divorce or go through any of that. Just, "Sign here, later, dude."
If, as happens sometimes, a person is born with indeterminate gender, who exactly can they execute a personal contract with, or not?
**When they become of legal age, the statutory age of emancipation for the state in which they reside, which in most states is 18, they can contract to do anything and buy anything jointly that requires title, so long as what they are contracting for is not unlawful (a contract for an illegal act is void on its face, so two people can't make a legally binding contract to blow up a bank together), and they can execute all the documents I mentioned. By the way, I don't accept the notion that people are born with indeterminate sex. You're either an inny or an outy.
This is clearly a can of worms and only those who do not bother thinking can think it is a good idea. For further evidence of the effectiveness of legislating morality, see prohibition and the war on drugs.
**There's nothing complicated about it, and no legislature is going to pass a statute prohibiting consenting adults from entering into any legal contract. It would never, ever pass constitutional muster at state or federal levels, and no politician would ever commit political suicide that way. It's as simple as that. Nothing complicated about it, and nobody cares what contracts they enter into, least of all the legislatures.
Posted by: poortvliet | November 15, 2004 at 04:00 AM
The only thing they can't do is obligate anybody who isn't a party to the contract(s), such as forcing employers to enroll the non-employee partner in ongoing insurance benefit programs, like health care. The only other thing they can't do unless a court grants a petitioner standing is to sue for wrongful death, partition suits, things like that.
Why should homosexual couples be denied these privileges? They aren't granted by any church. They are civil institutions. God has nothing to do with it.
What's all the fuss about? This issue certainly doesn't merit monkeying around with the Constitution. Let the states decide what to do.
Still, the route you propose will lead to the same eventual result, which is that gay/lesbian/transgender unions will be legalized. Eventually, employers who refuse to offer benefits to same sex couples will suffer economically. First, they won't have access to the entire labor pool and that will reduce the number of high quality applicants. Second, as mores continue to evolve towards acceptance of same sex couples, companies who maintain anti-gay policies will face the prospect of boycotts.
Posted by: lobbygow | November 15, 2004 at 07:54 AM
I propose, Rev Lobbygow, that in anticipation of just such a move, we establish a church with individual spirituality as its cornerstone and which promulgates the study of multiple religious teachers rather than basing all on one.
I think the Unitarians are a head of us. Then again, they could use some competition.
Posted by: lobbygow | November 15, 2004 at 07:56 AM
Poortvliet, where do you get your 85% statistics? Does that apply to lesbian couples? Cuz I know more lesbian couples who have been in longer partnerships than most of my straight married friends. And most of my straight married friends have been in "transient" relationships - many, many of them, in fact. Oh, and they've been in transient marriages, too. Two or three in some cases.
Anyway, your petty judgment of gay men is the real load here. I have close friends living within a few blocks of me, all gay men, who have been in long, committed partnerships with ONE man for years. In fact, one of those couples will soon be celebrating 20 years together.
Yeah, there are a lot of promiscuous gay men, and gay women, and, uh, straight men and straight women.
Face it. You just look down on gay people. Your essay is full of the proof. And for that, you can kiss my ass, sugar buns.
Peace,
Hilde
Posted by: Hildegard | November 15, 2004 at 09:07 PM
I think gay men should marry lesbians so they get all the partner rights. Then they can swap with others who've done the same. Add a contract between such pairs so inheritances are doled out exactly as they would have been, were they permitted to marry their own partners.
The partners could live with each other instead of with their legal spouses.
Yes, it'd be a cumbersome process, and some added taxes would likely be extracted due to the additional property transfers. It wouldn't be fair. But in some states, those ballot measures also forbade civil unions.
Given that, this response would make the best of a bad situation, be an act of civil disobedience that the state would be unsuccessful in legislating against, and demonstrate how futile it is to stop people from marrying other consenting adults.
It'd piss 'em off royally, too, which in itself helps preserve the sanctity of morons ripe for the mocking.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | November 16, 2004 at 12:06 AM
Kevin, I've had the same idea and wonder why they haven't done it, too. Or maybe they have and we're just not aware. It wouldn't piss me off at all. I think they should go for it. Let the fat insurance companies figure it out.
Hilde, how convenient that you have all this heartwarming personal anecdotal BS to argue with.
I'm sure every word of it is true (rolls eyes).
BTW, there's nothing 'gay' about passing a deadly disease through the population, visiting it on the unwitting, and wasting away in agony. Let's call them what they are: homosexuals and lesbians. I'm sick of seeing a perfectly nice word bastardized like that.
Posted by: poortvliet | November 16, 2004 at 04:29 AM
Hilde, how convenient that you have all this heartwarming personal anecdotal BS to argue with.
How revealing that you evade Hilde's question about your statistical "factoid."
I'm sure it's based on a study that is verifiable and scientifically unimpeachable. (rolls joint)
BTW, there's nothing 'gay' about passing a deadly disease through the population, visiting it on the unwitting, and wasting away in agony
I agree. Xenophobia in its myriad forms (homophobia, misogyny, self-loathing) is one of the most destructive forces of our time. It killed over 3000 people on September 11th. I suggest you get tested for it.
Posted by: lobbygow | November 16, 2004 at 09:05 AM
This marriage thing is so annoying sometimes. Look: there are 2 concurrent issues at play: 1) legal/civil stuff and 2) religious stuff. At least part of the conflict comes from trying to merge them rather than keeping them separate. So let's have two separate courses of action. Any state can have whatever rules they want for two people to have a civil contract which confers whatever rights etc equally regardless of gender. Just requirements like age and mental competence. Its a civil union or whatever you want to call it. Really marriage is mostly about property anyway. So inheritance and related matters are covered; health care and related matters are covered; and so forth. Whatever aplays for a man and woman aplays for two same-gendered folks. For those people who want a spiritual union they can go to their religious place and follow those rules but they still have to have the civil deal-- yes they have to have both. If a couple just gets the religious deal then there are no civil rights or responsibilities. If the couple breaks up then you follow the religious rules for that part and the civil rules for that part. I know it sounds kinda "frenchified" but really its workable. It also puts the focus on the right aspects of relationships. It also takes religion out of the legal realm where it really shouldn't be in the first place.
Posted by: Trismegistus | November 16, 2004 at 11:59 AM
About those legal "work-arounds" that provide some civil protections for gay couples--on election day, Ohio passed a particularly harsh state constitutional amendment that may gut the enforceability of many of these contractual arrangements. You guys may have already talked about this back before 11/2, but I wanted to mention it just in case. Among many other, potentially wide-ranging consequences, Ohio's new law will force state employers to stop offering domestic partner benefits, including health insurance. The pertinent part of the law reads: "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Also, Georgia's version strips courts of any jurisdiction to hear cases arising from same-sex partnerships. It is possible that this could render contracts such as powers of attorney and property-sharing agreements unenforceable.
A lot of this info is from a pre-election article at Salon.com, available here:
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/18/gayohio/index.html.
Posted by: Tisiphone | November 16, 2004 at 03:03 PM
poortvliet: Although it is difficult to be sure about this sort of thing, very few (if any) reputable scientists posit that AIDS began as a result of male-male genital-anal or genital-oral sex. Even once the disease spread to the Gay male community, that is where it would have stayed without the help of the heterosexual community. Even once it spread to the heterosexual community, were we not promiscuous, it would likely have died out in a relative hurry. If aids is your guage, then you should be extremly pro Lesbian as they have almost no chance of contracting the disease due to that aspect of their lifestyle. If they should happen to be junkies ... ... .
Others: Attempts to block workarounds should provide legal entertainment for many years and are eventually, doomed to failure due to the lack of specificity of the written/spoken language. In the meanwhile, as lobbygow pointed out, states that have more open policies will reap the benefits as creative, intelligent, and industrious Gays will move there. The close minded states will be left with those without means to relocate. Keep in mind that for many years, the industrial north and mid west were fueled with relatively cheap Black labor streaming from the south. As a result, the south is still playing catch up socially, and infrastructurally. Scholastically, we do not even pretend to be in the race. That sort of Gay migration will probably have the same affect. But I suppose it is worth being poor and backwards, uneducated and unemployed as long as there ain't none of them married Gays around.
Posted by: CAFKIA | November 16, 2004 at 05:15 PM
About those legal "work-arounds" that provide some civil protections for gay couples--on election day, Ohio passed a particularly harsh state constitutional amendment that may gut the enforceability of many of these contractual arrangements.
You sound like one of them smart big city lawyer types. Welcome to the fray.
Posted by: lobbygow | November 16, 2004 at 09:24 PM
phone, can you be more specific as to what is contained in the OH referendum that "may" gut the contractual protections I mentioned? Is there something there beyond the fact that such contracts aren't binding on any persons except the makers of the contract?
Posted by: poortvliet | November 17, 2004 at 06:13 AM
lobby, that 'rolls joint' was hilarious. You must have been one of those kids who got a big charge out of doin' stuff to make the other kids squirt their lunch milk out their noses.
I agree. Xenophobia in its myriad forms (homophobia, misogyny, self-loathing) is one of the most destructive forces of our time. It killed over 3000 people on September 11th. I suggest you get tested for it.
I was talking about AIDS. Sorry you didn't catch on.
Posted by: poortvliet | November 17, 2004 at 06:17 AM
phone, Also, Georgia's version strips courts of any jurisdiction to hear cases arising from same-sex partnerships. It is possible that this could render contracts such as powers of attorney and property-sharing agreements unenforceable.
I don't think so. Anybody with a valid, non-voided contract has access to the courts for suit. It seems to me that what they're getting at is to relieve the court of jurisdiction over same-sex partnerships lawfully made in another state. It also sounds like 'sister-state' registrations of foreign judgments arising from same-sex partnership dissolutions might be out, too.
If Joe Blow and John Blow lawfully enter into a valid contract to buy and own property together, share a bank account, and so on, even if the consideration given is $1.00, then they should still have access to the courts for resolution of disputes, partition and so forth, in spite of any statutory prohibition on same-sex partnerships or civil unions. Do you think the court is going to take it upon itself to decide, out of thin air, that the suit before it over Joe and John's property contract is a same-sex partnership in disguise? Or that any person off the street somehow has standing to move that they are?
Attempts to block workarounds should provide legal entertainment for many years and are eventually, doomed to failure due to the lack of specificity of the written/spoken language. In the meanwhile, as lobbygow pointed out, states that have more open policies will reap the benefits as creative, intelligent, and industrious Gays will move there. The close minded states will be left with those without means to relocate. Keep in mind that for many years, the industrial north and mid west were fueled with relatively cheap Black labor streaming from the south. As a result, the south is still playing catch up socially, and infrastructurally. Scholastically, we do not even pretend to be in the race. That sort of Gay migration will probably have the same affect.
Homosexuals and lesbians are too small a percentage of the population to have the impact you describe through 'migration'. About .004 of the population is in a homosexual or lesbian partnership.
Since Vermont's civil union statute went into effect, about 85% of all the unions entered into there were by people from out of state. It should come as no surprise that something like two-thirds of all the Vermont unions entered into are by lesbians. The grand total for the first three years, homosexual and lesbian couples united, was about 5100 couples.
Here is some statistical information for everyone's use (I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it appears valid on its face):
http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000_Census_Total.htm
But I suppose it is worth being poor and backwards, uneducated and unemployed as long as there ain't none of them married Gays around.
Do you really believe that everybody who is not in favor of homosexual marriage is poor, backwards, uneducated and unemployed?
Posted by: poortvliet | November 17, 2004 at 07:19 AM
poortvliet: Although it is difficult to be sure about this sort of thing, very few (if any) reputable scientists posit that AIDS began as a result of male-male genital-anal or genital-oral sex. Even once the disease spread to the Gay male community, that is where it would have stayed without the help of the heterosexual community. Even once it spread to the heterosexual community, were we not promiscuous, it would likely have died out in a relative hurry. If aids is your guage, then you should be extremly pro Lesbian as they have almost no chance of contracting the disease due to that aspect of their lifestyle. If they should happen to be junkies ... ... .
I don't agree that lack of disease is a good reason to support lesbianism. If one is to support it, it should be based on principles held by the supporter.
At any rate, AIDS is my reason for not calling homosexuals and lesbians 'gay', not for not supporting their cause for marriage.
60% of men get HIV through homosexual sex, 25% through IV drug use, and 15% from heterosexual sex. 75% of women are infected with HIV through heterosexual sex and 25% through IV drug use. I expect that HIV was introduced into the heterosexual population mainly by bisexual men or homosexual men who hate women, with IV drug use running a somewhat distant second.
Posted by: poortvliet | November 17, 2004 at 07:43 AM
Poortvliet, they were called gay long, long before AIDS spread to the US, but if you don't like the terminology, don't use it. It bothers me that you blame the spread of AIDS on homosexuals because it largely discounts the spread of the disease in other parts of the world, which is primarily through heterosexual contact. Now, maybe you don't care about what happens in the rest of the world and so don't feel the need to take into consideration world events and trends when forming your prejudices. That's not uncommon, just a little disturbing, especially in light of the fact that the disease is incredibly widespread, able to mutate and doesn't seem to notice things like borders or nationalities or even the sexual orientation of those it infects. Good luck with that ivory tower thing you got going on, 'cause the only ones I see who statistically get to live there when the rest of humanity is ravaged are the non-drug injecting lesbians (i.e., most of them). Huh, maybe they will be gay after all. Go figure.
Posted by: Reba | November 17, 2004 at 02:36 PM
As a matter of fact, I very much do care about the rest of the world, but my first concern is the U.S.. Now, you may not consider the U.S. worthy of concern when forming your own prejudices and moral equivalency judgments. That's disturbing in its own way because we are the #1 provider of AIDS research and medicines to the rest of the world, thanks to President Bush.
As for hiding in ivory towers while Rome burns, I think you've overstated the crisis here. The number of new AIDS infections in this country is considerably less than the number of people diagnosed with cancer; like 300:1. Frankly, I'd like to see most of the AIDS research money put into medical research for diseases other than AIDS, which is largely preventable. Certainly that benefits all of society, including lesbians, as opposed to 'niche' diseases such as AIDS.
Posted by: poortvliet | November 17, 2004 at 05:16 PM