September 29, 2007 was the happiest day of my life.
But now my happiness is being undermined. Not by my lovely wife, but by all of these Californians who, starting today, are getting legally gay-married. How can we maintain our marital bliss when all around us other people are feeling blissful with partners of the same gender? It’s degrading, the Pope says, and who can argue?
Okay, it’s hard to be snarky about this issue, I’m too sentimental. Discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual identities is one of the last remaining officially-sanctioned forms of inequity in our culture, and it’s incredibly moving to see the joy on the faces of so many newly-married couples as the barriers come (belatedly, tentatively) tumbling down.
Today is a big day. If anyone is in need of some good last-minute wedding vows, you are welcome to borrow ours. The algorithm was simple: take the Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony from the Book of Common Prayer, remove all the references to God (there are a lot of them), and sprinkle with some quotes that express your own feelings. Also, substitute appropriate names for the numbers.
OFFICIANT: Dearly Beloved — We are gathered together here today to witness the joining of [1] and [2] in Matrimony.
Marriage is an honorable estate: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and soberly.
Upon completion of the ceremony, we understand that one is not obliged to remain utterly sober, nor for that matter perfectly discreet.
The estate of matrimony attempts the impossible: to formalize the love between two people. In the words of W.H. Auden:
Rejoice, dear love, in Love’s peremptory word;
All chance, all love, all logic, you and I,
Exist by grace of the Absurd,
And without conscious artifice we die:So, lest we manufacture in our flesh
The lie of our divinity afresh,
Describe round our chaotic malice now,
The arbitrary circle of a vow.By our presence here tonight, we elevate conscious artifice to a heartfelt celebration of the uniting of two lives.
Then shall the Minster say unto [1],
O: 1, will you have 2 to be your partner in life? Will you love her, comfort her, honor, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keeping only to her, so long as you both shall live?
1: I will.
Then shall the Minster say unto [2],
O: 2, will you have 1 to be your partner in life? Will you love him, comfort him, honor, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keeping only to him, so long as you both shall live?
2: I will.
O, to 1: 1, will you take 2’s hand and repeat after me.
I, 1, take you, 2, to be my partner in life,
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
and thereto I plight my troth.O, to 2: 2, will you take 1 hand and repeat after me.
I, 2, take you, 1, to be my partner in life,
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
and thereto I plight my troth.Then shall they again loose their hands; and 1 shall give unto 2 a Ring in this wise: the Officiant taking the ring shall deliver it unto 1, speaking their name out loud, to put it upon the fourth finger of 2’s left hand. And 1 holding the Ring there, and taught by the Officiant, shall say,
1: I give you this ring as a symbol of my enduring love.
Then 2 shall give unto 1 a Ring in this wise: the Officiant taking the ring shall deliver it unto 2, speaking their name out loud, to put it upon the fourth finger of 1’s left hand. And 2 holding the Ring there, shall say,
2: I give you this ring as a symbol of my enduring love.
O: Together we have gathered to share our blessings with 2 and 1 as they begin their lives together. As Rainier Maria Rilke once advised a young poet:
“We must trust in what is difficult. It is good to be solitary,
for solitude is difficult. It is also good to love, because love is difficult.
For one human being to love another human being: that is perhaps
the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us, the ultimate task,
the final test and proof, the work for which all other work is mere preparation….
Love consists in this: that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.”Then shall the Officiant speak unto the company.
O: Inasmuch as 1 and 2 have pledged their troth, I now pronounce them together for life. You may celebrate as you wish.
Congratulations to everyone getting married today! Go plight those troths!
June 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Incredible isn’t it? I can hardly bring myself to celebrate our 12th anniversary tomorrow because it all just seems to mean so little these days.
On the other hand, these modern rules give me a whole new batch of couples who may wish to avail themselves of my ministerial ways.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Take a step back (or maybe two) if you want to dodge Sean’s knee-jerk position on gay marriage. None of that distasteful “thinking outside the box” here! So, I wonder what Sean thinks about polygamous marriages? If the California Supreme Court majority thinks that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional, how can they say that laws against polygamous marriages are NOT unconstitutional? I’m talking about polygamous marriages among consenting adults, of course, not the marrying of kids that’s allegedly been going on at that ranch in Texas.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I have no problem with polygamous marriages among consenting adults.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
I’m a sentimental sap, but every time I read an article about so many couples who finally get to celebrate their love for each other by becoming legally married, I get teary-eyed. I didn’t even cry at my own wedding! I suppose that’s because I didn’t have any opposition to overcome. I just walked in and did it.
I have to say, that I am finally beginning to feel hope for our country, that one day each and every person can truly be equal before the law.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Although Dave doesn’t come out and say it explicitly, he’s invoking the usual “slippery slope” argument. I very much doubt there’s much risk of that happening. Compare with the number of gay people in the US, there just aren’t that many agitating for polygamous marriage — even among the Mormon church. Yeah, they were pretty much forced to outlaw polygamy when they were seeing statehood, but times have changed and now that marriage is see much more as a partnership of equals, they would have a very hard time reversing that decision.
No doubt there are some polygamous marriages that work for all parties, but from what we’ve seen over and over again, polygamous communities both here and abroad tend to be intensely patriarchal and there is much more scope for inequality and abuse. Add to that, many of those more liberal people who crave “open” relationships with more than one partner are not terribly likely to be want to be bound by the traditional concept of marriage anyway.
So claims that the rest of the dominoes will fall — polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia — are just nonsense. There is no evidence that even the first of those (polygamy) will fall any time soon, if ever. But, as always, it’s useful for scaring up votes for the Republicans (which is all they ever seem to do these days).
June 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Actually, I agree that gays getting married harms traditional marriage.
After all, if gays weren’t getting married, I wouldn’t be checking out my (female) yoga teachers butt during class.
Seriously, the traditional wedding vows to mention: “in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer” which tells me that health and economics ARE factors that affect marriage; I wonder why the “family values” crowd doesn’t focus on those issues.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Very much worth a watch on this day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
(catchy tune too!)
June 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
It’s funny: Dave’s comment was the exact rationale used in those who wanted to prevent interracial marriage.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
[…] more perspectives, see Cosmic Variance or the Daily […]
June 17th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I am happy to provide references for Mark’s most excellent ministerial services, in exchange for a little bit of kickback from any fees he happens to wrangle… (And BTW, happy early anniversary to you and Sarah!)
As for Mormons and polygamy, most mainstream Mormons are monogamous; infidelity is actually grounds not just for divorce, but excommunication from LDS. The whole child-bride polygamy nonsense is limited to small extremist factions that are not recognized by the official LDS church. Just sayin’…
June 17th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Sean,
It is easy to say that one supports polygamous marriages, but what that means in policy is quite complicated. Marriage is has very little to do with consenting adults choosing to be in a relationship—as this can occur outside marriage as well. (I am making a general statement, and not a response to your comment). Even those against gay marriage understand that adults can *choose* to do whatever they want. Rather, the issue is about policy and one might argue, a mistake of government getting involved with marriage in the first place. How should tax breaks be handled? How are benefits allocated? Who does insurance cover? How has visitation and say over medical decisions. Each of these questions can be handled easily enough with marriages involving two people, but they jump to another level of complexity when dealing with group marriage. Personally, I’d say that those should never have been tied to marriage at all. It is a difficult task….yes, it is simple to give a one-liner….
And to others making an argument against polygamy due to insignificant numbers…please.
And to tacitus, a “slippery slope” injection is not reason enough to discount what Dave had to say. I can point you to many times in history where those making the slippery slope were proven correct in the long run. I challenge you to find a sound argument why polygamy should be disallowed while gay marriage is allowed.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Joe, I gave a one-liner response to a one-liner question. Sure, it would be complicated to enact a policy formalizing legal rights for polygamous relationships. So what? Lots of things are complicated, and yet we manage to come up with laws to cover them.
All of which is a red herring, of course, as the original argument (made implicitly, to the extent it was made) was simply along the lines of “gay marriage is icky, and to prove it I bet you wouldn’t want to go along with this even ickier thing.” There aren’t any problems of “complication” at all which attach to same-sex marriages but not to straight marriages. And I don’t think that feelings of ickiness should be made the basis for public policy. If consenting adults want to get married, let them, and if the laws haven’t caught up, fix them. Red herrings aside, it really is just that simple.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Joe, you have a point, and maybe I read into Dave’s comment something that wasn’t there (though it’s so hard to tell sometimes!).
I guess I really have no axe to grind over polygamy except that I think history tells us that polygamy is a more likely vehicle for oppression and abuse than either traditional marriage or gay marriage. I am sure it’s possible to have a perfectly healthy polygamous marriage, but where it is practiced it seems to me that many of the women have an unhealthily subservient role in the relationship. Combine this with the obvious grooming of young girls and young boys that goes on in at least some of those societies preparing them to accept polygamous marriage, I just don’t think that on balance widespread polygamous marriage would be a healthy step in our society. (Yes, I do understand that people said this about interracial marriage and gay marriage, but I believe they said this while contradicting all available evidence. I don’t think the societal case for polygamy is anywhere near as clear cut.)
The type of people I would trust not to fall into this gender-role imbalance trap with polygamy would probably be the type of people who reject marriage anyway and prefer some form of open relationship.
Now, as to the legal precedent gay marriage sets in CA regarding the legal status of polygamy, IANAL so I really couldn’t say. I’m sure it has strengthen the polygamist’s case to some degrees, but I would be astounded if there was a rapid rush toward its legalization. It seems to me that when a large majority of society doesn’t want something, they always find a way to make a legal case against it. That went for interracial marriages until public perception began to change, and the same is happening with gay marriage too. The legalization of gay marriage, even by the Californian courts would have been unthinkable a just decade or more ago — they would have found a way to rule against it just as they found a way to allow it this year.
So however strong the legal argument for polygamy is (and I have no idea myself) I just don’t see a path to legalization within a short period of time because society doesn’t want it, and quite likely never will.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Sean, my intention wasn’t to suggest that you *should* have made a more elaborate comment, though on rereading my post, I can see how it came off that way. As to your comments, never did I suggest that same-sex marriage had more complications than straight marriages. In fact, I said quite the opposite. No matter.
However, I do believe that ‘ickiness’, as you put it, should be considered when making public policy. Certainly, it should not be the sole basis, and probably not even a majority basis. However, a ‘modify and fix it later approach’ is a recipe for disaster. Surely, we can think of examples (past and hypothetical) in which policies made without consideration of the effects have-caused/would-cause far greater harm than the spirit of the policy. Now, I am not at all arguing that gay marriage is such a situation, and I suspect that you also weren’t arguing that ‘effects’ have *no* place in policy. Both are important and both must be considered, the degree of which we might disagree.
My personal feeling is that this issues are *icky*, cannot be solved in a consistent manner, and they really have no place in the government at all. Perhaps I am thinking ‘in-the-box’ too much, but I really cannot see how some of these issues can be resolved when considering group marriage. I agree with tacitus that there will not be a sudden rush to polygamy, but perhaps in 10,15,20 years. In the coming decades, modern societies will also face issues of online marriages (think Second Life on steroids) and also with people wanting to marry constructed-artificial personalities. These notions may seem far-fetched but give it time. Afterall, 10+ years ago a.e. person would have thought the present-day situation to be an impossibility.
The cleanest and proper, IMO, solution is that social contracts should not be involved with the government at all. Let people make their relationship and titles on their own, outside of the government. The reasons why have all these constitutional issues is precisely b/c government is involved and giving preference to certain groups. Rather than give the preference to all groups, perhaps we should not give preference to any group. It is simpler, cleaner, and more in line with the proper role of government.
…not claiming to know all the answers or even a good sense of what a good answer is…
June 18th, 2008 at 1:40 am
The government should never have gotten into the realm of marriage in the first place. Its somewhat ludicrous that a couple that has been together for 30 years is not subject to the same benefits/drawbacks/priveledges that a married couple of 1 year has.
The debate should never have been about gay marriage, or polygamy or incest or whatever, but rather why its so completely arbitrary how various societal systems work.
For instance, one of the classic absurdities is medical care. If some person is in a bed dying, for whatever reason, only the spouse is allowed in. A civil union partner by contrast is not (depending on the state). Why? Wouldn’t it have been 100 fold easier for the person to simply have some form somewhere where he/she states who is or is not allowed into his death bed?
Then theres tax issues (eg I want more benefits) and inheritance exemptions and a whole host of stupid legal issues that probably never should have existed in the first place.
The whole gay marriage controversy is just a symptom of a bigger problem.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Actually, I wasn’t trying to make a “slippery slope” argument, rather I was just pointing out the potential inconsistencies and, indeed, hypocrisy of the Cal. Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision. But I don’t expect that such logic will result in the legalization of polygamy in California or anywhere else in the U.S., as the urge to be politically correct nearly always overcomes logic and common sense.
Regarding polygamy, the funny thing is that in biblical times and for long after, it was widely accepted as the norm, not just in the Middle East and in cultures in what’s now India and China, but also, apparently, in parts of Europe. In fact, it’s my understanding that polygamy is still generally accepted as the norm among Muslims. I’m not sure how monogamy came to be the norm among Europeans and their descendants, but I suspect it relates to the Protestant Revolution.
Finally, it’s absurd to say that perceived “ickiness” shouldn’t influence laws. What do you think laws are based on in the first place? Or do you believe that basic laws were, indeed, handed down to Moses on an engraved tablet . . . ?
June 18th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Dave: the fact that ‘ickiness’ has influenced laws from the earliest times shouldn’t be confused with the question of whether it *should* do so.
Also, the answer to your question about how monogamy came to be the norm is ‘Christianity, as influenced by the traditions of the Roman society that brought it to prominence’, not ‘the Protestant Revolution’, whatever that is.
My experience is that calling something ‘politically correct’ is the right’s equivalent of what the left used to mean by ‘fascist’: it means ‘I don’t like this but I don’t have a good way of explaining my dislike’. Accordingly, I can’t extract any meaning from your claim about the California decision.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Living in the UK, I don’t have much knowledge of the US other than from television crime dramas, so please forgive an ignorant question. Are these legally permitted marriages between people of the same sex actually being called “marriages”? Over here in the UK we graciously allow people to enter into “civil partnerships”, and I think that they don’t have all of the same legal attributes as a usual marriage. Personally, I cannot see what the fuss is - we should just have simply said, “Yes, you can enter into a legal union that is indistinguishable from marriage, and so we shall call it marriage.”
I suppose what I am really asking is: Why do some people object to the use of the word, seemingly over and above the legal position itself?
June 18th, 2008 at 4:01 am
Well, men are promiscuous by nature (evolution is to blame for that) so polygamy could be a codification of what, er, comes naturally to men. But you also have to consider that having many wives has long been a status symbol (and still is today) in societies where women were/are seen more as property than equal partners.
That’s why I think polygamy will have a hard go of it in America. Polygamy is rarely an equal partnership and usually involves the profound submission of wives to their husbands. Imagine how you would feel if your wife or husband was off having sex with someone you know almost as intimately as your spouse. I would think there are very few people who could do it without feeling torn up inside. I suspect that’s why years of religious conditioning is usually required to overcome those natural feelings of neglect and jealousy.
So it’s not ickiness that’s the problem here, i.e. not like for gay marriage. (I am quite happy for gays to marry, but gay sex will always seem icky to me, that’s just the way I’m wired). Now the thought of having sex with multiple wives is far from icky
and even the thought of sharing my wife (if I had one) with another man in a polyandrous relationship isn’t icky in that way, but it’s still not pleasant for many other obvious reasons.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Mark, it’s full marriage in California and Massachusetts, and civil unions in a few other states like New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maine, etc.
Here’s a map from Wikipedia:
(look up Wikipedia — Gay Marriage for a very useful map)
More information that you probably wanted, but it shows what a hodgepodge it is in this country.
As for the term, well, using “civil unions” instead of “marriage” is simply because fewer people object to it. Civil unions is a modern invention that doesn’t have the same historical, religious, and emotional power as “marriage”. That’s basically all there is to it.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:21 am
Thanks, tacitus. Although the name is different in different states, do the legal benefits differ too, or are they, for all practical purposes, getting married in the same way that I would?
I admit that I cannot fathom the arguments against allowing adults to marry whom they please (okay, so we might still need those laws against marrying one’s sister et al). I try to think myself into the mindset of the “marriage is a union only between a man and a woman” brigade and I find that I cannot do it.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Mark:
Because Jeeezus invented marriage it sez so in the bye-bull!
June 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am
I have to say, I’m always surprised that this is even a debate amongst intelligent people. If I lived in a culture where my heterosexual marriage were against the religious norms, I would damn well demand and need the government to protect me from the religious norms of that society. Do unto others and what not. End of debate.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
>I admit that I cannot fathom the arguments against allowing adults to marry whom >they please (okay, so we might still need those laws against marrying one’s sister >et al).
But why? What *possible objection* can you have if I as a man want to marry my father or my identical twin brother, and he wants to marry me? If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, is that not something to be celebrated and applauded? How *dare* you try and deny this right to consenting adults?
Seriously: if marriage as an institution is tied to the begetting of children and raising a family (obviously a crazy idea, not sure where it came from, clearly not supported by the history of the institution), then laws against incestuous marriage make sense. But if it’s about two people being together, then any argument for gay marriage is also an argument for incestuous marriage.
Do you support my right to `marry’ my father or identical twin brother as much as you do my right to `marry’ my boyfriend? If not, what’s the difference?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Many heterosexual marriages (mine is one of them) are not tied to the idea of begetting children and raising a family, but there isn’t any serious movement to claim that my marriage threatens other people’s and shouldn’t be allowed.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
but the institution of marriage - or why there is any reason for the state to take an interest in it, take notice of it in the tax code, etc - is tied to the fact that, statistically speaking, lots of marriages, the considerable majority, do end up with children and families. That is, the particular nature of the institution which distinguishes it from the many other kinds of human relationship is that it tends to lead to children.
The fact that not every marriage involves children does not mean that children are accidental to the concept of marriage: there are fancier ways to put it, but the institution of marriage stems from the equation man + woman + sex = babies.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
True Mark, but the manufacturing of future taxable citizens at minimum cost and inconvenience to the state is one of the big, logical reasons for government support for marriage (tax breaks etc. Over here, there’s even a children’s allowance the government pays to the mother for each child).
June 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
These are all true, but I don’t think relevant. I don’t think society is going to ban two heterosexuals from marrying if they aren’t going to procreate. And given that, we already allow marriage between individuals when it has nothing to do with kids. Therefore, fairness would seem to dictate we should allow this for everyone, not only for those who prefer the opposite sex.
Allowing gay marriage hurts absolutely nobody, and allows many new people to be happy in ways that have always been allowed for heterosexuals. It should be a complete no-brainer.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Of course the slippery slope is already getting grease: The president of the American Civil Liberties Union says polygamy is among the “fundamental rights” that her organization will continue to defend:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977
I’m shocked. She wants to defend polygamy — and not a word about polyandry. Equal rights please, ACLU!
June 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
How dare Sean–or any of the rest of you nay-sayers–presume to judge gay marriage? Yeah, I’m straight–I’m female, hubby’s male. So what? Marriage isn’t about gender, it is about LOVE. You can’t tell me that God doesn’t smile upon any couple who want to celebrate their love with a lifelong commitment in His name. As for those who cite Biblical “examples” of God’s alleged caveats against gay marriage, you would do well to remember that God didn’t write the Bible. It was written by human individuals who believed they were recording God’s word. Sure, some of the prophets were genuinely channeling God’s will. But others were merely recording their own prejudices and those of the eras in which they lived in an attempt to rationalize hatred as “doing God’s will.” Appalling.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Sean:
Indeed, and that’s what the lawmakers are paid to do. Why do we accept that lawmakers who earn big salaries will not even attempt to solve the problem but will simply argue that it requires them to do some non-trivial work?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Liz, Sean supports gay marriage.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Liz. I mostly agree with your sentiments entirely (although, I don’t need any reference to an idea like God). I do think you’ve missed something in Sean’s post - the post is actually in favor of gay marriage, not against it.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Judith,
According to Wikipedia (which is infallible) polygamy includes both polyandry (one wife, many husbands) and polygyny (one husband many wives).
June 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
You should stick to your posts on physics, Sean.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Mark Hudson, I don’t know what the differences are between the civil unions in states that allow them. Google must be your guide if you want to know more.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Brathmore, the world would be a better place if more physicists became involved in politics.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Mark,
>Allowing gay marriage hurts absolutely nobody, and allows many new people to be >happy in ways that have always been allowed for heterosexuals. It should be a >complete no-brainer.
I don’t think this is correct. Marriage is often recognised in tax codes, usually favourably. Tax breaks for married couples in some way hurt those who are not married, even if the effect is small. (Likewise complete tax exemption for myself would hurt other people, even if not noticeably). This is justifiable because good marriages benefit society: the government incentivises parents to stay married and provides a sound framework to bring up children in.
Providing the same benefits to civil unions/gay marriage does have a financial effect: the state provides a tax break to a relationship that was not previously recognised. This may be justifiable, or it may not. One reason that does not justify it is that it extends to homosexuals something that has always been allowed to heterosexuals. This reason doesn’t work because it isn’t true: marriage laws have never cared one dime about sexuality, they always cared about sex - what mattered was that it was a man and a woman, not what their sexual desires were. There is no legal requirement to fancy someone in order to marry them.
To me, it seems a no-brainer that same-sex relationships are for basic reasons of birds, bees and babies qualitatively different from heterosexual relationships, and so should be treated differently. In this respect gay marriage seems to me almost an oxymoron: marriage as an institution exists because the sex involved is procreative. Peter and John may love each other and have a deeply committed relationship, but it’s not marriage because their plumbing doesn’t work that way.
That Peter and John cannot get married the way Peter and Jane can doesn’t mean that Peter and John should not have rights in hospital visiting, inheritance, etc, but that is a different situation. I also see no reason why Peter and John should receive benefits that are not accessible to (for example) two brothers living together, who will be hit by inheritance tax in a way Peter and John will not.
And to return to my original question: if everything is about consenting adults, which argument for gay marriage is not also an argument for me to marry my identical twin? (if i had one)
piscator
June 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Our opinions are not too far apart, but if we are to be fair, we either allow gay marriage or forbid heterosexuals who won’t procreate from marrying. right now I have rights (including tax breaks etc.) that are forbidden to other people with precisely the same procreative intentions.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I should add though, that I don’t see any reason for married people to get tax breaks that single people don’t.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Forget traditions about marriage. Today’s question is, are you aware of all internet traditions?
June 18th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
There have been excellent books penned in the past few years on the cultural and historical contexts of marriage. When we’re talking about the permutation of an institution, isn’t it more interesting to cite historical documents than hypothetical evolutionary bio?
I recommend EJ Graff’s What is Marriage For?: The Strange Social History of Our Most Intimate Institution. It’s a reasonably well-researched Western history, perhaps shorter than it could be, but quite solid.
No doubt the definition is changing, but I think that we can safely say that it’s doing so within a context that’s familiar to all of us. No one that I know is romancing his brother. I do know a few who had commitment ceremonies with their bicycles, but I suspect that on investigation, the content of those human/machine relationships has more to do with “sense of humor” than “unleashed waves of wantonness.”
June 18th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
British government study: Robots could demand legal rights
So, while the US is debating “gay rights”, Europe is debating “robot rights”. We are two centuries ahead of the US!
June 19th, 2008 at 1:37 am
“I should add though, that I don’t see any reason for married people to get tax breaks that single people don’t.”
Thats essentially the entire scope of the argument. The only reason homosexuals even care about this being called marriage, rather than a civil union, is precisely for those benefits. Their argument is one of fairness.
However, if its about fairness, why can’t I marry my sister, or my pet doll, or have many wives?
The slippery slope (fallacy) ends up with just about everyone married to something, and then the entire point of having the tax break to begin with is pointless, b/c it stands to reason you would automatically marry something. It costs nothing, and you get free money.
So the entire problem has never been about gay marriage perse, and rather about the arbitrary line thats drawn. At least when it was the will of the majority it had some measure of logic behind it. But now, it strikes me as just an extra bureacratic and pointless rule that should be erased from the lawbooks forever.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:56 am
The little message below where I’m writing this still says “Comments for this post will be closed on 17 July 2008″, and so I thought when I posted my second post on this thread at 11:58 p.m. California time, I’d have the last word — so who let all you guys post after me? Isn’t this a violation of “all internet traditions”? (Well, I suppose it’s in line with the internet tradition that threads will go on and on and on until the horse is well and truly beaten to death).
Anyway, as Martin kindly pointed out, we apparently have Christianity to thank for the STRONG preference for monogamy in Europe and the Euro-settled parts of the world. So it DOES all really come down to religion, doesn’t it?
As for me, I’m not religious, but I think gay marriage really sucks . . . but if a majority of people wanted the government to recognize it (and remember, we’re talking OFFICIAL government sanction here, as opposed to any particular religious sect(s) recognizing gay marriage, which in the U.S. they are absolutely free to do), I’d find it easier to swallow.
What galls me is that 4 members of the Cal. Supreme Court overrode a pretty hefty vote of the electorate just a few years ago in California, which defined legally-recognized marriage as being only between opposite genders. Of course, elitists like those 4 Supreme Court justices, Barack Obama, college professors, and most of the posters on this thread, feel they know what’s best for society, so they wonder why we’re going to all the trouble and expense of having elections in the first place — it just lets a bunch of unwashed peasants, who are bitter about their economic circumstances and thus cling to guns, religion, and suspicion of the unfamiliar, have a say in important things that they don’t know much about. Right?
Anyway, for those of you not up to speed on political activities in the Golden State (California), please be advised that a state constitutional amendment will be on the November ‘08 ballot (along with the U.S. Presidential race) defining legally-recognized marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Given that the similar measure passed only a few years ago by a substantial majority, my guess is that this constitutional amendment will also pass. Then, of course, the legal challenges will start again (on the grounds that, e.g., the amendment was vaguely worded, not enough ballots were distributed in foreign languages like Serbo-Croatian and Tagalog, etc., etc., whatever opponents can dream up) — not to mention the legal limbo that gays who got married in the interim will be in. By the way, I have no idea why the first marriage proposition that passed a few years ago WASN’T in the form of a state constitutional amendment, which would have precluded the Sup. Court majority from declaring that it was contrary to the state constitution. Also by the way, I think that the man most responsible for getting that first proposition passed was former X-15 astronaut Pete Knight, who then was in the California legislature (he’s now deceased).
As regards the suggestion from someone that physicists should make public policy — sure, and members of Congress should be allowed to publish papers on their favorite theories in the physics journals . . .
June 19th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Would it be too elitist of me, with all my fancy degrees and my powdered wig, to point out that this is June?
June 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
In the UK, civil partnerships provide the same legal rights/responsibilities and tax rights as civil marriage. The problem with calling it “marriage” must be because because some religious authorities forbid gay marriage, and probably they make a prior claim on the word “marriage”. But if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck…
I have a great deal of sympathy for not providing married people with no children any tax breaks that single people don’t get. There are a lot of other rights and responsibilities that go with marriage, and I can’t see why any consenting adults that want to enter into such a contract shouldn’t be allowed to do so. But tax breaks should only be given to people with children, biological or adopted, whether they are married or not.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Haelfix. There are other things that the marriage contract provides beyond tax breaks. I agree with some of what you say though. My view most closely coincides with what seleya had to say.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:42 am
What? How is gays getting married being degrading to the act of marriage? Can they not feel the same kind of love and dedication as a pair of heterosexuals? Who cares who they like in bed, who they like to have sex with. Marriage is about loving a partner, and gays of course are no worse at doing that than others. The only mistake here was to have it only encompass heterosexuals to begin with. Now that’s finally starting to be fixed around the world, it’s about damn time. I almost wish this article was written in jest, but I suppose not. *sigh* But then again, we’re only humans after all, we argue irrationally at times. Regardless of sexual preference.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Ah, I see I misread the article, it wasn’t as bad as I first imagined. My comment above still applies to those against gay marriages though.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
They are already allowed to do that. Publishing in scientific journals is, in principle, open to everyone. So, just like a paper by a Congress member won’t be rejected just because he isn’t a physicist, Sean’s input on this topic should not be disqualified merely because he is a physicist.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Suppose that all humans decided to eschew offspring –or voting or traffic laws. Is the categorical imperative a valid reason to encourage conjugal unions that at least provide an opportunity to reproduce?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Marriage! What a boring topic. Anyway, Sean’s post was mostly above love. Now that is an interesting topic. For example, I believe that love needs to be debunked, just as faith has been debunked. Like faith, love is an irrational state of mind, and leads to much harm to oneself and to others. Yet somehow all this damage caused by love is accepted as natural and worth it, just like car megadeath (every year over a million people die in car accidents) has been tolerated by society.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Joshua,
Wikipedia is not only infallible but, in this case, it happens to be right :-). I, as an Aegean archaeologist, should have noted that polygamy comes from Greek: poly (many) gamos (marrying) — which theoretically covers both polyandry and … um, polygamy.
That’s the problem, isn’t it. Default position = male. ACLU = default position. But I’m sure they’ll help me should I want to marry four husbands.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Why not have “trial” marriages where they could be renegotiated once a year - say february 1 - I mean is not the idea to have the most beautiful life possible?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Thanks for that lovely post, Sean.
My friend Andy once articulated the ideas of your first paragraph as: “If gays can marry, I’ll love my wife 20% less. And I’ll start kicking the dog, too.” But yah, it’s hard to be snarky, it’s too sweet. When the verdict came down, I was completely bowled over, then couldn’t stop smiling for three days. Equality. We get to be equal!
I’d been happy with registered domestic partnership — same tax status, inheritance, adoption, etc. But the blank look on straight folks’ faces when you say, “RDP” - wow. I hadn’t realized how unequal “separate but” was until we got a shot at “equal.”
(Too bad the comment thread slid down the slippery slope.)
July 8th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
dave lasagna
not to pick on you, as i typically admire those who post opinions that run counter to the ‘groupthink’ that is so prevalent in academia and in elitist circles, but you make some errors.
1) july 19 2008 has not yet occurred in the reference frame from which i’m posting.
2) i agree that physicists are no more capable of commenting on society than any other member in it. what that poster may have meant was “because physicists often possess excellent analytical skills, they can more readily determine the causes, effects, and possible solutions to societal problems”. i certainly agree that ‘elitism’ a la’ “i know better than you” is no good whether it comes from harvard or mount patmos. nonetheless, as jon stewart put it, “I WANT the president to be elite”, that is, I think we all desire an effective and competent leader.
you are certainly right to demand that physicists who wish to shape public policy adhere to the same standards as anyone else.
3) i am not living in california, and am not really aware enough to comment about whether “judicial activism” is indeed occurring. it was disheartening to me that so many referenda in the past have conclusively determined that americans remain opposed, as a populace, to permitting gay marriage. however, as important a metric as public opinion is to determining what laws to make, we must remember that the constitution was written to protect us from ourselves (by us i obviously mean white, landowning men, a group in which i do not yet belong).
4) serbo-croatian is no longer a single language, but has rapidly split into bosnian, croatian, serbian, and montenegrin. am i missing any?
so to conclude, i agree that physicists are a bunch of pompous jerks who couldn’t fix their car. i’m one of them, and surrounded by them. but why should my blue-collar uncle from peoria not be allowed to enjoy the same rights with respect to his ’spouse’ as those that are bequeathed upon heterosexuals. they have been together 30 years, and if one was dying in a hospital, spousal visitation would not apply? regardless of whether one finds homosexuality “abnormal”, “normal”, or “disgusting”, it is an undeniable civil rights violation, regardless of any majority opinion. ask yourself; what would a referendum taken in regard to the legality of slavery had as an outcome in 1800? (even assuming the slaves could have voted)