It's a slow week for the kids. Because it's Passover week and next week is a vacation week, there's been little homework. They polished off their homework in 30 minutes, and we ran around outside for a while. (God, I'm out of shape.)
It was a slow evening for me, too. For once, dinner was all prepared and I'm not feeling pressured to pump out an article. So, I sat on the sofa listening to NPR's coverage of the Supreme Court's review of DOMA.
I'm not really the best person to write about this case. There are some first class, Supreme Court specialists who blog and write articles for mainstream papers. I love listening to the discussion, but I am not an expert.
The debate is fascinating. Great discussion about federalism and the role of marriage in society. I'll link to the best commentary as I find it.
Also, I just don't understand the arguments against same-sex marriage. If you're going to write great analysis of an issue, you have to have some empathy for both sides of the topic. In this case, I just cannot understand why anybody would care that gay people want official state recognition of their long term relationships.
Is gay marriage really going to degrade the institution of marriage? The institution of marriage has taken far more hits from celebrities who rotate spouses like a new spring wardrobe. Kim Kardashian's 72 day marriage to Kris Humphries is hardly a model for long-term commitment.
Loving, long-term relationships are good things. It's good financially. It's good for family life. It's good for one's own health. Right now, the benefits of marriage are siloed up in middle class and upper middle class families. I figure the more people who model the benefits of marriage, we're all better off.
Apt. 11d 
“In this case, I just cannot understand why anybody would care that gay people want official state recognition of their long term relationships.”
1. How do you feel about legal recognition of polygamous marriage? There’s a major world religion with one and a half billion adherents that allows polygyny, not to mention traditional cultures in Africa and elsewhere that do the same and have been doing so for millenia. What is the principled argument for allowing same-sex marriage and telling immigrants from those parts of the world that their marriages are not real? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to immigrate to the US with multiple wives and all of their children?
2. Why a special status for a sexual relationship? Why wouldn’t sisters, friends, or mothers and daughters living together and raising children be eligible for the legal and employment goodies that come with civil marriage? The relationship between sisters is pretty much as long-term as a relationship can be.
3. I think that the worst thing about gay marriage is going to be the retaliation, vengeance and violation of civil liberties that accompany it. I don’t have time to lay all the examples that come to mind, but already, there have been all sorts of lawsuits against business people who didn’t want to print t-shirts, print advertisements, provide a wedding venue, or bake a cake.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/oregon_baker_denies_lesbian_couple_a_wedding_cake/
This is a major violation of other people’s rights to insist that your rights mean that you can compel them to bake a cake for you. I don’t even understand how somebody could think that was right.
LikeLike
Anyone who “doesn’t understand” (as opposed to disagreeing with) the arguments against gay marriage either isn’t trying (my guess) or has a serious deficiency of intellectual openness. I would suggest spending more time reading, say, Eve Tushnet, and less time cocooning with the New Republic. (Unless Eve Tushnet isn’t intellectual enough for you.)
I personally am kind of undecided about this issue. (Although I believe that it should be resolved by legislatures, not courts, as it was in New York.) Interestingly, the piece that moved me from “opposed” to “on the fence” was one by Belle Waring (http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2005/10/anti_same_sex_m.html). That piece, and my consequent shift in views, demonstrate to me the value of reading broadly.
LikeLike
1) We are not currently discussing a polygamous marriage, so point 1 is irrelevant. We can discuss whether there is clear evidence of harm in the case of polygamy if/when polygamy because a constitutional/civil rights issue.
2) Your point two is an argument against special status for any kind of sexual relationship, including ones between men and women.
3) Your point three is an argument against civil rights law in general. I know there are those who believe that one shouldn’t have to bake a cake for black people, or for an interracial marriage, but it is not a special argument against marriage equality.
LikeLike
1. Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it, shall we? The slippery slope argument is a distraction to the issues.
2. Many marriages aren’t defined by sex. It’s always been the case. If sisters start to rise up wanting marital status, see #1.
3. Supporter of pre-1950’s Southern lunch counters, are you?
Sorry to come across as hostile, especially since I don’t think I’ve ever commented here before. But this is just such a big issue that should be a non-issue. People’s excuses for supporting the discrimination are more and more far-fetched. I just don’t get it.
LikeLike
1) I’ll bite. I have no problem with consensual marriages between adults. Polygamy often doesn’t meet that guideline. However, if it did and someone wants 3 wives or 4 husbands, I’d probably be okay. I think polygamy is a whole different animal than marriage between two people- no matter what their gender. It’s an apples and oranges thing.
2) If you think it’s unfair that people in sexual relationships trump those of other kind of family relationships, okay. Let’s end the rights associated with heterosexual marriage then.
3 ) Really, protecting discrimination in business isn’t one of my concerns.
LikeLike
I do read right-ish blogs and articles. Read a nice Douthat article yesterday and even watched Hannity the night before last. I follow a number of conservative writers on Twitter and read whatever they link to.
There’s not a lot of consensus among the right on this topic. Even O’Reilly supports gay marriage.
LikeLike
On issue #3, if you’re willing to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, you aren’t running a business. You’re running a hobby, and you’ll go broke in the long run.
LikeLike
During yesterday’s testimony, none of the same-sex marriage opponents made the cases that Amy made: slippery slope (sisters and polygamy) and the wedding cake industry. They said that gay marriage didn’t have enough a track record to make a judgment about its equivilence to hetero marriages. They also said that this matter should be left to the states, and the not federal government.
In the end, this debate will be about federalism. I don’t have strong feelings about who should ultimately decide this matter – the states or the SC. I have a feeling that the SC is going to decide in favor of the states.
LikeLike
I’ll bite too–if you’re referring to Mormons, there are a LOT of Mormons who would vehemently disagree that their religion promotes/supports polygamy. I’d also second the points made about polygamy not always occurring between consensual adults.
Nobody’s forcing anyone to bake cakes. They are forcing them to provide the services they are being paid to provide, without discrimination.
LikeLike
As occurred in the Prop 8 trials in California, and during the Supreme court argument, the opponents aren’t making successful arguments against marriage equality within the ground rules they’ve been set. The arguments made in court have just been bad arguments, in the rhetorical, factual sense (that is, if one were required to score them).
LikeLike
I do not live in an intellectual bubble (having been made aware of the potential for the Internet to do this, I took steps to redress it — not to mention, Facebook friendships with anyone at all from my extended family and/or high-school alumni group would solve the like-associations problem immediately) nor do I ignore the strongest arguments against gay marriage.
I simply find them so contradictory and irrational as to be incoherent. And I’m not more convinced by the idea that legislatures should decide on civil rights for LGBTQ people than I am by the idea that legislatures should decide on civil rights for African-Americans.
Either we have a fourteenth amendment or we do not.
LikeLike
“On issue #3, if you’re willing to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, you aren’t running a business. You’re running a hobby, and you’ll go broke in the long run.”
This is the standard libertarian argument against the need for civil rights legislation. But, it does not always play out this way. In a particular community, denying the wedding cake to the single-sex couple might get you enough business (or even more business). Hence the need for civil rights legislation.
LikeLike
They can’t use federalism in the DOMA case being argued today.
In marriage equality, the problem with the federalism argument is that people do, and can, move among the states; the supreme court or federal law will have to make a decision about how marriages will be treated when people move across state lines.
I really don’t know what the court will do, but I’m wondering if there will be some form of punting (for example, finding that the CA defendants do not have standing).
LikeLike
Like I said, I’m not an expert on this case and I’m just working off the discussion on NPR yesterday, but I think that the court doesn’t have to consider the ramifications of inter-state travel and gay marriage right now, because that’s not the issue before the court. They can simply say that they do not have the jurisdiction to deal with the CA case and say it is a state matter. They will have to deal with the problem of having differing state laws on gay marriage at a later time, when someone brings a case before them that deals directly with that matter.
LikeLike
I would hope SCOTUS wouldn’t have taken the case at all if they truly didn’t believe there was no standing. (They didn’t have to grant cert, after all.)
One of the main arguments against gay marriage made yesterday was the argument that heterosexual marriage guarantees some degree of procreation. I’m with Justice Kagan– I don’t get this argument at all. (Then should we deny marriage licenses to people over 55 years old, or deny licenses to people who are infertile).
I’m usually able to see both sides to every argument, but not for this issue. Legislation, born of hatred, is not something I can ever see another side to.
LikeLike
Yes, they could decide CA that way. But, that’s not a solution in DOMA. They did apparently have a lawyer present on the issue of standing in DOMA, so that might be a way out in DOMA.
I’m a sucker for stories of long relationships: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html?hpid=z1 for the story behind the plaintiff in the DOMA case.
LikeLike
Love this blog. Just love it.
LikeLike
yay, mostly lurking! I love it, too. Always good chatter in the comment section.
According to the gossip on Twitter, it looks like the SC is preparing to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional.
LikeLike
More here.
LikeLike
Not an expert either, but have taken graduate level coursework in this area (Supreme Court procedures and decision-making). The court won’t rule on the issue of forcing other states to recognize gay marriages from other states – that’s not the issue at hand here. The issue is the denial of federal benefits under federal law – that’s it. While advocates of gay marriage (myself included) want it to be more than that, it won’t be. The Court almost always narrowly tailors its rulings – particularly when it’s divided.
I think DOMA will go down on a 5-4 vote; the 5 vote will be decided on federalism, with the 4 liberal judges writing a concurring opinion on equal protection grounds. The CA case will probably be a punt – state issue. Which means the battle moves to the states until someone brings a suit over one state failing to recognize their marriage from another state. I’m a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I think that one will have to wait until Obama (hopefully) has a chance to replace a conservative justice.
LikeLike
The major world religion that allows polygynous marriage is Islam, not Mormonism.
The polygamy/sisters examples aren’t as silly as some people are making them out to be. Yes, they lead down rabbit holes that distract from the main arguments, but they help us analyze our own understanding of the issue. Often times people define their opinions on homosexual marriage (and other issues) out of emotional instinct, and these examples help us learn about the roots of our instincts.
It is the government’s purpose to create and enforce laws that reflect the moral instincts of its populace. So while I have no problem with homosexual (or polygamous) marriage being legal, I don’t like the idea of it being legal if the majority of people in a state oppose it.
LikeLike
“So while I have no problem with homosexual (or polygamous) marriage being legal, I don’t like the idea of it being legal if the majority of people in a state oppose it.”
But that gets us into Shannon’s point. I’m comfortable with the idea that states should be the ones in charge of marriage laws, and DOMA is a violation of that by forbidding same-sex marriage. But the next step is going to be states’ recognition of other states’ marriages. I may not believe, morally, that first cousins should marry, and maybe the majority of my state’s residents believe that as well, but my state would likely recognize such a marriage. (Actually, I’m wrong–Mass is fine with first cousins marrying. This is an interesting list: http://www.11points.com/Dating-Sex/11_State_Laws_About_Marrying_Your_Cousins,_From_Strictest_to_Loosest)
(Nevada’s funny–you can’t marry your first cousin, but hey, you can marry the stranger you just met in a casino!)
LikeLike
I see absolutely no reason why the right to marriage, any more than the right to ride the bus, should be set by the state.
I think we should make predictions. I predict that the court will strike down DOMA, and will decide that The CA coalition does not have standing. That will extend federal benefits to married single sex couples and legalize marriage in CA . I love watching the change in action. It’s kind of like explaining records to the kids.
LikeLike
“It is the government’s purpose to create and enforce laws that reflect the moral instincts of its populace. So while I have no problem with homosexual (or polygamous) marriage being legal, I don’t like the idea of it being legal if the majority of people in a state oppose it.”
Really? I tend to think that government’s job is to make sure that people are given, as much as possible, an equal chance at being treated fairly when it comes to education, commerce, laws, etc., and that we’ve decided as a country that certain things should be true for the country as a whole. The problem with majority rule is that sometimes the majority wants to persecute or discriminate against a minority. In this country, people move from state to state, sometimes not through much free choice (a job moves, a house burns down and you have to move back in with family, etc) and I find it reprehensible that someone’s basic rights in one state would be negated in another state. I mean, we’re not talking sales tax here.
Let me give you a very concrete example. I moved to a state where a constitutional ammendment was passed 6 months later banning gay marriage. My wife and I got a civil union in a state that allowed it a few years later. We are now divorcing, but can’t legally get divorced, since we are in a state that doesn’t recognize the union to begin with, and because there are minor children we can’t get a divorce long-distance in the state that granted the union. The children, by the way, have no legal relationship to the ex, because this state which bans gay marriage also consequently bans second-parent adoption. Which means custody of the children, and child support payments, and trying to unofficially balance things like child tax credits (which we can’t trade off because she has no legal relationship to the kids), are only governed by our good will and trust. You really want that to be true? There are very real people affected by the lack of cross-state consistency. And lots of times the people that pay the price aren’t even the ones who made the big choices, they are the kids and relatives of those people.
LikeLike
The polygamy/sisters examples aren’t as silly as some people are making them out to be. Yes, they lead down rabbit holes that distract from the main arguments, but they help us analyze our own understanding of the issue.”
Well in Canada same-sex marriage has been around for some time, and the laws against marrying siblings and parents remain intact.
For plural marriage it is true a minority is agitating for it and it may happen. However there is discussion here of the difference between a discriminatory contract between two people (based on sex) and a contract between more than two people.
Regardless, personally I feel the same way about plural marriage…as long as there is a way to handle custody issues in case of divorce, I really don’t care. Same-sex marriage has had zero impact on my marriage.
“It is the government’s purpose to create and enforce laws that reflect the moral instincts of its populace.”
Um wow is it? What is a “moral instinct?” Because my moral instinct is that nasty people should not get millions of dollars, yet property rights remain.
LikeLike
Oh P.S. just have to add that the sibling argument is particularly baffling when you consider that heterosexual marriage hasn’t let to opposite-sex siblings, etc. marrying.
LikeLike
I have to say that I underwent an epiphany, maybe 15 years ago on the issue of marriage equality, one that I remember vividly. I went from thinking that it was none of my business to understanding exactly what J says above, that real people with real problems are caught in the middle of the mess of not being married. Divorce and child custody is one of them; so are taxes; and then there are the hellish ones involving loved ones not having access to their family when they are in the hospital.
And then, there’s just believing in love, in people finding each other and making families. I remember when I first confronted myself — a woman told me she was getting married, and she was so excited and starry eyed. That kind of love deserves to have the world celebrate with it, with the same joy we give to any other couple. A person in love should be able to grab their wife’s hand or rest their head on a shoulder or kiss them goodbye, just as my husband does to me, without second thought on instinct.
LikeLike
Another consideration: the rhetoric typically employed to explained the objections to gay marriage, i.e. “marriage is traditionally between one man and one woman,” is a deceptive misreading of the Bible. I’m not signing up for an Abrahamic marriage where my husband can impregnate my servant if I can’t give him an heir or a Levirate marriage where my husband’s brother has to marry me if my husband leaves me a childless widow.
We’ve redefined marriage multiple times in our history and in various ways in various cultures.
LikeLike