The codification of same sex marriage rights has passed the house but not the Republican held senate in NY State. Observers expect the needed vote to come as early as next week. NY is significant because it it the third largest state by population.
President Obama stopped short of endorsing the efforts to pass marriage equality legislation by stating that he is evolving on this issue. The President sees the issue as a civil rights equality issue but personally struggles with his comfort zone of one man-one woman marriage.
Should marriage equality or same-sex marriage be decided at the state level or should it be national? Will the courts decide or will legislatures decide? Should the nation just go with civil unions for all and leave ‘marriage to churches and other religious institutions? Is this a civil rights issue such as the President believes?
I think marriage equality will ultimately have to be decided by the courts. The states may decide some particulars such as minimum age and residency, but too much tax code and too many spousal benefits hinge on “marriage” to leave a hodge-podge of state definitions in place in our mobile society. I have no problem with the nation going with “civil unions” for all and leaving “marriage” to religious institutions, but I don’t see that happening any time too soon – it’s too big a change for too many people. Heads would explode all over! And I do see this as a civil rights issue – it’s discrimination based on sexual orientation. (And now I’ll sit back and wait for the usual drivel about bestiality, pedophilia, and polygamy to begin from the usual suspects.)
Agreed, censored. I think ultimately the question will be decided broadly by the courts and the details will be worked out at the state level once we get past tax code and military ‘situations.’
I have no problem with civil union being the default. In actuality, people make marriages. States simply create the legal contract. Should the govt. be in the position of pushing marriage or should it stick to the legal contract end of the business?
I prefer that it stick to the legal contract end of the business. Marriage is so many different things for different people – a way of sharing one’s life with a spouse, a tax benefit, a way of transferring wealth within families, a network within which to raise children. A case could be made that it should be promoted for children’s sakes, but we all know that there are exceptions to that case. So I suppose governments, being primarily interested in our bucks, should stick to the legal contract end of it.
This is how some are starting to look at Obama’s efforts. Basically, he talks a good game, but what has he actually done for them?
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/06/24/face-it-gay-democrats-hes-just-after-you-for-your-money/
I’m conflicted. I believe that the institute of marriage, as currently configured, has existed successfully for thousands of generations for good reasons.
However, my libertarian leanings, make me feel that the government should completely butt out and if a religious institution wants to marry anyone, that’s their business.
However, there is a slippery slope, and yes, I’m going to bring up polygamy/polyandry. If two of the same sex can get married, what are the arguments allowing three or more persons to get married?
I’m not going to bring up bestiality….that’s not relevant as its animal abuse or pedophilia….because its with someone that cannot give consent legally. Both are considered crimes. Marriage is not about sex. Its about legal protections and continuations for children and spouses. And taxes. In fact, two straight men got married in Canada for tax reasons.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bryan_and_bill_get_married_keep_girlfriends/
Other sites stated that there was an outraged outcry by the local gay/lesbian community.
So, since its about legal protections….those can be found without getting married if the tax breaks are removed and everyone pays the same regardless of marital status.
Btw, where did the ability to get married become a right? There is no right to get married. Everyone needs permission from the state, and sometimes the a church, to get married.
As an aside, what do you think about that newly married couple of the 51 year old actor and 16 year old singer?
Speaking as a father…..actually, I better not actually say what I’m thinking….
Cargo, I think a person should be at least 18 or however old one usually must be to sign a contract. Don’t know how shotgun weddings for younger teens would be handled – I guess they would need the equivalent of parental consent.
I’m not sure that all situations can be handled equally legally as laws now stand. I don’t know if a gay partner can have the same rights to medical info or make the same decisions for medical care as a straight spouse. I know a gay couple who were in an auto accident, were admitted to the same hospital but on different floors, and couldn’t find out any medical information about their partners. Their siblings in distant states could get that info, but they couldn’t even though they’d lived together for more than a decade. They now carry ID claiming that they’re siblings. Why should two committed adults have to do that?
About the 16 year old…apparently her parents said it was ok for her to get married…..eewww.
If two people cannot get paperwork authorizing information on each other…ie general power and medical powers of attorney…..something’s wrong.
My wife would have been able to handle medical, well….everything. as a girl friend, if I had given her general power of attorney. I know people who did just that….
So there are ways. But one must plan ahead.
I have heard the polygamist argument and I don’t think it holds water. As long as everyone is allowed one marriage at a time, there is no discrimination. Furthermore, the polygamist marriages are through their church, not an actual state marriage. A polygamist can have 20 sister wives as long as he doesn’t try to involve the state.
I would expect the state could step in when the husband tries to be a low life and suck the state dry to support his offspring. That has been known to happen.
Define ‘right.’ Since when is marriage not a right? Isn’t it something most people are allowed to do?
That’s not what I’m talking about. If two people of the same sex, if they are straight, can get married to each other, why can’t three people get married.
The “arbitrary” barrier of one man and one woman, the traditional Western marriage, has been overturned. So why NOT 3 men, 3 women, any combo…
If everyone is allowed one marriage at a time? Heck, if you look at it a certain way…everyone has the same rights now. Everyone has a right to get married to a person of the opposite sex.
You just put you definition on it. “Isn’t it something most people are allowed to do?’
A right is not something that one is “allowed” to do or that one must seek permission to accomplish. Rights are inalienable and do not require the participation of another. A right is something, in which a government is “allowed”, under close supervision, to regulate, if, at all. It is the restricting force that must seek permission.
One must ask a church’s permission to marry. One must get a license to marry and have it approved. Some marriages are not recognized, such as common law. One must have the participation of the state or of a church for it to succeed. You cannot demand that a church or state marry you. You do have the right to seek someone that will marry you, though that marriage may not be “official.”
I think only the desperate set a goal of marrying someone of the opposite sex. Most people want to marry the person they are attracted to. Sometimes that person is the same sex they are.
As for multiple spouses, why do you care. Let the Fundamental LDS fight that fight.
Not all rights are inalienable. And the same condition might not be a right in another country. Rights are conditions and behaviors that people feel they are entitled to. Actually, ‘rights’ have a rather flexible definition. Our constitution defines some rights. Companies define some rights. Schools define some rights. Parents define some rights.
I don’t think I want to lock myself in.
As for churches…churches have the right to not marry couples in which one or both people don’t meet conditions of the church. If that happens, get a civil union.
This all seems fairly simple to me.
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Friday, June 24, 2011 — 9:53 PM EDT
—–
Gay Marriage Gains Critical Vote in New York State Senate; Passage Appears Assured
State Senator Stephen M. Saland, who had been publicly undecided, said Friday that he would vote for gay marriage, giving the bill the support of 32 state senators, enough for passage.
If marriage is something granted by the state (government) it’s actually a ‘power’ of the state.
Rights are things you are born with. Jefferson referred to them as inalienable. These are the things that you are born with. For example; a right to self defense or to own property.
Back to marriage. As the state ‘permits’ those that can and cannot marry its a function of the legislative and not the judiciary. We really got into this mess when the govt got involved. Assuming we want to keep the govt involved do we really need it at the federal level? Why not let Virginia and Maryland determine for themselves how they want to do it?
If the state of NY wants to recognize it; great. If Florida does not – also great. Allow the residents of each state through their elected officials to figure it out.
We then battle this out not in terms of “homosexual marriage” but in what the legislatures allow to permit for civil unions overall. Maybe this opens up marriage between siblings or multiple persons (1 to many). That’s for the People and the States to decide.
My guiding thoughts on this are; whats best for the offspring and how does it effect property rights (esp in terms of inheritance).
In Jefferson’s day, not everyone had the right to own property. Just ask slaves and women.
I disagree on your definitions of ‘rights.’ ” Inalienable rights” are the ones that you are born with. And these rights are only really rights if your government allows them to be rights. So in that sense, they become legal rights.
Then there are all the other rights.
So you can handfast, jump the broom, shack up or ‘live in sin’ or all sorts of other things or you can get licensed to marry and have that service carried out by one who is has been given the power to bind that contract.
The question becomes to you want the government pushing marriage or civil unions? I do not think churches should be forced to marry people that don’t meet their criteria.
Censored,
I’ll refrain from the drivel on beastiality and pedphillia. I think these are strawman arguments. However, polygamy is a different matter. There is actual precedent for this practice in our country (1800’s Morman Church), and it is still practiced in secret by some non LDS Church Morman sects. Additionally, there is the religious and cultural aspect of it in the Muslim faith. Event the Jewish faith accepted plygamy at one point.
So I will agree that “next folks will want to allow marriage to pets and children” is a red herring. But the argument that allowing gay marriage is opening the door to the legalization of polygamy is a very legitimate argument.
@Steve,
And polygamy is practiced also out in the open. They aren’t hiding from the law as much as they are hiding from people who have such distain for the practice. I have never met a Mormon living in Utah who didn’t laugh about it also, sort of like a family that has a batty old aunt. As long as the man only has one ‘legal’ civil wife, it isn’t illegal to live with other women. Everyone but the first wife is a church wife.
I am sure that practicing sects would like for polygamy to be legal. That’s their problem I guess. Its really no skin off my nose anyway. *I* don’t want to have 2 husbands. One is quite enough, thank you very much.
“I disagree on your definitions of ‘rights.’ ” Inalienable rights” are the ones that you are born with. And these rights are only really rights if your government allows them to be rights. So in that sense, they become legal rights.”
Yes, I agree that the inalienable rights are the ones you are born with. The legal rights derived from government are “civil rights”. But, government (as you pointed out) can transgress over both inalienable and civil rights. Should they? No. But it happens. Much like I have a right to not have force used upon me but that won’t stop a thug that wants my wallet.
To clarify your last question I’ll say that I object to the FEDERAL government defining marriage. I am ok with the states defining it as they wish and the People of those states being in compliance with those laws/definition.
On principle I am ok with homosexuals being together in a voluntary association that may or may not lead to certain government benefits (I think the idea that the government provides benefits to married couples as wrong) depending on the state (law) that they reside in.
I do think that by providing these legal rights (in only a state the allows it) we do open the door to other relationships that may have less support currently. That is a question for the voters in those states and the legislatures.
As a private organization I think churches should be free to exclude anyone they wish to. Much like I believe that a church hospital is free to not offer certain services; like abortion.
Barely relevant here but I’m sure MH and Censored will appreciate.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Sgt. Maj. Barrett brought out a small copy of the Constitution and referenced Article 1, Section 8. “It says, ‘Raise an army.’ It says absolutely nothing about race, color, creed, sexual orientation.” He then asked if everyone in the group joined the Marines to protect their nation, going on to say, “How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?”
I think this is less of a 14th or a 9th Amendment issue and more of a 10th.
Let Virginia decide for Virginia.
I don’t view polygamy in the same way as I view gay marriage for the simple reason that I don’t think people are born as polygamists. Polygamy in this country is generally practiced by obscure Mormon sects as well as by some members of the other faiths you mentioned. I view gay marriage (or civil unions if they apply to everyone) as a civil rights issue. People are born with a certain genetic make-up. There can be any number of racial differences, sexual orientations, handicaps,etc. that we’re dealt at birth. Why should people be discriminated against because of their genes? Polygamy is a choice as far as I know.
@censored,
In the first place, I don’t particularly care if consenting adults are polygamists. Ghouling around after teenage girls is another thing and that goes on in some of those sects based on some of the books I have read. But that’s going to go on whether polygamists have legal plural marriages or ecclesiastical ones.
Gays are just asking to be able to marry a partner of their choice, not 2 or more at the same time. I guess many of us practice sequential plural marriage.
If I am recalling my history correctly, polygamy (more correctly polygyny — one man, plural wives) was never found to be a part of the Book of Mormon. Some Mormons began practicing it in the 1840’s; but it was not until 1852 that Brigham Young addressed the subject officially. He announced that the late LDS founder, Joseph Smith, had had a personal revelation on the subject and had practiced it. (There were claims that Smith had as many as 50 wives). Based on this revelation, Young authorized the practice of polygyny by those Mormons who wished to do so. This included himself. (Sorry, Moon, you couldn’t have two husbands anyway. But Mr. Moonhowler could have as many wives as he could handle!)
The Young announcement as senior leader of the Council of the Twelve Apostles caused a serious split in the LDS. (Mrs. W’s great-great grandparents, having just arrived from England on a Mormon immigrant ship, were among those who angrily left the church over this issue.) The survivors of Joseph Smith also protested vigorously against the Young statement and decision, claiming that Smith did not believe in polygyny and did not have plural wives. Joseph Smith’s widow, Emma Hale Smith, gave sworn testimony that her husband had had no other wives. One result of the split was the creation of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which did not accept polygyny, set up its own headquarters in Missouri, and refused to call themselves Mormons. One of the founders of this group was the eldest surviving son of Joseph Smith.
It looks to me like polygyny in Utah and other Mormon settlements was very much optional. Mrs. W’s great-great-grandparents had many family members on that immigrant ship who did take the Mormon Trail to the Valley of the Salt Lake. Some practiced polygyny in Utah. One of them had ten wives (five or six at the same time because of deaths) and more than 70 children. Others had fewer wives and kids. Most had only one wife at a time. (As you can imagine, Mrs. W has a lot of distant “cousins” out in that area!)
When the Feds passed the Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862 and later the Edmunds Law and the Edmunds-Tucker Law, federal agents started hunting down those practicing polygyny, breaking up families or causing families to seek refuge in the wilderness in Nevada, Arizona, and elsewhere. The suffering was really intense in many cases. In 1890, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the anti-bigamy laws. The LDS then accepted the court decision and withdrew sanctions for the solemnization of plural marriages. You could no longer practice polygyny and remain a member in good standing of the LDS. Some historians have opined that a major impetus behind this LDS ruling may have been the realization that, without it, Utah Territory would never be granted statehood. (That’s my own understanding of how it all happened, but I would welcome any input on this from members of the LDS.
O.K., so, if you agree that polygyny cannot be found in the Book of Mormon, it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the LDS per se would ever seek to resurrect the issue, although some “apostates” might do so but without much theological backing. But, Steve hit something right on the nose. Polygyny IS sanctioned in Islam — up to four wives at the same time. In this case it has a real theological basis. Makes one wonder just where any future push to overturn the anti-bigamy laws in this country might originate.
@wolverine,
I think polygyny is the sociological term. All the Mormons I have known have said polygamy…but what do I know.
I have read that Mrs. Smith said he had no extra wives to save face and actually he had a boat load of them. There is an autobiography of one of Young’s wives, written in the 1800s. It was very interesting and it was also online.
Moon — I also have seen some opinion about the Joseph Smith family trying to save face; but I just don’t know. Mark Twain once wrote a marvelously comedic piece ( I think it was in “Innocents Abroad”) about being a guest in a Utah home with plural wives. His description of what that husband had to go through to keep all those wives happy practically had me rolling in the aisle.
BTW, once, during my youthful meanderings through Africa, I was hosted by the paramount chief of a large tribal region. Very impressive and hospitable guy. He had 100 wives. I kid you not. 100 wives — all living in his large compound along with his palace and the tribal treasure house. I would have liked to have seen Twain take a crack at that one!
@Wolverine
That’s a brave man.
Aren’t there offspring from the various Smith liasons?
FWIW, I have a friend who is pretty deep into the LDS with whom I’ve discussed polygamy at some length. She tells me that it was born of necessity – i.e. lots of males died on the trip west leaving lots of females behind. In other words, it was done to replenish the stock of little Mormons and kind of hung around from there.
I don’t know how true that is, but it makes sense to me.
@Cato, except that it was started before they hit Utah, I think. Actually, that makes sense. Or…ever watched a heard of cows in a field? How many bulls are needed?
Something that is hard for me to wrap my mind around is how really few options for women were out there even 150 years ago. Unless women has money and a lot of it, they worked hard. They did house work, field work, birthed babies, and managed households and kids. The entire family unit was totally different than it is today.
Women and men usually needed each other to make this unit work towards a common goal. Single women had no means to support themselves and had to rely on family if they were unmarried. Single women were sometimes seen as burdens on their family. That’s how you got women dumb enough to share their husbands.
Its probably a good thing I was born in the last century. I don’t think I would make a very good candidate for the 19th.
Agree, Moon, that it probably started before Utah, probably around the Nauvoo, Illinois, settlement before the trek to Utah. Maybe even in the Independence, Missouri, area before they were forced to flee from the threats of violence by anti-Mormons and resettled in Illinois.
That relative of Mrs. W who had ten wives total? He went on to become one of the wealthiest and most prominent 19th century Mormon leaders in Utah and Arizona. He was the elder leading the immigrant party of which Mrs. W’s great-great-grandparents were a part. In fact, he was great-great-grandfather’s uncle by marriage and had paid their passage out of his own pocket. His wife was with him on the voyage. However, we think that the crap hit the fan when great-great-grandmother discovered that another young lady on the voyage was there because she was going to become the uncle’s second wife once they all reached Utah. And sure enough that young lady did, within a week of the immigrant party arriving in Salt Lake City. She was an “imported” wife.
Great-great grandmother had it out face to face with the uncle, who was an A type personality if ever there was one. She was only 21 and pregnant, an English country girl away from home for the first time. She had lost her only child at sea to illness during the immigration voyage and had been traumatized by the fact that they had to drop the dead child into the sea amidst the tales of sharks following the ships waiting for an easy meal. The immigrant ship was then hit by a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico and drifted at sea for weeks without sails or masts, with crew and passengers nearing starvation, until it was spotted purely by chance by a pilot boat out of New Orleans.
Now she gets to America and discovers that the Mormons in Utah are practicing polygamy. Family stories say that she had a royal fit over the issue, telling that uncle in very firm and loud terms that such an LDS was not for them, and walking out on the immigrant party. We can imagine she probably took great-great-grandfather by the ear and dragged him off with her. Spunky gal she was. But, in any case, it does look like this polygamy business had started before Utah. In fact, I have figured out that, at the time of the clash between the uncle and great-great-grandma, the uncle already had two living wives on the record books, one with him and another in California (later moved to Salt Lake City) where he had served as a Mormon missionary for several years and become very rich by selling horses during the Gold Rush. The gal with the immigrant party who became the second wife was actually Wife No. 3. Actually, she was Wife No. 4. Wife No. 1 had died in Nauvoo some years before. No, wait!!! Darn, this can get confusing!! Anyway, I hear tell that the uncle died in Utah in the late 1890’s — probably with a big smile on his face.
Having said all this, there is also something to what Cato has said. Widows with or without children in the wilds of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona did need some male presence in their lives in order to survive. Moreover, I think there was also something theological in some of the plural marriages. I’m not exactly sure about the details, but I do recall that being married was somehow a prerequisite for a more certain entrance into Heaven. Therefore, not all wives were wives in the usual sense. Sometimes a man simply had a widow “sealed” to him in a pure theological sense. I believe that Brigham Young himself had several women sealed to him in that way who were only technically his “wives.”
BTW, my figures may have been wrong about that uncle. A biography of him was written by his family in 1966. They say he had eleven wives and 60 children, 51 of whom were living at the time if his death in 1897. If you want to see photographs of the uncle who was told off face to face by a spunky 21-year-old English lady who insisted that she would never accept sharing her man with another woman, Google in the name “Christopher Layton.” Layton, Utah, is named for him.
Now, to tell the truth, Moon, if there are any 21st century ladies of my blog acquaintance who would also have slapped old Christopher upside the head on the issue of polygamy, it would have to be you and Elena — not forgetting Mrs. W herself.
Wolverine, you are right. And as I read your account, I had this mental picture of Mrs. W hanging that wolverine hide on the wall…and how the apple probably didn’t fall far from the tree.
The more wives a man had the more higher on the food chain he was. It was a way to become a god. I think that Young had ‘rights’ with all the wives. My personal opinion is that regardless of all the religious myth and bs told about why there was polygamy, it was really all about sex and propagation. Go forth and multiply on steroids.