State GOP politicians are cheering on the appeal and seem to be implying there's a circuit split (which would be an excellent reason to haul the mess up before the Supreme Court, who might even hear it -- I wonder how many appeals are refused after a Justice has a nightmare about Dred Scott?). If there is a circuit split, I'm not finding it.
The next step, according to some, will be dogs and cats living together, followed by Nazis riding dinosaurs, people marrying houseplants and legalized polyamorous unions -- I suspect the last strongly supported by the divorce attorney union in quivering anticipation of the financial resources of an 8-person marriage.* (Conversely, nobody older than age six really wants stormtroopers on T-Rexes goose-stepping down Main Street. Common ground at last!)
Supporters of both sides -- if they are serious about their support -- should remember that Their Team just had one not-inexpensive slog through the court system and is now facing another. Better write your guys a check, they've got bills to pay.
Let Round Three begin! I'll make popcorn.
ETA: From Kitchen v. Herbert, which is precedential in much of the U.S. West, this line (emphasis mine): "The court noted that while the state electorate had voted in a popular referendum on the issue, a person's fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote, citing W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette." If it takes same-sex marriage to get that notion to percolate into the popular conscience, it might take away some of the sting for opponents. Hasn't the right to keep and bear arms been found fundamental already?
______________________________________________
* "Buy in bulk and save!" One would expect more huddling-up when times are difficult, especially in this age of extended families no longer living in the same neighborhood. This leads me to suspect the demand for more-formal polyamory is already well-matched to supply: pretty small. The "If they legalize it, everyone will want to do it," argument is bilgewater: the people who want to already are. One might apply this principle more widely....
10 comments:
While I personally think that the State should not be in the marriage business at all, I am giving one of my employees time off so she can take advantage of the window of opportunity to have her union blessed by the organs of the State.
Personally, I believe the state should only record the partnership, and leave "Marriage" up to whatever religious institution will bless it and solmenify it.
That makes sense to me.
What B said.
And a GREAT write-up there Roberta.
I agree with B. Take marriage out of it and have civil unions. With all of the partnership rights that hetero couples have.
I think a bunch of politicians and other busy bodies should get their noses out of peoples bedrooms and worry about the budget and the deficit.
I ready this as: the demand for more-formal polyaRmory is already well-matched to supply.
I pictured a family getting married in formal plate carriers, ghillie suits and a variety of hand guns and rifles. No two people carrying the same weapon.
Kerry
After a day or two i notice there are no pillars of salt. no bolts of lightning lancing from the clouds in Divine retribution.
This is not the end of society. Couples are together whether the state says Ok or not.
It is time to move on.
The idea that "the state should only have unions not marriages" only works if you get the entire world to go along with that wording. Or at least the entire country.... for all unions.
Plenty of examples of couples traveling in THIS COUNTRY who have been denied "partnership" benefits because Florida (or wherever, but I know it happened in FL) didn't accept that wording. Doctors refused to accept someone as next-of-kin, refused visitation, refused to release the body when the worst happened. Because no marriage = no rights.
No guarantee that marriage would work internationally, but most of the countries that I would care to travel to agree by treaty to recognize each others' marriages as legal. (For travelers and immigrants.) Even gay marriages.
Marriage conveys (depending on who is counting) between 1100 and 1500 rights. Everything from medical visitation (who is next of kin?) and medical decision-making to funeral arrangement-planning in addition to the obvious stuff - like survivor benefits and breaks on the death tax.
None of these inequities were solved by domestic partnerships, because every bigoted funeral director could ignore them (no statute or court decision forcing him to recognize that union.) And they often did.
Now you may say, I can choose a funeral director, but I can't always choose the hospital/doctor/administrator I will have to deal with - say in the event of an accident. And they exercised the same "right to be a bigot" in a lot of locations.
Wheelgun: That's basically my view.
Sure I would prefer to have the state get it's nose out of the marriage business and just record partnership.
But that ain't gonna happen. Both because you'd have to get every state out of it *and* neither side in this debate wants it.
Course I also don't see why polyamorous unions shouldn't be legal. And I fully expect there to be "Gia* intended Adam and Steve Not Adam, Eve and Steve!" bumperstickers cropping up.
*Replace with deity of choice.
I really felt the same way for a long time, wondering why the gay folks wouldn't take the "civil union" prize along with equal treatment under certain laws, and run with it. My sly, very straight friend Jim looked at me and said "Yes, I see exactly what you mean, then the gays can be separate but equal". Unfortunately, given our nation's history with things like that, it really is an all or nothing proposition.
Ken, I'm not sure that you took the same meaning from previous comments as I did. Who was proposing civil unions for only same-sex couples?
Post a Comment