?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Too long for Facebook

Y'know... There's this bandwagon status update going around Facebook about the 'institution of marriage'... The religious right would have us believe that the government has to protect the 'sanctity' of the institution.. Which is, at its core, a religious institution. But, y'know what? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Says so in the First Amendment. Will same-sex marriage destroy the institution of marriage? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter. If it's a religious institution, the government has no place controlling it. If it's not a religious institution then the sanctity of marriage arguments fall apart, and the equal protection clause comes stomping in, waving its broadsword and cutting the rest of the arguments to shreds.

Also... prohibiting same sex couples from marrying is discrimination on the basis of gender - not sexual orientation. If two straight men want to marry each other, they are not allowed to - but they're both straight. If a gay man and a gay woman want to marry each other, they're allowed to even though they're both gay. The prohibition is based on the gender of the two parties. Discrimination on the basis of gender is generally illegal.

But what do I know?

Comments

( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
pbsweetheart
Mar. 10th, 2011 05:06 pm (UTC)
Good point! Never thought about it that way.
toob
Mar. 10th, 2011 06:41 pm (UTC)
The latter was the argument used by the plaintiffs in the case against Proposition 8 to the CA Supreme Court.
wolffit
Mar. 10th, 2011 07:15 pm (UTC)
What was the issue the CA Supreme Court was reviewing? Constitutionality, or validity of the manner in which it was passed? What was their comment on gender vs. orientation?

Also, until the ERA gets ratified by a few more states, the anti-discrimination laws are limited in scope, and not Constitutional in nature.

Edited at 2011-03-10 07:16 pm (UTC)
toob
Mar. 10th, 2011 07:36 pm (UTC)
Constitutionality. The court found that Proposition 8 violated the Constitution by discriminating against gender, in specific violating the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

For more detail, see page 119 of Walker's decision at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010

wolffit
Mar. 10th, 2011 08:17 pm (UTC)
Huh. Good to know! Really interesting, in that I've been arguing that it's discrimination on the basis of gender for YEARS, long before Prop 8 ever came about.
daphnetolaurel
Mar. 11th, 2011 04:25 am (UTC)
THIS
aspencougar
Mar. 11th, 2011 04:31 am (UTC)
THIS what?
just_the_ash
Mar. 11th, 2011 06:30 pm (UTC)
I was married to a man who, I have since learned, carried on multiple affairs in serial and in parallel, and whom I left after his verbal and emotional abuse escalated to physical one horrible night. I really want to hear a good argument about why this ultimately life-threatening arrangement upholds the sanctity of marriage, but my marrying a woman would shatter the whole thing.

*crickets*
wolffit
Mar. 11th, 2011 06:58 pm (UTC)
Wait, what? Was this the guy I met?
While I sympathize greatly with your misfortune, I feel compelled to say that your situation does not support the argument in favor of same-sex marriage. Your ex's actions are and were grounds for dissolving the marriage. Your arrangement did not uphold the sanctity of marriage, and resulted in a termination of that marriage.
just_the_ash
Mar. 11th, 2011 09:19 pm (UTC)
That was the "man" you met, yes. Scare quotes because the violent act was so utterly cowardly that I believe it undermines his claim to manhood.

I have heard an argument put forth in favor of same-sex marriage that rests purely on the power of free-market capitalism: to wit, more nuptial registries; wedding cakes; honeymoon cruises; et alia. Of course there are many het couples, as well as gay couples, who feel these things unnecessary, and indeed it's possible to throw a big, expensive party without the legal and civil benefits marriage confers. There is a certain ring of truth about the concept, though. Pun on "ring" absolutely intended.
wolffit
Mar. 14th, 2011 03:39 am (UTC)
Gay marriage as economic stimulus? Amusing. Not very compelling, but definitely amusing! :-)
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Galen
wolffit
Galen Wolffit

Latest Month

November 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow