Damn. Even with the extreme correlation I wasn't convinced until the medical evidence.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Damn. Even with the extreme correlation I wasn't convinced until the medical evidence.
Yeah, certainly not a $200k/year earner here. That would comfortably put you in the top 0.1% of society around these parts.
The point stands nonetheless. Marriage should have nothing to do with taxes. No bonuses, no penalties.
Great argument by Ginsburg
During Tuesday’s marriage equality arguments in the Supreme Court, several of the Court’s conservative members suggested that same-sex couples should not be given equal marriage rights because these couples have not enjoyed those rights for most of the past. As Justice Antonin Scalia summed up this argument, “for millennia, not a single society” supported marriage equality, and that somehow exempted same-sex couples from the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the law.
Not long after her conservative colleagues raised this argument, however, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality in just five sentences:
[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.
Justice Ginsburg’s point was that, until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles. According to Sir William Blackstone, an eighteenth century English jurist whose works are still frequently cited today to explain the common law principles we inherited from our former colonial rulers, “[t]he very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.” As late as 1887, fully one third of the states did not permit women to control their earnings. And married women could not even withhold consent to sex with their husband until shockingly recently.
Under the common law, “by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband,” and this consent was something “she cannot retract.” The first successful prosecution in the United States of a husband who raped his wife did not occur until the late 1970s.
So American marriage law, and the English law that it was derived from, presumed that the wife was both financially and sexual subservient to the husband. In a world where marriage is defined as a union between a dominant man and a submissive woman, each fulfilling unique gender roles, the case for marriage discrimination is clear. How can both the dominant male role and the submissive female role be carried out in a marital union if the union does not include one man and one woman? This, according to Justice Ginsburg, is why marriage was understood to exclude same-sex couples for so many centuries.
But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.
During Tuesday’s marriage equality arguments in the Supreme Court, several of the Court’s conservative members suggested that same-sex couples should not be given equal marriage rights because these couples have not enjoyed those rights for most of the past. As Justice Antonin Scalia summed up this argument, “for millennia, not a single society” supported marriage equality, and that somehow exempted same-sex couples from the Constitution’s promise of equal protection of the law.
Not long after her conservative colleagues raised this argument, however, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality in just five sentences:
[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.
Justice Ginsburg’s point was that, until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles. According to Sir William Blackstone, an eighteenth century English jurist whose works are still frequently cited today to explain the common law principles we inherited from our former colonial rulers, “[t]he very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.” As late as 1887, fully one third of the states did not permit women to control their earnings. And married women could not even withhold consent to sex with their husband until shockingly recently.
Under the common law, “by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband,” and this consent was something “she cannot retract.” The first successful prosecution in the United States of a husband who raped his wife did not occur until the late 1970s.
So American marriage law, and the English law that it was derived from, presumed that the wife was both financially and sexual subservient to the husband. In a world where marriage is defined as a union between a dominant man and a submissive woman, each fulfilling unique gender roles, the case for marriage discrimination is clear. How can both the dominant male role and the submissive female role be carried out in a marital union if the union does not include one man and one woman? This, according to Justice Ginsburg, is why marriage was understood to exclude same-sex couples for so many centuries.
But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.
I'm still struggling with the arguments against same sex marriage.
The "customs and tradition" argument is nonsensical.
The "family values" argument is nonsensical.
The "degenerative effect" argument is nonsensical.
The "slippery slope" argument is nonsensical.
All there is, at root, is a personal disgust with male-on-male sodomy and female cunnilingus (not sure what the problem is with the latter
), but personal disgust can't be a compelling basis for telling a lesbian that she can marry a man, but that she can't marry a woman.
Married heteros do a lot of disgusting things to each other but no one is suggesting banning marriage altogether.
Two women living their lives together, buying a home, shopping for groceries, raising adopted children and caring for each other in sickness and in health should be considered a good thing by all fair-minded people. I've never met Jesus Christ, but from what I've read about Him I'm pretty sure He'd be very pleased to see two women living their lives together in happiness and peace.
The "customs and tradition" argument is nonsensical.
The "family values" argument is nonsensical.
The "degenerative effect" argument is nonsensical.
The "slippery slope" argument is nonsensical.
All there is, at root, is a personal disgust with male-on-male sodomy and female cunnilingus (not sure what the problem is with the latter
), but personal disgust can't be a compelling basis for telling a lesbian that she can marry a man, but that she can't marry a woman. Married heteros do a lot of disgusting things to each other but no one is suggesting banning marriage altogether.
Two women living their lives together, buying a home, shopping for groceries, raising adopted children and caring for each other in sickness and in health should be considered a good thing by all fair-minded people. I've never met Jesus Christ, but from what I've read about Him I'm pretty sure He'd be very pleased to see two women living their lives together in happiness and peace.
Isn't it just post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Last edited:
(Probably chatting shit here)All there is, at root, is a personal disgust with male-on-male sodomy and female cunnilingus (not sure what the problem is with the latter
I've noticed among my peers that it's mainly hetero males finding gay sex a bit icky and hetero females finding lesbian sex icky. To quote a friends grandmother "I don't mind them men gays, but the women gays are disgusting, ew."
It's an interested argument by Ginsburg you've brought to our attention, @senorgregster, but it's not particularly compelling.
By her logic, a prohibition on same sex marriage would be perfectly constitutional today if wives still were expected to stay at home, barefoot and in the kitchen, while men go off to work every day. That's hardly compelling. What her argument helps explain is why acceptance of same sex marriage is what it is today, not why the Constitution can or cannot be relied upon to invalidate a prohibition on same sex marriage.
One can make this debate much more complicated than it needs to be, but all one has to do is think through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and consider whether there is a compelling state interest that is served in denying to gays the same right to the adult of your choice as is enjoyed by heteros. There is no "degenerative effect" to be averted and no discernible benefit to be gained by a slavish adherence to "customs and tradition" by allowing states to deny to gays what they afford to heteros.
By her logic, a prohibition on same sex marriage would be perfectly constitutional today if wives still were expected to stay at home, barefoot and in the kitchen, while men go off to work every day. That's hardly compelling. What her argument helps explain is why acceptance of same sex marriage is what it is today, not why the Constitution can or cannot be relied upon to invalidate a prohibition on same sex marriage.
One can make this debate much more complicated than it needs to be, but all one has to do is think through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and consider whether there is a compelling state interest that is served in denying to gays the same right to the adult of your choice as is enjoyed by heteros. There is no "degenerative effect" to be averted and no discernible benefit to be gained by a slavish adherence to "customs and tradition" by allowing states to deny to gays what they afford to heteros.
I don't think that's her logic at all. I think she's merely pointing out how flawed the institution has historically been and any attempt to use it as a precedent is farcical.
Just chatting shit indeed.
I just can't handle watching gay porn. Once was enough for me (college initiation ritual). But two or more lesbians going at it, bring in on!
In that case, she's spot on!
You're misinterpreting her. What she's trying to say is that the "marriage has meant a certain thing for millennia, we cannot go about changing the definitions now" argument does not fly. Because a lot of aspects about marriage have changed fairly recently (that is, in the past hundred years or so).
That's how I read it. I'm sure she had planned that argument for quite a while.
It is a compelling, if fairly easy, argument. I'm surprised someone as thorough as Scalia would use this excuse. Just goes to show the conservative wing of the court is clutching at straws.
FWIW, slavery was perfectly legal for most of recorded history. Are we getting rid of the thirteenth now?
The "always has been, thus always must be" is an obtuse argument for a lot of obvious reasons. I'm reading Ginsburg's argument as portrayed here and don't see anything that can't easily be swatted away.
Marriage as an institution absolutely does evolve and no one denies that, but it evolves organically as a function of societal norms, expectations and exigent circumstances, not judicial edicts.
The issue before the court isn't what's "right", but what is consistent with the US Constitution, properly understood. The court has no jurisdiction over what is "right", but over what is constitutional. If the US Constitutional were amended to ban gay marriage, the court would have no jurisdiction to invalidate laws than ban gay marriage. In this case, the court may, and I would argue must, rely on the plain meaning of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Where conservatives go awry is that they forget that the 14th Amendment has equal standing as every other provision in the US Constitution. Where liberals go awry is that they conflate what they believe is right with the US Constitution itself.
Marriage as an institution absolutely does evolve and no one denies that, but it evolves organically as a function of societal norms, expectations and exigent circumstances, not judicial edicts.
The issue before the court isn't what's "right", but what is consistent with the US Constitution, properly understood. The court has no jurisdiction over what is "right", but over what is constitutional. If the US Constitutional were amended to ban gay marriage, the court would have no jurisdiction to invalidate laws than ban gay marriage. In this case, the court may, and I would argue must, rely on the plain meaning of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Where conservatives go awry is that they forget that the 14th Amendment has equal standing as every other provision in the US Constitution. Where liberals go awry is that they conflate what they believe is right with the US Constitution itself.
The point is that Ginsburg's argument does not stand on its own. It should be read as a rebuttal to a prior argument (by Kennedy?), and nothing more.
The organic evolution of marriage is rubber-stamped by judicial edicts (and legislative process, and executive action), however.
I dunno about that. This is Section one of the fourteenth amendment:
The parts you're trying to appeal to have been bolded.
It is arguable if by banning gay marriage, a state is taking away anybody's privileges. This is not a straightforward argument, which is why eminent jurists on the Supreme Court are wrapping their heads around it.
The court could opt for Door #3, that the doctrine of federalism supersedes the equal protection clause with respect to "marriage", provided that a functionally identical domestic partnership option is made available by those states. States could confer recognition of "marriage" or "domestic partnerships", provided that in a very real legal sense they are identical. With that, 5 justices who are uncomfortable with requiring states which are uncomfortable with the words "same sex" and "marriage" in the same sentence would have a nice out that could throw a bone to both sides of the debate. It would be a beautiful way to thread the needle. Or Kennedy could go all in.
We'll find out in about two months how this shakes out.
@Gannicus if you are not impressed with her rebuttal can we assume you are not impressed with the original argument she was rebutting? Why stop the evolution of marriage definition at straight couples? Why is this so different to previous iterations such as subservient women only or same race only? I forget if there was a law prohibiting remarriage after divorce.
I agree it comes down to the constitution. I'm certainly not impressed with your door 3. For a start it results in two classes of citizens. Sounds discriminatory to me.
I agree it comes down to the constitution. I'm certainly not impressed with your door 3. For a start it results in two classes of citizens. Sounds discriminatory to me.
I agree with all this. I wasn't meaning to challenge this at all. When I said "I dunno about that", I was writing about using the fourteenth amendment in this case, not using the Constitution as the basis of jurisprudence. In all contests between the Constitution and "natural law" (which is an extremely subjective thing), the Constitution wins. No contest.
The argument about same-sex marriage being okay is completely coherent. The part that is not straightforward is that banning same-sex marriage contravenes the fourteenth. The constitution, as far as I'm aware, does not define marriage at all. Ergo, states are perfectly entitled to define it as they see fit. If a state defines a marriage as one between a man and a woman, then there is no case of infringing on the privileges of any citizen. Adam can boink Steve all he wants, but to "marry", he has to choose Eve. What privileges of Adam are being infringed upon here? The one point I'm willing to concede is that states will be forced to recognise same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, and that argument should proceed identically as the anti-DOMA Windsor vs. United States case, with the fourteenth being appealed to instead of the fifth.
Secondly, plainly appealing to the fourteenth sets an extremely dangerous precedent that would allow people to challenge bans on cousin marriage (wherever that's valid), and other "unnatural" marriages de jour that are popularly cited by anti same-sex marriage folks.
There has to be constitutional support to striking these ban down, but I'm not sure if just appealing to the fourteenth is going to cut the mustard.
These arguments in support of the ban are hogwash and I'm sure any sane lawyer will not use them. They'll simply appeal to states rights and warn the Supreme Court not to overstep the boundaries of judicial review. I'm inclined to agree with them, in that states should be allowed to live with their social mores until their legislatures see fit to move with the rest of the civilised world.
I would argue that even this goes against the doctrine of judicial review but I won't press this, especially since I am pro same-sex marriage
Going back in history, the South was dragged out of the Jim Crow era, kicking and screaming States Rights. The Plessy vs Ferguson, and Brown vs Board of Education cases were decided upon with the same amendments in place, just different interpretations. There is enormous pressure on the Court to not bend to popular opinion, and utilize a strict constitutional interpretation; however I'm sure the plantiffs will be "creative" enough to form strong arguments based on anti-discriminatory legislation and the 14th.
I don't think there is enough political capital to push through an amendment through Congress and 2/3rds of states legislatures, that would be lovely.
Wowsers. Fascinating stuff. I always thought the Freakonomics explanation was a crock of shit.
That is the mother of all negative externalities and the oil companies haven't paid a cent in restitution, I'll wager.
Here's an interesting post on lead paint.
Www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/red-barns-and-white-barns-why-rural-crime-skyrocketed-late-1800s
Www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/red-barns-and-white-barns-why-rural-crime-skyrocketed-late-1800s
True, but Brown vs. Board, in hindsight, is a pretty open and shut case. Lack of public education is an active detriment to life and liberty, lack of the ability to marry is not. As I said, the states could be forced to recognise same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions, just as Windsor vs. United States forced the federal government to, but they cannot be forced to overturn their own bans by simply appealing to the fourteenth.
And I agree with this. It is not the business of the judiciary to be the barometer of public opinion, but the legislature.
God, I certainly hope so. Throwing this back to the states would set this process back a few years. It has gathered a nice head of steam, and this should be allowed to continue to its inevitable conclusion.
Yeah, the number of sparsely populated red states effectively kills this idea in the bud.
(Traveling with an iPad today...please forgive typos)
The Brown v Board of Education decision actually gives us something to think about in this case. It was argued the separate WAS equal, but of course separate in reality resulted in not in equal, but inferior public schools. There may or may not be 5 votes on this court to overturn same sex marriage bans on an equal protection clause basis, but lower courts in the federal judiciary have done so and the power of their argument is overwhelming.
The Brown v Board of Education decision actually gives us something to think about in this case. It was argued the separate WAS equal, but of course separate in reality resulted in not in equal, but inferior public schools. There may or may not be 5 votes on this court to overturn same sex marriage bans on an equal protection clause basis, but lower courts in the federal judiciary have done so and the power of their argument is overwhelming.
In Freakonomics the drop in crime rate was linked with the abortion laws.
edit: I see that it mentions Levitan. He's got some great arguments.
Disagree there. The income tax code is meant to be based not only on one's income but also on your ability to pay - hence why we have realization events and nonrecognition. 43% of Americans don't even pay income tax. Many credits and deductions are implemented to help those at or below the poverty line. That poverty line doesn't go up proportionally to the amount of dependents in a home - economies of scale and all. In order to account for those things you have to accept the consequences of marriage bonuses and penalties that come with the adjustments of deductions and the phaseout of credits and such. I think it's quite appropriate to account for those things in taxation. If you're going to decide that very low income earners should get a subsidy (different political conversation - but our government has decided that with the EITC) then that subsidy shouldn't apply equally to a single individual who earns $30k and a married couple who brings in $30k/year.
Same logic as to kids. It's another person in the household. Just as the tax code (rightly, IMO) taxes people differently based on the number of dependents (much of this is phased out, of course, as income goes up) it should tax differently based on whether two people are married since their expenses are higher, but not double. If taxes are meant to be based on your ability to pay then this is the correct approach. Just unfortunate that there are some unwanted consequences.
The gay community deserves those same tax breaks IMO.
But tell a woman about any gay sex act and bet 90% will say that's disgusting. It doesn't matter if it's man on man or woman on woman.
The other day when zapping I inadvertently started watching a documentary about a guy that dedicated a huge chunk of his life to fighting against lead, Clair Cameron Patterson. He was working to try and accurately determine Earth's age. His biggest challenge came when the method he had devised to do so wasn't working due to widespread lead contamination. Creating a lead-free artificial environment, so that he could conduct the experiment, was extremely daunting. After accomplishing his goal, he devoted the rest of his life to lobbying against lead in gasoline. Again, he succeeded. Top man, two great contributions.
The lead/crime correlation is a decent correlation but I'd like to know a bit about causation before getting too excited.
Well done, the Irish if it happens.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-marriage-equality-according-to-latest-polls
Ireland days away from gay marriage equality according to latest polls
Irish voters are set to back the introduction of marriage equality by a margin of as much as two-to-one next week and become the first country to approve the policy in a national plebiscite, a series of polls indicated on Saturday.
Long considered one of the most socially conservative countries in western Europe, support for gay rights has surged in Ireland in recent decades as the power of the Catholic church collapsed in the wake of a series of child abuse scandals.
The Irish Times poll of 1,200 voters showed 58% planned to vote in favour of the measure compared to 25% against and 17% undecided.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...m-marriage-equality-according-to-latest-polls
Ireland days away from gay marriage equality according to latest polls
Irish voters are set to back the introduction of marriage equality by a margin of as much as two-to-one next week and become the first country to approve the policy in a national plebiscite, a series of polls indicated on Saturday.
Long considered one of the most socially conservative countries in western Europe, support for gay rights has surged in Ireland in recent decades as the power of the Catholic church collapsed in the wake of a series of child abuse scandals.
The Irish Times poll of 1,200 voters showed 58% planned to vote in favour of the measure compared to 25% against and 17% undecided.
Not long to go till you can get married, @Brophs
Hey son.
I'm pretty sure we have a gay Mick in our community here. Not sure if he's taken though.
We want more updates on the hot Oriental neighbour tbh.
You know you're in trouble when your PM is more Catholic than the Irish.
We talk on kik a lot.
I am still worried about the silent no creeping in. The elderly tend to have the highest turnout at these things and many of them will be voting no.
I'm more worried about the result being declared the same day as the Eurovision. The level of excitement on Saturday could make the whole country explode, in some kind of massive Gaymageddon.
I haven't come across one person that's voting Yes and I do talk to a fair few people on my daily travels. All my neighbours, the teachers and the special needs assistant in my little ones school, lads I do play hurling and football with, all the regulars in my local all voting No and they're not to silent about it either.