The Marriage Debate

[Mister Tee]

Who wants to bet that all the right-wingers who've been screaming "Don't legislate from the bench!" whenever a state court ruled for gay marriage will now, since they was done legislatively, ask the courts to overturn it?

[Eric]

This one is somewhat significant in that it was enacted by the legislative side, not judicial. And between this and the geographic/metaphoric implications of Iowa's location ... I would say this one-two shot sort of feels like gay marriage opponents' Waterloo moment.

[OscarGuy]

Although we shouldn't get used to this kind of good news trend, I must say this is definitely good news:

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press Writer Dave Gram, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 1 min ago

MONTPELIER, Vt. – Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.

House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an outburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we're good members of our community."

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.

"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."

Craig Bensen, a gay marriage opponent who had lobbied unsuccessfully for a nonbinding referendum on the question, said he was disappointed but believed gay marriage opponents were outspent by supporters by a 20-1 margin.

"The other side had a highly funded, extremely well-oiled machine with all the political leadership except the governor pushing to make this happen," he said. "The fact that it came down to this tight a vote is really astounding."

Also in the crowd was Michael Feiner, a farmer from Roxbury and gay marriage supporter, who took a break from collecting sap for maple syrup-making to come to the Statehouse.

"I'm taking a break to come and basically make sure that I was here to witness history," he said.

The House had initially passed the bill last week with a 95-52 vote.

[Johnny Guitar]

Back then, with the lack of vaccinations, modern water or sewage treatment, pasteurization, refrigeration, etc., enormous numbers of people would die from diarrhea and similar ailments simply from eating spoiled food, drinking spoiled milk or contaminated water, etc. Young children were the most vulnerable; so, something like more than 4 out of every 5 children would die before their 5th birthday.

Except that this "back then" of which you speak does not apply to the majority--chronologically or geographically--of humankind! It makes absolutely no sense to speak of some allegedly inborn revulsion to non-procreative sex acts being our species' adaptation to pre-industrial conditions.

Lack of clean water, refrigeration, vaccinations were socially significant "problems" solved by modern progress only insofar as they were introduced or tremendously exacerbated by early modernity itself. Phsyiologically speaking, people can live just fine without pasteurization, vaccines, and other advanced technologies.

As for giant families, traditional cultures the world over have their own ways of family planning and spacing out pregnancies. Perennial childbearing is a consequence of modernity, not the retrograde constant of pre-modernity.

[OscarGuy]

And to add further to the sociological argument, it's also traditionally enforced in religious organizations. The pervasive thought is that anything that does not relate to a propagation of the species is detrimental to it. Thus, why the Catholic Church is so vehement against birth control and non-reproductive sexual relations.

In addition, I would almost argue that other than a theological perspective, the church also has invested interest in outlawing what they deem "sexual perversions". Firstly, it tends to draw people away from the church (which is actually a double-edged sword since it's their stricture that causes people to leave the church, thus they are pushing people away by enforcing what they intend to use as a way to keep the flock "pure"). Secondly, the insistence on sex as a way of reproducing is intended to increase the population of the church and to increase the faithful.

Thus, their desire is manifold, but mostly it is to keep the species going and through keeping it going, they are broadening their influence for we all know how the tendency is in religious organizations to bring their children into the flock at an early age, indoctrinating them so that they see it as the only possible way and thus never explore life fully and thus give them the opportunity to divorce themselves from the church and further decrease their power and influence.

[Big Magilla]

I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly (probably not).

Very clearly, makes a lot of sense.

[Heksagon]

I thought about this theory for a while, and I think it's far-fetched. Although you may want to elobarate your theory, I think it's much more likely that sexual taboos are a sociological rather than a biological phenomenon. Societies have developed specific ideals for what is appropriate in sexual (and platonic) relationships, and people who break specific taboos are seen as a threat to the society and its value system.

I have a few arguments to back up this way of thinking. First of all, sexual taboos are widely different from one society to another; and if there is a strong correlation between sociological factors and sexual taboos, it would seem to indicate that sexual taboos are specifically a sociological phenomenon. If sexual taboos were a biological phenomenon, then it would be expected that sexual taboos are the same in every society.

The other point is that sexual taboos are enforced at social level. If there was already a biological rule governing sexual taboos, it would be difficult to explain why societies spend so much time and effort in creating and upholding sexual taboos. If non-productive sexual acts were a biological issue, people would approach them with the attitude "that's stupid, but it doesn't concern me". Only if sexual taboos are a sociological issue, there can be a need for enforcing them through sociological means. I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly (probably not).

(Furthermore, I could point the obvious and say that engaging in "non-productive" sexual acts doesn't actually prevent anyone from being engaged in "productive" ones as well. Pregnancy still takes nine months, so you would figure that there's some extra time to --- there)

[anonymous1980]

I have had this theory that the taboos given to such things as homosexuality, heterosexual oral and anal sex, and masturbation/pornography are a holdover from the instincts humans evolved in pre-industrial times.

Back then, with the lack of vaccinations, modern water or sewage treatment, pasteurization, refrigeration, etc., enormous numbers of people would die from diarrhea and similar ailments simply from eating spoiled food, drinking spoiled milk or contaminated water, etc. Young children were the most vulnerable; so, something like more than 4 out of every 5 children would die before their 5th birthday.

Parents, on average, had to conceive 10 or more children just so 2 could live to have children of their own and the small human population could be kept constant. There was then a huge advantage for humans to evolve not only a strong sex drive but a revulsion to any non-reproductive sexual act. Because there has been only trivial human biological evolution since pre-industrial times, we still have inborn instincts against certain sex acts even though there is no advantage for these instincts any more.

Actually a very good theory, Greg.

[Greg]

I have had this theory that the taboos given to such things as homosexuality, heterosexual oral and anal sex, and masturbation/pornography are a holdover from the instincts humans evolved in pre-industrial times.

Back then, with the lack of vaccinations, modern water or sewage treatment, pasteurization, refrigeration, etc., enormous numbers of people would die from diarrhea and similar ailments simply from eating spoiled food, drinking spoiled milk or contaminated water, etc. Young children were the most vulnerable; so, something like more than 4 out of every 5 children would die before their 5th birthday.

Parents, on average, had to conceive 10 or more children just so 2 could live to have children of their own and the small human population could be kept constant. There was then a huge advantage for humans to evolve not only a strong sex drive but a revulsion to any non-reproductive sexual act. Because there has been only trivial human biological evolution since pre-industrial times, we still have inborn instincts against certain sex acts even though there is no advantage for these instincts any more.



Edited By Greg on 1238800867

[OscarGuy]

And another ban falls...

Iowa court says gay marriage ban unconstitutional

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press Writer – 14 mins ago

DES MOINES, Iowa – The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Friday finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making Iowa the third state where marriage is legal.

In its decision, the court upheld a 2007 district court judge's ruling that the law violates the state constitution. It strikes the language from Iowa code limiting marriage to only between a man a woman.

"The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," said a summary of the ruling issued by the court.

The ruling set off celebration among the state's gay-marriage proponents.

"Iowa is about justice, and that's what happened here today," said Laura Fefchak, who was hosting a verdict party in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale with partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson.

Robinson added: "To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd see this day."

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of the gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

"We have all of you courageous plaintiffs to thank: Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream," he said.

Court rules dictate that the decision will take about 21 days to be considered final, and a request for a rehearing could be filed within that period. That means it will be at least several weeks before gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses.

But Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said the county attorney's office will not ask for a rehearing, meaning the court's decision should take effect after that three-week period.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said. "This is not a personal thing. We have an obligation to the law to defend the recorder, and that's what we do."

The case has been working its way through Iowa's court system since 2005 when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The state Supreme Court's ruling upheld an August 2007 decision by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who found that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office, arguing on behalf of Brien, claimed that Hanson's ruling violates the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Lambda Legal scheduled a news conference for early Friday to comment on the ruling. A request for comment from the Polk County attorney's office wasn't immediately returned.

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont has cleared the Legislature but may be vetoed by the governor.

Richard Socarides, an attorney and former senior adviser on gay rights to President Clinton, said the ruling carries extra significance coming from Iowa.

"It's a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage. And it shows that despite attempts stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays," he said.

The ruling in Iowa's same-sex marriage case came more quickly than many observers had anticipated, with some speculating after oral arguments that it could take a year or more for a decision.

[OscarGuy]

One More Step Closer...


Vermont Senate panel approves gay marriage bill
Associated Press


MONTPELIER, Vt. – A Vermont Senate committee has unamimously approved a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

The senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-0 on Friday to advance the measure that was the topic of an emotional public hearing on Wednesday that drew hundreds to the Statehouse.

The full Senate is expected to take up the bill next week.

Gov. Jim Douglas has said he opposes the measure, but has not indicated whether he would veto it.

If approved, Vermont would join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only U.S. states that allow gay marriage.

[anonymous1980]

From the IMDb:

Hanks Slams Mormon Support Of Gay Marriage Ban
19 January 2009 8:08 AM, PST


Tom Hanks has hit out at Mormon supporters of the gay-marriage ban in California - calling it "un-American" for homosexuals to be denied the right to wed.

Hanks, who executive produces hit TV series Big Love about a polygamous Mormon family, is convinced U.S. politicians will eventually step in and change the country's laws regarding same-sex unions.

And while he calls polygamy a "bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church," the actor has hammered some of its followers for their alleged involvement in passing controversial bill Proposition 8 - outraged that modern society can still be prejudiced against gay relationships.

He says, "The truth is that a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them.

"I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper in any of the 50 states in America.

"A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who's responsible and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian constitutional process."

Homosexual couples in California were granted the right to wed last year but had their rights revoked just months later after the passing of the bill, which reversed the previous ruling permitting the unions.

[Sabin]

Thank you, Jon Stewart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eSS98hwqkg

[criddic3]

I agree that the will of the people can be misguided, but I will repeat myself here: If people want to fight this in court, fine. If they want to have a vote, fine. But you can't have it both ways. Don't spend millions of dollars fighting the proposal before the vote, and then threaten litigation when your side loses. It's stupid, condescending to the voters and a waste of time and money.

Criddic, you're misinformed here. The opponents to Prop 8 did not wait until Prop 8 won to threaten litigation. They sued as soon as it became eligible for the ballot with the same argument they're using now, i.e., that Prop 8 represents a revision to the constitution and not a simple amendment. The court decided not to hear the case until after the vote. Yesterday the California Supreme Court asked state attorney general Jerry Brown to respond to the lawsuits, indicating that they are quite interested in hearing this case.

That is interesting. However, isn't that kind of like cheating anyway? It's sort of like running for Vice-president and the Senate at the same time, after you've already lost the primary for President. No matter what happens you have a good shot at winning something.



Edited By criddic3 on 1229405924

[Penelope]

An all-star cast in Prop 8: The Musical.