Things Heard: e74v4
Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 at
10:40 am
- Surprise!
- Construction in the US.
- Hypocrisy.
- Theodicy and history.
- Hostile questions.
- I’m opposed to Federal (and State) regulation of marriage (and a regular reader)… does that count? Because that policy would certainly result in some areas not allowing it and other to do so.
- Zoooom!!!
- Ownership.
- A young lady.
- Sub-4. And media bias (assuming Fox = “the media”). And speaking of bias, the second link put scare quotes on the categorization of Ms Palin as a runner, a sub-4 hour marathon means that yes, indeed, she is a runner … scare quotes are inappropriate.
- South America and some coup history.
- Lessons for the rich.
- Exactly.
- Crises.
- A film.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I have no problem with simply “privatizing” marriage (which would less involve certain areas prohibiting it than certain entities — gay people could get married in a Reform Synagogue in Alabama but not a Southern Baptist Church).
David,
I’m not suggesting this is on a church by church basis (which I think should remain the case) … but on a village/precinct basis. So precincts of San Fran might legalize gay marriage while a conservative small town in Alabama might not.
Gay people can today, right now get have their union sanctified in any number of cults and there is also a number in which they cannot. That isn’t the issue. It’s the legal rights that accompany that union.
For if they are the same then your notion of privatizing marriage is basically claiming any marital partner(s) (why just 2 for example?) relationship has to be recognized by the state. And making any cultic decision legally binding has horrible legal entanglements. For example look at just one legal attachments we assign to marriage, inheritance. That how do you counter the the “marry your children or beneficiaries” to avoid inheritance taxes on your death via the “church-of the-avoid-death-tax-loophole sanctified marriage” for example.
The problem with that is that marriage isn’t just a contract or private arrangement between two people. It is a community/communal entity. I think the location of this as primarily or only an individual right issue is an error.
Considering the question of marriage (and localization of such) in the context of my village, Lemont. Lemont has ~15,000 people. That would come to an average expectation of about 450 gay individuals and I’ve seen cited that about 6% of gays do avail themselves of marriage when it is available … which would mean 14 couples. Yet Lemont is also a blue collar immigrant community. Polish, Lithuanian, and Hispanic immigrants make a significant proportion of the population. I’d wager that the largely conservative cultural contributions from that population would put a significant dent in that average percentage that seek marriage, i.e., that 14 might drop as much as to 4-7. So what you’re requesting that that “for reasons of equality” for the sake of 4-7 couples (total and not per year) seeking state recognition of marriage that it is necessary or required that we further distance and forget the communal community aspects of marriage and strengthen the individual. A direction which I think is mistaken.
Ah, I love how the 73% of American Jews belonging to denominations in favor of gay marriage are now officially “cultists”. Respect for the win!
It is extremely rare that we devolve contract law (which marriage essentially is) to individual localities. There also is a major full faith and credit clause problem — if I get married in San Fran, does it have to be recognized in Birmingham? Can the Castro District refuse to recognize heterosexual marriage? What about divorce? What legal jurisdiction do we use to resolve disputes (localities don’t usually have independent bodies of contract law that we could use for interpretation).
In any event, since I don’t believe gay marriage actually does anything to “distance and forget the communal community aspects of marriage” (much the opposite — I think the exclusion of gay couples from marriage is fundamentally a selfish and anti-communal action) and since I don’t believe that legal rights are predicated on the majority liking them, I don’t much care that only 7 people will take advantage of them.
David,
I was using cult in the anthropological meaning, all religious organizations are cults, and yes, Jews are included in that. I’m not sure how that’s a win or a loss. It’s just a pretty obvious fact. Oddly enough the particular cult I associate myself with, while worldwide is very large is smaller in numbers in the US than the Jewish.
Contract law? Anyone can get married (right now) under the auspices of whatever cult they choose to associate. Their particular individual contract is not in question. The question is how will the state treat them, i.e., regarding taxes, hospital visitation, inheritance and the like. Will it respect and defend that contract. Those particular benefits can be granted or withheld by local decision.
Yes to the first question. The cultic issues with divorce are the cultic issues settled in that venue. Those affected by community should, I suggest, be decided by the community.
So what? That’s what is in dispute isn’t it?
Uhm, that would be 8 to 14 people … couples mean two people. And … why is this a hot topic? Why are we even talking about this. In a town of 15k the biggest and most important injustice you can name is one that affects just 8-14 people.
I agree … but I also think this principle is one which should be taught by people being given the responsibility to make these decisions for themselves and finding out for themselves.