Too long for Facebook

[wolffit]

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

Comments

[pbsweetheart]

Good point! Never thought about it that way.

[toob]

The latter was the argument used by the plaintiffs in the case against Proposition 8 to the CA Supreme Court.

[wolffit]

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.

[toob]

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]

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]

THIS

[aspencougar]

THIS what?

[just_the_ash]

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]

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]

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]

Gay marriage as economic stimulus? Amusing. Not very compelling, but definitely amusing! :-)