Is the ban on gay marriage indicative of a de facto theocracy?

[openingmind]

Does the ban on gay marriage point to a de facto theocracy?

Take Utah's Constitutional Amendment 3:

Quote:

1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

I remember when I voted on this, the question in my mind was: Why? Why does marriage consist only of the legal union between a man and woman?

I mean, imagine that you're an alien visiting Earth and studying its laws. You come across this law and you ask someone, "Why? I don't understand the reasoning for this. Can you explain it to me?" What type of answer do you think you'd get?

I've been asking myself: What idea is behind the first clause of Amendment 3? What does it reference? In respect to what idea was it written?

Amendment 3 does not say "Whereas homosexuality is an abomination and hated by God, let it be ennacted that..." But, really, how was the first clause arrived at? On what argument is it built?

In the state of Utah homosexuality is not illegal. Neither is homosexual monogamy illegal. Neither, actually, is it illegal for private insurance companies to provide benefits to homosexual couples registered as couples. In fact, Intermoutain Health Care recently changed its policies so that registered gay couples get the same benefits as married straight couples.

I bring this up because if homosexuality were illegal, or gay monogamy was illegal, then the law would be more understandable. If practicing homosexuality were banned then it would make sense that a county recorder should be legally forbidden from issuing a marriage certificate to two men or two women. Amendment 3 would be a logistical extension of another basic law.

But if the ban on gay marriage is not derived from a ban on being gay or gay and monogamous, where does it come from?

Can we say that it's an instituitionalized moral viewpoint that is derived from a specific establishment of religion? And that, in banning gay marriage, local governments are becoming theocratic?

[TragicMonkey]

Are you asking "what is the rational basis for this irrational bigotry"?

[pchams]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Are you asking "what is the rational basis for this irrational bigotry"?

No, I think he's asking "what is the irrational basis for this irrational bigotry".

[openingmind]

Well, like I said, when I voted on Amendment 3, I had a very simple question in my mind: Why?

"Marriage consists only a legal union between a man and a woman" is not a self-contained statement. When I read it on the ballot I felt like it was missing "because..."

In effect, I felt like I was voting on an unfinished sentence.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by pchams

No, I think he's asking "what is the irrational basis for this irrational bigotry".

Ah. But how can one rationally fathom irrationality? It's probably all down to sexual maladjustment issues and the ick factor, with the religious stuff just a facade. One that the person probably believes is genuine, I mean: they think they dislike homosexuality because it's "against God", but really deep down its because they walked in on their mommy and daddy, or have a suppressed notion that sex is evil, or something general like that. I'd bet it's not even specifically about homosexual sex, just all sex in general. People are really screwed up, and sex is the second biggest thing people get screwed up over. (The biggest is mortality). But that's just my opinion, of course.

[Fnord]

Too many hypotheticals in the OP for a well-reasoned response to the question "Is the ban on gay marriage indicative of a de facto theocracy?"

Although I would hazard the guess that those who are in favor of the ban simply don't understand how nice and wonderful the world would be if gay marriages were accepted as normal.

[brenn]

I consider any govenrment regulation of marriage an entanglement of church and state. ("De facto theocracy" seems a little hysterical, so I wouldn't use those terms) I'm not convinced by the reasoning process that says it isn't a 1st Amendment violation to regulate something done through a religious ceremony that is otherwise 100% legal to do, as long as you don't have the ceremony.

For example, here in Kentucky we have a law against handling snakes as part of a religious ceremony ("Any person who displays, handles or uses any kind of reptile in connection with any religious service or gathering shall be fined not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100)" - KRS 437.060). Yet it is perfectly legal to do anything prohibited by the statute as long as you leave out the religious service, so I'd argue that the statute is unconstitutional. Christian judges disagree.

My argument against bigamy/polygamy laws is exactly the same - any number of men and women can legally live together, have sex, etc., as long as they don't have a "marriage" ceremony. So how can it be constitutional to prohibit the marriage ceremony?

Taking that argument to step 3 says that if it is legal for persons of the same sex to live together and do everything otherwise associated with marriage except have the ceremony, how can it be illegal to have the ceremony. Of course, there is one difference - for the same-sex couple, there is no punishment for the religious conduct, but the marriage is simply not recognized by the government for the various purposes that it might need recognition.

My solution to the whole thing would be for the government to get out of the marriage business - there is only a need for government recognition of marriage because govenrment created it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by brenn

My argument against bigamy/polygamy laws is exactly the same - any number of men and women can legally live together, have sex, etc., as long as they don't have a "marriage" ceremony. So how can it be constitutional to prohibit the marriage ceremony?

There is no prohibition on ceremony, it's the status afterward that's not recognized. There's not a law (even here in Virginia!) preventing me from walking down the aisle, having the harp music, even having a minister or something say words and conduct a ceremony. It's just that after the ceremony, me and the lucky Other Mr Monkey won't have the same legal relationship that we would have had if the Other Mr Monkey were actually a Mrs Monkey instead.

It's the status that's in question. Converse is true as well: legal marriage doesn't require a ceremony, just the paperwork and attestations.

[TragicMonkey]

I've always thought that the prohibition of gay marriage is actually simple sexual discrimination. Party A and Party B can't enjoy the same rights that Party A and Party C could, solely on the basis of the sexes of A, B, and C. If A or B changed sex but nothing else, it wouldn't be prohibited. To my reasoning, that makes it pure sexual discrimination. The orientations of the parties is irrelevant, as the prohibition doesn't consider it--there's no prohibition of gays marrying persons of the opposite sex, after all.

[brenn]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Ah. But how can one rationally fathom irrationality? It's probably all down to sexual maladjustment issues and the ick factor, with the religious stuff just a facade. One that the person probably believes is genuine, I mean: they think they dislike homosexuality because it's "against God", but really deep down its because they walked in on their mommy and daddy, or have a suppressed notion that sex is evil, or something general like that. I'd bet it's not even specifically about homosexual sex, just all sex in general. People are really screwed up, and sex is the second biggest thing people get screwed up over. (The biggest is mortality). But that's just my opinion, of course.

That's a pretty standard argument technique that seems most popular on the left - "I will make up embrassing false motives for anyone who disagrees with me." (Kind of an "appeal to motive") It is used for everything from gun control to the environment, but it's especially easy where the argument involves sex in some way. I'd say it's a poor substitute for actually winning your argument on the merits. It is especially bad, if you claim to be a skeptic, to attribute false motives for which you can have no possible evidence (since you are arguing here against a whole point of view, not a person or people). Over-generalization/stereotyping is the least of your errors.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by brenn

That's a pretty standard argument technique that seems most popular on the far left - "I will make up embrassing false motives for anyone who disagrees with me." It is used for everything from gun control to the environment, but it's especially easy where the argument involves sex in some way. I'd say it's a poor substitute for actually winning your argument on the merits.

Short of getting a team of psychologists to fully analyze the entire population, there's no way to tell. I don't believe I suggest any of my opinions on that topic were more than personal speculation. Nor do I care about "winning" arguments on the subject. People's motivations and feelings and opinions are utterly irrelevant; what matters is how people act and how they treat each other. Just like the question of what causes homosexuality, the cause of homophobia is of purely academic, scientific, historical, or psychological interest. Not political interest, because we ought to focus on treating people equally regardless of why they're messed up.

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, and in response to your edits, I don't recall claiming to be "a skeptic". And I'm not "arguing against" anything. I'm speculating as the cause of something. "Arguing against" means I took a position--did I? I don't care that people are messed up over sex. It's interesting, but unfixable and therefore unproductive to try to do anything about it. I never suggesting doing anything.

[KingMerv00]

To answer the title question, no.

I think the ban on gay marriage is stupid and religiously based but that one legal issue does not make America a theocracy.

[openingmind]

I agree with TragicMonkey that marriage is a question of the status of citizens and the privileges derived from that status.

Marriage is the recognition by a civic body of monogamy and the conferral of privileges by a civic body based on the recognition. Marriage ceremonies are moot here. The issue is that some citizens have more civic privileges than others based on sex and sexual orientation.

"De facto theocracy" does sound hysterical, but my original question remains: Where do the laws come from? Again, in the state of Utah being gay or monogamous isn't illegal, but gay monogamous people do not get the same discounts and benefits that hetero people do.

Why? What is the basis for the standard? If you stick to your guns on this question, I think the answer is "Because homosexuality is a sin," which means we have theocratic laws in place.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

To answer the title question, no.

I think the ban on gay marriage is stupid and religiously based but that one legal issue does not make America a theocracy.

I agree. If America was sliding towards becoming a theocracy I doubt gay marriage would have be legalized in the five states where it is.

[brenn]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Oh, and in response to your edits, I don't recall claiming to be "a skeptic". And I'm not "arguing against" anything. I'm speculating as the cause of something. "Arguing against" means I took a position--did I? I don't care that people are messed up over sex. It's interesting, but unfixable and therefore unproductive to try to do anything about it. I never suggesting doing anything.

Yes, you made your position very clear. See your first psot, above, for example. Claiming a psychological motive for your oponents' argument is taking a position on the issue of why, although you also took a more partisan position by claiming it was "irrational bigotry."

I don't say, or care, whether you are ultimately right or wrong. I only object to your own irrational (as in not founded on evidence) response to what you attack as irrrational.

[openingmind]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

...that one legal issue does not make America a theocracy.

No, of course not. But the law, to me, is theocratic. America is not a theocracy because of it, but millions of people are living under a theocratic rule.

And, by the way, I do think progress is being made in regards to gay marriage. But I think the last leg of the journey could be helped by calling an ace an ace.

[brenn]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Short of getting a team of psychologists to fully analyze the entire population, there's no way to tell.

Which is exactly why that type of attack on those with an opposing viewpoint is not a valid argument. For example, if somebody threw out the claim that "homosexuals claim they want to be able to marry for equal treatment - but really deep down its because they want to adopt children to molest - or - really deep down its because they want make themselves feel better about their deviant lifestyle" or something like that, it would be equal to your claim on the other side.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by brenn

Yes, you made your position very clear. See your first psot, above, for example. Claiming a psychological motive for your oponents' argument is taking a position on the issue of why, although you also took a more partisan position by claiming it was "irrational bigotry."

I don't say, or care, whether you are ultimately right or wrong. I only object to your own irrational (as in not founded on evidence) response to what you attack as irrrational.

It's only a "partisan" suggestion if you believe irrationality is necessarily bad or wrong. I don't believe so, in fact. I believe people are fundamentally irrational. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as they behave nicely.

But I can see that if you interpret irrationality as always being bad or wrong, then you'd see my statement as an "attack" on a position by calling it irrational. That is probably the interpretation most people will always make, because most people tend to bestow all qualities they perceive as good upon their own opinions, and all those qualities they see as bad upon other opinions. Which is irrational, of course. But I read too much Nietzsche in my formative years, so I don't confuse "good" with "rational", and thus my own opinion of the good is not irrevocably tied to reason. It's a flaw that's been around since the birth of philosophy--those Greeks so regarded reason that they assumed it must not only be a good in itself, but that all things that are good must be rational. If people appreciated nonsense more, particularly the nonsense inherent in human nature, the world would be a better place. And I'm willing to bet that everybody reading this deems it nonsense, also. Fine by me, because it doesn't matter.

[Soapy Sam]

Let's put aside, for a minute, early 21st century western revealed wisdom.

Historically, marriage is about children, property and inheritance.
Even if we had never developed the notion of gods, I bet we would have developed marriage. The fact it was contaminated by religion along the way is merely evidence that muck sticks to anything it touches.

Now with the best will in the world, homosexual relationships are and always were childless in the sense of genetic heredity. So it's hardly surprising that human cultures of all sorts generally ignored such relationships, or positively repressed them.

Biologically, this may change. Lesbians have it easier here- it's simple enough to find a bloke willing to help out , even if you have to go the sperm bank route. Gay men have a harder time of it.
In either case, untill we see a radical breakthrough in biotech, only one partner in the relationship is an actual parent. (That this may be the case in a surprisingly high percentage of hetero marriages is beside the point, though amusing.)

Law is about property. Always has been.

That's not the fault of theocrats. It's the fault of lawyers and the rich people who wrote the laws.

God is a latecomer to human biology. We can't blame him for our nature. He had nowt to do with it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by brenn

Which is exactly why that type of attack on those with an opposing viewpoint is not a valid argument. For example, if somebody threw out the claim that "homosexuals claim they want to be able to marry for equal treatment - but really deep down its because they want to adopt children to molest - or - really deep down its because they want make themselves feel better about their deviant lifestyle" or something like that, it would be equal to your claim on the other side.

Again, I'm not making an argument. At least not a political one. And I'm perfectly willing to consider the possible truth of claims that homosexuals want marriage out of a deepseated need for validation or some such. It could well be true. But what it isn't is relevant. Civilization, at least our kind of civilization, depends on everybody treating everybody as equally as possible--we don't need to know why Jane and Janet want to get married, what matters is that they should be allowed to unless we have a legitimate state interest in preventing it. Their psychologies are their own business.

[uruk]

Still waiting for the Fed to step in and enforce the constitution on this matter. The States aren't allowed to discriminate on race, religion, etc.. no matter what the "people" say.

Wish they would grow a pair and do the right thing.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by uruk

Still waiting for the Fed to step in and enforce the constitution on this matter. The States aren't allowed to discriminate on race, religion, etc.. no matter what the "people" say.

Wish they would grow a pair and do the right thing.

But sexual orientation isn't a race or a religion. If you consider the ban on gay marriage a simple matter of sexual discrimination, as I did in my actual political argument above, then you might have something...if the Equal Rights Amendment ever passes. I think that ship's sailed, though.

[openingmind]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Law is about property. Always has been.

That's not the fault of theocrats. It's the fault of lawyers and the rich people who wrote the laws.

I see your point here. However, under the current laws, married people need not have children in order to benefit financially from being married. The simple fact of their marriage grants them financial (or, if you will, property) benefits.

Also, married straights receive better benefit packages from local governments and most of private insurance companies based on local and federal laws regarding marriage. Those receiving better benefits need not have children.

[Elind]

Originally Posted by openingmind

Is the ban on gay marriage indicative of a de facto theocracy?

Only when Republicans have the majority.

[linusrichard]

Some good points made in post 20 re why the origins of marriage discrimination are probably not entirely or even mostly theocratic. Which isn't to say it used to be a good law, only that it might not have originally had a theocratic basis.

But the nature of marriage has changed so much since then. We can only "put aside . . . early 20th century western received wisdom" for so long. The ban on gay marriage today has no non-theocratic basis. There are three reasons I can think of to keep such a law on the books:
1. The law isn't enforced anymore, nobody really thinks about it, and it's not relevant. Think of the arguably theocratic laws against adultery.
2. The law is enforced, but nobody really minds that much or complains about it. Think of the arguably theocratic "blue laws," for example, those restricting alcohol sales on Sunday. Or I think the clearly unconstitutional snake-handling law referenced by Brenn in post 7.
3. Theocrats are getting their way.

It's pretty clear gay marriage doesn't fit into either of the first two categories.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by openingmind

No, of course not. But the law, to me, is theocratic. America is not a theocracy because of it, but millions of people are living under a theocratic rule.

And, by the way, I do think progress is being made in regards to gay marriage. But I think the last leg of the journey could be helped by calling an ace an ace.

How old are you? The reason I ask is if you think the religious right motivating their base with anti-gay ballot measures is theocracy or the last leg towards it, you must not know much about the history of this country especially regarding blue laws.

eta - Oh and brenn, just a little heads up. The topic here is gay marriage initiatives and theocracy, not Tragic Monkey. You might want to stay on topic.

[Simon Bridge]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

To answer the title question, no.

I think the ban on gay marriage is stupid and religiously based but that one legal issue does not make America a theocracy.

Hurray!!!

Though, technically, the question is a bit weaker than that.

A defacto theocracy would involve major political decisions and laws being primarily religiously based - but framed to appear mostly secular. In which case a ban on forms of marriage which are frowned upon religiously would indeed be one sign.



Should this be in "conspiracy theories"?


Naturally questions are raised about the continued validity of the institution of marriage. But why rely on marriage laws? Why not draw up a contract that does the same thing?

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Some good points made in post 20 re why the origins of marriage discrimination are probably not entirely or even mostly theocratic. Which isn't to say it used to be a good law, only that it might not have originally had a theocratic basis.

But the nature of marriage has changed so much since then. We can only "put aside . . . early 20th century western received wisdom" for so long. The ban on gay marriage today has no non-theocratic basis. There are three reasons I can think of to keep such a law on the books:
1. The law isn't enforced anymore, nobody really thinks about it, and it's not relevant. Think of the arguably theocratic laws against adultery.
2. The law is enforced, but nobody really minds that much or complains about it. Think of the arguably theocratic "blue laws," for example, those restricting alcohol sales on Sunday. Or I think the clearly unconstitutional snake-handling law referenced by Brenn in post 7.
3. Theocrats are getting their way.

It's pretty clear gay marriage doesn't fit into either of the first two categories.

All laws lag technology. Until about 1850 it was rarely a problem. Now it's a constant nightmare. As assisted fertility tech changes, it can only get more complex. Yes it needs a rethink. It will again in ten years, again in 15 and so on.
Even in non-tech situations, marriage laws are arbitrary. Why one man and one woman, for example? One man and 1-4 women works in some Islamic States. We like to feel liberal about homosexuality. Why not polygamy?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by uruk

Still waiting for the Fed to step in and enforce the constitution on this matter. The States aren't allowed to discriminate on race, religion, etc.. no matter what the "people" say.

Sure they are. The ban on gay marriage is discrimination on the basis of gender (the law dictates the gender of people getting married, not their sexuality), and gender discrimination is rather well established. Now, you can argue that this particular form of gender discrimination is unconstitutional, and maybe it is, but is gender discrimination categorically unconstitutional? Nope, definitely not.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Why one man and one woman, for example? One man and 1-4 women works in some Islamic States.

It exists in some Islamic states. I wouldn't say it works, though. In fact, it seems to be a source of serious social tension and dysfunction.

[Soapy Sam]

And 1:1 marriage isn't?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

And 1:1 marriage isn't?

In comparison? Hell no. I know you're joking, but polygamy really is devastating to societies.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Let's put aside, for a minute, early 21st century western revealed wisdom.

Historically, marriage is about children, property and inheritance.
Even if we had never developed the notion of gods, I bet we would have developed marriage. The fact it was contaminated by religion along the way is merely evidence that muck sticks to anything it touches.

Now with the best will in the world, homosexual relationships are and always were childless in the sense of genetic heredity. So it's hardly surprising that human cultures of all sorts generally ignored such relationships, or positively repressed them.

Biologically, this may change. Lesbians have it easier here- it's simple enough to find a bloke willing to help out , even if you have to go the sperm bank route. Gay men have a harder time of it.
In either case, untill we see a radical breakthrough in biotech, only one partner in the relationship is an actual parent. (That this may be the case in a surprisingly high percentage of hetero marriages is beside the point, though amusing.)

Law is about property. Always has been.

That's not the fault of theocrats. It's the fault of lawyers and the rich people who wrote the laws.

God is a latecomer to human biology. We can't blame him for our nature. He had nowt to do with it.

Those are good points, but in the Western world, marriage has a long history of being controlled by religion: from the fall of the Roman empire until the age of Napoleon, the church was the institute that performed and administered marriages, and secular authorities only recognized that but didn't regulate it. In the Anglo-Saxon world, a church wedding is still pretty much par for the course and only a minority goes for a wedding with a public registrar, at least that's my impression.

In the meantime, marriage has got much more relevance in secular life: who may decide to pull the plug on someone terminally ill; tax brackets and welfare benefits depend on marital status; etc. etc.

On the other hand, during those centuries of Christian "guardianship" over the institute of marriage, the same Christian churches have ingrained an "ick" factor in the population against homosexuality. With many people, their averseness against homosexuality may not be directly attributable to Leviticus, it very well is indirectly attributable to it.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

All laws lag technology. Until about 1850 it was rarely a problem. Now it's a constant nightmare. As assisted fertility tech changes, it can only get more complex. Yes it needs a rethink. It will again in ten years, again in 15 and so on.

It's not only technology. The fact that "marital status" was written in umpteen laws as a condition for this or that, would ultimately have brought up the issue, fertility tech or not. The fact that, culturally, homosexuality was something you hid in the closet for fear of persecution, hid in fact that question.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Even in non-tech situations, marriage laws are arbitrary. Why one man and one woman, for example? One man and 1-4 women works in some Islamic States. We like to feel liberal about homosexuality. Why not polygamy?

From a legal standpoint: because allowing gay marriage is just deleting those words "one man and one woman" from one clause and you're set (*). Allowing polygamy means going over all laws with a fine comb and trying to rewrite them to accommodate that.

(*) or, as the Dutch lawmakers did, add the clause "or two persons of the same gender".

[linusrichard]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

All laws lag technology. Until about 1850 it was rarely a problem. Now it's a constant nightmare. As assisted fertility tech changes, it can only get more complex. Yes it needs a rethink. It will again in ten years, again in 15 and so on.

I don't understand any of this. What does "it" mean in the second sentence? Also, in the third and fourth sentences? I think in the fifth and sixth sentences, "it" means marriage, but I really don't get what you're saying here.

Quote:

Even in non-tech situations, marriage laws are arbitrary. Why one man and one woman, for example? One man and 1-4 women works in some Islamic States. We like to feel liberal about homosexuality. Why not polygamy?

What I think is worth looking at is the relationship between the many laws we have that tell us what marriage is, what marriage does, what rights and privileges and obligations go along with marriage, etc., and the few laws we have about who has access to marriage.

None of the laws in the first group have anything to do with gender anymore, so it doesn't really make sense that any of the laws in the second group do either.

Many - maybe most - of the laws in the first group have to do with number, so it might make sense that some of the laws in the second group do as well.

If you want to make the comparison between same-sex marriage and plural marriage, you'll have to fast-forward to a future when all of the marriage laws could easily, without amendment, addition, or deletion, accommodate marriages of any number of partners. Bonus points if it's a future in which most states give legal recognition to plural marriages, but not under the name "marriage."

Take me to that future, and ask me why not polygamy, and I'll say, no reason. And that's where gay marriage is now.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by openingmind

Does the ban on gay marriage point to a de facto theocracy?

No. It points to some issues with represntative democracy.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No. It points to some issues with represntative democracy.

Like what? That a majority can use the democratic process to pass legislation that people don't like?