Now that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has made its ruling legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states (though a few will continue to resist), one has to wonder what it will actually mean in the end.
While it upsets a great number of people (including many LDS Church members), in the long run, this may turn out to be a good thing in many ways.
Firstly, and historically, couples who wanted to be together, whether homosexual or heterosexual, found a way to do it in spite of the many obstacles and restrictions (and in some cases, laws) placed before them. I’ve known a few gay and lesbian couples who have been together for years, even having children together while not enjoying the basic civil rights afforded to married couples. They made it work because they loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together. No piece of paper or government recognition changed that. And, in their cases, they have not rushed to get officially married even though they are living in states that legalized it. Luckily, they now enjoy the rights that civil union laws have granted them.
Secondly, there seems to be pent-up demand for same sex marriages, which we have seen when states made it legal or courts forced them to, prior to the SCOTUS ruling. Many, many couples rushed to “tie the knot.” In a lot of cases, these were the same as the long-term couples I referred to above who wanted the recognition and rights of married couples. But in many other cases, it was simply couples doing it because they could, not necessarily because they should. This behavior is no stranger in the straight world, where couples, mostly young, rush to get married only to have it not work out and a divorce or annulment soon follows.
In the cases of SSM, the first divorces occurred within days of the legalization of Same Sex Marriage. In the long run, it will probably prove that the instance of gay divorce will mirror that of heterosexual marriage and divorce, but, for instance, the first same sex divorce occurred in Louisiana before the first marriage. This happened because many couples were married in states where SSM was legal, but resided in states where it was not. Some states, Colorado, Minnesota and New York, granted divorces even though same sex marriages were not legal.
“They’re doing what straight people do: ‘I’m excited, let’s get married, and work out the problem later.'” Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told us, “Every time a state gets rid of a marriage bar, there’s a flood of couples. That makes sense, and maybe some people do it impulsively, caught up in the moment. But it’s a serious step, and it has significant legal consequences.” On the sort-of-bright side, Minter adds, “I think we will continue to see people divorce. But nothing has humanized gay couples more than for straight people to realize gay couples need to divorce, too.” (The Wire).
Thirdly, and maybe more important, is that fact that marriage as a civil institution is not that popular anymore. Part of it depends on your socioeconomic position.
“Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University and author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America says the gap stems in large measure from the loss of stable, well-paid industrial jobs — consigning legions of young adults to precarious, low-paid jobs, and prompting many to put off marriage even while having children out of wedlock.
In contrast, college-educated young adults are more likely to wait until marriage to have children and then have the prospect of raising them in a household supported by two good incomes. For such couples, Cherlin writes, marriage is a status symbol, and their divorce rates are now much lower than for couples with only a high school education.
According to the Pew Research Center, the share of American adults who have never been married is at an historic high. In 2012, roughly 20 percent of adults 25 and older had never been married, compared to only 9 percent of adults in that age range in 1960. Back then, according to Pew, the likelihood of being married didn’t vary according to level of education; now men with advanced degrees are far more likely to have married than those who didn’t go beyond high school.“ (Pike County Courier)
According to the United States Census Bureau, people in the US are now waiting longer to get married. The median age, 29 for men and 27 for women is the highest in more than a century. Contrast that with 1960, when the ages were 23 for men and 20 for women.
“Unmarried mothers account for 40.6 percent of children born in the U.S., according to the latest Census data. The rate is particularly high in the African-American community — 71.5 percent.
Even for couples raising children, marriage is increasingly optional. According to the research group Child Trends, there were 3.1 million cohabiting but unmarried couples in the U.S. raising children in 2014, up from 1.2 million in 1996.” (Pike County Courier)
Bottom line, is that once the pent-up demand for SSM is met, I suspect SSM will fall into line with heterosexual marriage. Some will, many will not.
So what does this all mean?
I think the entire episode will be a net positive in the long run. Here’s why:
1. Whether one likes it or not, we live in a secular society. That is, without respect to one religion over another. All the talk of being a Christian nation and/or founded on Christian principle is now meaningless. This nation was founded on principles that are pretty common to most religions anyway. But, we’ve certainly moved away from government-imposed morality rules that have been largely promoted by religion. Morality must come from within, not from a government mandate. That has always been the case, anyway.
As a result, many things are permitted that the LDS Church and many other faiths do not approve of. Certain acts and behaviors that were once illegal are now perfectly legal. In spite of this, we still do not drink alcohol, smoke marijuana (legal in Colorado and Washington), have pre-marital sex, cohabit with another person and so on. So now that SSM is legal throughout the land, the Church has made statements that it is still opposed to it and it will not be a practice of the Church.
2. Perhaps civil and religious marriage ceremonies will be separated. In many countries outside the US, LDS couples must be married civilly prior to a temple sealing. It is almost inevitable that this will happen in the US, whether the government actually makes it happen or the Churches do. This would be one simple way to avoid the issue of a same-sex LDS couple trying to get married in the temple. While I do not see the duty to perform marriages taken from Bishops, Branch Presidents or Stake Presidents, that could also happen.
3. Respecting Civil Rights – Whether you agree or disagree, the SCOTUS has made the ruling based on the 14th Amendment. This is the citizenship and equal protection amendment to the US Constitution. This amendment was passed after the Civil War specifically to address issues related to former slaves. This amendment was also used in the 1950’s and 60’s to address unequal treatment of African-Americans in schools, voting, and other areas where segregation was the norm. Ironically, many of the same arguments used on the dangers of Same-Sex Marriage were used at various times regard the civil rights of Blacks in this country. Unfortunately, even some leaders of the Church were known to make statements contrary to equal protection and brotherly kindness. And while you haven’t heard the same stridency toward same-sex marriage, many members of the Church have adopted a very strong position against it in spite of the protection of our Constitution. Quite ironic given how the US government attempted to disenfranchise the entire Church over polygamy.
Bottom line is that we can respect the civil rights of others in spite of the fact that we disagree with how they exercise those rights. In fact, I would say our religion and faith in Christ demands it. I hate to use the overused phrase, Love the sinner, hate the sin,” but it does apply. Certainly in all the communication from the Church, respect for others has been stressed.
4. In the long run, strong, committed marriage between two people is better for society than not. As I outlined above, there is a move away from marriage and it is not a good sign for where society is headed. There is a lot of improvement that can be made to heterosexual marriage and the rate of divorce and broken homes.
5. Finally, I believe that the ruling by the SCOTUS makes our agency even more important than before. If we truly believe that marriage is ordained of God, between one man and one woman, then is it our responsibility to teach it to our children and better prepare them to enter into a marriage with all the right tools, for all the right reasons and with the best person they can find and, to be the best person as well. To raise children in this world today, one needs to be committed to staying married and to choose well. The ideal is not always possible and circumstances and people do change things.
I do not know what to say to gay LDS members and what to offer them as a solution. Any more than I know what to say to other single Church members who never marry. I feel for all those folks and how hard it must be to belong to a Church that stresses marriage and family as much as we do. Since we all have challenges in this life, perhaps that is theirs. I do not know.
So why did I use that title? Because after a while, SSM will be no big deal anymore and we will forget the struggle. And because it does not necessarily solve all the challenges faced by the Gay community any more than the civil rights movement has resolved all the issues surrounding the African-American community.
My conclusion is that SSM is now the law of the land and we need to move on and work on being more loving to those around us who struggle with all sorts of challenges.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ll admit it, I celebrated the ruling (1) for those I know who wanted to be married and now can be [I don’t believe those who don’t believe in my values have to live by them] and (2) I’m hoping it strengthens plurality and freedom of religion [they don’t have to live by our rules, we don’t have to live by theirs]. I hope we can all just forget about it an move on and leave each other alone.
Granted, I do believe the LGBTQ+ community should move forward with their work of getting more anti-discrimination ordinances passed; but I think they should follow Utah’s lead and negotiate with leaders of faith every step of the way and pass religious freedom exceptions every step of the way (however they decide to draw the lines).
The whole moving on part of it is why I’m so riled up about the church reading the letter at church and then designating time for discussing it. Part of me is glad I’ll be subbing in primary; part of me is disappointed I won’t be there to attempt to bring some moderation to the crazy that’s likely to explode everywhere.
p.s. Jeff, we are of the same mind on many points listed above. Thanks for this post.
Jeff,
Good post. It will fail for the reason I posted on a sister post;
I was driving to our home in Saint George and listening to CNN on the radio. They had some guy on from Montana who wants to legalize polygamy. He used the same arguments those that pushed for “marriage equality”: consenting adults, equal under the law, it is about love, etc.
I liked the comment from the anchor “this is not going to end at same sex marriage; eventually polygamy will be legal” they then commented it will lead to group marriages; and marriages to inanimate objects. The 5 justices opened Pandora’s box and soon marriage will not mean anything.
This will not lead to polygamy. Marriages to inanimate objects? Sigh. You can’t believe this, Ken.
And I find it hilarious that members of the LDS church would fear POLYGAMY becoming legal. You can’t make this stuff up.
Yes Ken, I thought you were conservative. If polygamy was legalized, would support the LDS Church’s attempts to implement it again? If Pres Monson (or whomever the next prophet was) said it was time to live “the Principle” again, I bet you’d be all over it.
“This will not lead to polygamy”
Why not? And more importantly, why would you be opposed?
Seriously, why not? They live love each other. They are consenting adults? They deserve equal protection under the law, don’t they? Is it not marriage equality? All the same arguments used by the 4 liberal judges; and, exactly what the Chief Justice indicated is the next step in his dissenting opinion!
“Marriages to inanimate objects? ”
An hyperbole to illustrate a point. At some point marriage is rendered worthless. That was the point?
Seriously, where does it end? Polygamy? Polyandry? A communial marriage, with multiple wives and husbands? All of these could be argued under the same reasons used by those pushing marriage equality!
Dexter,
By the way, there is a documentary about a woman how married the eiffel tower. So it has happened!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html
Ken, are you really trying to argue that the potential that people might marry inanimate objects is a reason to be against gay marriage? Please spare us, buddy.
The legalization of gay marriage will not lead to polygamy because the rampant dangers of polygamy. Polygamy in this country has inevitably led to statutory rape and incest, among other ills. This is more than enough to provide the rational basis to defeat any challenge to the anti-polygamy laws. These laws would even pass strict scrutiny, if that were necessary (but it isn’t necessary), because protecting children is clearly a top priority.
Gay marriage is one person married to one person just like traditional marriage. Polygamy is a whole other ballgame. The argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy was always nonsense to scare people into being against gay marriage.
Dexter,
Perhaps defining what a hyperbole is will help:
“exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally”
The savior used them all the time to make a point. The fact people marrying inanimate objects rarely happens, it is an exaggeration. Also, I doubt the Eiffel Tower offered its consent.
However, you failed to offer the rationale as to why “polygamy will never be legal” it is not exaggerated; rather is is practiced by millions the world over in several major sects. Also, in most cases it is consensual. So why will it never be legal? And why would you be opposed?
MH,
You and have have been the rounds on polygamy. You should know where I stand. It is, in my opinion a bizarre practice that I could never agree to practice.
I know what hyperbole is. You used that example in an effort to warn us of the dangers of the slippery slope from the recent gay marriage ruling. It was not a compelling argument or an effective use of hyperbole.
Umm, yes I did, Ken. A half hour before you said I still hadn’t.
I like the post, and wish it were the attitude of the leadership of the church. It will be interesting to see whether Elder Packer passing will change anything politically, or will Elder Oaks keep up the fight?
My small quibble would be I don’t believe it is possible to love a sinner if you hate his sin, particularly if the perceived sin is part of who he is, such as homosexual.
We supported racism, and opposed inter racial marriages during the time I have been married, There are a number of sealed inter racial marriages in my ward, I hope the same happens to gay marriage in a few years.
Not only might the approval of SSM lead to plural marriage, it should lead to plural marriage, based on the same arguments supporters of SSM have made. Plural marriage has not lead to statutory rape and incest except among the fundamentalist crazies. There are plenty of people cohabitatimg plurally, of consenting adult age, with no problems whatsoever. (Kodi Brown anyone?). There is no reason to prevent the bisexual from having a female and male spouse except for the close minded, insanely jealous types who can’t handle it. #lovewins and trumps all, doesn’t it?
Dexter,
Your post did not refresh until I posted:
“Polygamy in this country has inevitably led to statutory rape and incest, among other ills.”
LOL!
Wow, that’s quite the judgement. In some cases yes, but not all. This is exactly the same arguments used by many to oppose same gender marriage.
As I said, it is practiced by millions, maybe even hundreds of millions in the Middle East and Asia.
“Polygamy is a whole other ballgame.”
Why?
It is one man married to a woman. And this same man married to another woman. The women are not married to each other. Why is it wrong when he has a consensual relationship with both? And, when the women consent to thier husband marrying another woman.
Take it further. As is stands now, Kody Brown is only legally married to one women and “spiritually” commuted to the rest. When he dies only the one woman has a legal claim to community property. Is that Equal Protection for the four other wives? Is that marriage equality for them?
“The argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy was always nonsense to scare people into being against gay marriage”
Really? In less than a week this man from Montana filed a suit using this case as the presedence. Sounds like those that made that claim were right after all
IDIAT,
Where has polygamy existed in the USA commonly other than among the “fundamentalist crazies” as you put it?
Ken, can you comprehend anything? I said IN THIS COUNTRY and you counter with polygamy in the Middle East and Asia.
PLEASE GO BACK TO JUST QUOTING SCALIA. YOU ARE SO TIRESOME.
Someone filed a suit in Montana? Filing a suit doesn’t mean anything. I’m done trying to answer your questions. Please, just carry on as you like.
Why don’t you just read up on anti-polygamy laws and the cases that have dealt with them. You will find your answers there. Something tells me, however, that you would just prefer to continue to let your favorite talk radio host inform you.
“Why can’t we all just get along?” Because there are irreconcilable differences between church doctrine and homosexuality. As long as homosexuality (or, more correctly, acting on those feelings) is considered to be sinful, we are at an impasse. Our doctrine would have to change significantly to bring same sex couple into the eternal realm since there can be no eternal progression. Gays will continue to be offended that they are thought of as engaging in deviant behavior, and church members (if they agree with church doctrine) will continue to view homosexuality as sinful. Many think eventually church leaders will accept homosexuality. I don’t think the church will change its views. But, certainly life will go on just as it has in other places where SSM was already legalized.
The church will eventually accept gay marriage the way they eventually allowed blacks to receive the priesthood. GUARANTEED. The only question is: how long will it take?
Imagine being 25 years old today, and being active LDS, and gay. Imagine choosing to live a celibate life, as directed by your church leaders. Imagine turning 50 and hearing that gay marriage is now allowed by the church and you can be sealed in the temple to your spouse. In this scenario, those who disobeyed will get sealed. Those who chose to be celibate will wonder why they obeyed. The church’s stance on gay marriage just leads to misery. It’s sad.
I agree with Geoff, 100%.
He said, “I don’t believe it is possible to love a sinner if you hate his sin, particularly if the perceived sin is part of who he is, such as homosexual.”
I read an LDS woman’s post about her gay brother. Her blog made it clear that her husband and children MEAN everything to her! Yet, she felt fine telling her brother that he SHOULDN’T pursue romance or a family. Then she said how much she loved him. Please. Think what you want, lady, but don’t call that love. It’s hate.
“IN THIS COUNTRY”
New York, Illnois, Missouri & Utah, Nevada, Wyoming and Idaho with the early saints. Several cities in these States are named after polygamists. I am a decendant of Polygamy; and so were the last two people that ran for the Presidency — Obama and Romney.
It is currently practiced in by a lot of people in Utah, Arizona, Idaho & Montana. A lot more than you realize.
Dexter,
You could tone yourself down a bit.
“particularly if the perceived sin is part of who he is, such as homosexual.”
What about other behaviors that are “who he is?”
BTW, the Church has come out and said that being gay is not a sin….
I think there are a few unintended consequences that may come about due to this ruling. They are not necessarily bad, just unintended.
In reality, this ruling now allows any two people to marry for any reason they choose. This has always been true on the heterosexual side, but now on the same sex side as well. The adage about “who you love” need not apply. It is now “who you want…”
Since there are financial advantages, you can see two people getting married for those reasons alone.
I think that polygamy will become legal, not as a direct result of this ruling, because this ruling does not apply, but it can be used as the basis of a new ruling if parties choose to fight it. Of course, the SCOTUS has to agree to hear such a case. They may not.
Dexter,
You are making it black and white and it just isn’t. As I mentioned, I have a child (I won’t use gender to protect thier identity as much as possible). It is very complicated.
She/He is one of the best living people that I know. Almost a perfect child — kind, considerate, loving, intelligent. I could not be prouder of them. He/She is awesome.
There is a real struggle. She/He realizes happiness comes through living the gospel; and, He/She struggles with sexual feelings about the same sex.
I will love them no matter what choice he/she makes. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be!
“Of course, the SCOTUS has to agree to hear such a case”
Read Justice Roberts dissenting opinion if you haven’t. As you know, as the Chief Justice it is his decision to hear the case. He indicated this ruling will lead to legalizing Polygamy
Ken, I am well aware that many polygamists were the early saints. I include the LDS polygamists when I say it inevitably led to major problems.
Ken, how do you conclude that polygamy is much more common that I realize? I know it is common. And it comes with these problems that I have described. Can you understand that?
I am making it black and white? I don’t see how. I am for everyone pursuing what makes them happy as long as they aren’t trampling someone else’s rights in order to do so. If I had a gay son or daughter, I would encourage him or her to find happiness in whatever path they wanted to follow. If he/she wanted a romantic connection, I would encourage her/him to find the best partner he/she could find, just like I would for any straight son or daughter, when they came of age to be searching for that special person.
You say it is complicated. I disagree. It’s simple. Nearly everyone wants to find that “special someone”. If my child wanted that, straight or gay, I would encourage them and hope that they find that special someone. If a person, or a church, or an institution tries to make it complicated by saying that gay people shouldn’t seek that special someone, I would tell that person, church, or institution to not interfere. It’s not complicated.
“Can you understand that?”
Ummm. I have never been for polygamy being legalized, for the same reasons I don’t think same gender marriages should be legal.
The institution of marriage will no longer mean anything, which I am convinced was the objective of some pushing for this ruling.
As Jeff said, and I agree, people will marry just for financial gain. For instance, two college roommates will get married just to get head of household tax benefits, family health care and tuition reductions. In the end, marriage will be the big loser.
Ken, I never said you were for polygamy. You accused me of being wrong about what I said earlier: that polygamy in this country had inevitably led to major problems. Then you tried to counter that by arguing that polygamy has thrived in Asia. Not relevant. Then you tried to counter what I said by saying I don’t know how common it is. I’m telling you, again, I am aware of how common it is and I SAY AGAIN, IN THIS COUNTRY, POLYGAMY HAS INEVITABLY LED TO MAJOR PROBLEMS. That’s what I am asking you understand. Please stop changing the issue. I don’t care if you are for or against polygamy.
When only traditional marriage was allowed were you concerned with people just marrying for financial gain?
But now it’s going to be a huge problem?
I disagree.
Sorry, I meant married filing jointly deductions
dexter,
You could change the term “polygamy” with “same gender” in your comments and run it as an ad for Prop 8. You poly-phobe
These are exactly the same arguments used by those that tried to stop same gender marriage.
You have not addressed, the fact Kennedy, Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Breyer ruled ALL citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law when it comes to marriage. I agree that polygamy cause problems, but logic doesn’t matter to these justices.
This case will set a presedence and polygamy will be the law of the land along with anything else that will deny equal protection with respect to marriage.
Jeff, I was quoting Geoff, so you should ask him what he meant as well.
The church can say being homosexual is not a sin all it wants, but, in my opinion, to tell someone not to pursue a romantic life partner for your entire life is hating the sin (homosexual acts) and hating homosexuals.
I don’t see how this will lead to tons of people getting married for the wrong reasons. If that were such a problem, it would have already been a huge problem with traditional marriage. If these financial reasons are so great, then why wouldn’t a male and a female be doing this all the time? Maybe they already are. But how does homosexual marriage change that? Are you saying that now a male would be willing to marry another male only for financial reasons but this financially motivated fellow wouldn’t have married a female only for financial reasons? Your argument does not make sense. Assuming traditional marriage were still the only way to get married, these types of people would only have to find a like-minded person of the opposite sex to pull off the scheme. How is gay marriage going to lead to a sudden increase in people wanting to get married solely for financial reasons. And Ken, you said roommates would do this now, tons of roommates are of the opposite sex, so again, gay marriage doesn’t change the risk of abuse of marriage for financial gain.
Ken, I explained the rational basis test in post #8. If you don’t know what this is, please stop making Supreme Court predictions.
I am a proud polyphobe! Thank you for the compliment.
Just because the church used scare tactics and poor arguments against gay marriage does not mean gay marriage and polygamy would have the same bad consequences.
The reasons I listed in number 8 that explain my abhorrence of polygamy have nothing to do with gay marriage.
Again, I respectfully disagree that this decision will lead to the legalization of polygamy.
Jeff – THANKS. At last, a well-written, well-thought out treatise on gay marriage in American and the SCOTUS ruling concerning it, and w/o polemics, posturing, and ad hominems. Even if there are points that I don’t agree with (and some I don’t), this is an article that SHOULD be considered for publication in the Ensign. It won’t, of course, b/c your willing to admit some truths that aren’t good PR, e.g., they’re not ‘faith-promoting’. A shame. We can be candid about all NOT being “well in Zion” and still contend earnestly for the faith.
There is an analogue between this controversial ruling and the Roe v. Wade back in ’73. Judicial activism, a conservative backlash, and a flurry of abortions (though by the nature the demand was time-sensitive, of course) or at least the public acknowledgement of same. It’s interesting to note the increase in the total number of abortions and the rate (measured as number of induced abortions, no distinction as to therapeutic versus elective) for about fifteen years, which subsequently has leveled off. This can be attributed to many factors but the effect of the Pro-Life movement in persuading women to not get an abortion ought not to be discounted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
In like manner, although I wouldn’t believe for a moment that gay marriage would ‘go away’ on its own due to lack of interest, it’s incidence and popularity could hypothetically be reduced if more LGBT folk are persuaded in the marketplace of ideas to leave the lifestyle.
I can just anticipate the howling, vituperation, and ‘gnashing of teeth’ over the very idea, and I’m not even suggesting that such a campaign would even be measurably successful. More than likely the LGBT advocates would do their best to litigate such an effort into oblivion rather than let it fail or succeed on its own.
#28 – some years ago, my then g/f told me this anecdote about a BYU couple, who were dating and wanted to have sex…now, why didn’t they just marry? IDK save that perhaps they wanted it both ways, to get their freak on but yet enjoy the ‘single’, or at least unmarried life. Their solution, since they were both well off, was what they coined “Vegas Legal” – that is, once or twice a month, they drove down to Las Vegas, got hitched in a wedding chapel (probably by Elvis), got to the hotel and got busy, then filed for an annulment (whether in NV or UT, IDK).
This was repeated over the course of several months until someone in the county’s statistic bureau noticed this curious behavior and alerted the Utah County District Attorney, suspecting a bigamy situation. When the truth came out, no charges were filed, but it was brought to the attention of their respective bishops. They were both excommunicated and expelled from BYU, according to the story.
IDK if this just another Mormon Urban Legend, but if it is true, it upholds yet another observation: problems with marriage that result in unhappiness, strife, violence, abuse, and divorce, are typically the result of selfishness on the part of one or both parties. Now I hope that those advocating gay marriage can ask themselves if they are willing to put the needs of their ‘spouse’ above their own desires. Many ‘straights’ fail this principle, to the detriment of their respective family lives.
I don’t know what it even means that “Same sex marriage probably fails”. Fails what? Fails to last a lifetime… Certainly in many cases. Fails to convince LDS leaders to accept gay couples… Yes (at least for the foreseeable future). Fails to enable gay couples from adopting, having kids, providing health insurance for those kids? I don’t think so. I also think gay marriage succeeds at providing a legal framework for family legal issues such as child support ans custody do be resolved.
Although the OP seems to argue that gay divorce is a sign of gay marriage failing, one of the important reasons to have a nationwide ruling is the patchwork of differences in family law. Judges have refused to grant gay divorces in some states on the grounds that the can’t grant a divorce where the state doesn’t recognize the marriage (citation needed). Imagine trying to get out of an abusive relationship or resolve a custody dispute in such a situation. The OP implies that gay divorce had been resolved prior to the SCOTUS ruling, but that was not my understanding.
Gay couples have existed all along. They’ve been having children. Those children need a legal framework under which family legal problems can be resolved. They need health insurance. They need parents that can sign for their medical records and procedures. They need guardianship to transfer to the right person when one dies. They need to be equal, not separate. So the fact of gay couples needing to get divorced doesn’t make gay marriage less important: it makes gay marriage necessary.
I’m done. Now you guys can go back to discussing polygamy with inanimate objects.
Dexter
According to the arguments for gay marriage you can not prohibit polygamous families from marrying either because that would be discrimination. You should be free to marry the one or ones you love. Their own words.
If you are for gay marriage you are for polygamous marriage. Period.
Winifred,
Sorry, but that’s just not true.
Jeff, Great post. Sorry it quickly devolved into whatever the hell that was. I’m going to ignore and go back to your actual post:
“Thirdly, and maybe more important, is that fact that marriage as a civil institution is not that popular anymore. Part of it depends on your socioeconomic position.” I think there’s an important argument in here, specifically, my experience I’ve shared before about my team in Australia when I was with Amex. People kept referring to their SO as their “partner,” and at first I just thought they were gay, but then I finally asked why everyone called their significant other their “partner.”
I was told it was because almost nobody on my team was married despite being with that person for years and decades and despite raising children together. The reason was that it was a disadvantage on taxes to be married. When there are tax benefits to marrying (and other protections), it’s unfair to keep gay people from those benefits. When there are economic disadvantages, nobody wants to marry anyway. Follow the money, it knows the way.
Hawkgrrrl,
“Whatever the hell that was”? If you want to disparage people, go ahead, but be clear about who you have a problem with, I’m confused by your vague accusation/insult . Who, exactly, do you have a problem with? I don’t like being potentially lumped into whatever or whoever it is you are looking down upon with your apology to Jared.
*Jeff
Dexter, the comments immediately devolved into some nonsense about legalized polygamy and marrying inanimate objects. You and Ken were involved in that sidebar. It’s not directly related to Jeff’s post. We’ve all engaged in a threadjack once or twice. This was Ken’s threadjack (started in comment 2, right out the gate) that you gleefully joined in comment 3.
There have been posts elsewhere on whether polygamy will be legalized, but that’s not what Jeff’s post was about. Since Ken isn’t the author, I prefer to ignore his ludicrous threadjack. What we feed thrives.
This was more useful than your previous comment of “whatever the hell that was.”
I didn’t do anything gleefully, but, yes, I did try to help Ken’s ludicrousness. I should have known it would be in vain from previous exchanges. Perhaps ignoring it would have been better. I tend to think some conversation is better than none but, like I said, perhaps I should have just ignored it.
#38 – I just gotta see the dissolution of a same-sex marriage, with a man ordered to pay COPIOUS spousal support to his erstwhile ‘spouse’…it’s not just levity that prevents me from saying ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, and technically family law in every state that recognize ‘alimony’, which is just about all, makes no distinct as to gender…of course, we all know how it works in ‘reality’, hence why the ‘Femni-Nazis’ consider it a ‘womyn’s’ issue and see no inconsistency with their values in seeking same.
You wanted ‘marriage equality for all’, ‘guyz’, and may you get it! It’s NOW too late to warn you, “Be careful what you wish for!”
Hawkgirl,
“Whatever the hell that was”?” “Ludicrous”
Exactly how I feel about the Supreme Court ruling.
What you call a thread jack, I call legitimate reason why “same sex marriage will probably fail” which is, after all the title of the post.
Rockwell,
“I don’t know what it even means that “Same sex marriage probably fails”. Fails what?”
I suggest you read the OP and attempt to figure out what I was talking about. Since you repeated some of the things I wrote, I suggest you may not have read the OP that carefully.
And then I would be happy to explain to you what I mean.
There’s more to a post than the title, and yet too often I see discussions that indicate commenters only read the title.
I know we like to pick titles that raise people’s curiosity enough to read it. But, alas, sometimes face value is too powerful….. sort of like a $20 bill
I agree with Rockwell that the title isn’t clear.
You said, “So why did I use that title? Because after a while, SSM will be no big deal anymore and we will forget the struggle. And because it does not necessarily solve all the challenges faced by the Gay community any more than the civil rights movement has resolved all the issues surrounding the African-American community.”
So the civil rights movement failed? Although there are certainly still racial issues that need to be remedied in this country, I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that the civil rights movement failed.
Similarly, even if issues remain for the LGBT community, which they surely will, I don’t think that means gay marriage will fail. Gay marriage is a wonderful step in the right direction and should be celebrated as such.
Hawkgirl,
I did not just read the title, I read the post and totally understood what Jeff was saying. In short, he said once the euphoria or novelty of same gender marriage wears off, there will no longer be a demonstrable (or pent up demand as Jeff put it) demand for marriage in the same gender community. Like traditional marriage, in the future some will marry and others will just shack up.
Like Jeff, and you Hawkgirl on almost every one of your posts, I used a phrase or term (inanimate object) that would catch attention– an hyperbole — in making a point. You two do it in the title and I do it in comments with the same objective.
I just took Jeff’s commentary to the next level. Not only will the motivation for Marriage diminish over time in the same gender community, it will collapse the very foundation for the institution of marriage overall.
Although you may think it is ludicrous, it will lead to the legalization of polygamy among other things. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He made a point to make that comment in his dissenting opinion, which most likely means is was discussed by the group. I would add, he is the person entrusted to decide which cases will be heard by the final court in the land. Furthermore, the author of this post also thought it would lead to the legalization of Polygamy. If he agrees on his post, it is hardly off topic.
Once Kennedy and the liberal judges applied the equal protection clause to marriage anything is possible. Any body seeking any marriage arrangement of any kind is now “protected”. Even if people like Dexter think that arrangement is gross, or detestable or not good for children or society.
Now, marriage is about equal protection, not what is good for society or children.,
Jeff, I will admit that I missed the “so why did I use that title” paragraph. I commented on divorce because it was, I thought, an interesting and ironic tidbit I had learned somewhere, that the ability to get divorced could actually be a reason to have a nationwide decision on SSM, albeit a reason that SSM advocates generally don’t want to use.
With that said, I will agree that SSM will not solve all of the problems faced by the gay community. I still see the institution of SSM as a net positive (for both the gay community and the general population), and I find it interesting that I agree with you on so many points, even though the headline appears to draw the opposite conclusion from mine.
Really great post, Jeff.
Winifred, that simply isn’t true. It’s not impermissible in this country for the government to pass discriminatory laws. But to do so they must demonstrate to the courts that such laws are justified based on things like their motivations in effecting such laws, the harm they’re attempting to rectify or avoid, the way the laws are implemented, etc. (affirmative action laws are an example). The reason anti-gay marriage laws didn’t pass constitutional muster is that the proponents were unable to come up with even a single tangible harm to society caused by gay marriage that would justify discriminating against one specific group of people. As Dexter pointed out, polygamy is not similar in that respect. There are a number of social ills that have accompanied at least the largest and most high profile polygamous communities. Whether attempting to prevent those things will ultimately be enough to justify anti-polygamy laws is yet to be truly determined in the courts. In any event, though, it’s simply not true that if you support legalized gay marriage you must support legalized plural marriage.
BRJones: If the SCOTUS (or any lower level of Federal judiciary) really would scrutinize the social effects that gay marriage would likely bring, like polygamy, they’d vote it down in a heartbeat too. But that’s not typically how justices evaluate these matters; they would say that such a qualitative debate is the business of the Congress, or, where it’s a state law, the legislature of that state. Else, they would be performing ‘judicial activism’, which in similar posts you and your kind DENIED took place, and NOW you advocate same. Hmmm.
The opinion of the SCOTUS majority was that state laws that restricted or prohibited outright same-sex marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. I and the four other justices disagree (not that I’m their legal peer, of course!), but the majority were able to articulate their opinion thus, so their decision, until a subsequent case overturns it, stands, or even less likely, Congress passes a Constitutional Amendment overriding this mal-decision.
It doesn’t matter what YOU or other gay activists supported, Brjones…Pandora’s box is already open, and the ‘spirits’ are howling about as we speak. Already a polygamist has filed the very issue in court. Place your bets, and enjoy the show…
Dexter
If you permit gay marriage there is no logical reason to deny any other type of marriage. The slippery slope is here and like Douglas said Pandora’s box is open and there ain’t no shutting it
Some Federal judge is going to rule in the polygamists favor or some county clerk is going to give them a marriage license. Only a matter of time.
Someone, I’m not going back to look up who, said Polygamy in this country has inevitably led to statutory rape and incest, among other ills. I think it was Dexter, because he later characterized this as an “explanation” of the rational argument against polygamy, as opposed to the baseless assertion it is.
At any rate (sorry, Hawk, I’m participating in the thread-jack, mostly because I don’t think it’s that much of a jack), I agree that this ruling makes the legalization of multiple-spouse relationships inevitable. It does not, however, Winifred’s fears to the contrary, make it inevitable that people will be allowed to marry their dogs, the Eiffel Tower, their Chevy Luminas, or any other legal non-person or non-human being. (Note to Dexter – “Marriage is a human institution – therefore polygamy will be legal someday, but marrying your Mixmaster will not” – that’s an example of an actual rational argument.
The reason that polygamy has not generally been a positive force of love and sunshine is quite possibly because it’s generally been illegal. Thus, it’s practiced in the dark by people inclined toward doing things in the dark, and by people not functioning by the normal rules. To suggest that Warren Jeffs, or even Brigham Young or John Taylor, are typical of all actual or potential polygamists in a scenario in which it becomes legal and doesn’t get you put in prison, is quite a stretch. For the Warren Jeffses of the world (Jeffses?), polygamy is a symptom, not a cause.
For decades, normalization of gay relationships was opposed on the grounds that gay relationships weren’t “normal” – that the promiscuous anonymous sex culture of the San Francisco bathhouse scene was proof that these people were too perverted to be allowed to do what they did legally. In reality, of course, it was (in many cases) the laws that drove them undercover that fueled the scene. Interesting self-fulfilling prophecy.
For me, polygamy seems like a lot of trouble. But I do think that once the screaming meemies die down, it will become legal, for the same reasons as same-sex marriage. I also think that the Church, at that time, will repudiate the practice and stick to “one man, one woman” and tell the world that the time for us to adhere to plural marriage has passed. At least, I hope so.
This is why looking to the extreme examples is always a poor argument. Yes, the gay bathhouses in SF were notorious, and were CLOSED DOWN by a public health administrator of the City who himself was gay, but by no means does that extreme behavior even begin to characterize all homosexuals. And, of course, there have been far, far, too many sad anecdotes in heterosexual relationships, including marriages (one-on-one) and sad to say, known among the Saints themselves, not all who acted terribly “saintly”. I can and always will make arguments against the PRACTICE of homosexuality and/or gay marriage, but employing false or misleading characterization won’t be part of it. If nothing else, my position is that many GOOD people are caught up in this lifestyle, and I certainly can’t expect to persuade them otherwise if I slander them, now can I?
BTW, with regard to ‘polygs’, even though in most ways the Brown clan of “Sister Wives” seems ‘normal’ (well, as normal as a polygamous family could be), I was still left cold by Kody divorcing his first wife, Meri (but still being ‘spiritually’ wed, what a crock) and marrying the young ‘hottie’ whom he’s making babies with. No sir, I don’t like it…
Mix-Master? I suppose if I MUST develop a fetish for a kitchen appliance, it’d be a Kitchen Aid blender…I give my beloved Snips all too many reasons for jealousy as it is, I gotta stop…Rocko’s dog, Spunky (hey, I didn’t make the name up, Joe Murray did), DID have a thing for a kitchen mop, which was criticized at the time for being insensitive to parents dealing with a child that ‘came out’. I attach the episode, if you bother to watch decide for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDIOerkAPOc