As you no doubt know, on Friday, Feb.27, the mayor of the village of New Paltz, New York, conducted marriage ceremonies for 21 gay couples in front of a cheering crowd. (Click here and then click again to enlarge the glorious picture.) He was quoted as saying, “Absolutely, I’ll be doing this again.” (For more on the mayor, look here – tip to Kevin Drum.)
So, today (Saturday, Feb.28), my wife and I packed up our 3-1/2 year old to drive the hour south, hoping to be part of the celebration. We were going to have our daughter pass out flowers. Alas, the village offices were quiet. Still, we had a pleasant day – the town seemed to be buzzing, and we overheard bits of several conversations along the lines of: “Wasn’t it great how everybody turned out together in support.”
The legality of the marriages is not obvious – the New York State Consolidated Laws on Domestic Relations are surprisingly unclear on the issue of gender. I found what I would consider to be an implicit assumption that marriages are between a man and a woman in several places, such as article 4, section 50: “Property, real or personal … owned by a woman at the time of her marriage … shall not be subject to her husband’s control or disposal nor liable for his debts.” I’m no lawyer, but this hardly seems definitive.
Stonewall was over 30 years ago. I don’t know how these particular cases will eventually be decided, but here’s hoping that in 30 more years, we’ll look back at these past few weeks as another turning point.
{ 14 comments }
Dan Shannon 02.29.04 at 7:01 am
This is an absolutely amazing time in history. Oliver Willis commented a while back that this is what it must have been like to pick up a newspaper and read that a woman named Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus.
Let’s hope that more cities start to follow suit, and show George Bush just how many people support gay rights in this nation.
sennoma 02.29.04 at 3:43 pm
Let’s hope that more cities start to follow suit
Portland, OR (where I live, which is why I’ve looked into this) is in much the same legal position as SF, CA; the relevant statute is not worded so as to exclude gay marriage, and the state constitution specifically prohibits inequality of privileges and immunities between citizens or classes of citizens. Moreover, Oregon is one of 12 states never to have amended its constitution to ban gay marriage, and one of only three in which courts have recognized the rights of gays and lesbians to equal treatment under the law. County Counsel has not returned my call, but was quoted in an interview as saying that “any day now a same sex couple could ask for a marriage license in Portland, just like in San Francisco”.
Here’s hoping.
Bill S. 02.29.04 at 4:16 pm
Turning Point: Yes. Positive: ???.
John Ziemba 02.29.04 at 4:40 pm
I’m less than impressed. Judging by some of the social dissolution going on in Scandanavia, which is fortunately not only affluent but relatively homogenous and multi-cultural, further picking at the unravelling fabric of marriage will not create a libertarian utopia. Yeah, divorce in Denmark’s down, but that’s only because fewer people are marrying in the first place. In countries where people shell out about 50% of their income in taxes, a single mom doesn’t have to worry about daycare or rent money. Here, that safety net is a lot smaller, and not many libertarians want it to expand it. Last I heard, in the States, married parents are the biggest single indicator of a child’s level of poverty. SUllivan may claim that gay marriage only confirms marriage in general–but this makes no sense to me. If marriage is only a loving relationship between two adults, just about the last thing it has been in every traditional society, what’s going to keep those couples together when the thrill is gone? Oh yeah, that’s why the divorce rates 50% here. Further separate the idea of the responsibility of raising good kids and I think we can shoot for, oh, 70, 80% Then the state’s going to have to step in to avoid chaos. That’ll make some folks happy, I guess.
I guess there’s no way to stop this from happening if that’s what people want, but at least we can refrain from slapping ourselves on the back as we watch the mortar disintegrate and wait for the bricks to start falling.
Sam Dodsworth 02.29.04 at 7:48 pm
Yeah, divorce in Denmark’s down, but that’s only because fewer people are marrying in the first place.
And this is bad because…?
sennoma 02.29.04 at 10:12 pm
some of the social dissolution going on in Scandanavia
Evidence would be nice.
which is fortunately not only affluent but relatively homogenous and multi-cultural
Fortunately? Homogeneous AND multi-cultural? If you have a point here, it eludes me.
further picking at the unravelling fabric of marriage
Allowing gay marriages will do this, how exactly?
Last I heard, in the States, married parents are the biggest single indicator of a child’s level of poverty.
One more excellent reason to allow gay marriage.
If marriage is only a loving relationship between two adults, just about the last thing it has been in every traditional society, what’s going to keep those couples together when the thrill is gone?
What’s so great about traditional societies and their values? And why are gay couples more likely to split up when “the thrill is gone”?
Further separate the idea of the responsibility of raising good kids and I think we can shoot for, oh, 70, 80%
So a marriage license is really a procreation license? What about the increasing numbers of straight couples who — gasp! — don’t want children? And what about the increasing numbers of gay couples adopting children?
the mortar disintegrate and wait for the bricks to start falling.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Only, it’s not. Gay de facto marriage has been around forever, and gay couples have been raising children for decades. The only question is whether we, as a society, want deliberately to relegate gays to second class citizen status. Arguments for that course of action are nothing more than homophobia with a thin veneer of sophistry.
John Ziemba 03.01.04 at 12:06 am
I wrote in haste–thanks for pointing out the lapse in “multi-cultural, unless you count the Lapps (pun intended). And you are being less than kind in taking “indicator of poverty” to mean that married parents are more likely to raise poor children. Needless to say, the opposite is true.
However, I’m even less impressed. I don’t think we’re ever going to be able to discuss this issue if the charge of “homophobia” is leveled every time someone points out potential problems with an experiment with human society Marxian in its scope. (Thin veneer of sophistication unintended). Nor does “the sky is falling” attack further reasonable debate. Let me stress that I, like many who question the wisdom of same-sex marriages, have no wish to see the rights of those who call themselves gay diminished in any way. However, the future of a society is in its children, and it is wishful thinking that the dedication and sacrifice that was reinforced by a definition of marriage that included this idea will continue when that definition is eroded. I ask where is your evidence that the financial, and in the majority of cases, emotional security of two parent households will continue unabated? Furthermore, is it logical to say that procreation and marriage are unrelated simply because marriage is not only procreation? Is my car no longer a means of transportation if I use it to make out in?
In way of evidence for my statements, I offer this, although the fact that it is from the Weekly Standard may invoke the Kripke Paradox.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064217/posts
David W. 03.01.04 at 2:39 pm
Time to get out the Fiskers (a brand of scissors, FYI):
However, the future of a society is in its children, and it is wishful thinking that the dedication and sacrifice that was reinforced by a definition of marriage that included this idea will continue when that definition is eroded.
How so? You’ve made the claim, please back it up with some actual, like, you know, evidence. No links either, but something you say on your own that backs your claim up. If you can’t do it, perhaps your claim isn’t as well-supported as you think it is.
I ask where is your evidence that the financial, and in the majority of cases, emotional security of two parent households will continue unabated?
It’s only one data point, but my wife and I know three same-sex couples who have for all intents and purposes a committed, married, relationship. We look at how they manage to presevere in a world that is much more difficult for them to cope with than it is for us, and we draw inspiration from it ourselves. Hey, that means it strengthens our marriage! Who would’a thunk it?
Furthermore, is it logical to say that procreation and marriage are unrelated simply because marriage is not only procreation? Is my car no longer a means of transportation if I use it to make out in?
I made out in other places than cars, myself. Too cramped. Also a crappy analogy because people can and do legally marry for reasons other than childbearing. I think love might have something to do with it, as I recall.
sennoma 03.01.04 at 4:27 pm
Let me stress that I, like many who question the wisdom of same-sex marriages, have no wish to see the rights of those who call themselves gay diminished in any way.
Oh no, of course not; you just don’t want them to be able to marry like, you know, real people.
“Separate but equal” is bullshit, and the principle of equality on which this country likes to claim it was founded precludes the formation of a second class of citizenship. (I like to believe that claim, myself; so, apparently, does the Mass. supreme court.) So if you want to alter America’s ethical framework so as to exclude gays from rights extended as a matter of course to heterosexuals, the onus is on you to present an irrefutable case for the harm that will result from not doing so.
So go ahead, convince me. If gays are allowed to marry, and the law pays no attention to whether a couple is same- or opposite-sex, what harm will come?
msg 03.01.04 at 10:11 pm
John Ziemba’s points are not only logically correct, they’re strategically accurate.
If the goal is just street catharsis using the law as a club, then forcing gay marriage into the civil arena is satisfying, no doubt.
If the goal is acceptance of diversity by a powerful and discriminatory minority, then “in-your-face” legal maneuvers are counter-productive.
It’s a consumerist delusion that marriage is about
A. love or
b. financial union.
Though it may have devolved into that. What it is is a survival mechanism for something that we are outside our individual selves.
It’s about something a little more hard to define, the nearly abstract edge of our realized potential, which is what children as a class are.
The children of today will become adults. But “children” as a concept will stay children.
Marriage as an institution, when it hasn’t been hijacked by political agendae and used as a means of social engineering, is about children. First.
Accepting that and working with it would go far to quiet the very real fears of many fundamentalists, that what’s being suggested is some kind of giant Mardi Gras, followed by social and economic collapse into hedonism and directionless gratification.
Accepting the primary importance of children is not the same as excluding any other class or category of individuals.
–
And I have to say that that snotty “tough guy” tone of David W.’s is extraordinarily unpleasant to read.
David W. 03.02.04 at 1:03 am
John Ziemba’s points are not only logically correct, they’re strategically accurate.
Well, that’s your claim.
If the goal is just street catharsis using the law as a club, then forcing gay marriage into the civil arena is satisfying, no doubt.
Strawman argument. Who cares about street theater in a court of law or as an actual argument pertaining to the subject of same-sex civil marriage?
If the goal is acceptance of diversity by a powerful and discriminatory minority, then “in-your-face†legal maneuvers are counter-productive.
A repetition of the above strawman.
It’s a consumerist delusion that marriage is about
A. love or
b. financial union.
Yet it obviously involves both, so you’re wrong on the face of it, unless you can demonstrate that people genuinely don’t marry for these reasons. But given how the ideal of romantic love has been the norm for hundreds of years now in Western culture, I think it’s silly to claim that such love is a “consumerist delusion”.
Though it may have devolved into that. What it is is a survival mechanism for something that we are outside our individual selves.
Marriage isn’t a requirement for the propagation of the human species. If it were, we’d have never managed to come up with it in the first place. It’s a cultural institution, and a secular one as well.
It’s about something a little more hard to define, the nearly abstract edge of our realized potential, which is what children as a class are.
O.K.
The children of today will become adults. But “children†as a concept will stay children.
Fine.
Marriage as an institution, when it hasn’t been hijacked by political agendae and used as a means of social engineering, is about children. First.
Marriage as an legal partnership does deal with children, certainly. But that isn’t the only aspect of marriage and the fact that civil marriage often deals with children doesn’t exclude those other reasons.
Accepting that and working with it would go far to quiet the very real fears of many fundamentalists, that what’s being suggested is some kind of giant Mardi Gras, followed by social and economic collapse into hedonism and directionless gratification.
The same sorts of wild things you mention, and more, were claimed once about inter-racial marriage. The word “miscegenation” was even coined to refer to the sort of decline in civilization that would take place if a white married a black. It didn’t happen. I would like fundamentalists to stop making such wild charges and ask themselves what their fears are really based on.
Accepting the primary importance of children is not the same as excluding any other class or category of individuals.
Agreed. So why exclude same-sex partners from legally marrying?
And I have to say that that snotty “tough guy†tone of David W.’s is extraordinarily unpleasant to read.
I think you protest too much, myself.
clew 03.02.04 at 1:47 am
In the several left-coast cities I’ve lived in, the considerable social (and increasing legal) acceptance of gay partnerships is exactly what reduces their ‘Mardi Gras’ behavior and increases their investment in children and the neighborhood. One would expect this of reasonable people, who are afraid to invest (emotionally, financially) in a family that could be taken away from them at any moment.
It’s the escapees from anti-gay towns who act like stereotypical frat boys. Even they, like the frat boys, settle down once they have a sweetie and a mortgage.
msg 03.02.04 at 5:19 am
Catharsis. Purging of tension.
Street catharsis. As in street fight. Non-theatrical.
No straw. All meat.
Just the clear difference, between a firm purposeful movement toward civil rights, and a cathartic “in your face” release of tension.
Gay marriage is not the place fundamentalism is going to be beaten down. And most everyone involved, especially on the sidelines, knows that.
These people put the president in office. They have tremendous political and social power.
What I’m talking about is strategy not moral superiority.
Martin Luther King and the early NAACP were as respected for their strategic abilities as for their unwavering focus on the goals they gave their lives, some of them literally, to achieve.
–
Sex has been so commodified that the reproductive aspect of it, the actual conception and birth of a child, is seen as an option, a by-product. This is understandable but it’s not enlightened, and it certainly isn’t modern. Someone said once that if sex wasn’t such an all-consuming urge, if orgasm wasn’t so intensely gratifying, the human race would have died out long ago.
The common attitude toward sex, that it’s simply another means to gratification, is no different than the earliest clueless human’s.
Sex is how children are made. That’s why it exists. Period. That’s biology, not morality.
That we have an innate need for sexual expression, including courtship and affection and long-term companionship entirely separate from reproduction, is an add-on, not the other way around.
These concepts are being debated in a world so over-populated individual human life is almost valueless, but it wasn’t always like this, and it won’t stay like this much longer.
We need values that are going to last. Consumer values are ephemeral. No future, only now. Nothing higher than the self and its hungers
–
The consumerist delusion is that marriage is about love, or about financial union, or a combination of the two. That children are a choice, an option secondary to the institution itself, is an inversion, and a recent one.
Marriage is about family, and family is about children. Love exists to ensure the survival of children. Period. Again, that’s biology not morality.
That societies, and the smaller societies of teh extended family, have always used the institution of marriage as a means of controlling the alliance of material fortunes, as well as to maintain and improve the vitality of bloodlines, doesn’t change the centrality of children in the slightest.
The delusion is the ranking. Love at number one, finances at number two, children at number three.
That that hierarchy reverts, in most people, when children are born, is a testament to the strength of our instincts against the shallow values of a consumerist culture.
–
I’m sure there must be a term wherever these words come from, like “strawman”, that means turning a statement of fact – that fundamentalists see the campaign for gay marriage as a hedonistic disintegration and are afraid of it – into a statement of belief on the part of the speaker. I’m writing from deeper in Camp Deviance than you’ve ever been, bubba. And I know more about “miscegnation”, and the threats and violence fear of it engendered, than you ever will.
I’m talking about what’s going to happen, not what would be nice, not what should.
My original point was that John Ziemba’s correct, biologically, logically, and most importantly to me though I don’t think it is to him, strategically.
I stand by it.
cynthia w 03.03.04 at 3:46 pm
Since we have gay couples raising children, then they deserve the rights and the obligations that go along with marriage. Marriage gives the partner the right and requirement to continue rearing the child if the adoping parent dies. Why should these children be taken away from a parent due to these circumstances?
Marriage also gives them the right to be in ICU when only family is allowed. In many ways gay couples are treated like second-class citizens.
If a couple, gay or straight, has been together for 25+ years, I call that a dedicated relationship and it should be honored as such, not thrown away if the couple happens to be gay.
If we gave them marriage rights, then there would be no need for the “in-your-face” marriage stuff going on right now. I know many gays, and hardly any of them flaunt their “gayness”, so if they had marriage rights, I think that they would just be that couple down the block, rather than an explosive issue.
Comments on this entry are closed.