Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Hydropower Illuminates a Piece of History






Truthdig Bazaar
Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

By David Shields
$8.34

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Gay Marriage Goes Up for Argument in California

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 16, 2010
Flickr / laverrue

California’s a place that may seem a little kooky, a little crunchy, and definitely more than a little liberal when viewed from some other areas of the nation, but when it comes to the issue of gay marriage, it has yet to catch up with Iowa in terms of enacting progressive legislative change. Or Spain. Let’s keep that in mind as we consider the following news item:  —KA

The Washington Post:

Closing arguments are scheduled Wednesday in a landmark lawsuit that challenges California’s ban on gay marriage.

Two same-sex couples are suing to overturn Proposition 8, which voters passed in 2008. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is hearing the case in San Francisco.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 23, 2010 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

Could be.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 23, 2010 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

Truth has a gay bias.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 23, 2010 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

David:

The “Boswell” almost made me think the book was written a few hundred years ago. It was written by a gay in 1994. The first review I read dismissed it as a rewrite of gay history. Need I read the book? Let me prejudge, like you prejudged me as being a fundie and racist: This book is biased.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 23, 2010 at 9:27 am Link to this comment

Read John Boswell’s “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” and get back to me.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 23, 2010 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

David:

“That the figure of exchange be persons of the same sex.” Ok.

But you stated a premise, whuch I assume you believe, that, “the practice of mariage…is a legal arrangement made BETWEEN MEN to exchange property.” Therefore, the first sentence above already obtains, as you insist on proving with Edward II, etc. So, once again…

And I don’t need flash cards or insults, thanks.

Either defend your proposition that gay marriage has always been a valid subset of marriage, or admit that it’s a new invention, which breaks with “tradition”.

Either way, you should be able to marry your partner and get all the benies us heteros get.  (Be careful what you wish for!) Good luck.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 23, 2010 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

“If you believe the premise, “the practice of marriage which is a legal arrangement made BETWEEN MEN to exchange property” to be true, what are you asking for that you don’t already have?”

That the figure of exchange be persons of the same sex.

Is that clear enough for you?

Do you need Flash Cards?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 23, 2010 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

David:

I was NOT “obviously” or otherwise referring to Obama! Geeze, you’re sensitive!

My reference to past tradition was my answer. So far, you lead me to think that the entire history of the matter can be summed up by the behavior of rennaissance royalty and the church.

And I am NOT saying that we should just go with “tradition” either! Geeze!!! What I’m questioning is the breadth of your concept of historical “marriage”. We can debate the reason why the House of Anjou wanted to join the House of Bourbon until the cows come home, or how many WIVES a Berber may have. But it still doesn’t explain why every cultural reference to marriage, up until recent times, has almost universally assumed MAN-WOMAN/WOMEN. Even ancient Greeks, who liked their boys, never married them.

If I read Edward II, will it tell me why kings didn’t just marry each other?

Nor, again, did you answer my question? If you believe the premise, “the practice of marriage which is a legal arrangement made BETWEEN MEN to exchange property” to be true, what are you asking for that you don’t already have? (Please, don’t make me watch a video.)

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 23, 2010 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

“And what does your race have to do with the issue?”

Your invocation of “college professor” is an obvious reference to the POTUS. I was merely pointing out that Barry and I are a lot closer than you might imgaine—though I’m old enough to be his father were I straight.

“But I want YOUR answer! Not repeated references to medieval literature.”

Hey, YOU were the one invoking thousands of years.

You know everyone believed the world was flat for thousands of years. The church insisted upon it—criminalizing Gallileo. Do you think we should continue to insist that thearth is flat because “tradition” says so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHwhp2fzqnU

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 23, 2010 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

Haven’t read Edward II.

But I want YOUR answer! Not repeated references to medieval literature.

And what does your race have to do with the issue?

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 23, 2010 at 6:41 am Link to this comment

” If it’s all about exchanging/joining property, why didn’t kings just marry each other and avoid all the messy SON-and-DAUGHTER-as-proxy nonsense.”

Have you read Christopher Marlowe’s “Edward II” or seen Derek Jarman’s superb film version of same?

Obama and I have identical complexions but I’m not a “college professor”—by trade or demeanor

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 23, 2010 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

David:

“...logical conclusion from the practice of marriage which is a legal arrangement made BETWEEN MEN to exchange property.” Well, I suppose it would be a logical conclusion if the premise “legal arrangement BETWEEN MEN” were true. But I seriously doubt you’d find too many people, especially gay men, picking that answer from a multiple choice question which starts with, “Marriage is defined as:” In fact, that’s the whole point of your protest isn’t it: That that is emphatically NOT the definiton of marriage!

It also begs the question which I asked in my last post, and which you elided: If it’s all about exchanging/joining property, why didn’t kings just marry each other and avoid all the messy SON-and-DAUGHTER-as-proxy nonsense. Even the Catholic church of the late sixteenth century was interested in seeing its designated heads of state living in harmony with each other and should have blessed such direct unions. Why didn’t they? But I don’t want to talk about religion. I’m a confirmed atheist.

And so, I’m not a “fundie” either. Please help me date the Code of Hammurabi a little more accurately! You know what I meant! Please feel free to give me more anthropological evidence for the marriage institution that predates 3000bce.

Your exegesis of the movie makes you sound like a “college professor”.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 23, 2010 at 5:25 am Link to this comment

Not “invented as a diplomatic toll,” but such a “tool” is a logical conclusion from the practice of mariagewhich is a legal arrangement made BETWEEN MEN to exchange property.

Your “five thousand years” meme marks you as a Fundie.

Of coure “Queen Margot” has subtitles. It concerns the St. Bartholomwe’s Day Massacre—as true a demonstration of themeaning and practice of religion as anyone is likely to find. Griffith included it in one of the sectios of “Intolerance.” But Patrice Chereau’s adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ novel goes further.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 22, 2010 at 6:17 pm Link to this comment

David:

“The point is it’s an affair of state.”

I think I said in an earlier post that I believe marriage predated politics. If you think that “marriage” was invented as a diplomatic tool, then I must respectfully disagree. Besides, if marriage were merely diplomatic, why didn’t kings marry each other? Or queens? You’ll note that, irrespective of the rationale for marriage, be it economic, diplomatic, romantic, it was ALWAYS assumed to be between a man and a woman. The received definition of “marriage” has only been challenged in the last few decades of man’s five thousand year social history. You can’t push it backwards.

PS. I will. I hope it has subtitles. And how did you know I have a netfkix queue?

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 22, 2010 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

The point is it’s an affair of state. Procreative ability has nothing to do with it. It’s an excahnge of property.

Put the film on your Netflix queque

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 22, 2010 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

David:

My French is a little rusty. I didn’t get a bit of that. What does a royal French wedding have to do with your point? Sorry I missed it.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 22, 2010 at 5:39 am Link to this comment

“The entire idea and animating purpose of the marriage enterprise has always been procreation and the continuation of the family, clan, tribe and culture.”

Uh, no.

HERE is the meaning and purpose of marriage—

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MYnqDIzHGI

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 21, 2010 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

abandontradition:

But of all the “marriage traditions” you listed, the one common element is man-woman. Maybe, occasionally, man-women. (Sixty-year olds marrying pre-teens is a cultural artifact.) The entire idea and animating purpose of the marriage enterprise has always been procreation and the continuation of the family, clan, tribe and culture. Homosexual marriage does not achieve that goal and as such is artificial.

Modern marriage has grown to be more an economic than a procreative and cultural enterprise, and so leaves room for homosexual marriage. And that is hard for traditionalists to accept.

Report this

By abandontradition, June 21, 2010 at 10:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“But as a conservative, I believe that traditionally defined marriage, an ancient institution which pre-dates politics and power, has been recognized, protected and nurtured (through the tax code, inheritance law, etc) by governments.”

I do agree with you that, traditionally, marriage did not involve homosexuals marrying one another.  However, marriage strictly between one man and one woman is not a traditional marriage either.  Perhaps in the USA it is; but this is not the traditional marriage arrangement from a global standpoint.  Once upon a time, traditional marriage involved the parents arranging the marriages for their children.  Both brides and grooms had ZERO say on who they married.  One purpose for marriage was not necessarily procreation, but to settle family disputes. 

——————————————————————————-

I often wonder why some aspects of what a traditional marriage is among a particular society are abandoned while condemning other marriage arrangements for not being traditional.  It was not unheard of to have pre-teen children married to one another - even to adults - in some ancient cultures.

One argument I hear on being against gay marriage from folks is the supposed biblical evidence for a “one man, one woman” marriage arrangement.  On the contrary, it is historic fact that ancient Hebrew societies had polygamy as the usual marriage arrangement.  So did many other cultures that, chances are, never even had contact with one another. Indeed, the more wives a man had, the greater his social status was and was also symbolic of his wealth in many cultures - including in biblical lands.  Of course, I see married guys without beards quite often - even though having beards is a traditional custom according to the Pentateuch. Sometimes, the man OWNED his wife/wives, and vice versa, depending on the culture. 

In closing, there is no universal agreement on a traditional marriage among the various cultures in our world, both past and present.  Yet, a “one man, one woman only” marriage arrangement is very rare - from a traditional standpoint, of course.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 20, 2010 at 5:40 am Link to this comment

“But as a conservative, I believe that traditionally defined marriage, an ancient institution which pre-dates politics and power, has been recognized, protected and nurtured (through the tax code, inheritance law, etc) by governments.”

A rahter odd set of beliefs, I must say, in that tax code and inheritance law don’t pre-date politics and power but ARE politics and power.

“From a strictly utilitarian angle, same-sex marriage is irrelevant to that societal mission and need not be addressed by government.”

And so “from a strictly utilitarian angle” you’re writing off an enormous and important segment of the population. I would suggest you’re doing so becuase you can’t see us, who we are, and how we live in every level of society.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 20, 2010 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

David:

Well, best of luck to you, honestly. I wish there was a way to have the benefits government bestows on marriage made available to any two people who make similar commitments to each other.

But as a conservative, I believe that traditionally defined marriage, an ancient institution which pre-dates politics and power, has been recognized, protected and nurtured (through the tax code, inheritance law, etc) by governments. Not out of some patriarchal power play or whatever, but because it has generally succeeded more than any other arrangement as the NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT elementary building block of any organized society. From a strictly utilitarian angle, same-sex marriage is irrelevant to that societal mission and need not be addressed by government.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 19, 2010 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

“Is it true that you can be denied a job and a house merely for being gay?”

Yes. Absolutely. That’s why ENDA is so important. If you live in a big city like New York of Chicago or L.A. or San Francisco you’re OK. Anywhere else you’re taking your chances. And in certain states those chances ain’t too damend good.

it’s for that reason a state-by-state approach to gay mariage won’t work. That several states have legalized gay marriage is fine as far as gettign the ball rolling. But it’s on the Federal level that it really counts. Couples who marreid in Masachusetts can’t get each other’s social secutiy benefits when the other dies—which is one of the scads of things not possible unless same-sex marriage is recognized federally.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 19, 2010 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

And of course we’re back at the beginning of the thread.

I brought up guns because as a matter of states’ rights it’s rather a hot topic. Sort of like gay marriage. I could have used state speed limit laws as an analogy, but, well, yawn.

And I truly hope you’ll get your wish with your partner. Not being in your circumstance, I’m truly ignorant about one thing though: Is it true that you can be denied a job and a house merely for being gay? Seriously, I thought that was illegal anymore. I just moved from Virginia and almost sold my house to a gay couple who did not appear to be fearful of being denied. Coincidentally, I bought the house several years ago from a couple who were relocating to Miami. As in Florida. As in Jeb Bush country.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 19, 2010 at 8:33 am Link to this comment

He, you brought up guns, not me.

That you would reach for a gun for an “analogy” is. . .telling.

ENDA is incredibly important. I would very much like to marry my lover of 39 years. But if we lived in a city where we could be denied jobs or housing without any legal recourse simply because we’re gay said marriage wouldn’t matter very much, don’t you think?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 19, 2010 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

Ehrenstein:

I used the gun argument purely for analogy. Please send me a quote of anything I’ve said to you that gives you the idea I have a “desire [to] carry arms”. I believe I said exactly the opposite.

And speaking of staying on thread- what does ENDA have to do with gay marriage portability?

“Step away from your pocket mirror.” What does THAT mean? You’re not one of those posters, who when he runs out of argument, resorts to ad hominem are you?

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 19, 2010 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

Same-sex marriage should be nationwide. The “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) should be repealed. So sould “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) for the military.

Most important of all, ENDA—the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” should be made law immediately. While those of us who are lucky in living in slect urban munioiplities where sexual orentation has been added to standard civil rights protection in housing and employment—countless others are not. There remian place in this country where you can be fired simply for being gay or lesbian with no legal recourse to defend yourself—unless you’ve got the money and the clout to “Make a Federal case Out of It.”

And that’s the thing—I’t s FederalCase.

As for your “Gadfly” claim, step away from the pocket mirror before anyone gets hurt. If you don’t think the second ammendment is sufficient to your needs, state your case.

In a separate thread.

The rights of LGBT Americans to exist is quite adiffeent issue than your desire carry arms—and dpoubtlesuse them whenever it takes your fancy.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 18, 2010 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenstein:
How about debating my point instead of reprising freshman bull session gotchas.

What do you say?- If marriage laws should be state-portable, shouldn’t gun laws?

And if consistency is a hobgoblin, shouldn’t, then, individual states be allowed to tell gays they’re unwelcome?

Do you have a developed opinion on the subject, or are you just a gadfly?

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 18, 2010 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Did you make that up?

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

Consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 16, 2010 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

Ehrenstein:

But the constitution is the constitution. And consistency is consistency. If you want to blow off the tenth amendment in one case you have to blow it off in the other. I know it’s a bitch. I guess we have to be careful what we wish for.

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 16, 2010 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

Marriage is not a gun.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment

P.P.S. And the rest of the constitution.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 16, 2010 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

P.S.

I don’t own a gun, don’t want a gun, don’t like the NRA. Love the second amendment.

Report this
rico, suave's avatar

By rico, suave, June 16, 2010 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

For the record, I do not object in any way to gay marriage. You wanna get married, I’m pleased as punch for you.

Let’s say you get married in Iowa. Then your partner lands a great job in Virginia. You want your marriage to be recognized in Virginia and you make some legal argument to the effect that what’s legal in one state should be legal in every other state.

Fair enough.

Let’s say I obtain a concealed gun permit in Arizona. I land a great job in New York and want to take my gun and my license with me…

Oh my. Now we have a dilemma don’t we?

Report this

By David Ehrenstein, June 16, 2010 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

Judge Walker is gay.

Should he decide in our favor (as seems likely) this fact will be screamed far and wide by the losers.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.