Most depressing feature of the election for this non-voter: All eleven states with gay marriage on the ballot went against it. I’m sure Bill Bennett (see below) is delighted.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004 at 11:53 by olly and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Those people exist independantly of me starting anything. They just look for a chance to put their stuff out there…
Then again, the same applies to holders of Econ degrees. And myself.
I have no concept of this Andrea Dworkin person. Is that her Hobbit name? Inform me at our next close-down-the-bar evening.
I’d say serfdom is a form of slavery because you don’t much get a choice, ownership is ownership. Being tied to the land/landowner still means one is owned.
Peasantry has man of the same squalor-related properties of serfdom, but being able to freely move about is an important distinction. My history is rusty, but I believe that free peasantry came only after serfdom in most of Europe due to particularly bad crop years mostly. IE serfs were released because the lords could not afford to feed them, thus creating some free peasants. Ricardo, Malthus (?) might be more informative on this.
Russia is a pretty interesting case-study, especially the general poorness of the aristocracy due to land-ownership traditions and the table of ranks. But I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum to delve the depths of my mediocre understanding of Russian history. Feel free to email.
I took the bait, sure, but look what you started with Tim. I know evolution, yo. In every sense of the word.
Serfdom is slavery only because it ties people to land and a landowner, Tim. Peasantry is actually a more likely origin of the very notion of employment, with the freedom to come and go on land and hold free agreements with the landowner seasonally. Serfs were the result, especially in Russia, of the removal of rights from the peasant classes and binding them (at the risk of death) to political obediance under one man given titles by favor (versus earned). So the term “unskilled” is relative to the region you’re talking about. Farming and crafting is a skill.
I tossed the slavery / employment thing out there as an overgeneralization comparable to Melissa’s broad swipe at marriage. And Melissa: you took the bait admirably, by immediately seizing on the nuances behind the word “evolved.” Now try to look at the institution of marriage the same way.
Mel: I’d say that employment really evolved from Serfdom to a large degree, which is a form of slavery. Sure, the industrial revolution was the catalyst for being able to freely exchange labor for money, but the precursers to unskilled laboreres were serfs.
Sure. But the post-graduate employment is practically guaranteed. The world can always use more bullshit… we just need some journalism students to condense years of reasearch into a funny little blurb for the papers, ala the recent pygmy skeletal remains being called “hobbit-like.” Thanks, media.
And employment as we know it evolved from industrialzation. Read “Adam Bede” again…George Eliot illustrates so nicely the pre-Industrial Revolution Europe we all know and love, and what happens when good Donnithornes go bad.
Marriage the way we define it now may not be that way, Dan, but it has evolved culturally from those practices . . . Same institution, just toned down a little.
Oh, brother. And employment evolved from slavery. Can we move on?
And if you’re going to toss out Scott Peterson — if we’re going to descend, in other words, into single bits of anecdotal evidence of whatever it is you think marriage is, fine. I will counter by inviting you to spend an hour with my fiance, Ashley, and her growing pile of wedding magazines. Then try to tell me I’m subjugating her by marrying her. Hell, try to tell her that.
Marriage the way we define it now may not be that way, Dan, but it has evolved culturally from those practices. It’s a commonly held idea in cultural anthropology circles. That’s how we got femininst theory in anthropology in the first place. Same institution, just toned down a little.
Measure 36 was not so much a measure to allow same-sex marriage, as it was a measure to protect man-woman marriage, which I think is a ludicrous idea anyway. Just because you take a vow to love and protect someone for ever and ever doesn’t mean it happens that way. Personal responsibility and respect for others are not automatic guarantees of a marital bond.
Loving bond, eh? Speaking of which, any word yet on that Scott Peterson verdict?
Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
Melissa, don’t you think you’re cutting too wide a swath here, both historically, culturally, and a whole lot of other -ally’s? I doubt very many people in Oregon believed themselves to be defending clitoral mutilation when they voted “Yes” on 36. Whatever marriage might have meant in the 15th century or still means among some folks in Kenya or Utah, for a great many men and women here and now it is nothing more than a loving bond. Rein it in a little.
What? This isn’t about womens rights. What marriage is today in the way that it is practiced in my church is that both parties are equal, and the swear to love each other until till death infront of thier family and God. Is that such a bad thing? Marriage is about promising to love. Love isn’t some feeling that comes and goes, its a lifestyle choice. You choose to love someone, and with that come the emotional connection. Sure it gets blurred, but if you’ve ever been in a long term relationship, you know that you dont always feel joy with the other person, but that’s just an ebb and flow.
Ok ok. What is marriage? We are debating very different things here. (1) marriage in the economic and legal sense and (2) marriage in the religious/social sense. It is my opinion that 36 was worded poorly and aimed at a specific demographic who, as with southern states, would have certainly voted in favor of 36 due to the strong wording and tendency to focus on “protection” of something. This puts voters on the defensive.
There is simply nothing about social marriage to be protected here. Marriage is a horrible establishment, especially for women. It borders on sick that people continue to practice these traditions despite the misogynist history. Keep in mind that it was only in the last 70 years that some states stopped stamping “bastard” on illegitimate children’s birth certificates… because their mothers weren’t married. Polygamy is fine… as long as it’s polygyny. If it’s polyandry… forget it!
A woman’s life worth is still, in many places in this country, measured by her marital status and number of children produced by that marriage. This is the first issue that must be dealt with. Anyone know the origins of the wedding ring? It was compensation to the bride’s family for taking their property. Some cultures in the world still hang bedsheets out the window on the honeymoon to prove bridal virginity! Hymen reconstructive surgical procedures save women’s lives every day, because the groom’s family will check it on her wedding day, and kill her (if her own family doesn’t do it first) for exercising her sexual freedom.
These are very separate ideas of marriage. The above was what people voted to protect on 36. The economic idea of marriage is what should be a right for everyone, especially when medical care, insurance, and inheritance are concerned. But why anyone would want to “preserve the sanctity” of marriage in the former sense is beyond me.
I view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, but I think it’s a bad idea to draw too many parallels with previous civil rights struggles involving, say, black people. The history and the situations are just too different. (Most obviously, outside of The Human Stain, the notion of an “in the closet” black person doesn’t arise.)
Anyway, as anyone who’s been following this pie-fight will know by now, I say “no good reason” and “totally wrong” to Andy’s last question. But that doesn’t have to be a problem: individuals are free to feel however they like about gay people, or black people, or whoever. But the right to swing your arms doesn’t extend all the way to the other person’s nose, and once we start writing this stuff down in the law books, it gets a lot trickier. (In my opinion, of course.)
Okay okay, I concede that the state should get out of marriage. Previous comment is moot, but are all the people in the states who voted against gay unions wrong? Does denying gays marriage equate with denying blacks (fill in the blank)?
Even blacks voted agaisnt the gays. My question is, might there be a good reason for doing so or are they totally wrong like in the 50’s and 60’s?
Well, how long of a tutorial on the ins and outs of equal protection law are you in the mood for, Andy? See where I said “arguably” in my previous comment.
I say state marriage should be defined as a contract between any two consenting adults, I think that’s reasonable. Churches can do whatever the hell they want (freedom of association and all that), but the state must give all citizens the same choice in marrying whom they please.
Agreed, gov’t shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. But since it is, it should apply the legal benefits of marriage equally. You say:{The benefits of marriage are} all legal loop holes which deal NOTHING with the argument of “rights.” Is an insurance break or sick leave a RIGHT given to me by my creator?? NO.To which I say: see the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If positive benefits of the law are extended to one class of people, and denied to another, that is arguably a violation of rights granted by our constitution. The “legal loop holes” themselves are not rights, correct. But there is a constitutional right to be treated equally.
Okay, so you’re calling for some sort of legal life partner special case. Then call it that. I wouldn’t say is a peversion of the work to apply it to gays, but I think it’s been mangled enough and should probably go back to being a religious ceremony, and abandoned by the state.
Andy, you, as an individual, certainly have the right to feel any way you want. (Although you do not have the right to have your beliefs go unchallenged.) The government, as an institution, does not have this luxury. (What your creator had in mind on this issue, though, I wouldn’t care to speculate.)
As for your prostitution argument, the government – again, as an institution – has no business making value judgements in either direction about the reasons people – as individuals – choose to get hitched. I’d say get rid of the tax breaks for married couples on general social-engineering-is-bad principles, but allowing people to designate “life partners” in some formal, legal way strikes me as nothing more than pragmatic and fair. Call it marriage. Call it a civil union. I couldn’t care less, as long as the legal protection is there. And in due course it will be.
Yea, exactly. All legal loop holes which deal NOTHING with the argument of “rights.” Is an insurance break or sick leave a RIGHT given to me by my creator?? NO.
If people are getting married for the tax and other benifits, government is basically endorsing prostitution. How great of a reason to marry is it if your doing it for the money?
The only ones being opporessed here are the greedy and those who want to force acceptance of thier sexuality on the general populous. That’s why you lost.
Power of attorney? It’s basically a simpler way of doing it. I don’t think that qualifies as a “right” being taken away. I’d even venture to say that state marriage is a tax loop hole for the herterosexuals! fine. then close it. Rediculus. We forget in this country about rights. The right to hate, to dislike, to have whatever fucking personal opinons you want.
Is that fair? Yes. Would it be fair if legislation would pass forcing you to accept and condone me killing animals and cutting down trees? No becuase you have the right to hate me for what I do.
In reply to Andy’s question, there are, according to the US General Accounting Office, 1,049 benefits available to spouses because of marriage.
These include:
– visitation of spouse in hospital
– medical decisions for spouse
– insurance breaks
– tax breaks
– sick leave to care for spouse
– bereavement leave
– immunity from testifying against spouse in court
– pension rights
and, of course, many more. The full list is available from the GAO. (This is a PDF file.)
The US actually used to have a marriage penalty. So the tax incentive is sort of new. I think there are certain estate rights granted to the spouse, spousal privilege (you know, like the in court kind), insurance, and I’m sure there are a bunch of others that I’m totally missing.
I just had a debate with my roommate: What are the benifits of being married by the state? A tax but and social acceptance right? I was just wondering if anyone could tell me any more reasons because he refuses to believe that those are the only ones.
Marriage shouldn’t be a government issue at all, but I’d rather it be at the state level, so I agree with Sho. Also, state constitutions are easy to change.
I’d rather see each state duke it out over gay marriage than see the Federal Marriage Amendment approved by Congress. I hope that in the next election some of the more liberal states will try to push legislation that will keep marriage out of the law books.
Ew. Ok. That’s the end of that subject. Next, please.
Hacked up for your enjoyment. Warning, it’s covered in lung butter.
Tim: I’m saving my knowledge of Russian social history for your email. So cough it up. [email protected]
I am nothing if not an egotist.
Dworkin is a “feminist” who thinks that all sex is rape, there’s some stuff on her here.
Those people exist independantly of me starting anything. They just look for a chance to put their stuff out there…
Then again, the same applies to holders of Econ degrees. And myself.
I have no concept of this Andrea Dworkin person. Is that her Hobbit name? Inform me at our next close-down-the-bar evening.
I’d say serfdom is a form of slavery because you don’t much get a choice, ownership is ownership. Being tied to the land/landowner still means one is owned.
Peasantry has man of the same squalor-related properties of serfdom, but being able to freely move about is an important distinction. My history is rusty, but I believe that free peasantry came only after serfdom in most of Europe due to particularly bad crop years mostly. IE serfs were released because the lords could not afford to feed them, thus creating some free peasants. Ricardo, Malthus (?) might be more informative on this.
Russia is a pretty interesting case-study, especially the general poorness of the aristocracy due to land-ownership traditions and the table of ranks. But I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum to delve the depths of my mediocre understanding of Russian history. Feel free to email.
I may have started something with Tim, but look what you started with Andrea “Tyler And Tim Are Such Total Rapists” Dworkin.
I took the bait, sure, but look what you started with Tim. I know evolution, yo. In every sense of the word.
Serfdom is slavery only because it ties people to land and a landowner, Tim. Peasantry is actually a more likely origin of the very notion of employment, with the freedom to come and go on land and hold free agreements with the landowner seasonally. Serfs were the result, especially in Russia, of the removal of rights from the peasant classes and binding them (at the risk of death) to political obediance under one man given titles by favor (versus earned). So the term “unskilled” is relative to the region you’re talking about. Farming and crafting is a skill.
BUT BUT BUT ALL SEX IS RAPE! What? No, Don’t ask me about Lesbians! Lesbians are off the table! Do NOT ask me about them!
I tossed the slavery / employment thing out there as an overgeneralization comparable to Melissa’s broad swipe at marriage. And Melissa: you took the bait admirably, by immediately seizing on the nuances behind the word “evolved.” Now try to look at the institution of marriage the same way.
Mel: I’d say that employment really evolved from Serfdom to a large degree, which is a form of slavery. Sure, the industrial revolution was the catalyst for being able to freely exchange labor for money, but the precursers to unskilled laboreres were serfs.
As the proud holder of a degree in Econ, I prefer the anthropologists not horn in on my bullshit; I like having such big market share.
Sure. But the post-graduate employment is practically guaranteed. The world can always use more bullshit… we just need some journalism students to condense years of reasearch into a funny little blurb for the papers, ala the recent pygmy skeletal remains being called “hobbit-like.” Thanks, media.
In many circles, cultural anthropology is considered utter bullshit. I think this is probably the correct view.
And employment as we know it evolved from industrialzation. Read “Adam Bede” again…George Eliot illustrates so nicely the pre-Industrial Revolution Europe we all know and love, and what happens when good Donnithornes go bad.
To each her own.
Marriage the way we define it now may not be that way, Dan, but it has evolved culturally from those practices . . . Same institution, just toned down a little.
Oh, brother. And employment evolved from slavery. Can we move on?
And if you’re going to toss out Scott Peterson — if we’re going to descend, in other words, into single bits of anecdotal evidence of whatever it is you think marriage is, fine. I will counter by inviting you to spend an hour with my fiance, Ashley, and her growing pile of wedding magazines. Then try to tell me I’m subjugating her by marrying her. Hell, try to tell her that.
Marriage the way we define it now may not be that way, Dan, but it has evolved culturally from those practices. It’s a commonly held idea in cultural anthropology circles. That’s how we got femininst theory in anthropology in the first place. Same institution, just toned down a little.
Measure 36 was not so much a measure to allow same-sex marriage, as it was a measure to protect man-woman marriage, which I think is a ludicrous idea anyway. Just because you take a vow to love and protect someone for ever and ever doesn’t mean it happens that way. Personal responsibility and respect for others are not automatic guarantees of a marital bond.
Loving bond, eh? Speaking of which, any word yet on that Scott Peterson verdict?
Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.
Booyah, bitches.
Melissa, don’t you think you’re cutting too wide a swath here, both historically, culturally, and a whole lot of other -ally’s? I doubt very many people in Oregon believed themselves to be defending clitoral mutilation when they voted “Yes” on 36. Whatever marriage might have meant in the 15th century or still means among some folks in Kenya or Utah, for a great many men and women here and now it is nothing more than a loving bond. Rein it in a little.
What? This isn’t about womens rights. What marriage is today in the way that it is practiced in my church is that both parties are equal, and the swear to love each other until till death infront of thier family and God. Is that such a bad thing? Marriage is about promising to love. Love isn’t some feeling that comes and goes, its a lifestyle choice. You choose to love someone, and with that come the emotional connection. Sure it gets blurred, but if you’ve ever been in a long term relationship, you know that you dont always feel joy with the other person, but that’s just an ebb and flow.
group hug…
Ok ok. What is marriage? We are debating very different things here. (1) marriage in the economic and legal sense and (2) marriage in the religious/social sense. It is my opinion that 36 was worded poorly and aimed at a specific demographic who, as with southern states, would have certainly voted in favor of 36 due to the strong wording and tendency to focus on “protection” of something. This puts voters on the defensive.
There is simply nothing about social marriage to be protected here. Marriage is a horrible establishment, especially for women. It borders on sick that people continue to practice these traditions despite the misogynist history. Keep in mind that it was only in the last 70 years that some states stopped stamping “bastard” on illegitimate children’s birth certificates… because their mothers weren’t married. Polygamy is fine… as long as it’s polygyny. If it’s polyandry… forget it!
A woman’s life worth is still, in many places in this country, measured by her marital status and number of children produced by that marriage. This is the first issue that must be dealt with. Anyone know the origins of the wedding ring? It was compensation to the bride’s family for taking their property. Some cultures in the world still hang bedsheets out the window on the honeymoon to prove bridal virginity! Hymen reconstructive surgical procedures save women’s lives every day, because the groom’s family will check it on her wedding day, and kill her (if her own family doesn’t do it first) for exercising her sexual freedom.
These are very separate ideas of marriage. The above was what people voted to protect on 36. The economic idea of marriage is what should be a right for everyone, especially when medical care, insurance, and inheritance are concerned. But why anyone would want to “preserve the sanctity” of marriage in the former sense is beyond me.
I view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, but I think it’s a bad idea to draw too many parallels with previous civil rights struggles involving, say, black people. The history and the situations are just too different. (Most obviously, outside of The Human Stain, the notion of an “in the closet” black person doesn’t arise.)
Anyway, as anyone who’s been following this pie-fight will know by now, I say “no good reason” and “totally wrong” to Andy’s last question. But that doesn’t have to be a problem: individuals are free to feel however they like about gay people, or black people, or whoever. But the right to swing your arms doesn’t extend all the way to the other person’s nose, and once we start writing this stuff down in the law books, it gets a lot trickier. (In my opinion, of course.)
Okay okay, I concede that the state should get out of marriage. Previous comment is moot, but are all the people in the states who voted against gay unions wrong? Does denying gays marriage equate with denying blacks (fill in the blank)?
Even blacks voted agaisnt the gays. My question is, might there be a good reason for doing so or are they totally wrong like in the 50’s and 60’s?
Well, how long of a tutorial on the ins and outs of equal protection law are you in the mood for, Andy? See where I said “arguably” in my previous comment.
What about women in combat? Why do we have gneder segregation?
I say state marriage should be defined as a contract between any two consenting adults, I think that’s reasonable. Churches can do whatever the hell they want (freedom of association and all that), but the state must give all citizens the same choice in marrying whom they please.
Andy:
Agreed, gov’t shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. But since it is, it should apply the legal benefits of marriage equally. You say:{The benefits of marriage are} all legal loop holes which deal NOTHING with the argument of “rights.” Is an insurance break or sick leave a RIGHT given to me by my creator?? NO.To which I say: see the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If positive benefits of the law are extended to one class of people, and denied to another, that is arguably a violation of rights granted by our constitution. The “legal loop holes” themselves are not rights, correct. But there is a constitutional right to be treated equally.
Okay, so you’re calling for some sort of legal life partner special case. Then call it that. I wouldn’t say is a peversion of the work to apply it to gays, but I think it’s been mangled enough and should probably go back to being a religious ceremony, and abandoned by the state.
What Jasper said.
Andy, you, as an individual, certainly have the right to feel any way you want. (Although you do not have the right to have your beliefs go unchallenged.) The government, as an institution, does not have this luxury. (What your creator had in mind on this issue, though, I wouldn’t care to speculate.)
As for your prostitution argument, the government – again, as an institution – has no business making value judgements in either direction about the reasons people – as individuals – choose to get hitched. I’d say get rid of the tax breaks for married couples on general social-engineering-is-bad principles, but allowing people to designate “life partners” in some formal, legal way strikes me as nothing more than pragmatic and fair. Call it marriage. Call it a civil union. I couldn’t care less, as long as the legal protection is there. And in due course it will be.
Yea, exactly. All legal loop holes which deal NOTHING with the argument of “rights.” Is an insurance break or sick leave a RIGHT given to me by my creator?? NO.
If people are getting married for the tax and other benifits, government is basically endorsing prostitution. How great of a reason to marry is it if your doing it for the money?
The only ones being opporessed here are the greedy and those who want to force acceptance of thier sexuality on the general populous. That’s why you lost.
Power of attorney? It’s basically a simpler way of doing it. I don’t think that qualifies as a “right” being taken away. I’d even venture to say that state marriage is a tax loop hole for the herterosexuals! fine. then close it. Rediculus. We forget in this country about rights. The right to hate, to dislike, to have whatever fucking personal opinons you want.
Is that fair? Yes. Would it be fair if legislation would pass forcing you to accept and condone me killing animals and cutting down trees? No becuase you have the right to hate me for what I do.
In reply to Andy’s question, there are, according to the US General Accounting Office, 1,049 benefits available to spouses because of marriage.
These include:
– visitation of spouse in hospital
– medical decisions for spouse
– insurance breaks
– tax breaks
– sick leave to care for spouse
– bereavement leave
– immunity from testifying against spouse in court
– pension rights
and, of course, many more. The full list is available from the GAO. (This is a PDF file.)
The US actually used to have a marriage penalty. So the tax incentive is sort of new. I think there are certain estate rights granted to the spouse, spousal privilege (you know, like the in court kind), insurance, and I’m sure there are a bunch of others that I’m totally missing.
I just had a debate with my roommate: What are the benifits of being married by the state? A tax but and social acceptance right? I was just wondering if anyone could tell me any more reasons because he refuses to believe that those are the only ones.
Marriage shouldn’t be a government issue at all, but I’d rather it be at the state level, so I agree with Sho. Also, state constitutions are easy to change.
I’d rather see each state duke it out over gay marriage than see the Federal Marriage Amendment approved by Congress. I hope that in the next election some of the more liberal states will try to push legislation that will keep marriage out of the law books.