Today Is My Anniversary
I live in London, UK, with my partner. I am a solicitor (attorney), now retired. She is a specialist clinician, a systemic psychotherapist working as part of a multi-disciplinary team in a service for children and young people with mental health problems, and their families. She is also a painter.
Today is the sixth anniversary of our civil partnership (civil union). If it had been possible, Liz and I would have registered our partnership in 1987, which is when we decided to buy a house and spend the rest of our lives together.
We are not freaks. We are just an ordinary couple who love each other and have been entirely faithful to each other for more than 25 years.
I don't want to undermine religion. I have no problem with religion, although I am not myself a believer. And I certainly don’t want to destroy the fabric of our society. I feel too much part of it to want to harm it.
What I do need, and feel entitled to expect, is the same opportunity as other people to live a normal family life. I should also like people to respect my relationship with Liz, which I am very proud of.
Does this make sense to Ricochet readers?
- Comment (650)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (19)
Comments:
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Common good? Many potholes on the way down that Road to Serfdom... · Dec 21 at 1:10pm
Edited on Dec 21 at 01:10 pm
Tommy,
Every regime upholds some behavior and discourages other behavior. You believe in the common good--it is obvious from your posts. You believe liberty is good, and government should protect it, right? On this thread you have mentioned the freedom to contract and the equal protection of the laws. Those are part of the definition of the common good in our regime.
Our regime has always held that there is a common good--expressed most succinctly in the Declaration of Independence. This is why our Founders could distinguish between free government and tyranny.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
John Grant
Tommy De Seno
John Grant
John Grant
The legitimate interest of the state in this instance is to promote stable marriages between men and women for the principal purpose of procreation and the education of children.
Using that as the law, would a State have no Constitutional impediment to denying a marriage license to an infertile straight couple?
Assume it happened.
Tell me how that couple's court challenge to such denial would be decided. · Dec 21 at 1:03pm
Tommy,
I think this is apples and oranges. A homosexual union is, on its face, without invasive fertility testing, infertile. The state's interest is in promoting marriage between man and woman in principle, and then also promoting the stability/permanency of that union.
An infertile marriage between a man and woman does not send the message that "alternative lifestyles" are all morally equal to a marriage between a man and a woman. The state recognizing homosexual unions does send that message. · Dec 21 at 1:12pm
Tell me in non-religious terms the exact "message" you refer to, if you please?
Nov '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Government should respect the Constitution and stay out of the making of the contract. There are few contracts (very few private ones) they interfere with at inception, They should stay involved in the breaking of the contract, as they do with all other contracts.
* * *
Stay out of my wedding. Feel free to jump in my divorce.
Government prohibits, or refuses to enforce, many types of contracts: service contracts for murder for hire, sales contracts for organs, contracts for child labor. The list is extremely long.
Unless you contend government must allow every contract, without regard to its effect on the parties, others (e.g., children produced under the contract) or society, your assertion that government must not prohibit any sort of marriage contract, and must enforce every sort of marriage contract, is just that, an assertion without an argument.
Your assertion does not make the question go away: Which marriage contracts should government allow or prohibit? And why?
May '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Mark Wilson
Tommy De Seno
Mark Wilson:
Is my state unconstitutionally banning local youth art clubs? · Dec 21 at 12:21pm
You wish for me to concede that Art is not Sport, after which you will tell me that gay marriage is not straight marriage.
But those are labels. I can describe the difference between sport and art (or I can describe them as the same).
Let's cut to the chase and you can tell me the difference between gay and straight marriages in a manner that details why there is a legitimate state interest in banning one and not the other.
I'm glad we are on the same page now. Although you seem to be implicitly answering it in the affirmative I'd like an explicit answer to my original question above.
Related: One normally takes for granted that the state can identify certain behaviors that are worthy of edification (assuming for the sake of argument that state marriage does in fact edify marriage) and establish a legal regime to promote them, without having to then provide justification for declining to establish a legal regime to promote all similar behaviors. Why is marriage different?
Mar '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
He is the man who made the mistake of legalizing abortion in California, is he not?
And he regretted it the rest of his life, and devoted a very large part of his political career trying to reverse the abortion juggernaut that his decision helped unleash. Both his speeches and letters make this pretty clear.
Oct '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Astonishing
(Quibblers, in defense of childless marriages, could pick at what you mean by "procreative." Also, your suggestion that single persons lack half of the human whole goes a bit too far. Marriage is a good thing, but not the only good thing, and not even the only good erotic longing.)
katievs doesn't need my help, but you are misrepresenting her here, I think. Traditional marriage has the procreative rationale she identifies ... that nature doesn't always cooperate changes nothing! Single persons do lack something generally essential to individual human development and societal stability ... physical and emotional intimacy. That doesn't mean it's the only thing, but so what? It's critically important (on average, not in every case).
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Astonishing
Your assertion does not make the question go away: Which marriage contracts should government allow or prohibit? And why? · Dec 21 at 1:21pm
I've answered this several times: None.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
HVTs
Astonishing
(Quibblers, in defense of childless marriages, could pick at what you mean by "procreative." Also, your suggestion that single persons lack half of the human whole goes a bit too far. Marriage is a good thing, but not the only good thing, and not even the only good erotic longing.)
katievs doesn't need my help, but you are misrepresenting her here, I think. Traditional marriage has the procreative rationale she identifies ... that nature doesn't always cooperate changes nothing!
Then take nature out of it. Suppose a couple writes a manifesto that they absolutely abhor kids and never have them, hoping to end the human species.
Under today's law as you understand it with underpinning you give it, would a Municipal Clerk be upheld or reversed in Court if she refused to sell that couple a marriage license?
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
John Grant
Tommy De Seno
The legitimate interest of the state in this instance is to promote stable marriages between men and women for the principal purpose of procreation and the education of children.
Using that as the law, would a State have no Constitutional impediment to denying a marriage license to an infertile straight couple?
Tommy,
....
An infertile marriage between a man and woman does not send the message that "alternative lifestyles" are all morally equal to a marriage between a man and a woman. The state recognizing homosexual unions does send that message. · Dec 21 at 1:12pm
Tell me in non-religious terms the exact "message" you refer to, if you please? · Dec 21 at 1:20pm
I am not sure what you mean by religious. I haven't said anything in religious terms yet. The message society should oppose is that sex has nothing to do with procreation, and that the family is whatever one wants it to be.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
Astonishing
Your assertion does not make the question go away: Which marriage contracts should government allow or prohibit? And why? · Dec 21 at 1:21pm
I've answered this several times: None. · Dec 21 at 1:27pm
So the state should recognize a marriage between a 38 year-old parent and his/her 18 year old child?
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
John Grant
Tommy De Seno
Astonishing
Your assertion does not make the question go away: Which marriage contracts should government allow or prohibit? And why? · Dec 21 at 1:21pm
I've answered this several times: None. · Dec 21 at 1:27pm
So the state should recognize a marriage between a 38 year-old parent and his/her 18 year old child? · Dec 21 at 1:33pm
No I said the state should recognize no marriages. None.
Jan '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
My main detractors here having already conceded that the State has "no interest" in gay marriage, they must concede there is no rational relationship to anything in banning it.
I wish you would stop misrepresenting my position.
The state has no interest in the intimate relationship between two people of the same sex. It is of insufficient potential consequence to the rest of society for the state to take an interest in it.
It is the state's interest that creates a civil marriage.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
John Grant
Tell me in non-religious terms the exact "message" you refer to, if you please? · Dec 21 at 1:20pm
I am not sure what you mean by religious. I haven't said anything in religious terms yet. The message society should oppose is that sex has nothing to do with procreation, and that the family is whatever one wants it to be. · Dec 21 at 1:31pm
You identified the state interest in recognizing some marriages and not others as being a "message" from the state. I'm asking you to tell me what that message is.
For a bonus, cite it somewhere in the law.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Klaatu
Tommy De Seno
My main detractors here having already conceded that the State has "no interest" in gay marriage, they must concede there is no rational relationship to anything in banning it.
I wish you would stop misrepresenting my position.
The state has no interest in the intimate relationship between two people of the same sex. It is of insufficient potential consequence to the rest of society for the state to take an interest in it.
It is the state's interest that creates a civil marriage. · Dec 21 at 1:39pm
I apologize if I misrepresented. So I don't do it again, please clarify:
What is the legitimate state interest served in denying a marriage license to a gay couple, and how is the ban rationally related to that state interest (this question is framed exactly as the Supreme Court will ask it)?
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
John Grant
Tommy De Seno
Astonishing
Your assertion does not make the question go away: Which marriage contracts should government allow or prohibit? And why? · Dec 21 at 1:21pm
I've answered this several times: None. · Dec 21 at 1:27pm
So the state should recognize a marriage between a 38 year-old parent and his/her 18 year old child? · Dec 21 at 1:33pm
No I said the state should recognize no marriages. None. · Dec 21 at 1:37pm
Ok.
I assume you believe the state should intervene in the case of say kidnapping, right? For example, if Romulus cannot find himself a spouse, he should not be allowed to go down the road, grab the first woman (or man) that catches his eye, and then make him/her his spouse, even if the local religious leader is willing to sanction the marriage, correct?
Sep '10
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
You raise two separate issues. First, the easy one.
I should also like people to respect my relationship with Liz, which I am very proud of.
No problems there!
Second:
What I do need, and feel entitled to expect, is the same opportunity as other people to live a normal family life.
But you don't have the same opportunity, do you? You can't have children if it's just you and your partner. People without legs can't run in marathons and homosexuals don't procreate without others involved. The next generation of humanity is not coming from you. Just as not giving marathon trophies to people who can't run isn't somehow unfair or hateful, not giving marriage to homosexuals isn't either.
Yes, I know, not all heterosexuals have babies, but it's a convenient generalization that allows us to recognize the special relationship that creates humanity.
I guess I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I'm not going to play in the NBA. I don't need everyone to redefine terms so I can claim I do.
(Asbestos suit on. Attacks in the comments in 3..2..1..)
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
John Grant
I am not sure what you mean by religious. I haven't said anything in religious terms yet. The message society should oppose is that sex has nothing to do with procreation, and that the family is whatever one wants it to be. · Dec 21 at 1:31pm
You identified the state interest in recognizing some marriages and not others as being a "message" from the state. I'm asking you to tell me what that message is.
For a bonus, cite it somewhere in the law. · Dec 21 at 1:40pm
The message is that sex should be confined to marriage, and marriage should be ordered to procreation and the education of children.
I don't understand what you mean by "cite it somewhere in the law." Historically, American law has prohibited various forms of illicit sexual behavior (homosexual relations, incest, polygamy, adultery).
Jan '11
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Tommy De Seno
I apologize if I misrepresented. So I don't do it again, please clarify:
What is the legitimate state interest served in denying a marriage license to a gay couple, and how is the ban rationally related to that state interest (this question is framed exactly as the Supreme Court will ask it)? · Dec 21 at 1:42pm
First, I disagree that the question will be phrased that way. The more proper question would be, what is the legitimate state interest in restricting marriage licenses to the union of one man and one woman?
The legitimate state interest would be in increasing the chance that children would be born and raised in stable families by the parents who conceived them.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
John Grant
You identified the state interest in recognizing some marriages and not others as being a "message" from the state. I'm asking you to tell me what that message is.
For a bonus, cite it somewhere in the law. · Dec 21 at 1:40pm
The message is that sex should be confined to marriage, and marriage should be ordered to procreation and the education of children.
I don't understand what you mean by "cite it somewhere in the law." Historically, American law has prohibited various forms of illicit sexual behavior (homosexual relations, incest, polygamy, adultery). · Dec 21 at 1:46pm
Yes and when they prohibit those things they do so in a statute.
Where in the law was this message you cite stated?
Also, no where in the United States do we have laws limiting sex to marriage. I don't think you are citing how things are, as opposed to how you wish they were.
Re: Today Is My Anniversary
Klaatu
Tommy De Seno
I apologize if I misrepresented. So I don't do it again, please clarify:
What is the legitimate state interest served in denying a marriage license to a gay couple, and how is the ban rationally related to that state interest (this question is framed exactly as the Supreme Court will ask it)? · Dec 21 at 1:42pm
First, I disagree that the question will be phrased that way. The more proper question would be, what is the legitimate state interest in restricting marriage licenses to the union of one man and one woman?
The legitimate state interest would be in increasing the chance that children would be born and raised in stable families by the parents who conceived them. · Dec 21 at 1:49pm
Then your municipal clerk will be upheld in court when denying a marriage license to an infertile heterosexual couple.
You may not want that, but under the law that you are stating, that would be the case. According to you, there is no legitimate state interest in having an infertile couple marry.
If you believe the state has an interest in that, please state it.