Gilding the lily

When last we visited Secular Right, John Derbyshire was arguing that gay marriage needed to remain illegal for the benefit of America's "cognitively-challenged underclass." Heterosexual marriage, Derbyshire explained, served as an "anchoring institution for them to aspire to."

Now here comes blogmate Heather MacDonald to make what I'm sure is an entirely unrelated point:

One overpowering cause of black social failure is the breakdown of marriage in the black community. Nationally, the black illegitimacy rate is 71%; in some inner city areas, it is closer to 90%. When boys grow up without any expectation that they will have to marry the mother of their children, they fail to learn the most basic lesson of personal responsibility. A community without the marriage norm is teetering on the edge of civilizational collapse, if it has not already fallen into the abyss. Fatherless black boys, who themselves experience no pressure to become marriageable mates as they grow up, end up joining gangs, dropping out of school, and embracing a “street” lifestyle in the absence of any male authority in the home.

If the black illegitimacy rate were not nearly three times the rate of whites’, I would have few qualms about gay marriage. Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry. But no one can make that guarantee. |Heather MacDonald|

Ok then

Shorter Derb: Gay marriage must remain illegal because Americans are dumb.

(4) If you have a cognitively-challenged underclass, as every large nation has, you need some anchoring institutions for them to aspire to; and those institutions should have some continuity and stability. Heterosexual marriage is a key such institution. In a society in which nobody had an IQ below 120, homosexual marriage might be plausible. In the actual societies we have, other considerations kick in. |Secular Right|

Adding: I'd like to know how you get from 'a cognitively-challenged underclass' to laissez-faire capitalism.

Speaking of teh gay marriage: Probably you've already heard about that new poll showing that support for gay marriage has risen dramatically over the last few years. Yglesias suggests that what's going on here is that public opinion is taking its cues from far-sighted politicians who, in deference to demographic realities, have been taking a more pro-equality stance. I disagree, and I'll stand by what I wrote back when Gavin Newsome took matters into his own hands:

Polls consistently show that Americans strongly oppose gay marriage but that there is growing support for civil unions. I'm not sure that I believe those numbers. I think a lot of the civil union supporters see civil unions as a way to advance gay rights without poking the religious right in the eye.

But, as Josh Marshall observed a few days ago, establishing civil unions for gays amounts to official endorsement of the idea that their unions are inferior to heterosexual relationships. It grants rights while taking dignity.

That's a realization he came to because he was confronted with the spectacle of the San Francisco weddings. For the first time he saw married gays and it forced him to rethink his position. Chalk up one vote less for civil unions.

The raw materials are there.

Americans don't believe in discrimination. Opposition to gay marriage can't withstand acquaintance with the real marriages of real gays. |source|

To fetch a pail of stupid

Let me tell you some things about Party A and Party B:

• Party A exchanged vows with Party B in a church wedding in front of family and friends.
  
• The state of California does not recognize their relationship.
  
• As far as Party A is concerned, she is a bride.
  
• Party A and Party B consider themselves to be part of a movement.
  
• Because their relationship is not recognized, Party A cannot sign up for Party B's health benefits.
  
• This leaves Party A and her two children without health insurance.
  
• Although their stand has been called frivolous, they feel that their rights have been violated.
  
• Party A and Party B feel like a a bride and groom.
  
• Party A and Party B do not get irony.

(via)

See marriage don't change, nothing but your name

I'm taking a few minutes to read through the Michigan Appeals Court's recent decision interpreting the marriage amendment and this jumped out:

Finally, we note that our interpretation of the language of the marriage amendment is one of first impression, insofar as it concerns a relatively unique phraseology. Thus, while other states have adopted constitutional amendments and/or statutes that place limitations on governmental recognition of same-sex relationships, no court in any of these states has had the occasion to interpret language approximating the “similar union” language found in Michigan’s marriage amendment. Consequently, guidance from the decisions of other jurisdictions is unavailing.

Insofar as other states use similar language, and the Michigan Appeals Court notes that Kentucky and Wisconsin do, this decision could end up providing guidance in interpretation, so it's pretty significant. The text of the Michigan amendment, for the record, is, "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

I may post again later after I've had time to think about the court's reasoning. In the meantime, curious lawyers and fellow travellers are welcome to follow the link and offer their thoughts.