My Photo

The Out Campaign

Atheist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2005

« Blog Carnivals! | Main | George Tiller and Bill Donohue: How Religion Twists the Moral Compass »


J. M.

This is a very thought-provoking post. That seems a very strange situation to be in. I've always agreed that same-sex couples being allowed to marry would be equal rights, and not special rights; however, it never occurred to me that the people who had gotten married in this brief window would, in effect, have "special rights." I've always thought that allowing only heterosexual couples to marry was an example of special rights (though, like you said, I don't think heterosexual couples should refrain from marrying until their homosexual and bisexual friends are allowed to marry).

Thanks for another great post, Greta (or perhaps I should call you Ms. Christina).


I agree. My wife and I don't enjoy being part of this "marriage island" and this sordid mess that is Proposition 8 has made us positively sick.


While there is much more to it than the fact that most of my friends aren't legally allowed to marry, that has definitely been a factor in my refusal to marry. It's not that I feel like it's a solidarity thing - it's more that I just don't feel comfortable engaging in an inherently exclusive institution.

Ultimately, this has morphed into a very firm belief that marriage should be abolished as a civil institution. Not just because of my same sex friends either. I have come to believe that a civil joining that doesn't imply anything about the nature of the relationship should be the legal standard. I have more than one friend who got married to a platonic partner for a variety of reasons. The most striking to me, was a "couple" that had been roomies for years and decided to buy a house - they had already been together so long that most of their property was pretty joint anyways. Allen has had several bouts of cancer and they wanted to ensure there would be no complications when he died - that and they both are pretty well estranged from their natural families and want to be in a position to make important decisions for each other.

I think it makes more sense for people to have the ability to legally join without implications and choose to define their relationship how they wish.


Cross-posting this from Blowfish: I agree, this is weird. But: how would you feel if it the court had not made the exception for the same-sex couples who married during that time period? It would seem like a bit of a betrayal for people who married in those few months (including my mom and her wife) in good faith that the marriage would be honored by their state, regardless of the outcome of Prop 8. Because Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment, making the straight-marriage-only rule retrospectively effective would have been unfair, too. It would be a little like if, after the passage of amendment instituting Prohibition, the cops had started arresting people for selling liquor prior to the amendment.

If the court had to uphold Prop 8, this is probably the most fair way to go about it. On the other hand, how much good is the fair institution of an unfair law?

John A.

You got the ruling you wanted. Stop complaining

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe/ Donate to This Blog!

Books of mine

Greta on SSA Speakers Bureau

  • Greta Christina is on the Speakers Bureau of the Secular Students Alliance. Invite her to speak to your group!

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Powered by Rollyo

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Atheism

Some Favorite Posts and Conversations: Sex

Some Favorite Posts: Art, Politics, Other Stuff