And yet those in their 20s in 2009 are not the same as those like you and I in 1991. In 1991 there wasn’t a single state where civil unions or SSM were legal, most states and localities had no anti-discrimination laws, gays were seen as being part of wider culture then as they increasingly are today, etc. There were no shows with “out” gays like Ellen, Will & Grace, etc. It may take a few more years but eventually DADT will be repealed and ENDA will be enacted. How much of a change do you think these actions will have upon the culture at large even without SSM? When you were 20 you never had to face acceptance of gays like those who are 20 today. No, comparisons between 2009 and 1991 on this issue have no merit.

Nothing like gays, abortion, and guns to flush folks from the wood-pile.

Frankly, I enjoy talking guns a lot more than the other two. I might suppose that one could context discussions on all those issues around freedom … but I am afraid I would be mistaken.

Not only is this irrelevant, it’s arguing from a false pretense: heterosexual marriage as practiced universally in the western world today is _also_ a modern invention without thousands of years of tradition behind it. If you think marriage was seen as a voluntary legal contract between two equal partners with equal rights before the modern era, you’re sadly mistaken.

You’re jumping on one single aspect of “traditional” marriage (the sex organs of the people involved), and proclaiming that to be _the_ sacrosanct aspect that defines the institution. In fact, marriage has been “redefined” over and over in our western tradition, as we realized that the old ways were disenfranchising people.

We’ve made marriage a romantic arrangement between individuals, where previously it was an economic one between families. We’ve done away with antimiscegenation laws. We’ve turned our backs on coverture (which was once thought of as _the_ defining aspect of marriage–the combining of two into one). There have been times in European history when marriage was essentially secular, and times when religious ceremonies were legally required. Times when a woman had little say in who she married, and times when her consent was required no matter what the political pressures involved. Just like with _every_ other aspect of our culture, westerners have shown a willingness to adjust the terms of marriage when it became clear that we were causing harm without good reason. But eliminate the completely arbitrary concern over what’s under the pants of the person a guy wants to marry? O HELL NO TRADITION!

Tradition by itself is no reason to continue perpetrating injustice. But even if it were, you invoke a solidity of tradition that has never existed.

But you’re dodging the issue in Elmo’s hypothetical. The first-cousins who are married in Connecticut would be considered married in RI. The 14-year olds who are married in New Hampshire would be considered married in RI (I think). But not this married couple.

A lot of these corner cases show up because we don’t have gay marriage recognized across state lines. Nitpicking one example isn’t goign to change things.

Why did not the couple stay in Conneticut? Plus an unmarrried hetero couple may not want to be married. Gay marriage does not enjoy full faith and credit.

The tragedy of the 17 year old couple was making bad law. If the RI wants to get rid of the idiot legal form for non relatives, then that is their business, not mine. I really do not care if gays get recognized with civil unions and get all the legal rights that married couples do. But marriage is more than a secular institution and gays have tried tried usurp it when they had civil unions in Mass. The court mandated marriage.

However I think that was bad law period. Marriage is a legal status and non married should not get the same status. This couple should have stayed where their marriage was valid. There is reason different states have different laws.
So yes if the issue should I be for gay marriage . No I am not i am against that. I will gladly recognize a civil union with all the legal obligations.

I do not feel the veto was gay bashing since it went beyond the tragic example.

Just like the child dieing in Mass from using a full auto and killed himself I do not think that tragedy should make bad law preventing parents from allowing children to shoot guns or even full autos. Bad cases make bad laws.

Even still the survivor just had to wait for legal notification to any blood relative and then he got custody and was able to make arrangements.

I not only read Volokh but the original article also.

So while Jake, Elmo and Ian are pro gay marriage that slants their position. But this law affects all non relatives funeral arrangement, not just gays so I do not think because of the couple example that an bad law should have been enacted.

Still, if a straight couple elopes in Connecticut the day they meet, and drives straight from the courthouse to RI, and hubby gets run over as soon as he gets out of the car, the wife gets to make his funeral arrangements with no questions asked – she is automatically recognized as a relative because they were married, even if it was in another state. They don’t have to wait a year, or fill out a special form, or anything else.

Do you think that wife’s one day relationship should “not trump the rights of the fathers,mothers, sisters and brothers to handle funeral duties?” If not, why? What makes it any different?

Concrete, real-world example, so’s it’s clear we aren’t inventing an issue:

Connecticut allows both same sex marriages and first-cousin marriages. If a pair of cousin spouses and a pair of gay spouses both move from Connecticut to, say, Pennsylvania, the cousin couple will have its relationship legally recognized while the gay couple won’t. Pennsylvania bars cousins from marrying just like it bars gay people from marrying, but it recognises out-of-state cousin marriages and not out-of-state gay marriages.

If a pair of sterile, previously divorced, atheist cousins can have their out-of-state marriage honored, why will extending that protection equally to gay people damage society?

Also, it was not a “one year” relationship. If you read the post at Volokh’s, it clearly states that they had been together for 17 years. Big difference, even if you discount the fact that they were married.

RAH: You keep ignoring the fact that they were married! That is my point! Only gays have to worry about whether their marriage is valid in another state. You’re comparing apples (a married gay couple) to oranges (a non-married hetero couple). A “person who delegated a friend who has no blood relatives” doesn’t even enter into this equation.

This is not a case of “who is allowed to handle funeral dut[i]es in RI.” This is a case of whether there is equal treatment under the law, and recognition of a legal marriage in another state.

As Ian Argent says, states do recognize marriages and divorces performed in other states that would not necessarily be legal in the resident states. Please, give us a rational explanation for why gay marriage should be any different?

And the federalism argument doesn’t fly with me either since states do recognize marriages and divorces performed in other states that would not necessarily be legal in the resident states.

RAH, will you address “Why can a marriage consist of a man and woman, both atheist, previously divorced, and sterile marry, when it can’t consist of 2 men or 2 women?”

(And, if your handle comes from Heinlein, you are aware of his views, frequently expressed in his writing, on the subject, no?)