Why marriage?

A viewer from Thailand writes:

My friend is a big fan of your show and would like to know why, given your Atheism, you still believe in marriage. His point of view is that marriage is a religious institution, so why would an atheist have anything to do with it? He asks if it's for a tax break, or if polygamy is somehow wrong for an atheist?

As a guy about to be married for the second time, I support the institution of marriage -- both gay and straight. I recommend you start by reading this article on Wikipedia:
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States

Marriage carries with it a host of federal benefits assumed to be conferred automatically on each spouse. These prominently include:

• Numerous tax benefits, as you mentioned, including the right to file jointly
• Legal status with stepchildren
• joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
• family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
• next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
• Survivor benefits on death
• Automatic recipient of life insurance for some jobs
• Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.

This is only scratching the surface, but I hope you get the idea. Is it possible for all these legal issues to be settled by signing a few hundred individual contracts? Naturally. But what's the point? Two people committing to living together is an incredibly common arrangement, and it's a reasonable assumption that a couple would want these legal rights explicitly spelled out in one big contract. That contract is called "marriage."

Your friend is simply misinformed when he says that marriage is a religious institution. It isn't. Marriage existed long before religion got its hooks in it, and the fact that religious people today are going around demanding that their views of marriage ought to be "protected" is simply bunk, and pointless entanglement between church and state. A church can "marry" you in the sense that they can perform a ceremony, but unless you sign those legal papers that are recognized by lawyers (or in some states, meet various other requirements that make you married), you're not married in the eyes of the law, and that's where it counts.

As for polygamy: I'm on the fence about it, along with many other atheists. Legally, a contract between three people is much more complicated than a contract between two. For instance, what happens if person A wants to divorce person B, but still loves C, while B and C wish to remain married? Because it's so complex, I'm not pushing for legal polygamy. There is also the concern that polygamy as practiced is often used as a smokescreen for coercion and sex with minors, as in the recent case of epic scumbag Warren Jeffs. That's not okay, since it doesn't involve consenting adults who are in a legal position to make their own large life-changing decisions.

Having said that, I'm not particularly morally opposed to polygamy, as long as it's between consenting adults and as long as I don't have to sort out their legal affairs. I wouldn't do it, but other people can for all I care. In the absence of legal polygamy, I'm also not opposed to people being polyamorous. (Hat tip to Dan Savage's excellent podcast and column, where he discusses this regularly.) Fool around with other partners as much as you want, as long as nobody in the arrangement is deceived about what they're getting into.

Note that my description of it as legally acceptable doesn't amount to my recommending it as a good idea for anyone in particular. In the worst case, miscommunication could occur, jealousy could pop up, feelings could be hurt, and relationships could be broken. But as long as everybody's aware of that going in... you're adults, I'm not responsible for your therapy bills. :)

About Last Weekend

The rumor is true.

I got married on May 1st. Wedded, actually. Texas doesn't yet allow same-sex couples to be married, but it won't be too long before that changes, I think.

I married my partner of almost 12 years, Elton. We are lucky to be together as we complement each-other well. I'm the practical techie guy. He has more of a people person with a big heart. He's a believer, so we've had to work through some tension with my being such an atheist advocate. We are doing well, though, otherwise we wouldn't be making a lifetime commitment.

We had a grand (mostly secular) wedding ceremony with vows, exchanging of rings, and an old African tradition of jumping the broom. We have so many friends that we had to make very painful cuts to the invitee list, so only a few AE and ACA folks were invited. I apologize to anyone that feels slighted. If I could, I would have invited the whole gang. Tracie Harris was one of my grooms maids and she looked stunning. More than a dozen people have told me it was the most beautiful wedding they've seen. Elton organized most of it, so it has been a real labor of love.

We did not have a show last weekend because I had a critical number of people at my wedding. Thank you for sharing them with me.

Some pictures have been posted on Facebook and we have received an amazing number of well-wishes. It's humbling and very flattering to have so many people cheer us on as a couple. The gang of us that put on The Atheist Experience are very fortunate to have such loyal and devoted fans. Thank YOU!

I haven't been particularly open about being gay or opening up my personal life on the show. It's not that I'm closeted or anything. I used to run a gay and lesbian student group back in the '80s. I'm so "out", I don't even think about it anymore. I don't bring it up on the show because so much of it isn't relevant to the content of the show. It can too easily be a distraction. With the wedding, it's out in the open for all our fans. Let's keep the show focused on atheism, though.

When things quiet down a little bit and the red lights stop going off every time I make a credit card purchase, we'll take a vacation/honeymoon to Massachusetts and get legally married there. The marriage won't be recognized in Texas until the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) falls. It's just a matter of time, though, as challenges have already been made at the federal level.

Again, thanks for the warm wishes. Please don't send gifts. Donations to the ACA would be very welcome, however, but don't feel obliged.

I'm just happy to have so much support and love in my life.

Another Battle Won

I'm sure everyone's heard by now that California Proposition 8 has been struck down in federal court. Same-sex couples are on their way to being able to marry in California. The drama will play on for a while, unfortunately. The ruling has been stayed to give opponents time to appeal, something of a courtesy from the judge in the case. An appeal could drag it out for at least another year while it goes to the 9th Circuit court, and possibly up the Supreme Court. Wednesday's ruling was the fatal shot to the California same-sex marriage ban, however. The defendants in the case had little going for them and they bungled the hearing. The ruling is thorough and Constitutionally sound. I think it has little chance of being overturned. At this point, the religious right might be wise to let this one go. If they appeal to the Supreme Court, it could make quick work of same-sex marriage bans in the remaining 44 states. It's just a matter of time before that happens. America will eventually join the first world on this issue.

I spoke yesterday at a Prop 8 rally here in Austin hosted by the Equality Across America Texas Regional Network. I told them that the conservative Christians behind Prop 8 were organized, powerful, and take a long-term view. They're not going away anytime soon. Spoke about the importance of church-state separation and the need to no believe propaganda and think for one's self. For many in the audience, it was the first time they'd heard an atheist speak, but my message resonated with many. I know the Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Trans-gender/Queer/Whatever Else movement is anxious to win full equality. Those religious conservatives are not anxious to give up their power, however. I told the audience that the thing their enemy feared the most was the normalcy of gays. Without an enemy, they lose power and money. So many of those religious leaders wouldn't know how to work an honest day's if they had to.

Austin's Proposition 8 Rally, City Hall, August 4, 2010

Part of me hopes that with this really lame attempt to defend Prop 8, we're seeing the demagogues implode. I've often mused at how much the religious conservatives hate the judicial branch of the government. They can manipulate the elected branches easily. They have money and clout. They can move the masses with their lies, propaganda, and emotional manipulation. But the courts are largely beyond their grasp. The courts trade in reason and evidence, which are in short supply among apologists and other faith-based con artists. They have a tough time winning battles there.

Still, I'm surprised at just how lame the defense was. Check out this bit of pathos:

In the California campaign, gay marriage foes could set up a site called "ProtectMarriage.org." But when Walker asked their lawyer what harm marriage would require protection from, ProtectMarriage’s lawyer said, "I don’t know. I don’t know." When even their own "experts" couldn't show any evidence of harm to marriage, their lawyer was reduced to arguing that the people could act without evidence, just on their inchoate fears alone. Inchoate fears are the stuff of political campaigns -- not constitutional litigation.

I can't imagine the any soldier from the army of religious-nut lawyers graduating from Liberty University School of Law doing as poorly as these defendants. They would have made something up, even if it was obvious bullshit. It's hard to imagine how to read this. Maybe the lawyers were just too honest. How's that for ironic?

Cal-irony-fication

The California Supreme US District Court is currently hearing a case over whether 2008 Proposition 8 (which bans same-sex marriage in the California State Constitution) is itself constitutional. If the court rules that it is not constitutional (by the state's US constitution), then same-sex marriage would revert to being allowed in the state. This is a pretty important case as many people feel that California is a cultural leader for the entire US--not to mention its sheer size.

There has been a recent side-show as to whether the hearing would be (video) broadcast to the public. One can make an argument that public interest is served by transparency, especially in such an important case. This little debate went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States that decided today that there should be no such coverage. The 5-4 decision (with the conservative Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito in the majority) was ostensibly decided on a technicality. Not too interesting so far; but let's look under the hood, shall we?

The very fact that SCOTUS even heard the case and issued a decision was based on an urgent claim of "irreparable harm" to someone. According to one source, "The Court also found that the high-profile nature of the trial might intimidate witnesses and cause irreparable harm if the rule were not stayed." However, the dissenting justice wrote (page 24-25): "I can find no basis for the Court’s conclusion that, were the transmissions to other courtrooms to take place, the applicants would suffer irreparable harm. Certainly there is no evidence that such harm could arise in this nonjury civil case from the simple fact of transmission itself." (This article has a good analysis.) Perhaps a broadcast on YouTube would cause irreparable harm to their cause.

So what's going on? The religious supporters of Proposition 8 are wanting have their free speech rights to make false and emotionally manipulative claims, but they are crying persecution when it comes to taking responsibility for them. Consider defendant Hak-Shing William Tam, who wrote, "On their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children," and that, "other states would fall into Satan's hands," if gays weren't stopped from marrying in California. A successful advertising campaign during the Proposition 8 election claimed that homosexuality would be taught in public schools. They want to perpetrate thuggery on gays, but they're playing the persecution card when it comes to taking responsibility for their lies--and the conservatives on the Supreme Court are backing them up. Apparently, taking responsibility is irreparably harmful to the religious.

The irony is so thick here you could build a church with it. Some supporters of Proposition 8 have gotten harassing phone calls and e-mail messages. I can't say I feel any pity for these people. They are being subject to much milder versions of the same tactics they have done to gays and others over the years. (Religious readers are referred to Exodus 21:22-25 and Matthew 7:12 for a little morality lesson and some tasty just desserts. I long for the day when the majority of gays vote on the Christians' right to marriage, just as the Christians have done to gays.) Christian death threats are a common intimidation tactic and the religion has plenty of people who are willing to carry them out. Gays have been subject to (real) hate crimes for years, most of which have been religiously motivated. Christians have made a big business out of persecuting gays. Proposition 8 itself is just part of that business. If same-sex marriage becomes normalized, they will have a much harder time vilifying gays and their red-meat lovin' constituency will turn to other pursuits and take their tithes with them.

Same-sex marriage in the US will happen eventually, but we can count on the religious fighting unfairly every step of the way.

Another konk on the head with the Reality Mallet

Okay, so you know how the homophobic Christian Right clutches its pearls and bleats that if teh gayz are allowed to marry for realz, it will, like, totally destroy the institution of marriage for everybody, forever? So we have to keep gay marriage illegal because the sanctity of traditional straight marriage simply won't survive otherwise?

Well, it turns out that in the big wide real world that the fundies like to pretend they don't inhabit, things actually seem to work a little differently.

Now of course, correlation is not causation, and you couldn't say that if the states with gay marriage bans were to allow gay marriage, then overall divorce rates would start to reverse. I think it's more of an indicator that many of the states with gay marriage bans have a high fundamentalist demographic, and the rigidly patriarchal marriages that exist in that culture are not exactly the portrait of perfect connubial bliss they want everyone to believe they are.

But it does tend to throw a bit of cold water — like, enough to fill Lake Erie — on the claim that gay marriage is some kind of heterosexuality killer. One has to wonder what folks who say things that stupid are so desperate to suppress.

Okay, I didn't see this coming

Everybody catch the news about Mexico City legalizing gay marriage? That kind of got slipped over the transom, didn't it? And it's interesting that the vote wasn't even close in that ever-so-Catholic country: 39-20 in favor with five abstentions. It'll be even more interesting to follow the reactions and ramifications of this. Cue indignant spluttering from the Vatican in 3...2...1...

Christian Hate wins in Maine...but...

Once again, the fundies have locked and loaded the only weapons they have, hate and fear, and brought them to bear in Maine, where a marriage equality vote went the wrong way yesterday. Naturally, this is disappointing for those of us who support love and families regardless of such details as race, creed, or sexual preference, and oppose ignorant discrimination based on fearing the wrath of an invisible magic man in the sky.

But I see some encouragement here. Note that the hate vote was only 53%. I think only ten years ago it might have been upwards of 70% or even 80%. Opening hearts and minds to accepting that, first, women, and then blacks and other racial minorities, deserved equality under the law took a huge cultural sea change. (And of course I'm talking across a broad base here, not just the issue of marriage. When you get right down to it, movements like women's suffrage and the right to have birth control, and the rights of African Americans to sit wherever the fuck they pleased on the bus, are essentially the very same fight as the GLBT marriage fight: it's about equality, period.) It will take an even bigger sea change for our culture at large to begin to accept gay marriage, primarily because, of all the equality fights down the years, this one is tricky because it's going against centuries of religious programming that gays and lesbians are the vilest kinds of hellbound sinners alive.

Progress is happening faster than you might think. Remember the article from just a few days back, reporting the rise of secularism among New England states, and the frustration of evangelicals in those states. I suspect that it may just take a generational shift to move more people in the mainstream of America towards the side of marriage equality. After all, one huge factor that has been shown to be alienating younger people today from their parents' traditional Christian faith is this constant hammering of the "Get The Fags!" drum on the part of Christians just about everywhere. As these older generations pass on, and more open-minded young people grow up and adopt tolerant secular attitudes, things will shift.

So yeah, marriage equality fighters, the downside is that I am suggesting it may not be until the '20s or '30s before widespread legalization of gay marriage becomes a reality in America. But really, despite yesterday's election setback — again, by not nearly as large a margin as it could have been — the momentum is with you. For GLBT marriage equality, it's only a matter of time. It'll happen. Not this year. But it will.

Come on, John Ensign...you're not trying!

The latest hilarious story of a politician with a roving willy is that of Nevada Republican senator John Ensign, who has shamefacedly confessed to an extramarital affair. Like the disgraced Democratic New York governor Eliot Spitzer, Ensign is your garden variety moral hypocrite, with an extra special twist that makes the schadenfreude at his downfall especially delightful. Because, being a Republican, Ensign's big bugaboo was the "threat" of gay marriage, and how it threatened to "weaken" traditional marriages like the one he was betraying. Among other things, Ensign was very vocal in his calling for Larry "Wide Stance" Craig to resign. Here's Ensign on marriage catching teh gay.

“The effort to pass a constitutional amendment reaffirming marriage as being between a man and a woman only is being undertaken strictly as a defense of marriage against the attempt to redefine it and, in the process, weaken it,” Ensign said. “Marriage is an extremely important institution in this country and protecting it is, in my mind, worth the extraordinary step of amending our constitution.” [Emphasis added.]

Seems to me Ensign isn't spinning this with the kind of gusto one expects from the right. I mean, hasn't it occurred to him that he could parlay his philandering ways into proof of his anti-gay marriage thesis?

Clearly, what happened was that, when all these rainbow-flag waving liberals and spearchucking lesbians began demanding marriage equality, Ensign's marriage was so "weakened," that he just couldn't stop himself from having an extramarital affair! If only gay marriage hadn't become a political hot button topic, the marriages of healthy straight Christians like John Ensign, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, and so very many others, would have been as towering in their strength as a Himalayan peak! Right. Right? So what more proof do you people need that we must stand unwavering against the threat of gay marriage, lest more heterosexuals fall victim to the monogamy-dampening effects of their gay rays.

What...you're saying no one would buy it? Well, no, they wouldn't, except for the inmates over at WorldNutDaily and the Christian Worldview Network. But my point is, heck, he could have at least tried, you know. Jeez, even Bill Clinton had the stones to come up with such artistically inventive rhetorical interpretive dance as "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is." So come on, Sen. Ensign, step up! Haven't we earned the right to expect at least that from our politicians?

Out of the mouths of blondes

The extremist far-right wackaloons good and godly people in the loving Christian community of lovingful loving loveness figured out a while back that their message of hate, hypocrisy and ignorance love and apple-pie decency was a much easier sell when it came from the mouths of photogenic blondes. Hence their embrace of Miss California pageant winner Carrie Prejean, who made evangelicals around the country cream their prejeans when she spoke publicly against marriage equality.

Now, I'm the last guy anyone would accuse of political correctness — okay, scratch that, I'm entirely sure I'm far from the last guy there, as I suspect just about everyone on the right is significantly more disdainful of the practice than I am. Anyway, where I was going with this is that I think beauty pageants are teh stoopid, if for no other reason than their smug duplicitousness. I mean, come on, they parade chicks around in bathing suits while at the same time expecting them to maintain an alabaster-goddess image of unrealistic virginal purity. The average porn movie and topless bar is, if nothing else, at least honest about its agenda of prurient objectification!

Which is why it's so hilarious that some of the same evangelicals who've pounced on Prejean to be their hot homophobia cover girl are wondering if they need to back off now that a couple of totally G-rated glamour shots of her have — inevitably — turned up. Again, what's funny here? That topless photos featuring a consenting adult woman are fine; it's the hypocrisy of the pageant's "it's only okay to display women as sexmeat when we do it" attitude that's risible and asinine.

For her own part, Prejean is responding to her recent publicity, criticisms of her homophobia, and the possibility she may lose her title because of these pictures, in the expected fashion: by playing the Christian Persecution Card.

"I am a Christian, and I am a model," she said. "Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos."

She said the photos "have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith."

"I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be," she said. "But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive. [Emphasis added.] While we may not agree on every issue, we should show respect for others' opinions and not try to silence them through vicious and mean-spirited attacks."

I just love it every time a vocal bigot (regardless of whether or not she's blonde and hot, thank you) calls anyone else "intolerant." I mean, that's not only rich, rich irony. It's a double-deluxe extra-chocolate fudge and cherry syrup level of richness. And we'll not even get started on the plea for "respect" from someone who thinks her Bronze Age beliefs entitle her to deny millions of people she doesn't know and whose lives will never impact hers the right to enter into loving, committed relationships.

Anyway, it's just another example of the sort of uncontrolled clusterfuck that erupts whenever evangelicals make absurd spectacles of themselves. Personally, Carrie, you should have stuck with topless modeling. I promise you, you'd be in a lot better company.

More on Prop 8 and Hitler

Lest anyone think my mention of Nazi Germany in my California Prop 8 post was over the top, I have officially been outdone by this alleged spokesperson said in his breathless support of Prop 8:



The link to the video is here. These people are desperate.

Inequality via threats

In my August 10th Atheist Experience co-host gig (episode #565), I talked about the alleged "threat" of equality and why there was such a shrill opposition to it. California is a hot spot right now in that battle and there has been an interesting development there.

Some context: In May, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriages under the state Constitution. Not surprisingly, conservatives (Christians mostly) have mounted an effort for a vote amending the California State Constitution known as Proposition 8. The main opposition to the proposition is ProtectMarriage.com. Much of their literature refers to a popular vote they had on same sex marriage in the state (Proposition 22 in 2000, a DOMA-style initiative), which got 61% of the vote. That was about the majority inflicting its will on the minority. California Supreme Court overturned the old Proposition 22 with this ruling.

In their usual style, proponents of inequality have trotted out the usual lies and scare tactics. The incomes of conservative Christian demagogues hang in the balance. If gays have full rights and can marry, these people lose a feared enemy and their churches (income sources) become split over biblical interpretation over gay rights. Let's throw in polygamy, too, while we're at it and re-open that old slavery thing, just for good measure. [Addendum: I have recently been informed that the Mormons have funded 77% of the work on the initiative, most from out of state. They have also funded a number of similar efforts since the first Hawaii battle over same-sex marriage recognition.]

Apparently, with all the liberal voters coming out in droves this election (thanks, George!), the Proposition 8 proponents are getting a little desperate. Their latest gimmick is to figure out who supported the other side and write little threat letters extorting money from them. One such letter, sent from ProtectMarriage.com to a San Diego Realtor recently surfaced. In it, they make the jaw dropping extortion threat:

"Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies...that choose not to donate...to ProtectMarriage.com...will be published.

...We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution."

Apparently, the threat of equality is so scary to these people that they are willing to threaten others. I sincerely hope this Nazi-style coercion tactic backfires on these thugs and they all have to scramble to find honest jobs sometime soon.

Let's make Donald Wildmon's nightmare come true!

Via Brayton, I come across this awesome piece over at OneNewsNow, the "news" site of the fundamentalist hate group American "Family" Association. You know, the same people who had that hilarious editorial gaffe recently involving an Olympic track star.

Wildmon has his knickers in a twist over the upcoming Proposition 8 vote this November in California, in which the haters hope to make gay marriage illegal until, presumably, the end of time. If the Christians lose, Wildmon warns, well, down that slippery slope we fall!

"If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the culture war is over and we've lost — and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society," he adds.

The vote in California, Wildmon explains, will affect the entire nation. "California is a big dam, holding back the flood — and if you take down the dam in California, it's going to flood 49 other states," he illustrates. "It will destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years, and with that the cultural decline that normally would follow."

You know, the homophobes constantly rail about how recognizing gay marriage will somehow destroy their own, sanctified straight marriages, but they never explain how. That they take this approach to the argument seems to say voluminous volumes about the insecurity they feel about their own personal situations in marriage. If any situation, including someone else's marriage, could possibly threaten your own marriage, then your marriage is already a failure, and it's everything to do with you, gang. How a bunch of folks absolutely none of these terrified, insecure Christians will ever meet personally could threaten them, simply by deciding to commit to one another in marriage while happening to be the same gender, is simply absurd to contemplate. Unless you contemplate it in the context of fundie fear, not reality.

As for secularism replacing Christianity in America, well, three cheers for that and it's about time! Naturally, the Wildmons of the world will see nothing but the downfall of civilization in such an occurrence. But again, reality paints a different picture. Sure, a nation in which people enjoy happiness based on concepts like personal freedoms rather than the phantom "happiness" of religion's pie in the sky promises, which merely mask a host of debilitating fears and neuroses, would certainly be hell on Earth to the AFA and their sheep. Read the comments attached to the OneNewsNow article to shake your head over the whirlpool of insecurities and phobias these poor people flounder in.

Ahoy, Californians! Get out there and give Prop. 8 a sound defeat this fall. Because I really really want to read Wildmon's editorial the following day!

---

Addendum: Well, clearly it's true that traditional marriage is always a paradise of connubial bliss where nothing ever goes wring and which never leads to a cultural decline of any kind. Or maybe, where the husband in this case is concerned, teh gayz made him do it after all...