Red-Blue Divide: Economic Realities Challenge Family Values

Thanks to our education and serious lifestyle choices, my wife and I have been able to enjoy giving our daughter what some might call a solid traditional upbringing, with both mom and dad home as much as possible to guide the child toward adulthood. In four and a half years, the Divine Miss K has had less than 12 hours of paid outsider babysitting, along with healthy doses of Grandma time. Otherwise, if our child comes out messed up, it's totally our fault.

If you didn't know us better, you might think Erin and I are traditional red-state family values voters: Dad as breadwinner, Mom mostly on stay-at-home patrol (and cooking really yummy meals). But a new book by legal scholars Naomi Cahn and June Carbone finds our values align pretty solidly with what they call "blue family" values: deferring marriage and childbirth to achieve some educational and economic gains first. "Red families," say Cahn and Carbone, see marriage and childbirth as the path to adulthood and thus encourage those activities sooner. Red families incline toward traditional gender roles as well.

Cahn and Carbone find that red families and the red states they fill with Republican/conservative votes have higher teen birth rates and higher divorce rates than blue families and blue Democrat/liberal states. What's happening here? Republican family values hypocrisy? Oh no—neocon fundies and us hippies alike are busting our chops to live up to our family values. It's just that the "red family system" doesn't fit our post-industrial economy:

Cahn: The red model of early marriage works really well if one breadwinner can support his family and where jobs are available and plentiful for high school grads. Unfortunately, that's not the economy we live in right now. In our economy, the more education you have, in most cases, the higher your income is going to be. It is hard to have a child and then provide the care you want and go to college to further your education. The red family model, while suited to particular times in the American economy and the American century, is not suited to needs of post-industrial economy that rewards investment in education and depends on two incomes as a way of family support.

...Cahn: The red family preaches breadwinner, and there is discontent when you want to be in the traditional breadwinner model and the economy won't allow that... In a red family, you might be working just at a minimum wage or you haven't had the time to further your education. Unfortunately you're less likely to be happy.

Carbone: The most recent studies show that couples who are less educated tend to have more traditional expectations about gender roles than college grads, but they also show that where the wife is working full-time and would prefer to have more time to spend with her children or in the home, she is very unhappy and more likely to divorce. The latest surveys show that couples who experience financial stress are more likely to divorce than they were a generation ago, and almost all twenty-something couples experience financial stress [emphases mine; Amy DePaul, "Why Do Red States Have the Worst 'Family Values'?" AlterNet, 2010.08.02].

As our esteemed SDSU philosophy prof David Nelson would have said, the higher levels of divorce among the traditional family values crowd is a hoop thing. Their worldview—their hoop—tells them that Dad ought to be able to go to work and make enough money to keep his family in pork chops and Sunday shoes, while Mom ought to be able to stay home and raise the kids right. Those values don't differ much from my wife's and mine. But in low-wage states like South Dakota, living those values is an enormous challenge. (78% of South Dakota kids younger than 6 have both parents working, the highest such percentage in the nation.) When your values tell you one thing and your wallet forces you to do something else, that's going to take a psychic toll. It busts your hoop... and maybe your family stability.

Cahn and Carbone cite Utah as a notable exception to the red-divorce trend. Utah has the lowest percentage of little kids with both parents working—just 52%. Cahn and Carbone say the shared religious commitment of Utahns provides more community support for putting family values into practice.

At the same time, Cahn and Carbone suggest that support for gay marriage may strengthen marriage and family values. Corrleation isn't causation, but consider: blue states tend to have more support for same-sex unions, and blue states have lower divorce rates. Hmm....

Just last week, I heard one of our county commissioners talk about creating a new position for a county zoning inspector. He said offering $30K for the job was reasonable, since there are plenty of other county employees working for that amount or less, and since we can find plenty of potential workers who can send their spouse out to work as well. When we build county staff and policy around the assumption that both spouses will work, we make it harder to attract people to our community who want to live out traditional family values and, as my wife and I manage, have at least parent around the house for Junior more often than not.

Granted, the county can't just double every employee's salary to allow every spouse to quit and head home. But when we talk about threats to family values, we need to spend less time looking for bogeymen we can "otherize" and demonize. Instead we "family values" advocates (aren't we all family values advocates?) should concentrate on changing the realities of the economic soup in which we all swim.

Tenth Amendment Kills Defense of Marriage Act: Health Insurance Reform Next?

The Defense of Marriage Act got toasted in federal court last week, with a Nixon appointee ruling the law a violation of the Tenth Amendment—you know, that little gem conservatives love about powers not delegated to the feds being reserved to the States and the people.

Funny, I don't think I heard repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on the teabaggers' to-do list. It's certainly on mine: the only help I need in defending my marriage comes from the one person wearing the ring that looks like mine.

But as David Montgomery notes, conservatives might want to cheer a little more loudly—or liberals more cautiously—for this affirmation of the Tenth Amendment:

In particular, a variety of states — including South Dakota — are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care bill, in part on Tenth Amendment grounds.

Let's (incorrectly) oversimplify things here for a moment and say that these two measures are linked by the same interpretation of the Tenth Amendment — that a robust judicial interpretation of the Tenth will strike down both DOMA and Obamacare, while a liberal interpretation will uphold both laws [David Montgomery, "Tenth Amendment Collateral Damage," Behind Government Lines, 2010.07.09].

Montgomery poses a Constitutional gut check to both sides. Imagine if we Wellstone Democrats had to trade victory on health care for victory on same-sex marriage. Imagine if Gordon Howie could be vindicated in his crusade to destroy Obamacare but had to accept Adam and Steve's domestic partner insurance benefits and adjoining burial plots in veterans cemeteries.

I think we may avoid Montogomery's proposed dilemma. Attorney General Marty Jackley and his grandstanding pals on the health insurance reform lawsuit aren't making the same Tenth Amendment argument as the DOMA challengers did.

AG Jackley will want to review South Dakota v. Dole, which figures prominently in Judge Tauro's DOMA ruling. South Dakota v. Dole was our lawsuit against Uncle Sam over the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their drinking age to 21 or lose some federal highway money. South Dakota sued, saying setting the drinking age was a power reserved to the states. In 1987, Chief Justice Rehnquist and six colleagues disagreed, establishing five criteria to justify a federal law under the Spending Clause, despite Tenth Amendment doubts:

1. the intent is "general welfare";
2. conditions are clear, so states know what happens if they participate or don't;
3. conditions must relate to the purpose of the programs involved;
4. the law must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution; and
5. the financial pressure involved can't be so huge as to effectively leave the states with no choice but to go along.
   

Judge Tauro found that DOMA fails to pass Constitutional muster in part on criterion #4, because DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, DOMA tells states, "You have to discriminate against same-sex couples." Not cool... and not replicated in any way by the health insurance reform law AG Jackley is challenging. The insurance mandate imposes no discrimination.

Satisfied with the above reasoning on the Equal Protection Clause, Judge Tauro dodges Massachusetts's claim on criterion #3, that DOMA's conditions are not germane to Medicaid, state cemetery policy, etc. But I would suggest Massachusetts has a winning argument on that point, too, that AG Jackley won't be able to replicate on the health insurance lawsuit. Keeping homosexuals from saying "I do" is at least a couple policy steps away from the purpose of Medicaid and veteran burials. In health insurance reform, requiring every citizen to carry coverage is pretty germane to health insurance policy.

Judge Tauro's ruling finds that DOMA clearly intrudes on state sovereignty by denying each state the right to define marriage. What similar intrusion on states' rights does the insurance mandate cause? How does the federal insurance mandate prohibit states from passing any number of their own laws relating to health insurance? Massachusetts was able to demonstrate a direct conflict between its sovereignty and the requirements of the Defense of Marriage Act. AG Jackley must show a comparable conflict by which the insurance mandate and other provisions of the Patient Protection Act prevent South Dakota from exercising its sovereignty on health care.

DOMA forced states to discriminate, imposed social policy through unrelated programs, and intruded on an area of state sovereignty with a long-standing, well-attested tradition. The Patient Protection Act does not do any of those things, at least not as clearly as DOMA. AG Jackley and his quixotic friends may have other Constitutional arguments to offer, but they won't much help in last week's Tenth Amendment ruling from Judge Tauro.

Of course, I could be wrong. Dr. Blanchard, a fellow supporter of legalizing same-sex marriage, find's Judge Tauro's ruling more odious judicial activism that reads the Tenth Amendment in a way that runs counter to 220 years of Constitutional practice. Your thoughts?

Marriage Matters: Encourage Vows, Discourage Adultery

I should jump more eagerly at opportunities to agree with the good Professor Blanchard. He offers one such welcome opportunity with this passage on marriage, which he labels an "artificial institution" that grounds civil society by ensuring children have stable, two-parent families:

That is the point of marriage, and any thinking about protecting, reforming, or extending the institution must bear it in mind. I am guessing that same sex marriages generate some of the same dramas as traditional marriage. While children are not usually the issue (forgive pun), jealousy and infidelity probably feel much the same. If marriage is to work for anyone, it needs a social sanction. We ought to demonstrate the same indignation toward adultery as we due towards racism and other forms of intolerance. If you really believe in gay marriage or any other kind of marriage, that indignation is what it means [Ken Blanchard, "On the Meaning of Marriage," South Dakota Politics, 2009.05.16].

Indeed, our state which has outlawed gay marriage by constitutional amendment imposes little if any penalty for adultery. And a spouse who has an affair commits a much more direct assault on the sanctity of those forgotten wedding vows than any two men or two women who choose to say those vows to each other.

Perhaps Senator Thune will as vocally reject the leadership of adulterers like Newt Gingrich (not to mention serial divorcés like Rush Limbaugh) as he vocally rejects the elevation of homosexuals, faithful or not, to the Supreme Court.

Dems Acting Like Dems: Va. Gov. Candidate Pledges Work to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Standing up for equality and inclusivity: Virginia's Brian Moran is my kind of Democrat. Of the three Democrats vying for Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the June 9 primary, Moran is the only one who has pledged to work to repeal the state's 2006 constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage. The other Dem candidates are wetting their fingers to a conservative breeze: former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe says seeking a repeal would just be too hard; State Senator R. Creigh Deeds has said the amendment is discriminatory but made no argument against it in 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly.

So South Dakota Dems: which one of you is willing to run for office—governor, House, Senate—on a genuine Democratic platform? Which one of you will stand up against the yahoo-lery that we stuck in our state constitution in 2006 and call for a repeal of our same-sex marriage ban? Which of you will actively oppose whatever abortion nuttiness the Unruhs throw up on the ballot in 2010? Which of you will make an unapologetic pitch for a progressive tax system that ends the food tax and expands the ag land income tax to apply to the productive value of all commercial property? Your base eagerly awaits your response.

Iowa Marriage Ruling Ensures Obama Second Term?

The Iowa Supreme Court's declaration that non-heterosexuals are full citizens too has some significant political implications. Among them: Four more years for President Obama.

The scenario:

Conservatives in Iowa are already agitating to put discrimination against same-sex couples into their state constitution. Iowa law requires legislative approval in two consecutive sessions, meaning the soonest such an amendment could hit the ballot is November 2012.

Fortunately, the Dems in charge of the Iowa legislature are standing up for common sense and saying they will not let the issue come up this session. Iowa Senate Democratic Majority Leader Mike Gronstal responded thus to GOP calls to bring a gay-marriage ban to the Senate floor:

In response, Gronstal shared a story about his daughter, Kate, telling a group of conservative men that opponents of same-sex marriage “have already lost” and that the younger generation doesn’t care.

“I learned something from my daughter that day. That’s what I see, Sen. McKinley,” Gronstal said. “I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.”

He has learned a lot since he voted in favor of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, Gronstal said, and he will not join in the crafting of a marriage amendment.

“Friday I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night, because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other,” he said [Jason Hancock, "Gronstal: No Same-Sex Marriage Debate," Iowa Independent, 2009.04.06].

Stymied at the state level, the GOP will do what it does best: forget it's the party of small government and argue for the federal government to step in and ban gay marriage nationwide. The GOP social conservatives will be all fired up, hungry to hear a real manly man or womanly woman validate their homophobia and promise to use the bully pulpit to perpetuate bullying of folks whose love just doesn't look right. The GOP candidates will tack hard right to win that vote... so hard right, I am willing to bet, that the GOP will lose the moderate center, just like they did last year.

If the GOP ticket is thus determined by isolated pockets of Iowan homophobia, expect Thune-Sanford -- or Palin-Norris -- versus Obama-Biden. I can't wait!

Day After Iowa Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban, My Wife and I Still Wearing Rings

Kudos to the Iowa Supreme Court, for recognizing the rights of all citizens to get married and raise a family. (Funny: I hear same-sex marriage will cause incalculable damage to children and families... but my wife and I slept—together—just fine last night. Madville Times Jr. also looks like her normal happy and healthy self this morning.)

The court's unanimous ruling is great reading. Here are some highlights all South Dakotans—who vandalized their Constitution with a same-sex marriage ban in 2006—should read:

On the homosexual plaintiffs... also known as neighbors and fellow citizens:

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto ["Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"].

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa [p. 7].

What do same-sex couples want?

They seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, and demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment [p. 9].

Can't those darn homosexuals just keep their relationships private and not bother the state for a marriage license?

This [district court] record included an explanation by some of the plaintiffs of the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa. These disadvantages and problems include the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care, burial arrangements, autopsy, and disposition of remains following death. Various plaintiffs told of the inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections. They also explained how several tax benefits are denied. Adoption proceedings are also more cumbersome and expensive for unmarried partners. Other obstacles presented by the inability to enter into a civil marriage include numerous nongovernmental benefits of marriage that are so common in daily life they often go unnoticed, such as something so simple as spousal health club memberships. Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage [p. 9].

And what interests could the state, through Polk County, muster to justify such disadvantages?

• promoting procreation
• promoting child-rearing by a mother and father
• promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship
• conserving state resources
• promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage [p. 10]

Polk County also argued that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn't violate equal protection because homosexuals cannot "procreate naturally" [p. 26]. I assume Polk County also denied marriage licenses to impotent men, barren women, and users of in vitro fertilization.

The Court declares bogus the arguments for a state interest in banning same-sex marriage:

Maintaining traditional marriage:

...A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a “ ‘barren form of words’ ” when “ ‘discrimination . . . is made an end in itself’ ” [p. 53].

Promotion of optimal environment to raise children:

...The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents [p. 56]....

...The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children [p. 57]...

...Quite obviously, the statute does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children. Same-sex couples currently raise children in Iowa, even while being excluded from civil marriage, and such couples will undoubtedly continue to do so. Recognition of this under-inclusion puts in perspective just how minimally the same-sex marriage ban actually advances the purported legislative goal [p. 57].

Promotion of procreation:

...[T]he sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome [p.59].

Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships:

We must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none [p. 61].

Conservation of resources:

Excluding any group from civil marriage—African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities [p. 61].... Indeed, under the County’s logic, more state resources would be conserved by excluding groups more numerous than Iowa’s estimated 5800 same-sex couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time) [p. 62].

The Court even takes a couple pages to discuss an issue the County was smart enough not to mention—religious opposition to same-sex marriage (this is really important; bold emphases are mine):

Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them.... The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract.... Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage [pp. 64–65].

...As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. [p. 66].

You're going to hear arguments (some might say pernicious lies) to the contrary, but the Iowa Supreme Court is making clear that they are defending religious liberty. And to that, religionists of all stripes should say Hallelujah and Amen.

--------------------
By the way, anyone thinking the Iowa Supreme Court would uphold unequal protection under the law should have considered the Court's history:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa... we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly...[in 1868 and 1873] we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law..., and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law.... In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government” [pp. 17–18].

Keep Marriage out of the Constitution -- Note for Ken

Ken Blanchard is right: he and I agree much more than we disagree on the issue of marriage. His critique of my effort to differentiate monogamous adult relationships from polygamy and incest is reasonable. I said that polygamy and incest are too often entangled with power issues, but as Blanchard points out, there are plenty of conventional marriages and homosexual unions tainted with inequality, if not abuse. If I could go around with my magic legislation wand banning all relationships in which partners fall short of loving, honoring, and cherishing each other as equal partners, well... how many marriages can you think of that would go poof? Yikes.

I recognize Ken's point that the Constitution doesn't lay out principles governing marriage, thus leaving decisions to the legislatures. I would suggest that the decision needs to be left even further down, at the church steps. (Maybe that's further up, depending on your perspective.) When I refer to contortions of law and Constitution, I refer to the effort to enshrine marriage in law—not civil unions, not insurance beneficiary designations, not visitation rights, but marriage, this institution that, as far as I can tell, is really distinguished only by its sacred component. Sacred means religious, and religious means hands off for secular authorities.

Remember, I'm married. Mrs. Madville Times and I said our I do's at First Lutheran in Brookings (yup, Touchdown Jesus). If Pastor Scott has looked at the two of us, shaken his head, and said, "Nope, I can't be marryin' off one of our precious Lutheran angels to a heathen like this guy," well, I'd have been disappointed, but I wouldn't have had a court case. I couldn't sue a pastor for not marrying me any more than I could sue Pastor Daryl here in Madison for denying me communion (don't worry, Daryl, I'm not coming to test that one).

If the state is going to get into the business of granting certain practical rights to partners in committed relationships (e.g., see above), it can't Constitutionally distinguish between relationships that are religiously sanctioned and those that aren't. That's why I view having to obtain a license from the courthouse to get married as an improper "contortion" of the law.

By the way, Ken mentions nookie. Rebutting my contention that the legal discussion of marriage need not be about sexual intercourse, Ken says, "We wouldn't be considering extending the relationship of marriage to couples of men who are just chums. Without the nookie, no one would be talking about marriage." A minor quibble: the law generally turns a blind eye to whom we choose to have sex with (as ought we all). Why the law would suddenly start paying attention to our genital activities after we buy a ring is beyond me. And to be honest, if two heterosexual male best friends decided marriage wasn't for them but wanted to be roommates for life, share the mortgage and insurance coverage, and be each other's go-to guy if the other was in the hospital, I'd say, "No problem." Give 'em a civil union and all the concomitant legal recognitions. Rights shouldn't depend on nookie.

(Ken also notes his virgin spellchecker doesn't recognize "nookie." Ken's spellchecker doesn't know what it's missing.)

Protecting Gay Marriage: Not About Nookie

Dr. Blanchard amuses me, as he so often does, this time with a clever and not homophobic argument on gay marriage. Now pay attention: unlike the lesser lights of the conservative SD blogospheroid, the good professor doesn't condemn homosexuality as sin or a threat to traditional families. Blanchard even opens by saying he's "not opposed to same-sex marriage as policy." He simply argues that supporters of gay marriage can't use the Constitution as the basis for their advocacy:

Banning gay marriage does not "discriminate against a group of people by denying them rights enjoyed by other groups." Under such laws, a gay man can marry a woman but not another man. A non-gay man has exactly the same rights. Whatever may be wrong with traditional marriage restrictions, it isn't equality [Ken Blanchard, "Same Sex Marriage & the Constitution," South Dakota Politics, 2008.11.11].

An anonymous interlocutor (vocabulary is another reason I like Dr. Blanchard) contends that marriage bans constitute unequal treatment under the law by denying homosexuals the right to marry folks with whom they are "physically compatible." I agree with Dr. Blanchard: That's not the best standard to which to appeal. Blanchard suggests that if "physically compatible with" means "physically attracted to," the state already imposes similar restrictions on incestuous or polygamous relationships.

The anonymous interlocutor appears to be thinking about sex, and if I know anything, it's that people tend not to think straight when they think about sex.

To disagree with the good professor, I will appeal not to lust, but to love, to the intentional choice that a free person can make to commit to a relationship with one significant other. That is a valuable, character-building, society-leavening choice. That commitment is about much more than what we do with our naughty bits. It's about sharing a household, raising children, tending each other when sick or dying. Incest and polygamy may still fall under the purview of responsible government, as those behaviors entail problems with power and submission. But if two rational citizens want to make a lasting commitment to each other, we should not contort our law or Constitution into denying that choice.

Focus on the Family: Marry a Feminist

There goes Kelsey from DakotaWomen again, telling us to read actual science....

Hey, fellas! Want to have a more stable relationship upon which to build your loving family? Marry a feminist:

[Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan of Rutgers University] found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite ["Feminism and Romance Go Hand in Hand," ScienceDaily, 2007.10.16].

Go figure!

By the way, as I peruse the original article [PDF alert!], I find this interesting observation on some women's negative responses to the feminist pioneers who have fought for women's rights:

Feminist stereotypes are also unflattering; feminists tend to be stigmatized as unattractive, sexually unappealing, and likely to be lesbians.... The fact that women are just as prone to these views as men is particularly disturbing. It is difficult to imagine any other group stigmatizing the pioneers who struggled for their equality; for example, if African Americans disdained Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights workers, it would be inconceivable and cause for alarm. [L.A. Rudman & JE Phelan, "The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?" Sex Roles (57), 2007, pp. 787–799. DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9]

When women choose to follow traditional gender roles, that's fine. But they shouldn't need to impose those roles on all other women (and criticize other women for not following them) just to make themselves feel better about their own choices.

California Supreme Court OKs Gay Marriage, No Signs of Apocalypse

So the California Supreme Court rules that the state cannot discriminate among folks seeking marriage licenses, and the Earth doesn't go crashing into the sun.

You may ask, What's this have to do with South Dakota? That's just those wacky Californians, right?

Well, according to Equality South Dakota (not to mention what you know about your own small towns and those folks you try not to talk about), there are same-sex couples all around this state. Some of them have children. They've made commitments to each other as lasting as the guy-girl relationships we prefer to display on our state promotional materials. Those couples are contributing as much to our state in terms of paying taxes, participating in the labor force, raising kids, and being good neighbors as anyone else. Of course, basic human rights don't depend on work; they're just something we have from the start and can't take away from others just because they're different.

Equality before the law shouldn't depend on whom you sleep with. Love is love, and commitment is commitment. Let's take the California Supreme Court's ruling -- not to mention common courtesy and respect for our neighbors -- as our cue to repeal our 2006 Amendment C and get the homophobia out of our state Constitution.