A reader speculates:
It seems to me that one of these days, we're going to run into another collision of "rights", and it will be very interesting.
Prisoners have the right to marry in every state.
Gay marriage is legal in several states, and it won't be long until it's legal everywhere in the US.
So what will happen when two cellmates apply for a marriage license? On what basis will the prison be able to deny it?
And couldn't this conceivably lead to bigger, stronger inmates forcing weaker ones into "marriages" against their will? Will young white prisoners be the new "trophy wife"?
Have you ever written about this? I've looked around, and I can't find anything, except a brief NPR piece saying that no one has given it much thought, and no one knows how it will play out, but gay marriage in prison is inevitable.
Posts
27 comments:
what do you make of obama's recent announcement to step up prosecution of prison rape?
By extension how will polygamy work out?
How about the first prison divorce?
But the reality is that if marriage is likely in the future, it likely is already happening now, only without the paper work being filled out.
Off topic but, The questions I want answered about gay marriage but never seem to find the answer to is how expensive will it be in terms of Social Security and other pensions for gay couples. I also wonder what the age difference in the typical gay couple is. If you have wealthier older marrying poorer younger in large numbers that might break the bank in terms of pension payout. While it does happen on the hetero side, I wonder if it is more common among gays?
It is clear that changing inheritance rules will cost money, but the argument seems to be that is only fair.
Ask Jim Goad....
Wouldn't happen. The black community is too against overt homosexuality. Everyone knows it goes on in prison, but they aren't coming back to the projects with tattoos like, "butt cowboy" across their back. I suspect it is not discussed, except as one upping the man
how about 'justice equality'?
robbing is same as buying.
Isn't the larger problem the fact that people can't be forced to testify against their spouses?
We're in new territory here. I'm not opposed to gay marriage...in theory. But, thanks to the cultural revolution of the last 47 years we're now in a place where we have 50% divorce rates, 40% illegitimacy rates, 50% of children not being raised by both parents, 78% teen unemployment rates, collapsing birthrates (even as we become overrun by much more fecund immigrant populations, Muslims and Hispanics especially), etc., etc., etc. With every new proposed change the Left has challenged us with the question of "What could go wrong?" Well, everything, that's what.
Again, I have no moral opposition to homosexuality. I have lots of friends who are gay, and when I say "lots of friends" I mean that probably at least half of our social outings include at least one gay man and quite often several.
Those who see marriage as a matter of the state recognizing the love between two people will tend to look at gay marriage as only a question of tolerance. But marriage is not just a matter of love, and that's where society has gone wrong. Marriage is fundamentally a pro-creative institution. It's about love and bringing children into this world.
And here's another irony for you: for the past 40+ years the Left has been telling us that straight people don't need marriage: to sleep together, to live together, or even to have children together. But who does need it? Gays. Why? Because.
Incidentally, this treatment of marriage as a matter of love has rendered many European countries all but defenseless to the Muslim invasion, since they often make arranged, loveless marriages abroad, and use the marriages to bring them into the UK, etc. If Europeans understood that they could easily tell Muslims they can arrange their marriages with other Mohammedans already in Europe.
Gays in states where it is legal already don't marry at nearly the rate that straights do. Everytime I here a stat on the number of gay marrriages I do a quick calculation based on very conservative estimates of the gay population in the relevant state. In California and New Hampshire they marry at ~1/10th the rate of straights. And those marriages won't last. Why? Because what really holds a marriage together is the shared commitment to the project of raising children.
The other reason gay marrriage is wrong is because the judiciary has abused their power to impose it. I'm happy to vote against gay mariage for the pure privilege of giving Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Vaughn Walker, and all those other assholes the middle finger.
Given the mess the Left has made of Western Civilization over the last 50 years, I feel no need to even bother to justify myself. The burden of proof is on them, and they haven't met it. So long as their only approach is to shout people down and call them bigots I have no desire to support their cause.
How long until the remaining mainline churches are strong-armed into performing gay marriages, possibly using tax status as leverage?
Interesting post.
If conservative opponents of gay marriage were subversive and smart (as their Leftist opponents are), they'd find a way to covertly nudge the Left into advocating for extending the "basic human right" of same sex marriage to prisoners (well, at least into advocating for it ahead of schedule).
Eventually the Left will get there, just as they'll eventually get around to advocating for polygamy for Muslims. But they'll get there incrementally, as always (never smart to rock the boat too much, ya know!).
Conservatives could then counter by doing subversive things, such as, say, reminding people that evil incarnate like the late serial killer Richard Speck would be the beneficiaries of marriage rights for prisoners.
Speck would certainly have been a prison bride if same sex marriage had been available to prisoners in his day. That said, he seemed to enjoy himself in prison just the same (don't follow the link if you're not up for A&E documentary footage of a slightly transgendered white serial killer partying and cavorting with his black prison lovers).
Wow. I guess you could forcibly marry an inmate, then have him killed and earn his OASDI "widow" benefits. You could do this serially, too, I suppose.
"And here's another irony for you: for the past 40+ years the Left has been telling us that straight people don't need marriage: to sleep together, to live together, or even to have children together. But who does need it? Gays. Why? Because."
Matthew made a great point here. If you ask some straight liberal why gay marriage should be legal, they get all animated.
"They deserve equal protection!"
"What if their partner is terribly ill? They need to be let in the ICU to visit them!"
"It's to protect their property! Leave them secure!"
Yet if you were to ask this person in another conversation why they haven't married the person they've shacked up with for 3 years, they look at you like you just stepped out of 1954.
"Huh? We don't need a piece of paper to love each other."
The same people who are so strident in their support for gay marriage are the same people who brush off , mock or denigrate straight marriage.
RIP Robin Gibb. Terminally unhip working-class kid from the fringes of the British Empire who created some of the most timeless melodies and hooks. Excelled at everything from Beatlesque to disco to country to New Wave to hip-hop.
what do you make of obama's recent announcement to step up prosecution of prison rape?
I almost blogged this but what I wrote didn't amount to much more than pointing out that once you dig into the numbers, it's more like 3.3% of all prisoners being raped, rather than 10% as the headlines suggested.
Also, the reforms were set in motion by Bush, not Obama, AFAICT.
Yet another reason not to want to go to prison, I suppose.
Too bad, and I was so interested in going.
I guess this will mean a lot fewer crimes being committed. Oh well.
Connery reads Taki. Makes my day.
Connery reads Taki. Makes my day.
What does this have to do with gay marriage in prisons? Are you implying something?
"What if their partner is terribly ill? They need to be let in the ICU to visit them!"
I really wonder if these people have ever actually been into a hospital. I've visited friends and family in hopitals and nursing homes over a hundred times. Never been asked for an ID, not even once. Sign my name? Frequently. Provide an ID? Never.
The NAACP's announcement of support for homosexual "marriage" is one of the biggest prison rapes/marriages ever.
Well I have been in several hospitals in the last few years and they all scanned my drivers license and in some cases used the license photo on the name badge.
Sometimes the family closes ranks around the patient and ask for no one not related to be admitted to ICU. Also, they won't tell you anything if you're not part of the immediate family. I went through all that myself.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia (the case that held that bans on interracial marriage are unconstitutional) that the right to marry is a "fundamental right". Even convicted mass murderers on death row cannot be denied the right to marry. I predict that eventually bans on same-sex marriage will be ruled to be unconstitutional violations of equal protection. Same-sex prisoners will be able to marry each other. Nevertheless, the prison will likely have leeway in deciding that spouses not share cells. If the spouses are kept apart in prison, few issues will arise.
How long until the remaining mainline churches are strong-armed into performing gay marriages, possibly using tax status as leverage?
given the polictics of the leadership not much 'strong arming' will be required. However, to your point that is what the law will do in the UK - and even if the left claims it won't or even if a specific clause is put in to prevent it, it will happen. That is how the left works. The most famous example - the clause in the civil rights acts that are supposed to prevent quotas, and more recenlty, gay marriage law in Illinois that was supposed to protect catholic adaption agencies. "Truth" means nothing to neocons or the left.
And here's another irony for you: for the past 40+ years the Left has been telling us that straight people don't need marriage: to sleep together, to live together, or even to have children together. But who does need it? Gays. Why? Because.
Excellent point, and good comment overall, Matthew.
I wouldn't really see what they could gain from forcing them into a marriage...
Why would some dude who is basically raping some guy want to make him into his wife? A power thing perhaps...?
"Ned said...
Ask Jim Goad...."
- Goad has been out of the can for a decade. Ask Ravi.
Ravi's "only" going in for 3 weeks and is famous enough that he may benefit from some non-biker supervision. Having him raped in jail would spoil a good morality tale (I realize there are some militants who'd celebrate it)
The mania for gay marriage is abetted by certain misguided notions found among the nation's largest voting bloc, white housewives born after WWII. Maybe OT but check out this comment at the Kaus blog about women's suffrage; the first states to allow them to vote are not exactly modern-day feminist paradises.
I don't see a problem with this. Are you anti-gay, Steve?
U are correct. Heterosexuals have ruined marriage and made a mockery of it.
Post a Comment