|
 |
February 16, 2004 GAY MARRIAGE....I hate to pick on a guest blogger, even a spousal one, but Calblog Husband is upset at the idea of gay marriage:
But that's exactly what marriage is: it's whatever we as a society decide it is. Unless you have a specifically Bible-centric view of what marriage is, you need to accept this simple reality: marriage is not a natural law, it is a human institution that's defined by humans and subject to change by humans. Slavery was a human tradition for 5,000 years too. So was child labor, the subjugation of women, and the divine right of kings. All of these are venerable human institutions that we recently decided to change. So why not marriage? Why shouldn't we change it if that's what we collectively decide to do? As for polygamy and group marriages, the answer is simple: those will become legal if there's ever enough collective pressure to make them so. So far there's no sign of that. What the City of San Francisco is doing is a publicity stunt. They are peacefully challenging the law in an effort to change public opinion, something that's a rich tradition in American politics from both liberals and conservatives. When a court rules against them, as it almost certainly will, they'll stop. So what's the problem? Posted by Kevin Drum at February 16, 2004 09:19 PM | TrackBackComments
Is this the right time to raise this issue? I'm all for social progress, but don't we have a historical job on our hands right now: driving Bush and his puppetmasters out of power? And if this gay marriage thing is going to make that job more difficult, can't it be put off until after November? What's the sudden urgency? Posted by: grytpype at February 16, 2004 09:23 PM | PERMALINKNicely put. On the nightly news, a spokesperson for one of the right-wing Christian family groups said that what was going on in SF was craziness and "anarchy." Seeing thousands of loving couples stand peacefully in line (in the rain) for hours upon hours outside of city hall so that they could get married by a judges/justices of the peace hardly seems like anarchy. Posted by: Jim E. at February 16, 2004 09:23 PM | PERMALINKgrytpype, maybe if you were gay, you'd feel differently. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 16, 2004 09:24 PM | PERMALINKSan Francisco has netted over $200,000 in fees. I would guess that the increase in economic activity had benefitted the hotels and restaurants. Also, the definition of marriage that Californians passed was statory. The Mayor of San Francisco is relying on the state Constitution which would trump the family code if the Court decides that it is an equal rights case (like Massachusetts). Posted by: elliottg at February 16, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINKscar, maybe so. But I think that defeating Bush is a historical imperative like defeating fascism was for our grandparents, and I have a hard time seeing why gay marriage HAS to be an issue in this election cycle. Asking the G/L community to wait until after November might be asking for a sacrifice on their part, but the stakes are so high... it's hard for me to say, since I'm not affected personally, but being Soldiers for Democracy is not a bad gig. Posted by: grytpype at February 16, 2004 09:34 PM | PERMALINKAs GWB said "Bring it on" - if we can't use this as a wedge issue and win November, than it's too late anyways - I would just ask that you actually allow society the choice to determine this very important question, not some judicial oligarchy forcing every other State to accept their fringe definition. P.S. Now, why do I suspect you were all against Chief Justice Moore's "publicity stunt" with the Ten Commandments, when he he was doing was "peacefully challenging the law in an effort to change public opinion, something that's a rich tradition in American politics from both liberals and conservatives"? And, what if a court does NOT rule against San Francisco (you conceded that possibility yourself by using the word "almost") or even if the courts do rule against them and they do NOT stop? Is that what passes as "democracy" today? Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 09:34 PM | PERMALINKMy favorite part of this post is "...marriage is not a natural law,
it is a human institution that's defined by humans and subject to change
by humans." AMEN! "subject to change by humans" what a perfect
statement. As far as I know, the gay community (such as it is) wasn't pushing for marriage at this point. Our little Episcopal group timidly asked our General Convention last summer merely to think about authorizing a service for blessing same-sex unions. (That got lost in the furor over the approval of the election of an openly gay, partnered man as Bishop.) It's the courts that have found this issue on their doorsteps this autumn and proceeded to deal with it. Gays and everyone else have to play catch up. Incidentally, current versions of marriage have NOT been around for 5,000 years or so. (Check out the Hebrew scriptures -- multiple wives, concubinage, etc.) The Western church got formally involved with marriage only around ten or twelve hundred, and it remained a family, property, society thing until recently. Falling in love and pairing off on the basis of mutual interest is a recent thing. Wish the so-called Conservatives would pay a little more attention to history . . . Posted by: murdoch at February 16, 2004 09:38 PM | PERMALINKwanda, Dub is working this issue already. Here's what he said: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110509,00.html Why hand him that issue? Why make it easy for him? Well put, Kevin. I'm really getting sick of conservatives claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". That's complete crap. No one chooses to be gay. It's not like remodeling your house or cutting your hair, no one wakes up and decides to become gay. After all, it's not like society is all that acceptable of homosexuality -- why would one "choose" to align themselves with a group that is regularly discriminated against? Posted by: VR at February 16, 2004 09:40 PM | PERMALINKIs this the right time to raise this issue? I'm all for social progress, but don't we have a historical job on our hands right now: driving Bush and his puppetmasters out of power? I think the first thing that all activists learn whatever their cause is that it is never the "right time" for the sort of social change they are trying to make. There will always be some larger pressing concern. There will always be a time in the future when it is possible that implementing change will be easier. At least it always seems that way but historically, this has never been how change occurs. As MLK put it, justice delayed is justice denied. Change is always inconvenient, and always challenges both the opposition of conservatism and the tendency of moderates toward inertia. I sincerely hope that this issue does not lose us the election but I will not be the one to tell people that they will have to wait to have their basic human rights recognized so that we have a better shot at taking some electoral votes. Posted by: brent at February 16, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINKVR: "I'm really getting sick of conservatives claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". That's complete crap." I obviously disagree. "No one chooses to be gay." Sure they do. "It's not like remodeling your house or cutting your hair, no one wakes up and decides to become gay." O.K., maybe not, unless your remodel results in someone's premature death or your name is Samson, respectively. "After all, it's not like society is all that acceptable of homosexuality -- why would one "choose" to align themselves with a group that is regularly discriminated against?" Well, society is not all that acceptable of murder or child molesters (yet) but people still CHOOSE to partake in that, right? Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 09:46 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, Let's keep this thread about human rights and take up rock rights elsewhere (by the way, I am a Baal worshipper too and side with Judge Moore). Posted by: CMike at February 16, 2004 09:47 PM | PERMALINKThere's no specific timing. The couples who pursued their individual rights on this issue have been after this for years. It's the timing of the Mass. Supreme Court that makes it an issue NOW. If that weren't ongoing, then it would not (yet) be such a good wedge issue for the Republicans. Now that this is what they are making it, the Constitutional tactic to counteract the State Supreme Court action, there is no choice but to stay with this. I'm just thinking. If it took 1921 to get the 21st amendment to get the only civil right for women to be spelled out in the consitution, (the 14th and 15th amendments on equal protection were NOT suficient for this most basic right) and the equal rights amendment to codify other important, but soley statutory and regulatory rights, was NEVER passed---adding this constitutional amendment to, ban gay marraige becomes the first time ever, not just to restrict but ban any individual rights for any minority group. As dire as that makes it, when do you think would be a good time? Posted by: Pachinco at February 16, 2004 09:48 PM | PERMALINKbrent: "As MLK put it, justice delayed is justice denied." How sad you would equate the struggle for equality on something like immutable race with deviant sexual behavior. I don't think REVEREND King would agree with you. "Change is always inconvenient, and always challenges both the opposition of conservatism and the tendency of moderates toward inertia. I sincerely hope that this issue does not lose us the election but I will not be the one to tell people that they will have to wait to have their basic human rights recognized so that we have a better shot at taking some electoral votes." Good - polls are against "gay marriage" BIG TIME, so as I said, bring it on! Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 09:48 PM | PERMALINKNow Is The Time -- This Is The Place -- Like it or not, the fight is here and now . . . Meaning: it will be old news by November . . . This is the Nelson Signal -- America Expects Every One To Do Their Duty -- Posted by: Charles K at February 16, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKCMike: "Let's keep this thread about human rights . . ." You don't count traditional freedom of religion as a basic human right? ". . . and take up rock rights elsewhere (by the way, I am a Baal worshipper too . . ." Justice Judge Moore was anything BUT a Baal worshipper ; ) Pachinco: ". . . adding this constitutional amendment to, ban gay marraige becomes the first time ever, not just to restrict but ban any individual rights for any minority group." And if the only way to stop the next minority (let's say NAMBLA for instance) is a Constitutional amendment, let's hope that's not too late either. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKKevin, (admitting ignorance upfront here) I didn't read the Calblog post, but it seems to me that he's simply taking a stand in the debate. Of course legal marriage is a human institution, subject to change if society changes its mind. But its a perfectly legitimate argument to say that if a legal tradition stood for many thosands of years without any serious challenge, that perhaps its wise to be careful about changing it. I myself want to see gay marriage legalized. But I find it somewhat odd that society has shifted so rapidly on this point. I mean, fifteen years ago, it would have been widely acceptable to hold viciously anti-gay attitudes in almost every corner of society. Even big city liberals could get by regulalrly sliming gays without any serious social stigma. Now its considered a point of consensus in many parts of society that homosexuality is not the least bit wrong, unpleasent, or destructive, and that any animus directed toward gays is a grave biggotry. I think that's progress, but its somewhat chilling how quickly the pendulum has swung, don't you think? And don't bring up comparisisons to the civil rights movement. Yes, there was tremendous progress made on civil rights for blacks in a relatively short period of time from the late 1950s through the mid 1970s. But for decades before there were sizable segments of society that opposed discrimination against blacks, at least in word. When the civil rights movement geared up, it could build on a huge base of natural support - maybe 20-40% of the population -that had held progressive attitudes for years. But where was the built-in constituency for gay rights? Any thoughts on how gay rights has come so far so fast? Posted by: sd at February 16, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKCharlie is walking on very thin ice - if he wants to try and use MLK to attack homosexuals, he's going to have an interesting time explaining Bayard Rustin. I think Kevin is wrong to call this a publicity stunt - it cheapens the issue, and reinforces my suspicions about Kevin's loyalty to the cause. What San Francisco is doing is more rightly described as civil disobedience - willfully breaking a law to show how absurd it is and force a showdown over its constitutionality. That having been said, I'm not naive, this is proving to be brilliant PR for a new mayor who badly needed to win over his city's left wing. But let's not miss the context here. To argue, as some here do, that beating Bush is more important than civil rights, I wonder how many people we'll feel comfortable throwing overboard in order to win this thing. Bush needs to go, and we all agree (I hope). But not at any cost. There is no reason why civil rights is incompatible with a Kerry victory. Posted by: eugene at February 16, 2004 09:54 PM | PERMALINKCharles K. If you are referring to Nelson's signal at Trafalgar, do you think England would have approved of "gay marriage" back then?! I think the issue will be a wedge issue in the Democrats' favor, if they continue to lay relatively low about it and let the extremists squabble about the details and make lots of noise so that by the time the election comes around, everyone will either see how extremist or how phony President Bush is, and Democrats win. :) The media will air all the legal and civil rights issues -- enough of us have seen such shows as Will & Grace, and enough Hollywood movie stars will be shown embracing or kissing gays that our society will be transformed. Intolerance and bigotry will be seen for what it is. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 16, 2004 09:57 PM | PERMALINK"5000 years of human history?" What happened in 3000 B.C. anyway? What were they doing before then? Posted by: Al at February 16, 2004 09:59 PM | PERMALINK"When the civil rights movement geared up, it could build on a huge base of natural support - maybe 20-40% of the population -that had held progressive attitudes for years. But where was the built-in constituency for gay rights?" The irony here is that 40% of Americans polled back gay marriage. I think that should answer this question. I think people who oppose gay marriage should just come out and say so, it's an opinion and they're free to have it. But don't waste time by saying it has no parallel to the classic Civil Rights Movement, for it certainly does so. Posted by: eugene at February 16, 2004 09:59 PM | PERMALINKHow sad you would equate the struggle for equality on something like immutable race with deviant sexual behavior. Of course, my statement does nothing of the sort. I made a general statement concerning patterns of social change. I am not sure what leap of logic would lead one to believe that that somehow equates all attempts at social change with the Civil Rights Movement. I don't think REVEREND King would agree with you. That is an interesting assumption that, besides being irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the quote in question, is to say the least, highly speculative. If by emphasizing the word reverend you mean to suggest that all religious leaders are opposed to gay marriage than I would hope that you are intelligent enough to know just incorrect you are. Posted by: brent at February 16, 2004 10:00 PM | PERMALINKsd: "Any thoughts on how gay rights has come so far so fast?" Otherwise productive members of society with too much time and money on their hands? eugene: "Charlie is walking on very thin ice - if he wants to try and use MLK to attack homosexuals, he's going to have an interesting time explaining Bayard Rustin." Care to explain how MLK supported gay marriage?! "What San Francisco is doing is more rightly described as civil disobedience . . ." City officials, acting in their official capacity, are rightly tools of civil disobedience - may I ask you for an opinion on Justice Moore's civil disobedience then? "Bush needs to go, and we all agree (I hope)." I don't : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:02 PM | PERMALINKCharlie -- Nice of you to equate homosexuality with child molesting. Cute. You have no idea what you are talking about. And, um, no, homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice despite how much you detest it. Gays cannot be "cured" via medical treatment or Jesus. It just doesn't happen. Gays have been around since the dawn of man and they are here to stay. I suggest you get over your homophobia. Posted by: VR at February 16, 2004 10:04 PM | PERMALINKBayard Rustin was a homosexual civil rights activist close to MLK. King was forced to cut him out of the organization in the late 1950s when the FBI put pressure on King about the matter - but a few years later, King relented and asked Rustin to organize the March on Washington, which he did, quite successfully. I know of no policy statement that MLK backed gay marriage, nor of any that said he did not. But it is consonant with all that we know of him that he did support civil rights and decriminalization for homosexuals. It is not a big leap to assume he'd have backed gay marriage, it is a much bigger leap to assume he'd have opposed them. Roy Moore also committed civil disobedience. I disagree with the content, but it is roughly similar in category to what Mayor Newsom is doing. Posted by: eugene at February 16, 2004 10:05 PM | PERMALINKbrent: ". . . I am not sure what leap of logic would lead one to believe that that somehow equates all attempts at social change with the Civil Rights Movement." I didn't say "all attempts at social change" though - I thought we were talking about the change to grant society's approval on deviant sexual behavior? "That is an interesting assumption that, besides being irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the quote in question, is to say the least, highly speculative." You could prove me wrong by showing me where Martin Luther King Jr. urged the adoption of "gay marriage" : ) "If by emphasizing the word reverend you mean to suggest that all religious leaders are opposed to gay marriage than I would hope that you are intelligent enough to know just incorrect you are." Every RESPECTABLE religious leader from MLK's time back into history WOULD HAVE been opposed though - I think that's something that holds just a LITTLE weight, don't you?! Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:07 PM | PERMALINK"No one chooses to be gay." Sure they do. Charlie, how the fuck do you know? Did Rush tell ya that? My brother is gay and he didn't chose it. Just like I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. BTW, my favorite thing about the whole San Francisco thing was seeing 2 lesbians on the news this morning. One of them told a reporter, "Sure I know it's a wedge issue. I'm hoping to give Bush a big old wedgie today." Look, if gays want to get married it's none of your business. It doesn't mean the end of western civilization. Get over it. Charlie: If my wife and I enjoy anal sex, are we sexually deviant? Posted by: Boggs at February 16, 2004 10:12 PM | PERMALINKNow, under the guise of it being a "civil rights issue", we are supposed to overturn 5,000 years of human history--and if you are against it, you are somehow a bigot, ...? Yup, that about sumarizes it. Nice job. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 16, 2004 10:13 PM | PERMALINKVR: "Nice of you to equate homosexuality with child molesting . . ." I did no such thing - you should read a little more closely. "And, um, no, homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice despite how much you detest it. Gays cannot be "cured" via medical treatment or Jesus. It just doesn't happen. Gays have been around since the dawn of man and they are here to stay. I suggest you get over your homophobia." Murder is NOT a lifestyle choice then either, despite how much you detest it. murderers cannot be "cured" via medical treatment or Jesus. It just doesn't happen. Murderers have been around since the dawn of man and they are here to stay. I suggest you get over your homicide-phobia." BTW: I am NOT equating murder with homosexual acts - just pointing out the obvious fallacy in the logic you are using. eugene: "Bayard Rustin was a homosexual civil rights activist close to MLK." I do some googling - thanks : ) "I know of no policy statement that MLK backed gay marriage, nor of any that said he did not." That's about where I was too. "But it is consonant with all that we know of him that he did support civil rights and decriminalization for homosexuals." Care to connect those dots - read that letter from the Birminghan jail and argue you could easily see MLK replacing the word "homosexual" in there? Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKWhat has gone ignored in commentary on the Massachussetts ruling is the emphasis the majority opinion placed on the rights of the children of same-sex couples to be raised by married parents. This is also a civil rights issue. To quote Chief Justice Margaret Marshall: It cannot be rational under our laws to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation. More here. Posted by: David at February 16, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKI thought we were talking about the change to grant society's approval on deviant sexual behavior? No. You're talking about deviant behavior. (Maybe you're more of an expert than we are) We're talking about granting equal rights to all members of our society. Once again I invite you to share your expertise in all matters homosexual. Posted by: four legs good at February 16, 2004 10:15 PM | PERMALINKBoggs you are a complete sleazebag. (I keed, I keed) :-) Posted by: four legs good at February 16, 2004 10:16 PM | PERMALINKfour legs good: "Charlie, how the f*ck do you know?" Because ALL sexual behavior is a choice. ". . . Look, if gays want to get married it's none of your business." It sure is as long as this is still a democracy. "It doesn't mean the end of western civilization." Maybe - maybe not. Boggs: "If my wife and I enjoy an*l sex, are we sexually deviant?" Another topic for another thread, I suppose. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:19 PM | PERMALINKquadped nice: Yes, I'm trying to find out from Charlie if my wife and I have a bankrupt marriage because of some of our kinky behavior. Charlie seems to lean heavily on the deviance of homosexuals to condemn their rights to share benefits of state-recognized marriage. Does deviance apply across the board and who sets the standard? Posted by: Boggs at February 16, 2004 10:19 PM | PERMALINKI still don't get how the 'wingers think they can outlaw this. If a church wants to marry two people, then that's for the church to decide. The government has nothing to say about that. Now as far as the legal aspect - and I'm no lawyer, so no doubt I'll be put in my place if I'm wrong - there should be a legal construct that is as wide ranging and inexpensive as what a traditional married couple are afforded. Let's call it a "civil union," and make it available to gays, lesbians, and breeders. Because, with enough money, a gay/lesbian couple can get most of the same rights a married couple gets automatically. The only fly in the ointment is whether employers offer benefits to domestic partners. I'd propose allowing the "civil unions" I outlined above, then mandating a company make benefits available to them. But as it stands, with government not able to legislate churches, and with couples able to get powers of attorney, I just don't see where there's room for the government in this issue. Posted by: John Lyon at February 16, 2004 10:22 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: Will your pleas for democracy to rule on the issue of gay marriage also extend to gun laws? 2nd amendment isn't black and white, nor is the 14th. Posted by: Boggs at February 16, 2004 10:22 PM | PERMALINKDavid: I am very concerned about the children too - the survival of the human race is at stake for them too. four legs good: "Once again I invite you to share your expertise in all matters homosexual." I don't have any - that doesn't make me perfect by any means. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:22 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: Oh, come on. I understand your analogy. Murder, child molesting is bad, yes, everyone knows that. Obviously, they are bad because they harm people and are detrimental to society. You will have a difficult time convincing me that homosexuality is similar. Homosexuality does no harm to anyone. Yes, people are offended and disgusted with it, but it's unfair to deny gays the right to marry just because it offends conservatives. Posted by: VR at February 16, 2004 10:25 PM | PERMALINKJohn Lyon: "I'd propose allowing the "civil unions" I outlined above, then mandating a company make benefits available to them." And what would stop the next step - mandating a church make marriage available to them - your promise not to?! P.S. Guys - I really think it would be better if we all just watch Diane Sawyer interviewing Mel Gibson instead : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:26 PM | PERMALINKC'mon, Al, you can troll a little better than that! Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 16, 2004 10:28 PM | PERMALINKVR: "Murder, child molesting is bad, yes, everyone knows that." Everyone KNEW that homosexual acts were just as bad at one point - so?! "Obviously, they are bad because they harm people and are detrimental to society." Some of us still think the same about homosexual acts. "You will have a difficult time convincing me that homosexuality is similar." I'm not here to do any such thing - I just want a full and fair debate, with a DEMOCRACY deciding the issue, not judicial oligarchy. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:29 PM | PERMALINKYou could prove me wrong by showing me where Martin Luther King Jr. urged the adoption of "gay marriage" : ) No charlie, you are the one that is speculating on MLK's opinion on this matter, not me. It is thus your responsibility to provide the evidence not only that that is they way that he felt then but also that that is likely to be the way that he would feel now. If you mean that I cannot disprove your wild guess about what Reverend King believed then and would believe now about gay marriage, then you are correct. I have no way of disproving random unfounded speculations on the opinions of dead people. The fact is that I am not sure why you even believe that it is relevant. I don't particularly care what he thought about gay marriage. It doesn't effect the basic truth of his statement regarding justice. In other words, the statement would be just as true if it was stated by Judge Moore or Barney the Purple Dinosaur. I didn't say "all attempts at social change" though - I thought we were talking about the change to grant society's approval on deviant sexual behavior? You are correct, you didn't say all attempts. My point was that nowhere in my statement did I equate the current gay marriage movement with the civil rights movement. Saying that movements face similar patterns of resistance is nothing like saying that movements are therefore equivalent. That is the "leap of logic" to which I am referring. Every RESPECTABLE religious leader from MLK's time back into history WOULD HAVE been opposed though - I think that's something that holds just a LITTLE weight, don't you?! Again, you are making assumptions about what religious leaders would have believed if they existed today. Besides being a bad habit, it seems to give weight to belief systems just because they were entrenched for a long time. There is a long list of unsavory beliefs that we feel perfectly comfortable as a society rejecting today despite the fact that they comprised the common wisdom for thousands of years. Posted by: brent at February 16, 2004 10:30 PM | PERMALINKWhat are the requirements for a constitutional change in America? It can't be as easy as the President just "deciding" to change the constitution. Can anyone outline the formalities for us foreigners? More on the topic, I can't see that an anti gay marriage is anything other than homophobia dressed up as "defense of traditional values." When you think about it, homosexuals getting legally married are not going to discourage heterosexuals from marriage, are they? Nor would they discourage procreation (in a memorable - and laughable - speech the Australian Prime Minister recently claimed homosexual marriage was "a threat to the species"). The "practical" objections don't hold water. That leaves us with moral arguments. The main moral arguments against homosexual marriage are that homosexuality is supposedly against God's law, Nature's law, or is "just plain dirty" (or all three). These reasons are moral judgements amounting to homophobia, or at least "different-o-phobia" (to coin a word). Then again, it is up to the individual society to choose whether its laws need changing, according to its moral and ethical values. No-one disputes that. But at the moment, your constitution seems to allow homosexual marriages by default. There would need to be a constitutional change - a new law - to introduce a "marriage" definition to limit what are, at the moment, individuals' rights to enjoy homosexual marriage. Bush would be taking a chance alienating homosexuals - male and female - in an election year (unless he reckons they're all Democrats). I don't think the amendment would fly. It's a desperate wedge issue, a bluff... but a bluff best avoided. Go for the finish line (it's over that way!). Only pick fights that need fighting. Posted by: Aussie Bob at February 16, 2004 10:31 PM | PERMALINKFolks, don't let the Right define this issue. While polling seems to indicate that a majority of folks are afraid of gay marriage, it is also true that the majority of folks are decidedly against anti-gay bigotry. Which means there is a fundamental disconnect between peoples thinking. Which I think means this issue is ours for the taking. This is not about the sanctity of marriage -- it is about homophobia and bigotry. Think about the ludicrous 'sanctity' idea anyway: if marriage is sacred, then it is a religious institution. In which case, it has absolutely no place being certified by government. If you would like to define marriage as some holy religious pact, go ahead. But don't ask the government to help you, as that is not their job. Folks like Charlie are anti-gay bigots. Simple as that. Calling someone else's 100% personal and non-destructive sexual practice 'sexual deviance' is a dead give away -- Charlie thinks he is better than gays, and those gays need to quit getting uppity and get back in their rightful, lesser-stature place. It is also nonsense to disallow an entire class of law-abiding, productive citizens access to the very useful state-sponsored marriage contract simply because they love the someone you consider 'wrong.' As if it was any of your business in the first place. That is what this issue is about. Democrats and Leftists need to grow their balls and eggs and state this issue for what it is -- bigotry. When they do, the majority of people will abandon the idea that gay marriage is scary. And if it looses us an election? Hmm, so what. I am absolutely not willing to sell my soul to gain power. Ever. But I don't think it will loose us the election, either. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 16, 2004 10:31 PM | PERMALINKeugene wrote: "The irony here is that 40% of Americans polled back gay marriage. I think that should answer this question. I think people who oppose gay marriage should just come out and say so, it's an opinion and they're free to have it. But don't waste time by saying it has no parallel to the classic Civil Rights Movement, for it certainly does so."
Anyway, you note that 40% of the population supports gay marriage (and even larger numbers support various other gay rights initiatives). Yeah, right now they do. But what if you took the same polls in 1988? Would support for gay marriage get 15%? 10%? The point I was trying to make is that almost every person who supports gay rights today was of a different opinion a short while ago. How did this happen on such a mass scale? It truly fascinates me. Posted by: sd at February 16, 2004 10:34 PM | PERMALINKI don't understand how a civil disobedient judge violating the Bill
of Rights is equivalent to civil disobedience on an issue not mentioned
in the constitution. I also wish social conservatives would become better acquainted with
human history and behavior, their notion of marriage is at most a little
more than a century old and hardly universal. I'm angry at social conservatives for another reason. I think they have a valuable role to play in questioning profound social changes. But they've let the ball drop here. I've yet to hear a single argument from that seems to have any basis in reality. Either they have nothing useful to say or they're completely wrong. In any event, they can be ignored. Finally, I agree with the person who said it's never the "right" time for civil rights advances. If Rosa Parks waited for the "right" time as determined by well-meaning liberals, she'd have stood up (and still be standing if white southerners had their way). Posted by: Michael FARRIS at February 16, 2004 10:35 PM | PERMALINKI am less than thrilled about the prospect of gay marriage. I support it, but I don't like it, not really. It is true that many people do not choose to be gay. They have been attracted to members of the same sex since childhood, and homosexuality is natural to them. Many gay people will make excellent spouses and parents. It is cruel to deny them the right to marry that the rest of us already enjoy. But let's be honest here: a lot of gay people aren't interested in marriage because they wish to settle down and start a family. A lot of the "gay marriage" proponents really have no interest in marriage, per se, at all. What they really want is social acceptance. Along these same lines, I think that a lot of people DO choose to be gay. I realize that this is controversial, but I think that a lot of emotionally troubled people are attracted to the gay lifestyle. A friend of mine falls into this category. She's been a Bhuddist, a biker chick, an evangelical Christian, a practicioner of transcendental meditation...and now she's a lesbian. Yeah, right. She's basically a troubled woman who goes from one identity to another. In my experience, a sizable minority of "gay" people are like my friend. This is the part that troubles me. The idea of letting these troubled people get married gives me the shivers. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of loudmouthed, crew-cut wearing lesbians loudly proclaiming that they are married, married, married. I mean, just imagine it: you take your kids to school, and there you are confronted -- and you'd be "confronted," all right -- by the married couple of Rosie O'Donnell and Camryn Manheim. Man, I don't need that. I don't want to see that. It's nothing personal; if all they wanted was to get married and raise kids, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But you just know that's NOT all they want. No, they want to be in your face. They want to share their emotional pain with you. They want to provoke you, offend you, harass you. This is why I am less than thrilled by the possibilty of gay marriage. In the end, I still think that gay marriage is a good thing. While I am very much horrified by the idea of a Rosie O'Donnell/Melissa Ethridge wedding, I know that the gay people I grew up with should not be made to suffer because of the Rosie O'Donnells of the world. The majority of gay people did not choose their sexuality and we should not deny them the right to marry. But man, the propsect of giving the emotionally troubled and in-your-face gay people an even greater opportunity to act out is not pleasant. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 16, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINKHow come every time someone talks about homosexuals, Charlie thinks they're talking about murderers and child molesters? Is it even possible to reason with someone who's so deeply entrenched in unthinking bigotry? And no, Charlie, of course you think you're not a bigot. You notice your bigotry the way a fish notices water. Posted by: Laertes at February 16, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINKCharlie -- Everyone KNEW that homosexual acts were just as bad at one point - so?! I don't know what you are getting at here. There were a lot of things people supposedly knew. Kevin deftly mentioned this in his post. Also, I'm interested in why you believe homosexuality is "deterimental to society". Charlie states that everyone KNEW that homosexuality was bad at one point. Is it like how everyone KNEW that blacks were inferior and worthy only of slavery? Charlie, if you could just for one moment step away from the opinion you hold and ask if that opinion is based on anything other than what you feel about homosexuality. Posted by: Boggs at February 16, 2004 10:45 PM | PERMALINKThis is the part that troubles me. The idea of letting these troubled people get married gives me the shivers. Well, if the new standard of marriage is that both members of the couple need to be un-"troubled" then we really have our work cut out for us. Seriously, there are a lot of troubled heterosexuals in the world. It doesn't disqualify them from being married and I really don't think we want to go down the road of a psychological litmus test. Posted by: brent at February 16, 2004 10:47 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe: Cute anecdote. I have one for you: I have a heterosexual friend who does not feel fullfilled in any way if she does not have a boyfriend. Her whole self-esteem and self-worth is wrapped up in it. She's pretty psychologically fucked up. And, yet, she's STRAIGHT. Wow! My point is that psychological f*ckedupedness has nothing to do with one's sexual identity. I also know gay people who are messed up, but from what I can ascertain it has less to do with their being gay and more to do with their parents disowning them and such because they are gay. Posted by: VR at February 16, 2004 10:51 PM | PERMALINKA lot of the "gay marriage" proponents really have no interest in marriage, per se, at all. What they really want is social acceptance. A lot of straight people get married for this reason too: social
acceptance. They want to be married because they think it'll please mom
& dad, they want their Big Day, they have a bun in the oven and less
than 9 months to go, they want to make the baby Jesus happy, they're 18
and stupid and think they'll be in love forever. Etc. Frankly, I have
known so many straight people who have gotten married on bullshit
premises, I can't see how gays can do any worse. If it's all for the
publicity or the politics or whatever, nature will take its course and
10 years after gay marriage is legalized we won't hear much about it
anymore. But it will still be there for those people who really love
each other and will be prepared to make it work over the long haul. Just
like it is for us straights now. Joe Schmoe: Not wanting to be confronted with militant gays is about as exciting for you as being lambasted by zealous religious proselytizers is to me. Sure they want social acceptance, who would want to think that who they are as a person would be reason enough for someone who disagreed with them to be violent towards them. Also, your friend seems to have dabbled in many things. I know people who find security in religious sects much like people find security in gangs. Do you propse that we put religious people through a litmus test to ensure that they are truly religious and not just looking for a place to go to hang out? Lots of these people can be swayed into bigoted positions because that's what their religious friends are doing and, really, all they want is social acceptance, right? Posted by: Boggs at February 16, 2004 10:51 PM | PERMALINKbrent: "My point was that nowhere in my statement did I equate the current gay marriage movement with the civil rights movement." Oh, O.K. - I thought you were saying "Justice delayed (for homosexuals) is justice denied." My bad for multi-tasking. Timothy Klein: "Folks, don't let the Right define this issue. While polling seems to indicate that a majority of folks are afraid of gay marriage, it is also true that the majority of folks are decidedly against anti-gay bigotry." Which is why we "ludicrous anti-gay bigots" are cleverly drawing the line at "marriage" (I don't think I'm better than anyone else created in God's image : ) "And if it looses us an election? Hmm, so what. I am absolutely not willing to sell my soul to gain power. Ever." Same here. "But I don't think it will loose us the election, either." Ditto. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 10:55 PM | PERMALINK"How sad you would equate the struggle for equality on something like immutable race with deviant sexual behavior." What a dumb shit. This is like claiming the earth is flat and that evolution is a hoax or that blacks are genetically inferior. Same cafe man mentality without a doubt. But also, Charles clearly suffers from deviant sexual bigotry. Be sure to wear gloves if you encounter him in person. Posted by: obe at February 16, 2004 10:57 PM | PERMALINKThe contrast between Mr. Schmoe and Charlie couldn't be clearer. Both are uncomfortable with gay marriage, but only one thinks that his comfort constitutes a moral imperative. For what it's worth, I'm sure there were (and are) some mixed-race couples for whom the thrill of defying a social norm was a part of the attraction. That these hypothetical in-your-face miscegenation-fetishists had an agenda has no bearing on the rightness of their cause. This is really just a no-brainer. I'm not aware of any part of the constitution that makes one's right to equal protection under the law contingent upon one's sexual preference. I'm ready for the next issue already. Posted by: Laertes at February 16, 2004 10:57 PM | PERMALINKBeing gay is a lifestyle choice to about the same degree that, for those with some African or Latino ancestry, being white, black or brown is a lifestyle choice. Sure, you can fake it. But this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. America offers life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it's up to us to make it work individually and universally. Posted by: bad Jim at February 16, 2004 10:58 PM | PERMALINKI live in San Francisco, and I was lucky enough to be at City Hall today. No, I didn't get married (my marriage is the "traditional" kind and was performed in a church 4 years ago). I was there to celebrate the marriage of my cousin and his partner of 15 years. It was quite a scene. Last night, San Francisco was buffetted by furious rainstorms and cold winds. Yet hundreds of couples, families, and friends braved the harsh weather to camp out in front of City Hall. Supporters brought pizza, blankets, and mugs of hot chocolate spiked with Bailey's. Strangers struck up easy conversations and shared their stories. I arrived at noon, in time to spend 2 hours standing out front in the rain, waiting for my chance to join my cousin and his partner inside. I've never been so happy to stand in the rain. At that point in the day, there were maybe 200 friends and family gathered on the City Hall steps. Whenever a newly married couple emerged from the front doors, we cheered and applauded. So many of us had tears on our faces -- the kind of happy tears you get at a wedding. The funny thing is that I was crying for people I didn't actually know. At one point, a sherriff's officer was trying to clear out space on the steps; he said that only family could stay on the steps. One woman cried out, "We're all family!" and the crowd went wild. Before Mayor Newsom made his announcement last week, I was with grytype. I believe in gay rights, I'm a member of HRC, I love my cousin and his partner very much ... but I was afraid that *now* was not the time to pick this fight. Getting rid of Bush has been my overriding priority for months. But when I heard that announcement, I suddenly got excited and energized in a way I didn't expect. I was actually out of town when I heard on CNN that San Francisco was going to allow gay civil marriages. And who got out and put his face on this issue? Gavin Newsom, a telegenic, charismatic, and decidedly straight politician. Newsom, a man with political ambitions undoubtedly larger than San Francisco Mayor, braved the attacks of Fox News and all the rest to stand up and say: gay marriage is a civil rights issue. I heard today that Newsom was inspired by watching Bush's State of the Union speech. He saw Bush's speech as so mean, so full of hate, that he decided he had to do something. Newsom talked to Barney Frank about allowing gay marriage in San Francisco, and Frank counseled against it. Newsom decided to do it anyway. Whatever inspired Newsom, I can unequivically say that he inspired me. His act of political courage gave me a booster shot of optimism. I got to see something very special today. I watched my cousin and his partner exchange their vows in the gorgeous City Hall rotunda, and have the officiant declare them spouses for life. I got to see two people who love each other make their public commitment. The courts may take away their legal status tomorrow, but they can never take this day away from us. I have no intention of letting Bush win (or steal) the election in November. But I no longer think it's a bad idea to let gay marriage become an issue. Let a moderate and articulate man like Newsom be its spokesperson. Define it as an issue of tolerance and civil rights. Then step back and watch the venemous hate-mongerers of the religious right do all the rest. Let them define themselves as intolerant, regressive, opponents of love and public commitment. If the last few weeks have taught us nothing else, it should have taught us this: Go on the offensive. People gasped when Michael Moore called Bush a deserter, but it's exactly the kind of bold move the Republicans are utterly unprepared for. Dems have been playing defense for 10 years, and the Repubs have gotten soft and lazy. They have no defenses because they're not expecting us to define the issues. The fact is, the Repubs are planning to make gay marriage an issue no matter what. As Atrios said, the Dems are "the party of queer lovers" regardless of what we actually say or do. So, if we're smart, we'll get out in front of this issue and define it before Rove has a chance to. Force Rove and Co. to play defense -- they're not very good at it. And, not incidentally: it's the right thing to do. Posted by: SFMandy at February 16, 2004 11:00 PM | PERMALINKI can find references to MLK "complaining about discrimination against gays in private conversations with Coretta," but nothing more concrete. I suppose the FBI would know..... Posted by: Jason McCullough at February 16, 2004 11:00 PM | PERMALINKLaertes: "How come every time someone talks about homosexuals, Charlie thinks they're talking about murderers and child molesters?" Just pointing out someone's logical flaws does not mean I equate murder with homosexual acts (I thought I just said that above - I'm watching T.V., so maybe I just missed that). "Is it even possible to reason with someone who's so deeply entrenched in unthinking bigotry?" That doesn't stop me from trying ; ) VR: "I don't know what you are getting at here. There were a lot of things people supposedly knew." Sure - some we can all agree are bad - slavery for instance. "Kevin deftly mentioned this in his post." Yes - I noticed that too - so does the MLK reference subtly bring that up. "Also, I'm interested in why you believe homosexuality is 'deterimental to society'." It always has been, in terms of physical and mental consequences, not to mention the larger spiritual and societal impacts. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:03 PM | PERMALINKTimothy- It's not just bigorty. I do believe that there are some people who are just plain gay. They've been that way since birth. It's natural to them. Some of my childhood friends fall into this category. My friend Tom...we've known he was gay since he was like six. It's not a choice for him. Tom should be able to get married if he wants to. I really hope he has the opportunity to have kids someday. But a lot of people, I submit, do choose to be gay. They're not just like you and me. It's not genetic, and it's not an inalienable trait. I have always been skeptical about the black-and-white definition of sexual preference, for two reasons. First, I think that a lot of people leave the gay lifestyle. We all know lots of gay guys in their 20's and 30's. But what about gay people in their 50's? There are a lot fewer, right? I don't think this is a coincidence. I think that a lot of people decide to leave the gay lifestyle and get married to a member of the opposite sex. Whether they are truly satisfied in these hetrosexual relationships is an open question (my guess is that many are, but many are not.) Also, how many people are really incapable of haivng a relationship with a member of the opposite sex? I would think that the answer has got to be "very few." As a guy, I understand that guys will sleep with pretty much anything that moves. You are telling me that a gay man is physically or psychologically *incapable* of having sex with a woman? No way. Men can have sex with anything. Again, they might find sex with men more exciting, or but I find it hard to believe that they don't enjoy sex with women, and that the whole thing is just a thankless chore. The same goes for lesbians. A lot of the lesbians I know could probably have a relationship with a man if they wanted to. Their sexuality seems to be more emotional than anything else. However, I admit that there are a number of lesbians who really don't have any interst in a hetrosexual relationship. So here is what I am saying: I think that one's sexual preference is often ambiguous. It is my belief that not everyone who is gay is totally, 100% gay. By the same token, many hetrosexuals probably have had, or continue to have, sexual contact with members of the same sex. Whenever the police do a gay prostitution sting, plenty of married men are arrested. So I don't think that sexuality is all that black and white. For that reason, I don't see the struggle for gay rights as another struggle for civil rights. I admit that there are some people who are 100% gay, always have been, always will be. But I submit that a lot of the gay "activists," the ones pushing so hard for gay marriage, don't fall into that category. No. It's not a matter of quiet dignity for them. They are pushing gay marriage becuase they want to make a spectacle. If these people were to get "married," it wouldn't be becuase they want to settle down and raise a family. No, they just want to act out. This does trouble me. It does cheapen the institution of marrrige a little bit. I suspect that at least half of all gay marriages will be among emotionally troubled "activists" for whom marriage is just another act in the big psychodrama that is their lives. This does trouble me. In the end, I think we should still have gay marriage, becuase regular gay people who do want to get married should not have to suffer because of thier crazy peers. I also admit that a lot of hetrosexual marriages are between troubled people and occur in less than ideal circumstances. It just seems that where gay marriage is concerned, the odds that any given marriage will be between two deeply emotionally troubled people will go way up. This bothers me, and it's not becuase I am a bigot. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 16, 2004 11:03 PM | PERMALINK"Last night, San Francisco was buffetted by furious rainstorms and cold winds." A freak coincidence, I'm sure ; ) Have a great night everyone. God Bless America (I hope you don't take that as too "hate-filled). Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:07 PM | PERMALINKI know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but really Charlie: I think where you're going it will be much, MUCH warmer. Good night. Posted by: SFMandy at February 16, 2004 11:09 PM | PERMALINKIt always has been, in terms of physical and mental consequences, not to mention the larger spiritual and societal impacts. You might want to take a look at the history of some traditional Native American societies, Charlie. They gave men and women the option of living as a member of the opposite gender, including marrying someone of the same sex. They didn't seem to feel this had negative "physical and mental consequences" and, in terms of the "spiritual and societal impacts," many of these transgender people were highly respected as having particular social and spiritual value. I'd have a lot more respect for you if you'd simply admit that you
are uncomfortable with gays and homosexuality in general, rather than
trying to justify your bigotry with all these over-generalized, silly
arguments about "society" and "history" and "tradition." Fucked-up people aren't going to be stable in long-term relationships. NORMAL people are iffy. Let's acknowledge the sardonic straight response: why shouldn't gays chafe under the same shackles? I'm inclined to try the experiment, suggesting that if the gay divorce rate reaches 75% we might agree that it was a bad idea. The newspapers in Southern California, both the mildly liberal L.A. Times and the nominally libertarian O.C. Register, have been posting full-color photos of the S.F. nuptials on page one above the fold, and the letters to the editors are generally "How sweet!" That's the left coast for you. Posted by: bad Jim at February 16, 2004 11:11 PM | PERMALINKNot according to the King James Bible, Mandy. Again - that's not "hate" but actual "love" and concern Jesus commands us to have for every human created in God's image. If you want to know how to get to Heaven, let me know. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:11 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe: "It's not a matter of quiet dignity for them. They are pushing gay marriage becuase they want to make a spectacle." They don't do this during their pride parades? They need marriage to
really make a statement? Quiet dignity unfortunately does not get the
wheel greased. You seem to have a tremendous amount of cognitive
dissonance about this issue. Joe, I'm glad you're supporting equality for gays and lesbians. Good for you, you should feel good about yourself for taking such a difficult stance, despite your misgivings. I'm certain that when gay marriage is finally legal, you'll find the world a better place to live in, and that some of your fears will be put to rest. Posted by: Dutch at February 16, 2004 11:15 PM | PERMALINKBoggs- "You seem to have a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance about this issue." This isn't the only issue, believe me...:) Seriously, though, I do support gay marriage, but in a grit-your-teeth-and-bear-it sort of way. I know that it's the right thing to do, but I don't think it's just like heterosexual marriage, at least in many cases, and I am loathe to equate the two. I also don't think that anyone who is made uncomfortable by gay marriage is a bad person. Many people have sincere religious objections to the practice. Sadly, too many liberal Democrats do not recognize this, and will accuse anyone who voices even the slightest misgiving of being a hate-filled bigot. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 16, 2004 11:17 PM | PERMALINKSFMandy, thanks for your post. You make all of us wish we'd been there. The US constitution says that the government can't give special treatment to one religion over another. It seems that people who feel that gay marriages are wrong believe so because of their religions beliefs. And people who feel that gay marriages should be right feel that they are right according to their religious beliefs. So by not allowing gay marriages, the government is respecting one religion over another. Right? What if the government issued nothing but civil unions as a means to grant legal rights, and let people use the word "marriage" as they see fit according to whatever definition they choose to go by? The government making rules about the definition of "marriage" seems a lot like having the government make rules about the definition of "god", which would be different depending on the religion of the person you ask. Posted by: Avi at February 16, 2004 11:18 PM | PERMALINKRememmber 2002, when the courageous house and then senate leadership (including the senator kerry) decided that "it was not the time" to challenge the president on war, and we ducked the issue, hoping it would help us win the mid term elections by avoiding it. We got creamed as a result. Even if most Americans supposedly oppose making gay marriage legal, about the same percentage also oppose amending the constitution to make gay marriage illegal everywhere in the USA. Marriage is not the only thing whose sanctity needs to be protected. We should not enshrine hatered in the constitution, even if we do not happen to love the objects of that hatered. It would be unamerican to do something that ugly and viscous, permanently marking a large class of people numbering in the millions as unworthy of rights enjoyed by all others. This issue is part of the campaign already because of the right wing constitutional amendment. The big question is whether the dems will take a principled stand and fight, or will they fudge, and then run away like a bunch of cowards the way Kerry did on the Iraq war vote. Posted by: obe at February 16, 2004 11:18 PM | PERMALINKOh, O.K. - I thought you were saying "Justice delayed (for homosexuals) is justice denied." My bad for multi-tasking. Of course, I was saying that but I guess I will have to repeat this point again because it does not seem to be getting through. Saying that movements face similar patterns of resistance is not the same as saying that movements are the same. This would not seem to be a complex point but you seem to have trouble grasping it. Perhaps a more concrete example will help. The women's suffrage movement in the u.s. also faced resistance from social moderates who preached patience in the same way that it was preached to black voter drives in the south during the 50s and 60s and in the same way that it is preached to the most radical of anti-abortion advocates. Saying that is not the same as saying that the women's suffrage movement is the same as the civil rights movement which is the same as the movement of anti-abortion arsonists and bombers. It is only saying that they have to contend with similar issues from the center. They also have many, many differences. And it is quite possible to accept some and not the others. My original point was about whether or not gays should "wait" to recieve the justice that they (and I) believe they deserve. I was pointing out that you brought the issue of comparisons to the civil rights movement into the discussion and you did so by making a specific logical leap by focusing on the fact that I quoted MLK. Really this was a non-sequitor which did not address my argument in any way. As I said, it doesn't matter that it was MLK that said "justice delayed..." What matters is that the quote itself has historically proven to be correct when it comes to the goals of a wide range of radical movements. Posted by: brent at February 16, 2004 11:19 PM | PERMALINKGrytpype, Sugar Plum Fairy, and Aussie Bob have it right. The RNC/Bush-Cheney campaign will use this as a wedge issue, and pull votes away from the Democratic candidate. SPF points out that if the left *doesn't push it*, which is all grytpype suggests, the right may end up alienating voters with internal squabbling. But if the left does push it, it takes willful ignorance to ignore the harm that could do in the election. Go to pollingreport.com and stare at those numbers until they sink in. One of the lessons of Florida is that the Republicans will do anything to win. Many Democrats have conceded that Al Gore didn't want it badly enough in that fight- the overseas votes, the third-party lawsuit he disowned- and it seems indisputable. One of the things the Republicans did to win was to campaign as moderates, and by doing so they successfully advanced a radically conservative agenda. The first rule of politics is: Get elected.
obe: "Even if most Americans supposedly oppose making gay marriage legal, about the same percentage also oppose amending the constitution to make gay marriage illegal everywhere in the USA." Give them a few more court rulings and city officials illegally marrying homosexuals, then we'll see. "Marriage is not the only thing whose sanctity needs to be protected. We should not enshrine hatered in the constitution, even if we do not happen to love the objects of that hatered." I don't hate anyone - I don't think I've used a single cuss word above, have I? "It would be unamerican to do something that ugly and viscous, permanently marking a large class of people numbering in the millions as unworthy of rights enjoyed by all others." That large class of people (I doubt they number "millions" though) have the EXACT same rights I have. What I oppose is granting SPECIAL rights. "The big question is whether the dems will take a principled stand and fight, or will they fudge, and then run away like a bunch of cowards the way Kerry did on the Iraq war vote." That certainly is the "big" question (of this thread anyhow). Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:23 PM | PERMALINKre: is this the time to raise this issue question: I don't think that this timing was chosen, particularly, more a happenstance of how ongoing court cases and the countermobilization of the Right started playing out. Once the ball was rolling, I think that Newsom's move was brilliant. A thousand real life couples instead of a lurking bogey menace. I hope some good filmakers have been interviewing them for 'is this what we're so afraid of?' commercials. On another note, Matt Yglesias has a good post up about this at Tapped, where he reminds us that this issue is not the albatross for Democrats that some would have us think: Posted by: Stevelu at February 16, 2004 11:24 PM | PERMALINK Not according to the King James Bible, Mandy. Again - that's not "hate" but actual "love" and concern Jesus commands us to have for every human created in God's image. If you want to know how to get to Heaven, let me know. I knew it! A born-again, I can really peg them. Well, there's no point in arguing with you now, Charlie. But, do keep in mind, despite what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson tell you -- American is NOT a Christian nation. That whole Constitution thing forbids the establishment of a state religion. Homosexuality may be looked down upon in the Bible, but luckily it is not the basis of our law. You can jump up and down, whine and moan, but still the Bible is not the rule of the land. Get it? Posted by: VR at February 16, 2004 11:24 PM | PERMALINKO.K. Brent - I got it the first time you explained it. rowrbazzle: "The RNC/Bush-Cheney campaign will use this as a wedge issue, and pull votes away from the Democratic candidate . . . " Let's hope they ignore you too : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:26 PM | PERMALINKWhat I oppose is granting SPECIAL rights. By special rights,
Charlie, I am assuming that you mean the right of individuals to
legally marry the person of their choosing who also chooses to marry
them. Perhaps you could clarify? VR: "I knew it! A born-again, I can really peg them. Well, there's no point in arguing with you now, Charlie." O.K. "But, do keep in mind, despite what Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson tell you -- American is NOT a Christian nation." American (sic) is not a nation at all. America, however, was founded as a Christian nation, not State, I will agree with that much. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers were, in fact, Christians. "That whole Constitution thing forbids the establishment of a state religion." Oh, so you do know the difference between Christian nation and Christian State then? "Homosexuality may be looked down upon in the Bible, but luckily it is not the basis of our law." It should be the basis of every Christian's vote though ; ) "You can jump up and down, whine and moan . . ." I'm doing no such thing - I'm actually sitting on the couch watching the local news, trying to turn in for the night. Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:31 PM | PERMALINKSan Francisco takes Valentine's Day much more seriously than the rest of the world. If my experience of anti-war marches is any indication*, they normalize everything to Halloween. Given the city's history, hills and architecture, it's easy to lose your way. In time, it becomes an imperative. This last weekend, this little city decided to secede in the small matter of marriage and enter history, eclipsing Rio and Venice and every other city celebrating Carnival or Mardi Gras. Mayor Newsom may well have asked, or been asked, "If not now, when? If not us, who?" and answered, either wisely or suicidally, "Why not?" Doesn't "Go for it!" sound a bit less passive than "Bring it on!"? * in 1971 I recall a peaceful march being attacked by cossacks - horse-mounted city police. Not my idea of Samhain. Posted by: bad Jim at February 16, 2004 11:32 PM | PERMALINKBrent: "I am assuming that you mean the right of individuals to legally marry the person of their choosing who also chooses to marry them." That's exactly what I meant - every single homosexual out there has the EXACT same right I have to marry someone of the OPPOSITE SEX - for 227 years, our nation has seen fit to deny the legal rights of "marriage" to lots of other people, even consenting adults: brothers and sisters, for instance. Does that "clarify" enough? Posted by: Charlie at February 16, 2004 11:35 PM | PERMALINKMan, I don't need that. I don't want to see that. It's nothing personal; if all they wanted was to get married and raise kids, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But you just know that's NOT all they want. No, they want to be in your face. They want to share their emotional pain with you. They want to provoke you, offend you, harass you. This is why I am less than thrilled by the possibility of gay marriage. Joe Schmoe, so you're uncomfortable with gay marriage because of the possibility of "acting out"? Turn it around: "They want to be in your face." Like all those hetero couples holding hands on the beach, making out on a park bench, cuddling at the movies, walking arm in arm, flaunting their blatant sexual preference for all the world to see? (not to mention Justin and Janet and the Ta-ta of Mass Destruction on national television....) And as for "sharing pain," how about the screaming straight couple sharing their marital misery in the shopping mall? How about the battered woman two houses down who knocks on your door after her husband threatens her life? Or the sad-sack co-worker who unloads on you first thing in the morning for twenty minutes about how his wife has run off with the local selectman? And then there are those shining examples of the sanctity of het marriage. Britney and Jason's "we thought it would be fun" quickie wedding-cum-annulment. Jacko and any of his breeders. Liz Taylor and her eight hubbies. Liza Minelli and her unwelcome Gest. "Joe Millionaire." Bottom line, it's not about how YOU feel. It's a personal choice and a matter of civil rights, which in a just society isn't--or should not be--subject to the tyranny of the majority. (I bet Charlie would change his tune about "letting a DEMOCRACY decide the issue" real fast if the polls showed 85% approval for gay marriage.) And Charlie, if you don't approve of gay marriage, then by all means, don't marry a gay man. See? It's that simple. Posted by: Sharoney at February 16, 2004 11:39 PM | PERMALINKStrom Thurmond was right: once this miscegenation gets out of hand, all hell breaks loose! Or, as Lott put it, had things turned out otherwise, neatly summing
the regrettable sixties, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over
all these years." Aussie Bob, on the workings of amending the Constitution, Congress has to pass it, President has to sign it, then it's sent on to the states and 3/4 of the states have to approve it before it takes effect. So it would need 38 states to approve. (That's one reason why many of the news stories report that 38 states have already passed amendments of their own; it implies there would be at least 38 states to approve a federal Constitutional Amendment as well). Posted by: Linkmeister at February 16, 2004 11:44 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe: Homosexuality made me uncomfortable when I was younger -- perhaps because I grew up with a major homophobe. My Dad thinks like Charlie, sans any religious or traditional argument: my Dad just really, really dislikes gay people. While I love and respect my Dad, he does not get a pass on this from me: he is a major bigot with regards to homosexuality. But I have gotten over my 'skittishness' with homosexuality. For one thing, I got a job at a large corporation that specifically disallowed any prejudice against gays. As a result, I got to know and work with several gay folks. I then ended up making friends with a homosexual guy, and even got in the habit of going to a certain gay club on the weekends (the booze was free until 10PM! And I even met a couple of interesting straight women there). When I married my wife, I became part of a family that has several homosexual members. Once you humanize the 'other,' it becomes much more difficult to justify treating them as anything less than full humans. Over time, I have come to realize that something that makes me uncomfortable is a) no big deal, and b) the discomfort was in large part due to my own ignorance. After all, I am very, very uncomfortable with what a medical doctor does for a living. They chop people up, work with nasty germs, etc. But I respect and appreciate doctors. It is something analogous with homosexuals. It is not something I want to do personally, but so what? They are people like anybody else. The debate about nature vs. nurture will rage for decades more, but it is irrelevant to me. People choose to be Catholic, Buddhist, Wiccan, Republican, you name it -- I don't hold it against them. So even if homosexuality is 100% chosen (which I doubt), what does it matter? It doesn't. And we're then back to fear and discomfort. Which are also exactly the kind of traits that racists or other bigots have. So you have to call a spade a spade. Being uncomfortable with the pracice of homosexuality is fine -- trying to disallow said practioners rights is not. Under any circumstances. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 16, 2004 11:46 PM | PERMALINKHere's a useless thought: Gay marriage is good because it keeps gays from marrying girls and passing on gay genes! If only gays had been kept away from girls and prevented from reproducing we wouldn't have so many gays in the current crop! Joe: "First, I think that a lot of people leave the gay lifestyle. We all know lots of gay guys in their 20's and 30's. But what about gay people in their 50's? There are a lot fewer, right?" Joe, I don't know how many gays and lesbians you know, but you've made a number of comments like this that don't match my experience at all. I know many lesbians and gays in their 50's and older and they're not switching sides! You also talked about Rosie O'Donnell as an example of what you're afraid of. Using anyone who's a celebrity is a bad example of moral behavior almost by definition. Is Britney Spears an example of good heterosexuality? How about Elizabeth Taylor? How about Larry King? How many marriages has he had now? How about TV shows that glorify gold diggers who want to marry Joe the Liar--is that what straight marriages are about? Gimme a break! I am glad you are willing to grudgingly support same-sex marriages but I don't think you know as much about gays and lesbians as you think you do. Also, the marriage rights I am fighting for are for CIVIL marriages. I am not asking for anyone to change their church rules. Posted by: Janey at February 16, 2004 11:48 PM | PERMALINK I'll take issue from the top, here: Now, under the guise of it being a "civil rights issue", we are supposed to overturn 5,000 years of human history What planet's 5,000 years is Calblog Husband referencing here? The institution of "marriage" as we experience it now in the land of the free is not anywhere close to 5,000 years old. Most of the world was still following ancient religions with few prescriptions for marriage then until what? 1000 AD? longer? and without centralized governments requiring licenses for such unions. This little error in analysis compels me to discount the rest of his message. Back to the library with ya, Calblog Husband. Your research is not complete. Posted by: Donna at February 16, 2004 11:51 PM | PERMALINKI should also add from a tactical politcal point of view: it does not matter what Democrats say or do regarding gay marriage. They are going to be called the homo-loving marriage-destroyers regardless of their stance. Kerry is against gay marriage -- but he has already been called out as an evil liberal out to kill the baby Jesus becuase of his support for Civil Unions. We need to counter the issue -- we will be fighting it no matter what. If we try to avoid the issue by not backing it, we loose any support we would have gotten from gay activits and we get tarred as horrible, evil, big-city queers trying to kill marriage for God-fearing Xians. That is loose-loose. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 16, 2004 11:51 PM | PERMALINKKevin says this is a matter of changing public opnion. In 2000, when the state adopted a constitutional amendment designating marriage as that between a man and a woman, it passed by over 20 points. I'd say that pretty much set forth public opinion. Society has currently set forth, thru this amendment, the desire not
to recognize gay marriage. If you use the equal protection argument,
then how do you tell siblings they cannot marry? Or multiple partner
marriages? It's equal protection under the law. And if the law says
marriage is betwen a man and a woman, it is protecting society from a
minority view. "On November 12th, if Bush has won, your principled stand will have done more harm to the gay rights movement (think Supreme Court) than you can imagine. " You seem to think the issue can be ducked. It cannot be; it is here already. It has to be delt with. And you reject a fight based on principle and what is right and even seem to agree with how Bork and the others who authored the amendment frame the issue. You are advocating what? That dems do not oppose the amendment and cede the issue? That would be suicide. We either fight well or we fight poorly. There is no escaping the fight. And I reject the notion that we can't win the battle on this issue politically and on passage of the amendment. America will lose if the dems cave on this, and so will the dems. Just imagine the social strife if that thing ever passes. There will be riots, I am sure. "I'm a uniter, not a divider..." Posted by: obe at February 16, 2004 11:53 PM | PERMALINKIf the reason that homosexuals should not be married by the government is of a religious nature, then by the principle of the separation of Church and state, government should not be marrying anyone at all. Are there any other reasons besides religious ones? Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 16, 2004 11:54 PM | PERMALINKMeatss: Society has currently set forth, thru this amendment, the desire not to recognize gay marriage. What society is this of which you speak? Are you speaking of one homogenous society on the planet? Are you speaking of one through the ages? Are you and I the "society"? Who is the society that gets to rule on this matter? Yours? Ya gotta quit throwing around those sneaky "we" words like "society". There isn't just one, and the "borderlines" are not decided by ballot votes. Posted by: Donna at February 16, 2004 11:59 PM | PERMALINKAmerican (sic) is not a nation at all. America, however, was founded as a Christian nation, not State, I will agree with that much. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers were, in fact, Christians. Nice how you picked up on my typo and made a lame dig. Pointing this out makes you feel good, I'm sure. Glad to be of service. Yes, the Founding Fathers were Christian. But, they understood the
value of keeping church and state separate. Thus, I disagree with your
claim that America is a Christian nation. It's not. Christians inhabit
it, sure, but so do Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, you name it. In response to the question, why do you believe homosexuality is detrimental to society, Charlie says, "it always has been, in terms of physical and mental consequences, not to mention the larger spiritual and societal impacts." This is about as true as the earth being flat, Charlie. You might want to check your facts. There's a separate but related battle everyone should focus on; stopping Representative Marilyn "Mad Cow" Musgrave's Marriage Amendment, which would for the first time in the Constitution's history codify discrimination against one group. Whether you think Gavin should be marrying same gender partners or not, don't let them Muss with the constitution. Posted by: JB at February 17, 2004 12:04 AM | PERMALINKThat is loose-loose. Timothy, that's lose-lose. There's no looseness in zero-sum games. ;-) Although I'm sure gooses like the loose. Grammar-pendantically yours, Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 12:05 AM | PERMALINKGeorge Bush wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Shouldn't every good citizen explode in laughter upon hearing this. It simply will never happen. Posted by: dsg at February 17, 2004 12:06 AM | PERMALINKThere's a separate but related battle everyone should focus on; stopping Representative Marilyn "Mad Cow" Musgrave's Marriage Amendment, which would for the first time in the Constitution's history codify discrimination against one group. Whether you think Gavin should be marrying same gender partners or not, don't let them Muss with the constitution. I am deeply, deeply ashamed to say that this woman is from my state (but not my district -- I didn't get to vote against her). She absolutely must be stopped. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 17, 2004 12:07 AM | PERMALINKTimothy, that's lose-lose. There's no looseness in zero-sum games. ;-) Although I'm sure gooses like the loose.
D'oh! I kind of like the unintened meaning, though. This is what happens when I dash off 2 minute responses when I should be doing astrophysics. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 17, 2004 12:10 AM | PERMALINKGay marriage? Heterosexual marriage? The law should have nothing to do with either. Civil unions enacted a the county courthouse should be the extent of state involvement in family formation. If some couples want to solemnify their commitment in a marriage ritual, and some priest, minister, rabbi, mulla, witch, druid, or other cleric wishes to perform said ritual, than more power to them. But it's time we quit deputizing clergy to enact the powers of the state. That's what got us into this mess in the first place, confounding civil unions and marriages. Bless the gays for making it an issue. Get the state our of our religious assemblages and let each religion (or non-religion) define marriage as it will. But let's all have the right to go down to the courthouse and become legally united in a way that provides for comingling of assets, inheritance, the care of children, etc. I personally don't care that some people have religious views to the contrary. If they don't think gays should marry, then they should attend a church that doesn't solemnize gay partnerships. Peronsonally, I think the more people in committed relationships, the stronger the "institution" of marriage gets. I don't think that institution gives a rat's behind as to genders, gender roles, and who does what to whom in bed. The only people who worry about that are those who poke their noses into other people's business. They ought to be pilloried and pelted with rotten quinces. Posted by: Elderbear at February 17, 2004 12:10 AM | PERMALINKSP Fairy has it right: If marriage is a religious institution, then the state has no business regulating it. Churches can set their own rules against gays, atheists, Jews & Gentiles - whatever. But the state, for purposes of granting legal rights such as custody, alimony/palimony, child support, right of succession, etc., must grant "equal protection under the law." (14th Amendment). Let's call a spade a spade. Homophobes are just using "sanctity of marriage" and similar catch-phrases to disguise their true agenda, which is discrimination, plain and simple. Just apply this simple test: If the two guys down the street are legally married, how does that affect the "sanctity" of your own marriage, Mr. or Mrs. Social-Conservative? If Steve can inherit Adam's estate, or if Adam can be at Steve's bedside in the hospital at a critical time, or if the two of them get to mark "married, filing jointly" on their 10-40, tell me how that has anything to do with anyone else's life. It doesn't, but the idea that the two of them are walking hand-in-hand down the sidewalk makes some people uncomfortable, and for that they should be denied the right to marry. I WISH this was the most important issue we had to debate in this country right now. Posted by: crockmeister at February 17, 2004 12:18 AM | PERMALINKI would also like to put in a word for being of aware of other people's feelings and tolerance here. Someone above mentioned multiracial couples and how they might be together for the pleasure of "defying society" in some way. That hurt. My mom and dad are of different races, glaringly obvious though I won't mention what, and they were together for no reason other than love -- so they told me and so I believe. Let's remember that we are talking about people here. No matter what your feelings about their lifestyle, they still have feelings, aspirations, dreams, futures. This is a domestic social issue. We are talking about neighbors, friends, co-workers, family. Let's try to keep derogatory comments to a minimum, okay? Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 17, 2004 12:20 AM | PERMALINKI've spoken up, but haven't said what I think about what they're doing in San Francisco. I'm down here, behind the Orange Curtain. We, Whose Names Should Be On Lists, but we're not, don't get much voice down here, except in the OCWeekly. I think every public figure in California who is ready to stop the institutional discrimination against gays and lesbians should buy themselves ordinations from the Universal Life Church, and head down to City Hall in San Francisco. We are required as citizens of the United States to disobey laws that harm people, laws that are contrary to the US Constitution. Insofar as the the whole "marriage law" thing seems to be something equivalent to the Jim Crow laws post Emancipation, I think it behooves all of us to get our ordinations and start marrying people who want to be married. Too much Thoreau in my mind... Isn't it time to stop hacking away at the branches of inequality. Let's go for the roots. Force the issue. It's the only way short of torches and pitchforks in my mind. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 12:22 AM | PERMALINK20% of the electorate believes / is told that the invisible cloud being will really begin laying the hurt on the ol' US if we as a society move away from (selected) biblical (ie Hebrew) moral teachings. This issue is just a stick to get them to the polls in November, along with abortion restrictions, school prayer, etc. Bring 'em on, and break their balls on November 2 is what I say. Posted by: Troy at February 17, 2004 12:23 AM | PERMALINKI have heard sanctity in the wind as it gushes across the prairie. I have seen holiness in acts of spontaneous compassion. I have felt the sacred in my heart as it has learnt to feel deeply. But I have never seen sanctity, holiness, or the sacred in government. The rule of government, ever bound to earth, has no power to make a marriage sacred or holy. To be gay may or may not be a choice. But being gay is not an action; it is just a state. You can be gay and celibate. You can be gay while shopping for groceries. You can be gay while caring for a sick parent. But whether or not being gay is a choice, you cannot wish gay-ness away. That is like wishing away the winter or the moon or the tides of the sea. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not the issue. The choice is this: will we as a people choose to be compassionate, just, and fair; or will we as a people choose to be short-sighted, vindictive, and cruel. While government cannot bestow sanctity or holiness upon our relationships, it can ensure that the ties between us and our loved ones are legally protected. And government can ensure that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as expressed for each individual, are protected. The true test of life is to see the humanity in each person we encounter. For the fundamental human condition, the fundamental condition of the universe, is to be alone. The daily miracle, the one that makes life bearable, is that we can reach across the gulf of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and life experience and connect. Posted by: Kevin at February 17, 2004 12:24 AM | PERMALINKTimothy: D'oh! I kind of like the unintened meaning, though. This is what happens when I dash off 2 minute responses when I should be doing astrophysics. Hey. Not to worry. I mentioned I was being pedantic, and silly to boot. Astrophysics is a good thing. Once upon a time I wished I had the math for it. I've been looking for someone to get things rolling so I can get OFF this rock and back to my "real" planet. ;-) Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 12:27 AM | PERMALINKoh yeah, ceremonial deism (eg. "Under God" in the pledge) is also a stick issue. KulturKampf, yay! Posted by: Troy at February 17, 2004 12:27 AM | PERMALINKAnybody want to argue that this is bad for Democrats? Congress has to pass it, President has to sign it, then it's sent on to the states and 3/4 of the states have to approve it before it takes effect actually the President is not involved in the amendment process. Posted by: Troy at February 17, 2004 12:34 AM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe, your ability to support gay marriage despite discomfort with the idea of it increases my respect for you. Admittedly, you come off particularly well in contrast with Charlie, but where civil rights are concerned, the important point is not feelings, but behavior. Reminds me of Billmon's column last August: "Is there enough of Dr. King's dream left in this corrupted, polluted and reactionary America of ours to make it worth fighting for? I don't know. But about the dream itself I have no doubts. It will always be worth fighting for -- for my children's sake, and for my own." Let Charlie play his word-games: the rest of us can respect the civil
rights movement and what it stands for in American tradition. That was some extremely eloquent writing, Kevin. Thanks for that. Posted by: Timothy Klein at February 17, 2004 12:36 AM | PERMALINKKevin: The true test of life is to see the humanity in each person we encounter. For the fundamental human condition, the fundamental condition of the universe, is to be alone. The daily miracle, the one that makes life bearable, is that we can reach across the gulf of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and life experience and connect. Ah, seeing humanity. It sounds to me as if you too were mistakenly dropped here, when really you and I were meant to be on another planet entirely. I still hold out some hope, but in most of my regular moments I think that the human species on the Happy Planet will have to go through some cataclysmic stuff before the "humanity" thing kicks in. I know it's not a popular thought here in the US of Perpetual Optimism, but I've got more than 50 years on the surface. I've tried to be strong. I'm not as optimistic as I used to be about the easy transition to Maslow's idea of full achievement of potential without the "Big Bad", as they used to say on BtVS. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 12:37 AM | PERMALINKDrum writes They are peacefully challenging the law in an effort to change public opinion... they'll stop. So what's the problem? That they'll stop? Donna: Unitarians. Sane as hell, and in your town. The kind of people who think sex is a sacrament, war is hell, and humor is a way of life. The O.C. Weekly: Washburn! Moxley! Schoenkopf! People in flyover country: everything you fear is true. Life is generally better elsewhere. bad Jim- Already did. No takers. All these folks seem to think the appropriateness of gay rights is still a debatable issue, rather than accepting it and arguing about the best way to achieve those rights. Big shot in the collective foot. Charlie is justifiably amused. Posted by: rowrbazzle at February 17, 2004 12:50 AM | PERMALINKDrum writes They are peacefully challenging the law in an effort to change public opinion... they'll stop. So what's the problem? Bad Jim writes: That they'll stop? Yep. The problem. Loss of momentum. Diffusion of issue. Remember what happened in the 70s to the things that were being brought forward... and in the 60s? Well, maybe you don't. I don't know how old you are. But ... the backlash against it all was fierce. And great steam went out of significant potential change. Granted, it was for multiple reasons. But my point was about the loss of momentum. The big changes that were made had steam-roller forward motion for a number of years. We can't do the "well, we'll do it during the election season" thing. Bad governments throttle back their bad deeds during election season. Don't they? Oh. Haha! I forgot the current administration. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 12:54 AM | PERMALINKYada yada yada. That's about all that this debate deserves Posted by: Matt Young at February 17, 2004 12:59 AM | PERMALINKbadjim: Donna: Unitarians. Sane as hell, and in your town. The
kind of people who think sex is a sacrament, war is hell, and humor is a
way of life. Jim, yes. I didn't ask to be here. Nevermind. Too long a story. But, yep. So many of us here behind the iron orange curtain are in solidarity with the "people" in San Francisco. And sadly, life is better anywhere else. I'm trying to convince my husband that we should "get the hell outta Dodge". I've been here since 1980. My kids were raised here from ages 2 and 7. They are now 31 and 26. I've wrestled with leaving and not, but frankly I'm thinking again about cold and snow, and maybe Milwaukee (which is really like a european town) or somewhere close to there. Now if I could just convince my beloved who has never possessed any bodyfat that we could do it. ;-) Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 01:03 AM | PERMALINKAs others have said, there's almost never a "right time" for significant social change. Things pile up, whether it's Rosa Parks and her frustrated fatigue or the Massachusetts supreme court deciding that the law applied in this particular way too. No change in the civil definition of marriage can affect the extent to which marriage is or isn't a sacrament and act of religious devotion. Those who believe that God has ordained a particular form of marriage remain at liberty to do so. But marriage is already a secular institution. I don't see any general push to declare marriages made in front of a judge rather than a priest invalid, nor do I see any general push to enshrine religious restrictions on divorce in civil law. I would disagree with someone who wanted to do those and also prohibit gays from marrying, but at least I'd respect it. As it,s what we've got is a push to preserve choices for straight folks while restricting them for gays - in fact, holding gays to a more religious standards than straights. Personally, I'd have no objection to a declaration that "marriage" is not a meaningful term in secular law at all. let it be for those whose faith or philosophy commends a particular interpretation. But that's not the way this is going. We already have purely secular marriage, altogether devoid of religious significance. We don't demand that straight people who wish to be recognized as married meet moral standards, or hew to any religious stricture, or procreate, or refrain from divorce and remarriage, or anything at all beyond being currently single and of the age of consent, pretty much. The law regards my friends who had Catholic ceremonies, Protestant ceremonies, pagan ceremonies, and marriage by a justice of the peace as all equally married. heck, in the state where they live, my friends who never had a legal ceremony at all are nonetheless recgonized as married thanks to the common law. Saying that gay couples who wish to make the commitment should also be able to be married doesn't change the nature of marriage. The state is currently neutral with regard to the convictions and ceremonies of straight people with widely diverse and indeed directly contradictory outlooks. It's just not a big stretch to say that it should be just as neutral with regard to orientation. Marriage is good for the health of society. Married couples end up with higher incomes and fewer problems with crime. Children raised with more than one parent are healthier, better learners, and also less prone to crime and various vices. Married couples are more likely to commit themselves to stability in the form of home purchases, and are less likely to be vectors for difficult-to-treat diseases. None of this seems to me dependent on the gender of the parents. I think that it is in my direct interest to encourage gays as well as straights to wish to commit themselves to those they love, and for this commitment to be recognized by the state as having consequences when it comes to legal accountability, rights of access and decision-making, opportunities for parenting, and all the rest. Many of the worst problems in gay communities rise from the lack of commitment; we can reduce crime, improve public health, and strengthen society by helping those who wish to make and keep their commitments by extending to them no more and no less than the same support we provided to straights who want to do so. Marriage: it's good for everyone who wants it. Matt said: Yada yada yada. That's about all that this debate deserves. Matt, oh surely you have more to say on the subject than that. What is it in your mind that makes it "yada, yada, yada"? Jeebus. We're all aslather. Afroth? Something about watering at the mouth for some response more substantial. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 01:08 AM | PERMALINKPrivileged bourgeois that I am, having watched HBO's "Iron Jawed Angels", I'm inclined to side with the bomb-throwing (impermissable poster-hanging) adventurists, taking every possible advantage of the vagaries of popular opinion. For any opinion there will never be a best time. No hurry, but why wait? In practice, most of us guys continue to be relentlessly sexist. Gays are the most sexist of men. Why do they deserve a separate break by being forbidden to marry? Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 01:14 AM | PERMALINKBruce, Upon first reading this struck me. You said we already have "civil" marriage separate from religion, but we don't and the current protestation against gay and lesbian marriage is the case in point. It is the religious lobby that is opposed to expanding the "pretty loose" marriage statutes to include gays and lesbians. The arguments against are almost completely religious-based. Until citizens of the US begin to see how the religious and legal lines are blurred here, I'm not sure there will be any solution aside from a governmental edict that proclaims or bans. I really think this may be the make-or-break separation of religion and government issue. It won't be abortion. Too many of the religious politicians still need available legal abortions. (tongue in cheek, but not much). If indeed marriage in the US is completely civil, then there should be no argument about allowing gays and lesbians to marry with all the rights, priviledges, and benefits, dubious as they are with the government-corporation system that we have. Tell me how you think I'm seeing this wrong, because frankly, from a strictly legal/contract perspective I don't see what the hassle is. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 01:20 AM | PERMALINKDonna: the right thing to do is to take our country back. In Laguna, we've managed to keep a little bit of the original landscape. It's been worth a fight, or a few. But, I have to tell you, Spain is kind of a neat place to visit, and you can take your kids. My nieces and nephews variably fixate on Italy and Ireland. Tomorrow is supposed to be warm and sunny, but keep in mind that you and your progeny are citzens of the world, and responsible thereof. Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 01:26 AM | PERMALINKMayor Newsom's primary mandate was to make this Valentine's Day memorable. Holy fuck. Loving couples patiently waiting in lines wrapping around the block. When have we last seen so many people desperately, hopefully, happily, enthusiastically endorsing the thralldom of marriage? Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 01:36 AM | PERMALINKWe can certainly win under the sign of Venus: "All you need is love" Jim: Well, I posted but maybe I didn't hit post. It was about Venus, and we weary cusp Cancer people with only the Moon and water, which I don't really believe in but.... But otherwise I was talking about music, and Lennon, and "all you need is love". I came home with a bug to hear some of "my" music. My husband has 100 gigs of music. I wanted to hear Steve Miller's "Your Saving Grace" and Yes's "I've Seen All Good People". In the Steve Miller piece he sings: "Rise up to the new dawn's early morning. Feel the sunshine warm upon your face." In the Yes piece, in the middle they break into Lennon... in the middle of "don't surround yourself with yourself" they sing .........."all we are saying is give peace a chance". Be well, Jim. (For those blogreaders unfamiliar with the songs, download and listen) Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 02:15 AM | PERMALINK"What is it in your mind that makes it "yada, yada, yada"?" Well, thanks to the gays and the recent Supreme Court ruling on sodomy, the big news here is the break up of the government's hold on marraige. This is good news, but certainly not a gay issue since generic marraige is not the normnal activity of gays. Like home schooling and self-employment; the destruction of government sanctioned marraige gets us back to the time when we relied less on government. I doubt that government can deliver all its promised, and the sooner that Americans defeat government stranglehold on cultural institutions, the sooner that Americans will began to take care of their own affairs. So, the "yada yada yada" represents the idea that this is a much bigger issue than providing gays marraige certificates. It is a proxy fight for something bigger. Liberals see it as a mechanism to include gays in traditional big government Liberal socialism; Conservatives see it as an attack on traditional big government Conservative socialism. Libertarians celebrate it as an attack on big government everywhere. Posted by: Matt Young at February 17, 2004 02:24 AM | PERMALINKUrrgh. As a Virgo, I don't believe in astrology. I did, though, note, Venus, brighter than anything else, in the early evening sky; Mars and Saturn, noticeable but both dimming, and Jupiter brilliant. The particular astronomical joys of February 2004. Fuck this war, and fuck the folks who fooled our people into doing it, and let us hope that we notice and learn from, excuse and relax upon, every mistake that you or any one else make. Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 02:30 AM | PERMALINKBeethoven did cover that ground a while back, Seid umschlungen, millionen "I hug everybody" Diesem Kuss der ganzen Welt "Right smack on your lips, baby" Right on top of that other familiar tune... all men are brothers Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 02:40 AM | PERMALINK"As for polygamy and group marriages, the answer is simple: those will become legal if there's ever enough collective pressure to make them so" By the way, this comment is absolutely wrong. Once the courts uphold
gay marraige, then a pressure group of one is sufficient to legalize
all forms of marraige. Kevin, you write: But that's exactly what marriage is: it's whatever we as a society decide it is. Unless you have a specifically Bible-centric view of what marriage is, you need to accept this simple reality: marriage is not a natural law, it is a human institution that's defined by humans and subject to change by humans. Slavery was a human tradition for 5,000 years too. So was child labor, the subjugation of women, and the divine right of kings. All of these are venerable human institutions that we recently decided to change. So why not marriage? Why shouldn't we change it if that's what we collectively decide to do? As for polygamy and group marriages, the answer is simple: those will become legal if there's ever enough collective pressure to make them so. So far there's no sign of that. But one of the major objections of those who oppose gay marriage is that gay marriage is not what "we as a society" have decided, but what a few judges have decided. In fact, "we as a society" (at least according to all polls I've seen) strongly oppose gay marriage (although support for a constitutional amendment isn't that strong). It's not "collective pressure," but lawsuits, that are creating gay marriage. Posted by: David Nieporent at February 17, 2004 02:46 AM | PERMALINKNo, it's the San Francisco exuberance that's creating gay marriage. The spirit that says "why not?" And what is else, if not to be overcome? Milton should be living in this hour! Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 02:56 AM | PERMALINKAh Matt: Well, thanks to the gays and the recent Supreme Court ruling on sodomy, the big news here is the break up of the government's hold on marraige. This is good news, but certainly not a gay issue since generic marraige is not the normnal activity of gays.Like home schooling and self-employment; the destruction of government sanctioned marraige gets us back to the time when we relied less on government. Libertarians celebrate it as an attack on big government everywhere. Matt, so I'm not convinced that any of this is a "baaaad" thing.
Since when is the loosening of power been a bad thing for, excuse my
blatent quotation marks... " people". I'm still at a loss to understand
why you think gay and lesbian marriages would be so bad. Maybe you
could be be more descriptive of your viewpoint. Overwise, frankly, I
don't see how anything you say means anything. badjim said with gusto: Fuck this war, and fuck the folks who fooled our people into doing it, and let us hope that we notice and learn from, excuse and relax upon, every mistake that you or any one else make. I reiterate... fuck them ALL. And all those people who'd like to couch the word democracy in the middle of their singular issues. Them too. Unless people all over the world are free, without violence, the word freedom has NO meaning. This goes for all the others posting here who want to squeeze the meaning out of words to work for them and their goals. Go ahead. Pretend. There exist many people on the planet who understand differently. As Paul Simon sang: "you can run out your rules, but you know you can't outrun the history train."
Human life is evolving beyond you who think you are in the know
politically, and you can't stop it. It will be different on the Happy
Planet when we speaking now are all dead, and all your labors will mean
very little, or nothing. Matt, I think you are full of bologna (My "bolony" has a first name ... it's O-S-C-A-R) about the gay marriage issue. I think you don't know jack about the history of human relationships in the last 5,000 years on the Happy Planet, along with whoever it was here who thought to expound on that similar subject. I think your kind of small cardboard box thinking is definitive of the state of the "US leaders' thinking" on so many issues. Such a surprise. But hey. I'm sure you're a great human being... whatever that means, blah, blah, blah. Be well, Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 03:34 AM | PERMALINKSome history was made here, and we liberals can only take pleasure in it. More, please. Posted by: bad Jim at February 17, 2004 03:34 AM | PERMALINKI was talking to someone on the phone last night about the issue. He is against the idea of gay marriage. His first point was that he looked-up 'marriage' in the dictionary and it said that marriage was between a man and a woman. I tried to explain that what's at issue here is how the word is to be used in political discourse and that any currently prescribed definition is moot. He also suggested that he couldn't see how allowing gays to marry would "do any better" for the institution of marriage. I said, "Do any worse?" We talked about that for a while, and then he finally brought-up a point that seemed to make some sense, though I think it's a problem for civil unions as well--the custody issue. I can imagine it might be difficult for a judge to determine the mother or father of a gay couple. But like I said, this is already an issue in some states (if I'm not mistaken) and allowing gays to marry in those same states isn't going to make a difference for that issue (unless I'm missing something here). What I've finally decided about people who are opposed to allowing gays to marry is that they feel threatened in their own idea of what a marriage is. But that's really a weakness of their own, and gays shouldn't have to put up with it. Posted by: Shawn at February 17, 2004 03:39 AM | PERMALINKbadjim: The spirit that says "why not?" Yep. I paraphase: some see and ask why, others ask, "why not?" Oh the fear, the fear. And Meatloaf sings: "ain't no doubt about it, we were doubly blessed. We were barely seventeen and we were barely dressed" (continuing my oldies music marathon) Glowin' like the metal on the edge of a knife... Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 03:47 AM | PERMALINKWe talked about that for a while, and then he finally brought-up a point that seemed to make some sense, though I think it's a problem for civil unions as well--the custody issue. I can imagine it might be difficult for a judge to determine the mother or father of a gay couple. Nope. The person who can be the mother or father of a child is the
one(s) who act(s) as a mother and a father. Parenthood is not
established by birth, but by action. Are you not a parent? To a parent
I would think this would be the sine qua non. (That which goes without
saying) Let me clarify my last sine qua non... a parent is one who "parents". This is something separate from giving birth or standing by while one's woman gives birth. Are we clear? Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 04:13 AM | PERMALINK"I'm still at a loss to understand why you think gay and lesbian marriages would be so bad. Maybe you could be be more descriptive of your viewpoint" My views on this subject are well known. Anytime we can break the monopoly hold that government has on a cultural institution then only good can result. The battle here is between the libertarian view that government has no business regulating marraige; and the liberal/conservative view that government does have business regulating marraige. Liberals think they can have a victory because they have expanded governments role in regulating marraige. Conservatives think they can have a victory by expanding the government's role in traditional man-woman marraige. The real victory belongs to the Libertarians. Michael Kinsley had it right when he proposed the real solution was to privatize marraige, but then Mike is looking more and more like a libertarian everyday. Liberals will be disappointed when they notice that an expanded role for government sanctioned marraige leads to a reduced role for government mandated entitlements. Citizens will naturally arrange marraiges such that the maximum number of checks flow in from government and the minimum number of checks flow to government. Posted by: Matt Young at February 17, 2004 04:21 AM | PERMALINK Matt quoted:"As for polygamy and group marriages, the answer is simple: those will become legal if there's ever enough collective pressure to make them so" Matt said: By the way, this comment is absolutely wrong. Once the courts uphold gay marraige, then a pressure group of one is sufficient to legalize all forms of marraige. Did I already say bologna! Yes. I think I did. No silly. All they have to do is say that marriage is between "two" persons. End of problem. I am at a loss to understand the fear that I hear behind what you and others post on the subject of gay and lesbian marraige. Straight people have nothing to fear -- the gays and lesbians aren't going to force marriages on you. Unless of course the fear is that you've bought the whole gay agenda thing. Tell me you didn't buy the recruitment thing with the free toaster oven for ten documented converts. I knew there was a reason I never needed to watch any reality TV. Caramba! Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 04:42 AM | PERMALINKMatt said boldly with great narcississtic emphasis: My views on this subject are well known. Well, they're not to me dearheart. You'll have to do it all over again if you want to debate me. If not, don't post back to me. I don't know you from Adam ... not to be confused with "Adam and Steve". Please curb your narcississm. T'would be better to elucidate. Jeebus, or as some of us say: "The Buddy Christ!" Speak man, and quit qualifying yourself. It's boring as hell. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 04:49 AM | PERMALINKThe idea that gay marriage somehow threatens heterosexual marriage - that his marriage or her marriage somehow threatens mone - is antihetical to classical libertarian conservatism. So why this, um, overwhelming desire to decide how other people will structure their relationships? The more I see of homophobia, the more I am convinced that homophobia is a mirror - that the people most terrified of, and opposed to, homosexual behavior are terrified of their own desires and their own sexual responses. They are terrified when they see manifestations of these desires made public. Homophobia is, at base, an attempt to master one's own desires by controlling the actions of others. The rest of us? We look at the newspaper and rejoice at the pictures of loving couples entering into long-term commitments. We attend to the stewardship of our own relationships and families, and wish for others that they will have good fortune and long lives, together. Posted by: Alex Merz at February 17, 2004 04:53 AM | PERMALINKSan Francisco has not received 200k in license fees and the the
obvious answer to this loon is let's not make marriage a state
sanctioned activity if this bothers the religious observant among us. Annie: People who have marriage hang up need to learn the different between being annoyed and being oppressed.oppressed. Would you like to flesh this statement out a bit? To my mind it screams for something more. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 05:06 AM | PERMALINKSome points: Before then, the King was God's STEWARD, not God's CHOSEN. Marriage had traditionally been about property. Look at the rules for it in Torah. It turns out that opposition to gay marriage increases markedly with age. (I think I saw the poll on Daily Kos) This implies that in the next 10 or so years, the poll numbers will flip. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 17, 2004 05:13 AM | PERMALINKI get so tired of the ignorant assumption thrown around that the modern, Christian attitude on marriage is the one that has dominated all of human history and prehistory. It's just not true. As one example, in ancient Greece, there were three types of marriage. And while one of them was explicitly for the purpose of procreation, the two others were not. The second was about continuation of land holdings in the family, and the third was a concubine relationship that was not binding in any legal way and was all about companionship: the hetairai, often incorrectly referred to as prostitutes. The hetairai were frequently very well educated on history, poetry, philosophy, music and politics and were often seen to be joining in on Symposia (the only women to do so). Many of them also had monogomous relationships with men but didn't live with them, the most famous being Aspasia, hetairai to Pericles. This was considered to be a type of marital relationship. As for the history of homosexual unions in the Church, I refer you to this link: http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html John Boswell, in his book Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe, elaborates on the same sex union practiced in quite a few places up through the 19th Century: "The ceremony remained licit from the thirteenth century on, even in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, which probably failed to recognize its actual significance, although Montaigne seems to having seen it in Rome itself in 1578, and suggested that Roman ecclesiastics realized perfectly well what it entailed, even to the point of legimitizing homosexual activity." And "One has to ask ones self, "What are two men in a Roman Catholic Church (or Greek Orthodox) with their hands joined, or holding crowns over each other?s head, at a communion service, asking for unashamed fidelity and sincere love or that they be united in perfect love and inseparable life or to be granted the grace to love each other in joy without injury or hatred all the days of their life. The ceremonies themselves are not controversial, after all they exist. What they might mean is what the controversy is about." Bottom line? 'Marriage' is and always has been a much richer and more diverse institution than many people would have us believe. When someone tells you that marriage has always been 'one man and one woman for the purpose of making babies,' tell them they're ignorant. Posted by: Christian at February 17, 2004 05:19 AM | PERMALINKIf the religiously observant are bothered by a definition of marriage
that allows for same sex couples -then remove marriage as a state
sanctioned activity. The Republicans are using this issue to torque up
the religious right and get them out to vote. There is nothing in civil
unions or gay marriage that in any way is a problem for a heterosexal
marriage and to claim they are damaged is ludicrous. This is a civil
rights issue and the religious right is oppressing at minimum ten per
cent of the population because they find their union annoying. If you
don't want to be in a marriage with a gay person --don't marry one. As long as they don't let white women marry black men, I don't care. Posted by: Al at February 17, 2004 05:23 AM | PERMALINKHey Charlie and all the other gay-bashers: Please find us a place in the teachings of Jesus where Jesus condemned homosexuality. Now when you've exhausted this effort, please explain this: If this is such an important issue, why did Jesus teach NOTHING about it? Also - speaking of the founding fathers: Charlie, perhaps you could enlighten us about the manner Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, Madison, etc., were "Christians"? These folks were all Deists - and were viewed by the Bible-thumpers of the time as infidels. Posted by: Jon at February 17, 2004 05:37 AM | PERMALINK"you need to accept this simple reality: marriage is not a natural law, it is a human institution that's defined by humans and subject to change by humans." could someone stop by Kevin's to see if he has been smitten yet? I would assume he's at least blind by now. Posted by: zoot at February 17, 2004 05:41 AM | PERMALINK"It's not "collective pressure," but lawsuits, that are creating gay marriage." Lawsuits are how change (as well as communication of issues and
education) in America occurs. Its how the Constitution is verified,
modernized, defined, and expanded. Its how oppression is roled back. If
the "collective pressure" against a change is insufficient to prevent
the change, then the change occurs...that's it. A lotta lip service is given to idea of separation of church and
state but when push comes to shove...people cave in to pressure from
religious lunatics. The Catholic Church is nothing but a cult which has
developed and then protected a culture of pedophilia and we should take
marriage advice from them. The rightwingnuts of the "Christian"
reborns are nothing but hatemongers who use television to sell vitamin
products. Religious values that What to know what the Right fears regarding Gay Marriage? That once people see that civilization as we know it won't end the moment two gay people get married, they might just start questioning the other "truths" the Right has told them. That's what they're afraid of. Look at Europe...gay marriage over there and they're still functioning pretty well. They're just trying to control people through fear and intimidation, like they always do. Posted by: Monkey at February 17, 2004 06:09 AM | PERMALINKCharlie -- Roy Moore can be distinguished. No court order has prevented San Francisco from continuing to issue marriage certificates. Moore, on the other hand, defied a court order. If Newsom is given a court order to halt and continues to issue marriage licenses, then she should be relieved from her job. As much as I support same-sex marriage, I support the rule of law even more -- and a court, to me, is the highest authority on law. --|PW|-- Posted by: pennywit at February 17, 2004 06:09 AM | PERMALINKhomo..................bi...................hetero Is homosexuality a chosen, unnatural lifestyle? Think of that debate
with this diagram (the sex of the individual doesn't matter). People who
happen to fall near the hetero end of this continuum (the majority of
us) will be mostly hetero. The opposite applies to the other end. What if you are not a religious lunatic? What if you went to college, got a post-graduate degree, voted for Clinton twice and believe government has a role to play to alleviate suffering and still have sincerely held religious beliefs that differ from those supporting gay marriage? Do you have a voice in society or are you effectivley silenced by the vitriol and hatred coming from the "wingnuts" on the left? The problem with the gay marriage issue is not that it's a human construct, but that there is no possibility of discussion on the issue. Laria is a perfect example of the way many proponents of gay marriage stereotype and label its opponents as cultic, a religious lunatic, a wingnut. There is nothing democratic about this discussion because there is no respect given to those who disagree with proponents of gay marriage. And that is a sad state of affairs. Believe it or not, reasonable people can disagree. Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 06:14 AM | PERMALINK1. Anyone who uses the phrase "special rights"--which originated as a response to anti-employment discrimination laws--loses all my respect. 2. There are countries in the world where domestic violence is considered a given in marriage; where girls are forced into marriages to older men at the age of 10 and sexual and physical abuse is common; where polygamy--and not the kind between consenting adults--is practiced. The Clinton Justice Department supported granting asylum to women in these situations, when the government of her country was unwilling to take any action against an abusive husband. Can you guess the Bush administration's position on this issue? "Sanctity of marriage," please. 3. Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in the U.S.,
recognizes gay marriage. It's much, much easier (I know this from
experience) to find a reform Jewish rabbi willing to perform a
commitment ceremony between two Jewish men or two Jewish women, than it
is to find one who will marry a Jew and a non-Jew. (To some extent I
think this may be true of Conservative Judaism too; I am not sure.) So I
love it when the anti-gay crowd talks about "Judeo-Christian
tradition." Leave the Judeo out of it, guys. Well, this whole debate illustrates EXACTLY why I have so little respect for social conservatives. We hear arguments that simply don't pass the rationality test. Give me something I can bite into -- an argument with some meat in the burger. Otherwise, I simply must apply Occam's Razor here -- it looks like bigotry. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 17, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINK"I think that a lot of people leave the gay lifestyle. We all know lots of gay guys in their 20's and 30's. But what about gay people in their 50's? There are a lot fewer, right? I don't think this is a coincidence. I think that a lot of people decide to leave the gay lifestyle and get married to a member of the opposite sex" Oh, bloody hell, Joe, you're more sensible than this. There are plenty of gay people in their 50's, as I can tell you, being a 49-year old gay. You are correct, however, that there are not as many gays in their 50's as one would expect, demographically, given the proportion of the population in their 20's and 30's who are gay. The reason for this is well-known to anyone who has paid attention to the news for the last 20 years or so. It has nothing to do with anyone outgrowing being gay. They're all dead. Why don't you go explain to a group of Polish Jews how the relatively small number of Jews around today who would have been adults in the mid-1940's shows that Jews generally convert to Christianity when they get older? Posted by: rea at February 17, 2004 06:30 AM | PERMALINKKevin is right, of course, that "But that's exactly what marriage is: it's whatever we as a society decide it is" On the other hand, regarding Calblog's kvetch "What will be the next step? If gays are allowed to marry because they have made a lifestyle choice, what about polygamy?..." The fact is that polygamy was considered quite normal in much of the older testament. How many wives did that one Hebrew king have? 700 wives and 300 concubines? And polygamy is still considered normal in much of the Muslim world. So the idea that monogamous marriage has been the only form for 5000 years is preposterous in the extreme. BTW, regarding these "defending marriage" wackos, in Georgia >A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage squeaked through the Georgia Senate on Monday, in what could foretell a tough battle in the House. But >The debate got particularly interesting when Sen. Valencia Seay
(D-College Park) proposed a change to the proposed amendment that would
have added a ban against adultery. That suggestion resulted in two tie
votes, 27-27 and 26-26, and under Senate rules the change failed. Well, of course. But the wackos weren't interested in preserving "the sanctity of marriage." They wanted to bash gay people. Homo-hating is the polite racism of the 1990s. http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legislature/0204/17leggay.html Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 06:36 AM | PERMALINKThere is nothing democratic about this discussion because there is no respect given to those who disagree with proponents of gay marriage. And that is a sad state of affairs. Believe it or not, reasonable people can disagree. Democracy isn't about "discussion", it's about Voting. Posted by: Monkey at February 17, 2004 06:36 AM | PERMALINKI'm gay and I think this is the wrong time for the issue. It should wait until after the election, when (hopefully) we have a Democrat in the white house. With Bush against it and supporting the FMA, he'll try to push through as much anti-gay policy as possible during the rest of his term. By making it a big issue now, it will come up during the election. Hopefully people will be able to see the right as prejudiced & hypocritical on the issue. BTW, Charlie, I'm also an Atheist and don't care much for your religion (or any other for that matter). Charlie, Obviously, they are bad because they harm people and are detrimental to society." Some of us still think the same about homosexual acts. I'd be interested in knowing exactly how homosexual acts are 'harm people and are detrimental to society'. Can you explain exactly what you mean, Charlie? Posted by: Coriolanus at February 17, 2004 06:43 AM | PERMALINKWrong italicisation.....feh! Charlie, Obviously, they are bad because they harm people and are detrimental to society." I'd be interested in knowing exactly how homosexual acts are 'harm people and are detrimental to society'. Can you explain exactly what you mean, Charlie? Posted by: Coriolanus at February 17, 2004 06:46 AM | PERMALINKWhy is nobody talking about civil unions? Civil unions will give gays and lesbians all the rights of marriage without the controversy. We are letting the right define the issue, using empty talking points that sounds vaguely good like "sanctity of marriage". We don't want to be against the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means in the age of "the bachelor" and Brittany. We want to be FOR equality and fair-play. Give civil unions ten years. That ought to be enough time for mainstream America get over the heebie-jeebies. I bet as soon as the next generation take power this isn't even going to be an issue. Posted by: Angelica at February 17, 2004 06:46 AM | PERMALINKDemocracy is also about respecting the opinions of others, even if you disagree with them. To the extent it's about voting, there must be a discussion that precedes any vote, and that discussion is being silenced by labels and stereotypes that dismiss views opposing gay marriage as, to cite Mike Cohen's phrase, "prejudiced and hypocritical." There isn't really a desire for discussion and maybe the presuppositions of those in the mix make it impossible--no common philosophical ground. It's ironic that some proponents of gay marriage decry prejudice and hypocrisy and demonstrate those very qualities in the "debate." Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 06:51 AM | PERMALINKHow come drudge hasn't leaked the developing story about Bill Bennett and the rough sex trade..... Posted by: annie at February 17, 2004 07:05 AM | PERMALINKOn the timing issue Angelica said: Why is nobody talking about civil unions? Civil unions will give gays and lesbians all the rights of marriage without the controversy. First, this would be semi-dandy if it was really true, but as it stands now civil unions in the US mean jack shit from state to state. Next, the point is NOT about civil unions. The point is about equality, which is defended by the US Constitution, that hallowed document that they don't think they can find in the National Archives. The issue as I see it is how far can the more authoritarian religious lobbyists (AKA the fundie reich) push their authoritarian agenda with the federal government. Marriage was not defined in the constitution. It has always been quasi-religious-statist. The "State" ambled on in to what was established religious practice of "marryin'" folks, and said, "hey, not only could we standardize this, but we can make some money in the process. We can make money on the front end, in the middle, and at the end." Don't kid yourself about how much the grand and glorious State has at stake here. It's big time. Posted by: Donna at February 17, 2004 07:08 AM | PERMALINK"I'm gay and I think this is the wrong time for the issue. It should wait until after the election, when (hopefully) we have a Democrat in the white house." I don't think we have a choice. This issue has come to a head in Massachusetts now because this is when the Massachusetts court system rendered a decision on the issue. The timing of that is not something the litigants can control very easily. This issue is prominent on the national stage right now, however, because GWB & Co. have decided, for their own political reasons, to make this an issue in the campaign, rather than let it take its course on a state-by-state basis. The only choice they're giving us is fight now--or unconditionally surrender. Posted by: rea at February 17, 2004 07:11 AM | PERMALINKI've been wondering all last week why the major voices in liberal blogosphere were more or less silent on the gay marriage battle in Massachusetts and San Francisco. If there was any mention, it was always in the context of the impact as a wedge issue in the presidential race. Comments like grytpype's suggest to me that perhaps (straight) liberals are upset that gay activists are picking the worst timing for their struggle for marriage. But the timing wasn't fully planned. The SF marriages may be a publicity stunt, but the Constitutional Convention in Massachusetts is not. The Massachusetts Supreme Court came out with a ruling recognizing equal legal protection for gay citizens of the Commonwealth - and for gays and their straight allies, it's a thrilling and historic opportunity. I realize that Andrew Sullivan is gay and therefore unique in his political positions, but it's still a shame that you have to go to a conservative blog to find any excitement or happiness that gay men and women might have a shot at first class citizenship. Posted by: Chris in Boston at February 17, 2004 07:21 AM | PERMALINKI am continually croggled by the argument that marriage is a 5,000 year old tradition of one man and one woman. It isn't, you know. Abraham had two wives. So did Jacob. King David and King Solomon, of course, had considerably more than 2 wives. In point of fact, if one were to rely upon "5,000 years of tradition," polygamy would have to be legal. Would legalizing polygamy then lead -- shock, horror -- to gay marriage? Moreover, limiting our definition of marriage to what we know about Western culture, which is a lot less than we claim, seems to me to be mixing religion and the law. Marriage customs have been different in different places. I believe that we still haven't entirely untangled the marriage rites and customs of Ancient Egypt, and they're only 3,000 years ago, and so well within the purview of the claim that marriage is a "sacred custom" yadda yadda yadda. I hate it when they can't even keep their arguments logical within their own framework. Grr. Posted by: Lydia Nickerson at February 17, 2004 07:24 AM | PERMALINKPublius: So make your case. All you've done thus far is whinge about how mean those liberals are. What are your arguments against gay marriage? Posted by: dix at February 17, 2004 07:28 AM | PERMALINKIs defeating Bush more important than the civil rights of homosexuals? Is there even a conflict here? Personally I'd love to see Dubya face to face with that octegenarian lesbian couple explaining to them why they have to surrender their marriage liscence because their fifty years of love threatens civilization......... Posted by: Hermit at February 17, 2004 07:34 AM | PERMALINKThe argument against needs to be taken to the logical conclusion.
The right needs to be exposed for their use of hate and bigotry. It is
this attitude which led to the beating death of Matthew Shepherd to
single out a famous instance. Gay hatecrimes are the single biggest
category of high school bullying -- this is the result of the religious
right and their hateful ways. Pat Buchanan is regularly given a pass
for his anti gay remarks under the guise of age. Wow, talk about coming late to the party. I got about a third of the way through this and had to stop to make my comment before I ran out of time. "Also, I'm interested in why you believe homosexuality is 'deterimental to society'." Charlie's response - "It always has been, in terms of physical and mental consequences, not to mention the larger spiritual and societal impacts." Bullshit. I look at the issue of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. If 5-10% of the population is really born gay, which does seem to be the case, what was the evolutionary prerogative at work for this to come about? The way I see it, human civilization has been around for many tens of thousands of years before written language. Most of that time in our evolutionary development we were smaller tribe/societal units making the slow transition from hunter/gatherer to agrarian. For any given communal group it would have been a dangerous risk if every hunting/warring party was comprised of all the men and all the women remained at camp. If the men, while separated, were to be killed in the hunt (or battle) or the women were killed by raiders or wild animals (or either group by disease) that specific small society would most likely cease to be. For the human race to have the strongest chance of survival some of the women would need to prefer to go on the hunt with the men and some of the men would need to prefer to stay at camp with the women. (If I'm one of the hunters I'd be MUCH more comfortable leaving men behind that had no interest in my woman) It's known that the strength of any gene pool lies in its diversity and for that reason alone I can easily see where nature, through necessity, would have developed whatever brain tag self-identifies gender (or gender attraction?) to be flipped in a small percentage of the population. That characteristic very possibly contributed to the survival of the human race for Milena untold and it seems just a little unfair to suddenly (oh, say, the last few thousand years) declare it deviant. In summary, historically speaking, the presence of homosexuality has always been, in terms of physical and mental consequences, not to mention the larger spiritual and societal impacts, a net positive for the survival of the human race. God doesn't make mistakes. Posted by: Thumb at February 17, 2004 07:36 AM | PERMALINKBush is doing his damnedest to make this an issue despite the fact that his goal - a constitutional amendment - doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of coming to pass on his watch, even if he's elected to another term. The proper retort to baiting on this issue is to simply point that
out, observe that this is an issue over which the President has no
jurisdiction or control (all the power being in the hands of Congress),
and move on. NPR solicited questions on this subject. Mine were: Ummm, it doesn't take a whole lot of research to find out that the origins of the modern Western marriage are rooted in notions of sexual property. Not saying that it is today, but these historical arguments are mostly b.s - and knowing the history puts the current debate in a different perspective. Posted by: Lyndon Johnson at February 17, 2004 07:50 AM | PERMALINKSimple - marriage is between two people. There. That was easy. Even rednecks would be able to understand that. Posted by: Yawn at February 17, 2004 07:57 AM | PERMALINK"P.S. Now, why do I suspect you were all against Chief Justice Moore's "publicity stunt" with the Ten Commandments, when he he was doing was "peacefully challenging the law in an effort to change public opinion, something that's a rich tradition in American politics from both liberals and conservatives?"" The seperation of church and state is explicitly forbidden in the constitution. Gay marraige is not. That's the difference. Posted by: Jon from VA at February 17, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINK"Murder is NOT a lifestyle choice then either, despite how much you detest it. murderers cannot be "cured" via medical treatment or Jesus." Actually, it's pretty much one of the tenets of Christianity that He can. That's two strikes... Posted by: Jon from VA at February 17, 2004 08:02 AM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe at February 16, 2004 11:03 PM >First, I think that a lot of people leave the gay lifestyle. We all know lots of gay guys in their 20's and 30's. But what about gay people in their 50's? There are a lot fewer, right? This poster is dumber than the proverbial brickbat. You might SEE lots of gay guys in their 20s and 30s. Or you might hear of them. Because they are going to gay clubs--going out dancing, and this that and the other. I did that when I was in my 20s, in the 1970s One thing you aren't likely to see are couples like me (I'm 54) and my boyfriend (he's 52). We don't go out to gay clubs that often. We don't need to. We found each other--at a gay club, interestingly enough--over 25 years ago. And we've been together ever since. And I might point out that most of our friends are also gay couples in their 40s, 50s and 60s. Yeah, Joe, there are a lot of us. A lot more than you might wish to admit. But I guess we have left what wackos like you wish to refer to as the "gay lifestyle." But we are still gay. Fancy that. Hmmm....maybe I should go out to a gay club this Friday so that Shmoe would see one of us older guys. Nah--it isn't worth the effort. I don't have a problem with this: Why shouldn't we change it if that's what we collectively decide to do? The problem I have is that the "collective" is 4 activist judges in Massachusetts. They don't represent the people. And they should not decide "what we collectively decide." Posted by: Out4Blood at February 17, 2004 08:04 AM | PERMALINK"The seperation of church and state is explicitly forbidden in the constitution. Gay marraige is not" But, the rights of states to assume powers not reserved in the constitution is part of the constitution. The SF mayor is violating the constitution. No, I expect this author really applies his philosophy differently to support his politics. Maybe I can shed a little light on why religious people are opposed to gay marriage. I am Catholic. Catholics take marriage very, very seriously. We think that marriage is in trouble these days. It's not like society is about to fall apart or anything, but things have definately taken a turn for the worse. Divorce rates have skyrockted. Some people divorce without so much as a second thought, without making much of an effort to make the marriage work. Not enough thought is given to the welfare of children born during the marriage. People enter into second, third, and even fourth marraiges, each time pledging that it's "until death do us part." People have kids out of wedlock, after living together for several years, and it never even occurs to them to get married. Fathers do not take responsibility for their children. Many men who get their girlfriends pregnant do not feel compelled to do the honorable thing and propose marriage. Catholics believe that only those who are ready to make a mature and lasting committment to the instution of marriage should get married. Before my wife and I got married, we had to spend a whole weekend at an "Engaged Encounter" retreat at which every issue of marriage and family was discussed. As an aside, I have to say that the "Engaged Encounter" was one of the worst experiences of my life. I wanted to vomit after hearing so many sickly-sweet, starry-eyed expressions of emotion. It is no fun to be trapped in a room with 50 other committed Catholic couples for 48 solid hours. My wife and I have resolved never to divorce so that neither one of us will remarry and have to attend the "Engaged Encounter" again. But even though I didn't like the "Engaged Encounter," I approve of the idea. Before a Catholic priest will marry a couple, they have to meet with the priest for at least two counseling sessions. He will refuse to perform the sacrament if he doesn't think they are ready for it. In the Catholic church, the sacrament of marriage is every bit as important as the sacrament of holy orders. In other words, to put it in colloquial terms, marriage is a kind of priesthood. That's how seriously we take it. It may suprise you to know what the Catholic church recommends in the following situation: 16 year-old boyfriend and girlfriend have sex and become pregnant. Obviously, the Catholic church isn't going to recommend that the girl have an abortion. But they will also DISCOURAGE the kids from getting married. This is because they are too young to enter into an adult marital relationship. Many in this thread have brought up things like teenaged marriages, shotgun Vegas weddings, the Britney Spears/whoever-that-guy-was 48 hour marriage and have argued that there are plenty of dysfunctional heterosexual marriages. I agree. But what you don't understand is that Catholics thinks that these are BAD things. We don't approve of them. People shouldn't get married under those circumstances. This brings us to gay marriage. Again, I support gay marriage. I don't like it, personally, but I accept the fact that homosexuality is innate and is not a lifestyle choice, at least for some. But I do think that for a lot of homosexual people -- perhaps even the majority, at least at first -- a gay marriage will be the functional equivalaent of a teen marriage, the Britney Spears marriage, etc. Since I don't approve of the Britney Spears marriage, I don't approve of these gay marriages either. I part company with other religous people becuase I do beleive that for some people, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice; it's innate. I don't think it's right to deny people like my sister-in-law, or my friends, the right to marry. They can't help being gay. I think they will make excellent spouses and parents, and if they want to get married (though, having been married for two years, I sometimes wonder why anyone would want that...), I say all power too them. Gay marriage still makes me uncomfortable because I believe, as stated above, that a lot of homosexuals are simply emotionally troubled people. I strongly suspect, though I cannot prove, that many of these troubled people will find the idea of gay marriage very attractive, and will see it as yet another opportunity to act out and subject the rest of us to a public display of their private issues. I avoid such people whenever possible, but gay marriage will make it harder for me to do so, so I am not thrilled about it. Again, though, I think it's the right thing to do, so I support it even though I have my misgivings. But I hope you will see that not all religious people who are opposed to gay marriage are bigots. A lot of the opposition is driven by a sincere concern for the viability of the institution of marriage, not just hate. The overwhelming majority of religious people are not repressed bigots. Their view of marriage is not what you might think. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 17, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKCharlie at February 16, 2004 10:19 PM >". . . Look, if gays want to get married it's none of your business." >It sure is as long as this is still a democracy. What other civil rights do you want to put to the electorate? Some of us remember "Irish need not apply" Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 08:15 AM | PERMALINKThe problem I have is that the "collective" is 4 activist judges in Massachusetts. They don't represent the people. And they should not decide "what we collectively decide." LOL God forbid Judges should rule on questions put before them by the people. This question didn't originate with them, which you would know if you actually researched the issue before turning on Fox TV. That's what Judges DO. They rule on whether or not the case before them is legal or illegal. To call them "activists" is code word for "doing stuff we don't like", no more no less. I don't particularly like it when Judges (like the Supreme Court, for instance) rule in favor of a candidate I think lost an election. But I don't fool myself into thinking they stepped in un-invited into the process. No. Somebody put that issue before them according to the rules. Them's the rules. Want to live under different rules? There are places in the world that have anti-homosexual laws. Iran. Get the picture? You want to be ruled by Ayatollahs, get your ass on a plane, pal. You want the rule of law and constitutional process, welcome to America. Take your pick. Posted by: Monkey at February 17, 2004 08:16 AM | PERMALINK
>Maybe I can shed a little light on why religious people are opposed to gay marriage. I'm not going to count the number of words in this post. Nor, quite frankly, am I going to read the entire thing. It is completely irrelevant to the issue of civil marriage. If the poster wants to bloviate on another issue, I suppose it should feel free. But its bloviations are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Don't waste your time, Joe. Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 08:19 AM | PERMALINKI'm not sure if someone upthread already mentioned this but: Hi Joe Schmoe: First, Please take a moment to learn the history of the sacrament of marriage in roman catholic theology. Then, let's talk about the how institutions change over time. Secondly, polygamy is the most mentioned model of marriage and family found in the bible. Thirdly, economics have and will continue to determine the model of marriage that a society adopts. Posted by: Hart at February 17, 2004 08:21 AM | PERMALINKIRONY ALERT: What's next: Polygamy? Polygamy is the Biblical view of marriage. It has been a part of this institution for thousands of years, and the world hasn't rid itself of this yet. Kevin is right, marriage is what we make it. And what the modern world will make it is consensual commitment between to adults. Posted by: epistemology at February 17, 2004 08:22 AM | PERMALINKThe concluding words to: "Woman Suffrage aims to sweep away this natural distinction, and make humanity a mass of individuals with an indiscriminate sphere. The attack is now bold and now subtle, now malicious and now mistaken; but it is at all times an attack. The greatest danger with which this land is threatened comes from the ignorant and persistent zeal of some of its women. They abuse the freedom under which they live, and to gain an impossible power would fain destroy the Government that alone can protect them. The majority of women have no sympathy with this movement; and in their enlightenment, and in the consistent wisdom of our men, lies hope of defeating this unpatriotic, unintelligent, and unjustifiable assault upon the integrity of the American Republic. " 1913
... right-wing Christian family groups said that what was going on in SF was craziness and "anarchy." ... hardly seems like anarchy. It's anarchy because it's a fundamental breakdown in government; it's "a state of lawlessness." All of a sudden California State Law has no power -- that's anarchy. What's worse is that a duly elected official, who has sworn to uphold the law is leading the effort to violate it. Government officials, including even the mayor of San Francisco, must obey the law. We are a nation ruled by law, not by activists. When government officials stop obeying the law, that's anarchy. Regardless of whether you are for or against gay marriages, this is a disturbing trend. I'm looking forward to see what this means for the rest of the country. Are S.F. marriage licenses going to become worthless. What about for I.R.S. purposes. Do they count? Posted by: Out4Blood at February 17, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINKAs a gay man recently married (according to the city of San Francisco), I think one issue has not been taken into account here: Most of the commenters are forgetting the impact of this decision on
Gay folks themselves... I, for one, always believed that I should have
the same rights as everybody else, but it never rang so true until my
husband and I said those vows and got that certificate of our hands. But I do think that for a lot of homosexual people -- perhaps even the majority, at least at first -- a gay marriage will be the functional equivalaent of a teen marriage, the Britney Spears marriage, etc. Since I don't approve of the Britney Spears marriage, I don't approve of these gay marriages either. That would be news to the same-sex couples I personally know in the Twin Cities who have been together for years, one of which make their realtionship legal in Toronto last year. There's already a record of same-sex couples entering into legal unions in Vermont, and I haven't heard anything in the way of 'Britney Spears' sort of stories coming out in the media. I think that stereotypes of gays that many still have lead them to mistaken conclusions on the subject of same-sex civil marriage. Such as: Gay marriage still makes me uncomfortable because I believe, as stated above, that a lot of homosexuals are simply emotionally troubled people. That's not true in my own experience, especially for those gays who are accepted for what they are, and not for what others would insist that they be. Gay couples want to marry because the partners love each other, just the same as heterosexual couples do. I have no problem at all appreciating the love shared by a same-sex couple, just as they have no problem appreciating the love my own wife and I share. I appreciate the importance that the Catholic Church places on marriage, BTW. But I don't think that same-sex civil marriage is a threat to Catholic marriage, any more than the fact that civil divorce laws are not in harmony with Catholic teaching. Posted by: David W. at February 17, 2004 08:30 AM | PERMALINKLet's get something, uh, straight: Marriage in black and white http://queerlinks.com/library/black_white.asp As I said, homophobia is the "polite" racism of the 1990s. Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 08:36 AM | PERMALINK"Gay marriage still makes me uncomfortable because . . . a lot of homosexuals are simply emotionally troubled people." Straight marriage makes me uncomfortable because a lot of straights are simply meotionally troubled people. Joe, if you don't like the idea of gay marriage, it's simple: don't marry a gay. Posted by: rea at February 17, 2004 08:43 AM | PERMALINKWeird that anyone cares about this. As long as no one forces you to marry someone you don't want to marry, I can't possibly understand why anyone would object to people celebrating their love and receiving all the legal rights they deserve. Posted by: tristero at February 17, 2004 08:45 AM | PERMALINK"Believe it or not, reasonable people can disagree." Sure, same with slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc. No one is asking you to give up your religious beliefs or saying your church has to marry gays. Why do you feel entitled to force your religion on everyone else under the guise and sanction of law? You have no right to do that at all. Posted by: obe at February 17, 2004 08:49 AM | PERMALINKSomewhat tangentially, does anyone have links to the briefs filed in the San Francisco case? I'm particularly interested in how the challengers are establishing standing, on the one side, and what precedent the county is citing in support of its Constitutional argument, on the other. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 08:52 AM | PERMALINK>No one is asking you to give up your religious beliefs or saying your church has to marry gays. Why do you feel entitled to force your religion on everyone else under the guise and sanction of law? Good question. The Unitarians, Metropolitan Community Church and Reform Judaism all recognize equal marriage rights for gay people. Why the heck should the wacko catholic church and a few conservative protestant cults be able to rule the roost? Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 08:53 AM | PERMALINKPlease note that plenty of Christians - individually and denominationally - are pro-gay-marriage. Many denominations are still conflicted about it, as well. I then ended up making friends with a homosexual guy, and even got in the habit of going to a certain gay club on the weekends (the booze was free until 10PM! And I even met a couple of interesting straight women there). Straight guys should take note of the counterpart to this - when trying to pick up women, there is no better wingman than a gay guy. He'll look great, he'll make sure you look great, and when a woman starts talking to him, he'll charm her and then point her to you. It will be clear that you are secure enough in your manliness to hang around with a gay guy; it will be clear that you are sensitive and civilized enough for him to hang around with you. The price you will pay is to accompany your gay friend to a gay bar from time to time, which may be a little intimidating. :) Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Even if it were, I'd support gay marriage. (I'm bisexual, so for me, homosexual activity - as opposed to homosexual nature - is a choice.) This is supposed to be the land of the free. Ideally, we'd be free to do anything that didn't harm another. Posted by: Hamiltion Lovecraft at February 17, 2004 08:55 AM | PERMALINKI don't have time to read the entire thread. I'm sure this has already been said, but it's worth repeating: This is a civil rights issue. And nothing could be more clearly defined by a proper separation of issues of Church vs. State. Gays and Lesbians deserve to be recognized under the law as legally married. If it helps to call them civil unions, so be it. What the churches and mosques and synagogues and temples in America choose to do about this is their own business. Certainly you can make the argument that strong religious convinctions have played a role in forming the laws of this land. And it is obviously guiding a lot of decent people against the idea of civil unions. But that has to be weighed against the demonstrable unfairness of denying so many people a primary civil right simply because of who they are. It actually goes to the core of what our nation is truly about -- guaranteeing individual rights.
It's interesting to note that the homophobes think that gay people are different (and implicity negatively so) than straight people in some fundamental way other than their sexual orientation. This thinking would be based on what exactly? Be specific and base your answer on some credible information. If gay marriages were to become the accepted norm, how exactly would society be harmed? Be specific and base your answer on some credible information. I personally am straight but think that there needs to be some compelling reason to stop two people who love each other (and just happen to be of the same sex) from enjoying the same privileges as the rest of us. America, after all, was founded on the principles of freedom and pursuit of happiness. Posted by: beloweelevel at February 17, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKSharoney: "Like all those hetero couples holding hands on the beach, making out on a park bench, cuddling at the movies, walking arm in arm, flaunting their blatant sexual preference for all the world to see?" Ah, but you see - that is NORMAL and productive for society. "(not to mention Justin and Janet and the Ta-ta of Mass Destruction on national television....)" Not sure what "ta-ta" is, but Justin and Janet's halftime debacle is not productive for society either. Neither is the rest of the examples cited starting with "screaming straight couple" - any others you are unsure about? "It's a personal choice and a matter of civil rights, which in a just society isn't -- or should not be -- subject to the tyranny of the majority. ("I bet Charlie would change his tune about "letting a DEMOCRACY decide the issue" real fast if the polls showed 85% approval for gay marriage.)" Not at all - that would just mean we probably already lost the battle "Charlie, if you don't approve of gay marriage, then by all means, don't marry a gay man. See? It's that simple." Let me see if the same logic works in a different example or whether you actually do draw any lines: if you don't approve of pedophillia, then by all means, don't molest children. See? It's that simple. Linkmeister Article V of the U.S. Constitution also provides for 2/3 of the State Legislatures can call a Convention for proposing Amendments. The President does not sign anything (although he's obviously going to use the bully pulpit to get this ratified). You got the 3/4ths part right. "That's one reason why many of the news stories report that 38 states have already passed amendments of their own; it implies there would be at least 38 states to approve a federal Constitutional Amendment as well." That's one reason - another is that the silent majority has already spoken, but the gay activists won't listen. P.S. As for the rest of you were very busy since last night - I will try to reply as soon as I can. God Bless. Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 09:04 AM | PERMALINKDonna, I think that we've got a lot of folks whose mental image
simply lags realities. The thoroughly secular nature of American
marriage seems to me inarguable, between common-law marriage and
marriage by justices. It's just that many people whose view of marriage
is anchored in some particular belief think of those marriages as
somehow "really" being in accord with doctrine. The fallback is to think
of them as, well, not actually in direct conflict. Gay marriage isn't
actually any farther from the religious marriage of your choice (or Joe
Schmoe's choice, or whoever's), but it's more obviously not that version. So it exposes a cognitive gap. At times I have so much hope--like this weekend's marriages in SF, in which I was so fortunate to be able to participate--that I will achieve full rights in my lifetime. Other times, I do not. In Texas, a woman is being prosecuted under obscentity laws for explaining how to use a vibrator to an undercover police team. The woman is a dealer ("consultant") for a company called Passion Parties--Tupperware-style parties for women to talk about and buy sex aids and toys. It seems to me that if people in Texas (and other parts of this country) are so afraid of their own sexuality, it's pretty unlikely that they will ever be able to or even try to understand the sexuality of people who are different from them. See: "Why shouldn't we change it if that's what we collectively decide to do?" Sorry, Mr Drum, but I would say "Screw collectively." We should and do have balances against a majority who wishes to codify sexual apartheid, inconsistent with the word and spirit of the constitution. Congress and state legislatures whore themselves by passing what they know to be unconstitutional statutes all the time, and the courts rightly disallow them. Mayor Newsom is simply brave enough to call them on this. He's asking which has greater moral weight, equal protection or adhering to the sexual mores of a dwindling portion of the population. Its clear which one's right, a little muddier on which is more expedient. Posted by: rooser04 at February 17, 2004 09:22 AM | PERMALINK Well, I still don't understand what people are afraid of when they are against gay marriage. What do they seriously think is going to happen? Or do they just not think it through at all and simply give a knee-jerk reaction? Or do they truly think "god" is going to destroy us because of this? Posted by: Alex at February 17, 2004 09:27 AM | PERMALINKFrom Ambidextrous www.ambidexterity.blogspot.com I think this says it all I appreciate the importance that the Catholic Church places on marriage, BTW. But I don't think that same-sex civil marriage is a threat to Catholic marriage, any more than the fact that civil divorce laws are not in harmony with Catholic teaching. Actually, I think (as a Catholic) that same-sex civil marriage embodies far less threat to Catholic marriage than casual civil divorce laws. I think the apparent relative priorities of the institutional Church, whatever the official statements say, are set more by the fact that the divorce battle is seen as largely lost while the same-sex marriage one is still active, rather than any well considered vision of the relative significance of each issue as it affects sacramental marriages. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKWell, I still don't understand what people are afraid of when they are against gay marriage. What do they seriously think is going to happen? Or do they just not think it through at all and simply give a knee-jerk reaction? Or do they truly think "god" is going to destroy us because of this? Well, there are probably a mix of things. Some people think it is a
kind of social imprimatur that will encourage homosexual behavior, which
they see as sinful in itself and often as harmful to others in a
variety of ways, some moral, some more practical. Some probably do think
God is going to punish society for it (witness the comments by some
evangelist regarding 9/11). Some probably just think its "icky" and
think the law exists to serve their personal tastes. Bullshit. I look at the issue of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. If 5-10% of the population is really born gay, which does seem to be the case, what was the evolutionary prerogative at work for this to come about? Well to play Devil's Advocate here, that's not necessarily the case. Homosexuality might be like Down's syndrome, a genetic defect that has multiple causes that are relatively common in the environment. Down's syndrome is a relatively common birth defect, but one should not and cannot argue that this proves the genes for Down's syndrome are somehow evolutionarily adaptive. Rather, it's just that the mutagens that cause the genetic damage that develops into Down's syndrome are common enough that every generation of humans has had some small percentage of children born with those genetic traits. Again, merely playing Devil's advocate here, one could hypothetically argue that the genetic markers for homosexuality are the same way. That there is no definitive adaptive advantage to homosexual behavior, and one can readily see that if homosexuality were a dominant trait the human race would have died out, but that there is some persistent cause in the environment that insures that some small percentage of children born will carry these genetic traits. There is a statistically significant correlation between alcoholism in a family and having family members who are gay (honestly, I don't have the references handy, but I'm not making that up). One could argue that part of the genetic damage done by alcohol abuse is the alteration of those genes which regulate sexual behavior. This would then explain why there are always a certain percentage of gay men and women in the population despite evolutionary pressures to eliminate this trait. Oh, and by "evolutinary pressures to eliminate this trait" I simply mean the fact that gay men and women won't, if allowed to choose, procreate and thus pass on the genetic traits for homosexuality. I want to reitterate that I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate here. I have nothing against gay men and women, nor do I oppose their rights to marry. My youngest sister is gay and has been married to the same woman for the last five years. Posted by: Dr. Morpheus at February 17, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKIt's anarchy because it's a fundamental breakdown in government; it's "a state of lawlessness." All of a sudden California State Law has no power -- that's anarchy. A constitutional provision being seen as trumping a statute is not a "state of lawlessness", nor is it a state in which the state law generally has no power. Its actually rather common. What's worse is that a duly elected official, who has sworn to uphold the law is leading the effort to violate it. Actually, being sworn to uphold the Constitution is rather the point of Mayor Newsom's action, according to his own letter that started all this: Upon taking the Oath of Office, becoming the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the State of California. Article I, Section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution provides that "[a] person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws." The California courts have interpreted the equal protection clause of the California Constitution to apply to lesbians and gay men and have suggested that laws that treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals are suspect. The California courts have also stated that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is invidious. The California courts have held that gender discrimination is suspect and invidious as well. The Supreme Courts in other states have held that equal protection provisions in their state constitutions prohibit discrimination against gay men and lesbians with respect to the rights and obligations flowing from marriage. It is my belief that these decisions are persuasive and that the California Constitution similarly prohibits such discrimination. Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause, I request that you determine what changes should be made to the forms and documents used to apply for and issue marriage licenses in order to provide marriage licenses on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to gender or sexual orientation.
Stupid italics-ending-at-paragraph-breaks. The last paragraph is also, clearly, from the letter. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 09:41 AM | PERMALINKMe: For what it's worth, I'm sure there were (and are) some mixed-race couples for whom the thrill of defying a social norm was a part of the attraction. That these hypothetical in-your-face miscegenation-fetishists had an agenda has no bearing on the rightness of their cause. Sugar Plum Fairy: I would also like to put in a word for being of aware of other people's feelings and tolerance here. Someone above mentioned multiracial couples and how they might be together for the pleasure of "defying society" in some way. That hurt. My mom and dad are of different races...and they were together for no reason other than love -- so they told me and so I believe. Too damn bad. Unless you're prepared to argue that nobody who's ever been part of a mixed-race couple has ever found a little extra thrill in the defying of a social norm, you're not really even attempting to refute my statement. And if you find it hurtful, then I'm led to suspect that you're one of those sad hypersensitive moral-high-ground junkies who runs around looking for wounds to suffer. Posted by: Laertes at February 17, 2004 09:42 AM | PERMALINKI'm telling you, among the Gays I know, they're mainly interested in ONE thing: When a loved one or partner is in the hospital dying, they would like the RIGHT to be with them. MOST hospitals deny them this right, because they're not "family". It's disgusting that this very simple privilege has been stretched into such a big issue. The "protect marriage" people are nothing but a whiny special-interest group. There's NOTHING in the Constitution or Bill of Rights to support their arguments. I think this is a good thing, that this debate is happening now, and with such visible public exposure. It's a subject that needs to be clearly and openly debated, and brought into the zeitgeist of the public eye - so that the bogus arguments can be discredited, and eliminated. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 17, 2004 09:43 AM | PERMALINK"Mr. Santos," Congratulations! Long life and love to both of you. I would love to see the idea of marriage detached from its problematic history and sense of heterosexual privilege. Under those circumstances, I might even finally get round to it myself. Posted by: Alabama Lefty at February 17, 2004 09:50 AM | PERMALINK"Charlie, if you don't approve of gay marriage, then by all means, don't marry a gay man. See? It's that simple." Charlie's response: "Let me see if the same logic works in a different example or whether you actually do draw any lines: if you don't approve of pedophillia, then by all means, don't molest children. See? It's that simple." Charlie, if you really can't tell the difference between consenting adults on the one hand and child molestation on the other I pray you don't have any dealings with children. You're obviously dealing with some severe personal psychological problems and are a danger to society. You either need psychiatric help or should be locked up before you hurt someone. Posted by: Thumb at February 17, 2004 09:52 AM | PERMALINKCharlie, You?re a fucking idiot. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and isn?t reserved for human beings. ?Deviant? is a term of judgment and not accurate. If you want to be an ignorant fuck go ahead, but do everyone a favor and call homosexuality something along the lines of ?not the norm?, OK? Because here?s the deal, you stupid, disgusting fuck: Homosexuality
is perfectly natural, that is it exists as a natural variation within
the human and animal world. It is not the norm, that would be
heterosexuality, but there is nothing unnatural about it. For fucks sake it?s like being a redhead. And unless you got a fucking doctorate dealing with advanced biological heredity you can shut your ignorant trap regarding any nature vs. nurture argument you little shit. And here?s a clue: just because you?re an emotionally stunted fuck who personally can?t deal with fags doesn?t mean they?re harming society?they?re just bothering you (you self-obsessed ass). [sorry for all the cursing, but that guy doesn't deserve even a modicum of propriety]
Gay marriage still makes me uncomfortable because I believe, as stated above, that a lot of homosexuals are simply emotionally troubled people. Jeebus, Joe. What is the matter with you? You say you know a lot of gay people? Know a lot of out of the closet, normal gay people? Well I do too, and half of them got it more together than I do. The only emotionally troubled gays I?ve ever known, which is maybe 1 or 2, the only reason they were troubled is because they had to live in the closet for years for fear of having the shit beat out of them. Why do you insist on basing all of your beliefs on what you made up
in your head? It even sounds like your experience is exactly the
opposite of what you believe. Jeez, did you see a gay pride parade with
some leather freaks and solidify your opinion there? Come on, why do
always do that? Why do base all of your beliefs on whatever you came up
with sans substantive input? Well, I suppose my comments will be buried at the bottom of this long and contentious thread, but here goes ... My wife and I were talking about the gay marriage flap this weekend and we came to a couple of points we couldn't figure out for ourselves. 1. An awful lot of the bother seems to be over the word "marriage". Honestly, the phrase "gay marriage" makes us feel a little yucky in the way "civil unions" does not. We started to wonder why gays would risk a potentially calamitous backlash (with codification of anti-gay discrimination and possible violence) all over the use of the word "marriage" instead of "civil union" or another, less sterile, euphemism. After all, we have a rich language, and why shouldn't gay marriage be worthy of its own word? I'm not saying that it should be thought of as less worthy than hetero marriage, just different. But some folks seem ready to risk a lot over the word "marriage". Could anybody explain why this is so? 2. In public, most anti-gay-marriage advocates only talk about "preserving the sanctity of marriage". But when you look further, they seem pretty intent about keeping homosexuals locked out of all sorts of things. For example, opposition to employers providing benefits to homosexual partners. Honestly, do these anti-gay-marriage people really think that the sanctity of marriage is defined by getting a good price on health insurance? Do they really think that they have the right to interfere in the relationship between an employer and an employee to impose their own moral views? This sort of thing just strengthens my opinion that most "libertarians" are really just value "liberty for me and people like me". So, anti-partnership folks, what have I got wrong? Posted by: Nate at February 17, 2004 09:55 AM | PERMALINKNate: But some folks seem ready to risk a lot over the word "marriage". Could anybody explain why this is so? Because "Separate but equal" sucks. We've tried it before and it didn't work that time either. Posted by: Laertes at February 17, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINKMy neigbor's marriage does not threaten nor validate my marriage. My neighbor's religious beliefs do not threaten or validate my religious beliefs. My neighbor's driving skills do have an impact (pun intended)--and whether or not they let their garbage pile up, and how late at night they howl at the planets--these are issues I can discuss with my neighbors. Where love takes adults with adults is not a concern of the state. With love and the responsibilities of commitment deniable to none, with charity to all. *** Posted by: MJS at February 17, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINKdespite evolutionary pressures to eliminate this trait. Oh, and by "evolutinary pressures to eliminate this trait" I simply mean the fact that gay men and women won't, if allowed to choose, procreate and thus pass on the genetic traits for homosexuality. There are no evolutionary pressures to eliminate the trait because homosexuality is not a trait derived from, or even subject to, evolution. There doesn't seem to be any homo gene, it seems to be a combination of things in the brain that make one more likely to be homosexual. Sexual preference is not something that is turned on or off like haircolor. It is as natural as the haircolor trait, or any genetic trait, because it is genetic, but there doesn't seem to be a gay gene- rather a number of factors that produce a certain probability of outcome. If there's a "self-absorbed prick" gene, then maybe there's a gay gene, but more likely it's a combination of genetic factors of which the end result is a propensity or probability for certain behavioural traits. Think of it this way: Micheal Jordan was born, not made. But he wasn't born a basketball player, he was born with the probability and potential to be a tremendous athelete. ] Homosexuals are born, not made, but they're born with that probability (and there's surely a range of probabillity). They don't need to work at it, like Micheal Jordan, to become "gay", but it's basically the same thing. It's more of a realization. A lot of homosexuals don't figure out their own sexuality until after puberty, which would be expected with that sort of gestalt, genetic trait (relying on a number of disparate traits). So, your argument isn't really valid unless there is a simple genetic
component for homosexuality, and there doesn't appear to be one. C'mon, Al, you can troll a little better than that! I could; my stalker apparently can't. In any case, I won't troll here - I agree with Kevin that marriage is what we as a society say it is, and that we as a society should say that gays can marry. On the issue of whether homosexuality can be a mere "lifestyle choice", I'd argue that SURE it can be. Ask Anne Heche! But it isn't necessarily, and, in case, so what? Even if it just a mere choice, that choice isn't hurting anyone and should be respected. Finally, I'd disagree with Kevin regarding polygamy. OF COURSE we as a society can make a distinction between legalizing gay marriage and legalizing polygamous marriage. But Kevin COMPLETELY begs the question: why should we make that distinction? If it should be permissible (indeed, if it should be a civil right) for a white person to marry a black person, and for a man to marry a man, why should it not be permissible (or a civil right) for a person to marry TWO persons? The distinction simply doesn't hold water. Posted by: Al (the real one) at February 17, 2004 10:07 AM | PERMALINKWell to play Devil's Advocate here, that's not necessarily the case. Homosexuality might be like Down's syndrome, a genetic defect that has multiple causes that are relatively common in the environment. Down's syndrome is a relatively common birth defect, but one
should not and cannot argue that this proves the genes for Down's
syndrome are somehow evolutionarily adaptive. I appreciate your critique. However, as a percentage of live births, Downs Syndrome affects approximately one tenth of one percent and is easily traced to a specific genetic defect (the presence of an extra chromosome 21 in all cells). In defense of my hypothesis homosexuality is much, much more prevalent as a percentage of the population and, as yet, cannot be traced to any specific physiological trigger as the majority of birth defects can. However, I do believe there is a physiological explanation but I also
believe it's a normal physiological event that, unlike medical birth
defects, just happened to play a role in the evolution of the human
race. "I would say 'Screw collectively.'" Now, THAT really would give the fundamentalist right something to talk about! Posted by: rea at February 17, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINKWhen a loved one or partner is in the hospital dying, they would like the RIGHT to be with them. MOST hospitals deny them this right, because they're not "family". I do not believe this, not for one second. You have simply made this "problem" up in order to make yourself feel like you are part of some great moral struggle. This does not happen, not routinely, and it cheapens the argument for gay marriage Hospitals do not routinely turn away people who wish to visit dying patients. No healthcare provider would be so heartless as to deny a gay person the right to visit his or her dying lover. I'm sure it's happened once or twice, but 99.999% of the time this is a non-issue. And I guarantee that if it did, the hosptial would have a ton of unfavorable publicity and a lawsuit on its hands. Hospitals generally let anyone visit a patient; friends, coworkers, etc. There are no restritions. Moreover, hosptials WANT people to visit dying patients, becuase it is the humane and comforting thing to do. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 17, 2004 10:13 AM | PERMALINK"I am Catholic. Catholics take marriage very, very seriously. " I am not Catholic. Those who are not Catholic also take marriage very, very seriously. Which is why it is utterly immoral to prevent two adults from marrying each other. 'Honestly, the phrase "gay marriage" makes us feel a little yucky in the way "civil unions" does not.' It's not about gay marriage. It's simply about marriage. The gender of those involved in a marriage is unimportant. Posted by: tristero at February 17, 2004 10:14 AM | PERMALINKActually, I do not have any problem with polygamy. The slippery slope argument does not work on me. I probably wouldn't want to hang out with a polygamous couple, just like I don't want to hang out with a couple consisting of Rosie O'Donnell/Camryn Manheim, but if people want to enter into a polygamous relationship, hey, that's up to them. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 17, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKAl, Why not polygamy? There?s no big reason why not. You?re conceding Kevin?s point that we define what marriage is and then turn around and essentially argue if we do that then there?s no limit. Well, if we set the rules, we can set the limit. Why set it at 2 people and 2 people only? Well, ?marriage? is a institution that is supposed to signify a public and legal commitment between partners and it has developed that certain bonuses are awarded to people who make this commitment. I would argue that if you open it up to multiple people it would become really easy for it to just turn into a free for all. There?s nothing stopping people from doing that now, but marriage is seen as a ?real? commitment and frankly, there?s so much societal baggage wrapped up with it I think it keeps away a lot of opportunists. So, getting 6 wives just because 2-6 want a lower tax rate is one argument against. But the bigger argument is simply gays are born gay and are therefore
normal human beings who deserve all the benefits accorded to other
normal human beings. Polygamy could be argued to be an extension of
man?s desire to spread his seed far and wide, but that?s not quite the
same thing in this current context (rights being denied to large numbers
of normal people who only want what every other normal person already
has). sd wanted to know: "The point I was trying to make is that almost every person who supports gay rights today was of a different opinion a short while ago. How did this happen on such a mass scale? It truly fascinates me." Being gay was decriminalized. Gay people came out of the closet without being arrested/losing their jobs. Families and friends of gay people become aware that somebody they know, respect, love is gay. Families and friends of gay people have "aha" moment where they realize that denying civil rights to gays hurts somebody they know, respect, love. Come out and change the world. Come out and change your world. Posted by: Tracy at February 17, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINKIt may suprise you to know what the Catholic church recommends in the following situation: 16 year-old boyfriend and girlfriend have sex and become pregnant. The main reason that this is surprising is because its wrong. While an individual priest or church counselor may discourage them from marriage because they believe the particular couple is not prepared to make the commitment inherent in a sacramental marriage, its quite possible that they won't. In any case, the Church, institutionally speaking, will not judge them too young to make such a commitment, as 16 is, in fact, the canonical age of full responsibility. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 10:25 AM | PERMALINK"Hospitals do not routinely turn away people who wish to visit dying patients. No healthcare provider would be so heartless as to deny a gay person the right to visit his or her dying lover." "Joe Schmoe" is correct as far as he goes. What he either fails to realize or fails to mention is that the family of a dying patient can exclude their partner if they don't like them, or don't approve of the relationship. Posted by: JKC at February 17, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKIf it should be permissible (indeed, if it should be a civil right) for a white person to marry a black person, and for a man to marry a man, why should it not be permissible (or a civil right) for a person to marry TWO persons? The distinction simply doesn't hold water. Sure it does. Its purely an equal rights argument. Everyone has the right to enter into the union of (civil) marriage exclusively with one other person -- no distinction is made based on race, sex, religion, or other categorization. Why not polygamy? Because group marriages are an entirely different story, and there is no equal rights argument for having them. Perhaps there is a good reason to expand marriage to multiple partners, but its a separate issue not pushed by the equal rights argument that applies to allowing mixed-race or same-sex unions. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINKHomosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Sexual orientation may not be, sexual activity clearly is. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINKCharlie: In what sense are you using the term ?normal?? Purely statistical, colloquial, moral-judgmental? I ask because a proper response depends on my understanding the meaning of your post. But as a starting point, society has continually reestablished what productive behavior is. It wasn?t that long ago in most western societies that women were seen as possessions of their husbands and treated thusly. It is normal (in the modern era) for human societies to radically expand their definitions of civil rights every generation or so. While the process is not always pretty, I sure think that the results have left the human condition much better off. Posted by: Keith G at February 17, 2004 10:32 AM | PERMALINKThere are no evolutionary pressures to eliminate the trait because homosexuality is not a trait derived from, or even subject to, evolution. There doesn't seem to be any homo gene, it seems to be a combination of things in the brain that make one more likely to be homosexual. Sexual preference is not something that is turned on or off like haircolor. It is as natural as the haircolor trait, or any genetic trait, because it is genetic, but there doesn't seem to be a gay gene- rather a number of factors that produce a certain probability of outcome. Combinations of traits can be selected for or against, so the "combination of genetic factors" argument doesn't really advance the "not subject to evolution" argument. More convincingly it might support an argument that the the individual elements that combine to lead to propensity for homosexuality are more strongly selected for than the combination effect is selected against. Or it might be the case that there are positive selective pressures
in favor of traits that lead to an certain propensity for homosexuality
especially in environments of increased population density. cmdicely at February 17, 2004 10:29 AM >>>Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. >Sexual orientation may not be, sexual activity clearly is Religious activity is, too. Your point being, what? BTW, what would you suggest as a rational basis for the state refusing to recognize relationships of same-sex couples (so-called "gay marriage") on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called "marriage")? Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 10:35 AM | PERMALINKIf 5-10% of the population is really born gay, which does seem to be the case, what was the evolutionary prerogative at work for this to come about? perhaps there's a societal reason (as opposed to a strictly reproductive one). humans are, after all, social creatures. Posted by: cleek at February 17, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINKI'm 100% opposed to my church marrying people of the same gender. I am 100% in favor of the state marrying people of the same gender. Why is that so hard for religious people to understand? Posted by: derek g at February 17, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINKKeith G: "In what sense are you using the term ?normal?? Purely statistical, colloquial, moral-judgmental?" Statistical, colloquial, and moral-judgmental, as well as these dictionary definitions: "Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical" and this specific one from the field of Biology: "Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies." To the rest of you (not already on my ignore list) since last night: I just got out of a meeting. I've copied your messages and will work on my responses. To those cursing me out: May I suggest it is YOU showing a "hate-filled" attitude on this thread, not I? Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINKThe question of whether "gayness" is nature or nurture is technically interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant to the question of gay rights. Arguments against full legal rights for all, based on religion, tradition, or evolution are completely fatuous. Arguments based on political inconvenience are revolting. Posted by: synykyl at February 17, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKHomosexuality is observed in mammals of many species, as well as birds. This appears to suggest that it is at least partially genetic and it is selected for. How could this be, you ask, since (you may think) homosexuals don't reproduce (ignoring for the moment the fact that many do reproduce, since they aren't exclusively homosexual)? The answer is probably what biologists call kin selection. Consider bees: almost every bee in the hive is sterile, other than the queen and a small number of drones. But they are all kin, meaning that they share many genes in common. For most of human history people lived in extended families and clans. A certain fraction of extra adults could well improve the survival chances of nieces and nephews, just as the worker bees work for the survival of their newborn cousins. Homosexuality is much too complex to be determined by one gene. But
even severe single-gene defects can be selected for: for sickle-cell
anemia, if you have one copy of the bad gene, you are resistant to
malaria. If you have two, you get the disease and die young, probably
before you're old enough to reproduce. If you figure the odds of
catching malaria, you can compute just how prevalent the gene should be
to maximize survival (maybe 1-2% have one copy in a high-malaria area).
Nature does the same calculation, demonstrating evolution in action. >>>Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. My point being that the bit I was responding to -- "homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice" -- is correct only to the extent that homosexuality refers exclusively to orientation and not to activity. And, on your religion comment, even religious affiliation is a choice, usually. No one in this thread, however, posted to claim that religion wasn't a lifestyle choice, so I saw no need to post a correction. So besides setting up a strawman, what is your point?
BTW, what would you suggest as a rational basis for the state refusing to recognize relationships of same-sex couples (so-called "gay marriage") on the same basis that it recognizes relationships of opposite-sex couples (so-called "marriage")? When did I suggest that the state should refuse to marry same-sex couples? Although, if I had to act as Devil's Advocate and come up with a rational basis, I would suggest that prominent among the public purposes of marriage was to create an incentive for couples to form a union that would provide a presumption of biological paternity with a probability of being correct to simplify provision of support, a purpose which homosexual marriage does not serve. While there particular heterosexual marriages may not meet this standard, medical technology makes it rather fluid as to which ones do not, and making the distinction takes resources that the state feels are unwarranted. This kind of argument would probably work under the "rational basis" test for 14th amendment analysis, but sex-based discrimination usually is held to invoke at least intermediate scrutiny, and marriage may be a "fundamental right" which triggers strict scrutiny, so its not clear (even if granted as true -- and its certainly debatable) this would be enough to pass muster.
The question of whether "gayness" is nature or nurture is technically interesting, but as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant to the question of gay rights. Its relevant to the question of whether being homosexual is a trait like race, sex, and other inherent traits. Arguments against full legal rights for all, based on religion, tradition, or evolution are completely fatuous. Distinctions based on voluntary behavioral choices are what most of
the law is about, and are not inherently as a class unfair. While certain
such choices are explicitly protected (such as religions), as a whole,
these are the least suspect distinctions government can make. And so
determining to what extent "homosexuality" fits into this category can
legitimately be seen as having some connection to equal protection
analysis. We spend way to much time as a society on other people's sex lives. My theory is if people would spend as much time on only their own --everyone would be a lot happier. Our silly romantic notions should not define the underpinings of civil arrangements between consenting adult. There is no place for anyone's religious values to take precedent. I applaud Mayor Newsom for his courage and act of
Point of clarification: Separation of church and state is not "explicit" in the constitution. You won't find it anywhere in the Constitution. It's a phrase contained in a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist organization and picked up by the Supremes when interpreting the establishment clause of the first amendment. Religion had a significant role to play in public discourse when deists walked the earth. Take a walk around Boston, for example, and look at some of the things carved in the entablatures of public buildings and you'll see what I mean. But I digress. Most of my Christian friends have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that gay marriage is immoral. My gay friends say they have no moral objection to gay marriage. The point is, there's an underlying moral judgment made by both camps about the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage. It can't be any other way. Laws made by men and women are chock full of moral judgments (again about what's right and what's wrong). Problem is, if you're morality is informed by religious principles you believe to be true, as opposed to philosophical principles or agnostic principles or no coherent set of principles at all, then you don't have a place at the table. Then, you're oppressing someone else with your religion if you come out against gay marriage. In a democracy, we welcome different views about lots of stuff. We never muzzle it, but decide whether it's compelling or not based on our internal criteria, whatever they may be. It's analogous to the weight v. admissibility standard regarding evidence in a court of law. I'm all for a guy like Edwards who says he's personally opposed to gay marriage but would support the right of California to decide that guy marriage is okay, if that's the will of the people of California. On the other hand, I'm not for anyone who says that if my view about gay marriage is in anyway connected to religion, it is worthless. I wouldn't try to convince you that I'm "right" about any of it, I'm simply saying that it's ironic that in a supposedly "tolerant" society, some gays express vehement intolerance of anyone opposed to their view, just because it's a religious view. The social contract is a pretty imperfect thing. It means guys like Bush get to buy their way into office, get to appoint awful judges, get to gut environmental laws, shift the tax burden from wealth to income, make the lives of ordinary people a misery. I don't like it, but the alternative to elections is a lot worse. I just wish I could say what I think without being summarily dismissed by those whose views I don't share. And please don't tell me I'm whining. Just look at the number of folks posting who have decided that anyone opposed to gay marriage is a racist, hate-mongering wingnut who enjoys nothing more than forcing his religion on someone else. It's untrue. Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKThe only way I can see gay marriage threatening straight marriage is that it provides an alternative for millions of married spouses who now have about a five-percent greater pool of choices, many dozens of whom are likely to be better than their current pick. (Apologies to Woody Allen.) Truthfully, I'm uncomfortable with the question being brought up now, when "uproot the Shrub" is my main focus. Which probably means it's EXACTLY the right time, given that the right thing to do is often that which you least WANT to do. Posted by: Chris Leithiser at February 17, 2004 11:25 AM | PERMALINKTim- you were out of line to cuss Charlie like that. If you want people to be nice, lead by example. Charlie- I admire your fortitude. But, Jeez. Left-handed people are deviant. Aren't they? You did, in fact, compare homosexual behavior to murder. What is the similarity? And why do you care how consenting adults show their affection for each other in private? As many others have noted, homosexuality is a constant in nature through all species and all times as far as any of us know. To use your terminology, God created them. You say God created murderers too? I think that (the problem of suffering & injustice) is a weakness in your ideology, not evidence that society should consider homosexual behavior criminal. You want everyone to be "normal" like you... admit it. Posted by: obscure at February 17, 2004 11:28 AM | PERMALINK"Its relevant to the question of whether being homosexual is a trait like race, sex, and other inherent traits." I'm not interested in defending gay rights based on this criterion. I believe that gay rights should be protected by law, but I'm not claiming that they are explicitly protected by existing laws. "... While certain such choices are explicitly protected (such as religions), as a whole, these are the least suspect distinctions government can make ..." I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I am not comparing gay
rights to religious freedom. I'm saying that arguments against gay
rights that are based on religious belief, appeals to tradition, or
Darwinian claims about the "inferiority" of homosexual behavior are
stupid :-) Publius (nice name BTW - Hamilton and Madison, right?): ". . . Problem is, if you're morality is informed by religious principles you believe to be true, as opposed to philosophical principles or agnostic principles or no coherent set of principles at all, then you don't have a place at the table." That simply is not true - or if it was back in 1776, then the vast majority of the Founding Fathers would have been excluded too. While religion can play an important part, I do agree there has to be secualr rationale as well - is that enough of an "acceptable compromise" as the real American Publius would say? obscure: "I admire your fortitude." Well, thank you. "But, Jeez. Left-handed people are deviant. Aren't they?" Yes - but even I could not come up with a rational basis for the State to discriminate against left-handed people. I am putting together said rational basis (leaving the spiritual aspect completely aside) in my response to the posts since last night - stay tuned : ) "You did, in fact, compare homosexual behavior to murder. What is the similarity?" They are both conscious CHOICE - so similar, in fact, both were once punished the same. "And why do you care how consenting adults show their affection for each other in private?" I actually don't (we "progressed" that far). It's when they want society's stamp of approval that I think society should take a closer look. "As many others have noted, homosexuality is a constant in nature through all species and all times as far as any of us know. To use your terminology, God created them. You say God created murderers too?" Sure - God creates ALL human like in His image. Just because we all choose to fall doesn't mean those choices are good for us or society. I really don't know what is faulty with that ideology. "You want everyone to be 'normal' like you... admit it." That would get pretty boring, very quickly - but leaving God aside for the moment (which has gotten us in this mess, I realize), there are plenty of SECULAR reasons why "gay marriage" should be carefully examined before society grants such a right. Like I said, stay tuned. Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINKI only read about 1/2 the thread so I don't know if someone else has mentioned it. I think the Democratic party should think seriously about a campaign commercial featuring the two ladies who were the first to be married. They are 83 and 79 and have been together for 51 years. They look like everybodies idea of a grandmother. Posted by: ____league at February 17, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKCertainly not MY idea (and I suspect) not the idea of at least half the electorate out there in all those "BLUE" States ; ) Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINKLegal marriage doesn't define marriage and didn't create it. Neither does religious marriage. Legal marriage RECOGNIZES a relationship that already exists between two people. If that same relationship exists between two people of the same sex, it is discriminatory for the government to refuse to recognize it and accord those two the same rights they give others. Publius, you say, "We never muzzle it, but decide whether it's compelling or not based on our internal criteria, whatever they may be." This is wrongheaded. Just because we don't have the same religious
beliefs doesn't mean we must consider moral decisions to be arbitrary.
Of course, you can form your own beliefs in whatever way you want -
that's your right. But, when we come together to make moral judgements
as a society, your particular religious beliefs carry no weight (beyond
the opinion of one person). What does carry weight are the common moral
virtues that we all share as human beings. These have become clearer
to us over the last few centuries and have been recorded in secular
documents that we all agree on - documents like the UN Charter and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These common moral values must
be the basis for our joint moral decisions. "As for polygamy and group marriages, the answer is simple: those will become legal if there's ever enough collective pressure to make them so." But there hasn't really been "collective pressure" for gay marriage either. Indeed, proponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts used irregular, if not illegal, means to prevent a referendum on marriage, because they knew they would lose. And while the people cannot be led against their will by "slippery slope" arguments, judges can, and there's nothing in the judicial finding of a gay right to marriage that wouldn't equally apply to the "polyamorous" once they start petitioning. Unless there's a better argument against it which I have not yet heard, I am pretty sure I would vote for gay marriage if it were allowed to come up for a vote. Gay marriage is not the death of marriage, as some conservatives think, but polygamous marriage is: When an unlimited number of people can marry each other, how can the
rights and privileges of marriage be extended to them? Who would pay for
health insurance for one employee with a 10-spouse family? If the
employer can't "discriminate" against such a family, you can bet they'll
drop coverage for monagamous spouses too. And what happens to the rule
that spouses can't be forced to testify against each other once a whole
mob family gets "married?" And what happens when some spouses want to
force one out in a divorce, and others don't? And what happens to the
general presumption that ex-spouses of a parent deserve visitation
rights? And what happens to the notion that your spouse is the primary
person to approve medical treatments while you're unconscious, when the
spouses have to meet and collectively decide on a course of action? "I think the Democratic party should think seriously about a campaign commercial featuring the two ladies who were the first to be married." Would that be the Party of Bill Clinton, who championed and signed the Defense of Marriage Act? Posted by: David Pittelli at February 17, 2004 12:30 PM | PERMALINKI suspect that at least half of all gay marriages will be among emotionally troubled "activists" for whom marriage is just another act in the big psychodrama that is their lives. This does trouble me. In the end, I think we should still have gay marriage, becuase regular gay people who do want to get married should not have to suffer because of thier crazy peers. You base your public policy views on the unsupported prejudice that more gay than straight marriages will be between emotionally troubled people constructing their own "psychodrama", and you think this is something different than bigotry? Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKWatching this thread, the only remaining issue that stumps me is how do we rationalize having two person relationships while invalidating group marriage. The rest of the arguments are basically arguments between those who want to use government marriage to socially engineer their favorite result (liberal vs conservative). There is no constitutional argument, or legal rights argument that would, in the long run, invalidate gay marriage; so the liberals won this round. Now, to satisfy libertarians we want to make anything a potentially legal marriage so we can make government sponsored marriage a useless construct. This has more to do with two big government advocate groups fighting over the power to socially regulate than anything else.
Who would pay for health insurance for one employee with a 10-spouse family? Who cares? Insurance premiums -- including the portions paid by employees themselves -- often vary by number of covered dependents. Presumably, were polygamy legal, the number of covered spouses would affect the cost to the employee. If the employer can't "discriminate" against such a family, you can bet they'll drop coverage for monagamous spouses too. Employers can "discriminate" already by providing plans with different employee contributions for employees covering dependents -- including spouses -- than those paid by those with no dependents. And what happens to the rule that spouses can't be forced to testify against each other once a whole mob family gets "married?" This is, of course, a legitimate concern. Perhaps the only one you raise. And what happens when some spouses want to force one out in a divorce, and others don't? Like any other contested divorce, you settle it in court. And what happens to the general presumption that ex-spouses of a parent deserve visitation rights? Is there such a presumption? AFAIK, that's not an independent presumption, but a product of the presumption of paternity (which is rebuttable), and the fact that legal parents may be awarded visitation rights. And, anyhow, any legal presumption is merely a starting point from which a court looks at the relevant specific facts and makes a decision, so it's not a big deal, IMO, even if such a presumption exists. And what happens to the notion that your spouse is the primary person to approve medical treatments while you're unconscious, when the spouses have to meet and collectively decide on a course of action? Why assume they must meet collectively? Do parents -- who are not one person, but fill a similar primary role with regard to their childern -- need to jointly approve medical treatment? AFAIK, the usual rule is one parent must give consent; likely the same rule would apply to spouses. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 12:52 PM | PERMALINKDonna, travel. See more of humanity and you will see we are one. Don't swallow the bologna optimism that pervades America today -- seek Eternal Hope. It is there. Some of us have surprised ourselves and found it, so you can too. David Nieporent, majority rules, minority rights. It's kind of ironic that the myth of the nuclear family and its message of social inclusion, created by and for the consumption of heterosexuals, has become so ingrained in Americans' minds that now gays are seeking it -- they are the moral strength in this debate. Monkey, in a democracy, the common people are considered the primary source of political power. Discussion is inevitable and desireable, before voting occurs. Angelica,/b>, "civil unions" are separate but equal. That argument doesn't fly anymore, when government also sanctions "marriages". Joe Schmoe, I find your continued avowals of feeling troubled about homosexuality, well, troubling. You're not talking about the issue, your talking about your discomfort with gays. This is not therapy; it's a public forum. If indeed you consider that it might be a possibility that homosexuality is innate and not learned or chosen, then you might want to consider your choice of words in light of the civil rights movement of a few decades ago. We do not find people troubling anymore. We find their acts troubling. Anything less is bigotry. Substitute "black" or "multiracial" for "gay" in your posts and you may discover that they are offensive to the people we take such liberty to talk about. Like this: "Multiracial marriage makes me uncomfortable because I believe, as stated above, that a lot of blacks and whites are simply emotionally troubled people. I strongly suspect, though I cannot prove, that many of these troubled people will find the idea of multiracial marraige very attractive, and will see it as yet another opportunity to act out and subject the rest of us to a public display of their private issues." As we all know, many heterosexuals tumble into civil marriage as a form of therapy. This does not mean we should take away their right to do so. Also, many gay people have professed to yearn for civil marriage to consummate their love. We may give them the benefit of the doubt. Charlie, you need to put yourself in another's shoes...gay shoes would be appropriate. *----*----*----*----* I repeat, a religious view of marriage is not enough to justify the exclusion of gays from this government-supported institution. It's about the separation of Church and State. If you don't want religious ("sacred") marriage including gays, that's fine, really -- you and your altar of worship have such a right. Government would do better to define civil marriage as between two people, and if the name is really such a social bother, than all of us (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual and sexually-challenged etc.) can join with love into civil unions. But remember, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Also, liberals would be better to choose their battles carefully on this one. Targeted strikes should be our strategy; look at how much the social conservatives are working themselves up over this -- they will self-implode if they continue. Furthermore, President Bush has apparently chosen the most rigorous of the Constitutional amendments considered. As I mentioned before, the media will air all of the legal and civil rights implications of this. Americans will see Bush, and his socially conservative supporters, for the extremists and phonies they are. This doesn't mean liberals should be complacent, but do wait for the conservatives to air their tender and wobbly underbelly to strike.Donna, travel. See more of humanity and you will see we are one. Don't swallow the bologna optimism that pervades America today -- seek Eternal Hope. It is there. Some of us have surprised ourselves and found it, so you can too. David Nieporent, majority rules, minority rights. It's kind of ironic that the myth of the nuclear family and its message of social inclusion, created by and for the consumption of heterosexuals, has become so ingrained in Americans' minds that now gays are seeking it -- they are the moral strength in this debate. Monkey, in a democracy, the common people are considered the primary source of political power. Discussion is inevitable and desireable, before voting occurs. Angelica,/b>, "civil unions" are separate but equal. That argument doesn't fly anymore, when government also sanctions "marriages". Joe Schmoe, I find your continued avowals of feeling troubled about homosexuality, well, troubling. You're not talking about the issue, your talking about your discomfort with gays. This is not therapy; it's a public forum. If indeed you consider that it might be a possibility that homosexuality is innate and not learned or chosen, then you might want to consider your choice of words in light of the civil rights movement of a few decades ago. We do not find people troubling anymore. We find their acts troubling. Anything less is bigotry. Substitute "black" or "multiracial" for "gay" in your posts and you may discover that they are offensive to the people we take such liberty to talk about. Like this: "Multiracial marriage makes me uncomfortable because I believe, as stated above, that a lot of blacks and whites are simply emotionally troubled people. I strongly suspect, though I cannot prove, that many of these troubled people will find the idea of multiracial marraige very attractive, and will see it as yet another opportunity to act out and subject the rest of us to a public display of their private issues." As we all know, many heterosexuals tumble into civil marriage as a form of therapy. This does not mean we should take away their right to do so. Also, many gay people have professed to yearn for civil marriage to consummate their love. We may give them the benefit of the doubt. Charlie, you need to put yourself in another's shoes...gay shoes would be appropriate. *----*----*----*----* I repeat, a religious view of marriage is not enough to justify the exclusion of gays from this government-supported institution. It's about the separation of Church and State. If you don't want religious ("sacred") marriage including gays, that's fine, really -- you and your altar of worship have such a right. Government would do better to define civil marriage as between two people, and if the name is really such a social bother, than all of us (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transexual and sexually-challenged etc.) can join with love into civil unions. But remember, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Also, liberals would be better to choose their battles carefully on this one. Targeted strikes should be our strategy; look at how much the social conservatives are working themselves up over this -- they will self-implode if they continue. Furthermore, President Bush has apparently chosen the most rigorous of the Constitutional amendments considered. As I mentioned before, the media will air all of the legal and civil rights implications of this. Americans will see Bush, and his socially conservative supporters, for the extremists and phonies they are. This doesn't mean liberals should be complacent, but do wait for the conservatives to air their tender and wobbly underbelly to strike. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 17, 2004 12:55 PM | PERMALINKDavid- While I agree that there are some potential legal difficulties with polygynous marriages, I don't think they amount to a real threat to marriage as a legal institution, or a sufficient reason to continue a discriminatory policy. Firstly, how much of a problem will polygany be? Are there large groups of people who yearn to marry in bunches, but are thwarted by the law? How does bigamy rank on the list of most common felonies? You get the picture. There is a small culture of polygynists (renegade Mormons) in Utah and Arizona, but they already practice polgamy, in spite of the laws. As to the difficulties themselves, well, it seems to me that the same sorts of concerns arise for those denoted as 'next-of-kin' in the law. The law awards these people all sorts of special powers and rights due to their filial connection, but in general it does not specify a ranking or chain-of-command for cases (the most common cases) where more than one person qualifies. And yes, this abiguity can and does result in legal battles, battles that can be thorny to resolve, e.g. competing claims between heirs of an intestate estate. But that is not yet a reason to throw 'next-of-kin' out as a legal classification. Perhaps it's a reason for the law to provide some calculus for figuring out who has what rights in cases of competition, but that's all. Imagine if the law only allowed inheritance rights to eldest male sons (not really that much of a stretch) and people were petitioning to admit other progeny (daughters, younger sons)to the pool. Would it be a good defense to point out that this would result in more legal battles over wills and estates? Posted by: Epist at February 17, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINKD'oh. Sorry for that double fudge post. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 17, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINK"You did, in fact, compare homosexual behavior to murder. What is the similarity?" They are both conscious CHOICE - so similar, in fact, both were once punished the same. Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. You want to be real careful with that argument. So, if anything was ever punished with the death penalty, no matter how ignorantly, it can be deemed morally equivalent to murder? Uh-huh. Let's see: Adultery. Idolatry. Witchcraft. Shoplifting goods worth 5 shillings or more. Blacking the face or using a disguise while committing a crime. Being in the company of gypsies for one month. Strong evidence of malice in a child 7-14 years of age. Equivalent to murder? Really? And that doesn't even address your other apparently ineradicable presumption, that being gay is always a choice. Saying it fifty times doesn't make it so. It can be a choice, in some sense, for certain people, but the only way I can see that you could feel so positive, beyond all refutation, that it IS a choice, is if it really is a choice for you -- in other words, you are bisexual. Posted by: Canadian Reader at February 17, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINKDr Morpheus said: "That there is no definitive adaptive advantage to homosexual behavior, and one can readily see that if homosexuality were a dominant trait the human race would have died out" Just to play Devil's Advocate here you should probably rethink this. It is not at all clear that homosexuality is not a dominant trait. We would need to know its basis in ordeer to know its dominance or not. (If my biology lessons are still usable) The reality is that queers have kids. They always have and I suspect always will. It is simply not possible to make blanket statements such as this. It is very common to say such things: marriage is for procreation, gays don't procreate, etc. All of which is wrong. Gays procreate on a daily basis. Posted by: filchyboy at February 17, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINK"What the City of San Francisco is doing is a publicity stunt. They are peacefully challenging the law in an effort to change public opinion, something that's a rich tradition in American politics from both liberals and conservatives. When a court rules against them, as it almost certainly will, they'll stop. So what's the problem?" The problem is that an arm of government is willfully breaking the laws it is supposed to enforce. I don't think you'd have much trouble seeing that if the law it issue were some other legal matter that is also decided arbitrarily as whatever we as a society decide it is. Take, for example, the minimum driving age which, under most circumstances, is 16. No one believes we got that number because God pronounced from on high "thou shalt not drive a motor vehicle until thou hast roamed the planet for at least 16 years." We all know it's an arbitrary number. Suppose that the overwhelming majority of residents of El Cajon believe that 14 is a better age, since that's when most kids begin high school. Then, without any public debate, the DMV office in El Cajon starts handing out licenses to any 14 year old who meets all the other criteria. Just a little harmless fun, right? Or try the drinking age, which is 21 in California. Now suppose that an overwhelming majority of the residents of Santee felt very strongly that the drinking age really ought to be 16, as it is in much of Europe. Rather than lobby Sacramento to change the law and forego federal funding, they simply give their local bars the green light to sell liquor to anyone who appears to be 16 or older. And hey, when a court rules against them, as it (almost certainly) will, they'll (almost certainly) stop. So what's the problem? Posted by: Xrlq at February 17, 2004 12:57 PM | PERMALINK"when we come together to make moral judgements as a society, your particular religious beliefs carry no weight (beyond the opinion of one person). What does carry weight are the common moral virtues that we all share as human beings. These have become clearer to us over the last few centuries and have been recorded in secular documents that we all agree on - documents like the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These common moral values must be the basis for our joint moral decisions." Very interesting. Why does my particular religious belief carry no weight? Why is it excluded? Because it's religious? What if it determines what I consider to be a moral value or virtue? And who decides what are common moral values or common moral virtues? Where does your sense of value or virtue come from? Does a plurality or a majority of decisionmakers/voters determine what is included or excluded as a value or virtue? In other words, when does it become common? Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINKPolygamy raises an interesting issue. For whatever reason, society is in the marriage business, and has firmly made it required to be between two consenting individuals. Now, the controversy is whether these two consenting individuals ought to be only man and woman. Though this kind of thinking can gather a lot of support from the tradition that enforces two-person marriage, it also loses some of it (like the value of raising kids in a stable home), and further takes on elements of unequal protection under the law, which trumps the moral tradition in most cases. What am I getting at? The crucial issue is one of choice. Do you choose to be gay, or are you? The consensus that is emerging is that you are born, or become, that way, irrespective of choice (not that there are not people who choose homosexuality and bisexuality, they exist as well). If you are gay, and it is not a choice, and the (secular) government chooses to support marriage as an institution, how can the it do so without violating the rights of equal protection of gay individuals? They still fall in love, still harbor ambitions of having and raising children, and so on. If being gay were a choice, this would be an open and shut case, at least as far as government sponsorship of marriage can be an open and shut case (there's a lot of questions about this practice), and we wouldn't be having this debate couched in classic civil rights traditions. But to be gay is not a choice, and the government promotes marriage, and gives benefits therein, for 2-person marriages. To discriminate against an individual for accident of birth, and by a legislated ocnvention and not some particular talent or good fortune (like being 7 foot tall rather than 5 feet tall and wanting to play basketball), is clearly wrong. The clear principle here is that the government is creating, in the absence of equal protection before the law, a racket, a marriage racket, and the prevention of government rackets are a big reason for the reasoning behind equal protection before the law in the first place (though obviously not exclusively). An amendment to ban gay marriage would amount to a government racket and undeniable discrimination against American citizens in preference to other American citizens. It should not stand. Posted by: jimm at February 17, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINKTo follow up a little. Here's Article 16 from Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 16. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. This was written in 1948. Does this still reflect a common moral value? Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 01:06 PM | PERMALINKPublius- While I didn't write the original post, I think I might be able to help you out with the theory here. This sounds like Rawls' view that public debate about things like justice needs to be limited to things that everyone at the table can accept. But religious beliefs, being very different from one religion to the other, are not going to be those sorts of things. Consequently, you shouldn't appeal to particular religious beliefs in a debate in the public forum. Rather, you should appeal to moral claims and principles that all 'reasonable people' would agree with. Now, as you point out, people with religious beliefs will likely have those beleifs play a determining role in their moral beliefs. Ralws' grants this, and grants that people will attempt to advance moral principles in the public forum because those principles are aligned with their religious beliefs. This is fine, so long as they argue for those principles from premises that are shared by all, and thus not from religious premises. So, for example, you might be moved by your reading for the Bible and your beliefs in the Christian god to argue that homosexuality ought to be banned. That's fine, so long as you argue for this policy using claims that everyone in the public square can agree with. If you argue that homosexuality is bad because it is physically harmful, and physical harm is wrong, that would be acceptable. People will likely agree that harm is bad, etc. But you can't argue for it by pointing to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and saying "God says so", since not everyone at the table will share this view. Posted by: epist at February 17, 2004 01:13 PM | PERMALINKAs for polygamy, the issue takes on a completely different bearing, as polygamy is clearly a choice, by at least one of the parties, and where there is not a choice by one of the parties would amount to coercion, and thus not meet the standards of consent. I'll just focus, as prior, on consenting adults. If I choose to be married, I may do so through the church and forego the state altogether. To gain benefits from an egalitarian racket set up by the government as an incentive for individuals to marry, we may get married in the eyes of law as well. If the "we" is me and my girl, noone looks on disapprovingly, except perhaps a jilted suitor from the past. If this "we" is me and another man, and the state outlaws this, I am the victim of a state-sponsored preferential racket. In a sense, whether I'm gay or not, or just want to marry another guy as an absurdist stunt, shouldn't really matter, but, through the frame of "choice", some will make it so as a moral issue. Taking that for granted, if I chose to marry a man and was not gay, my case would be much less potent than the case of a truly gay man or woman who would not be able to marry the love of their life, and, paradoxically and ironically, would be forced to perform an absurdist experiment of their own to get married (by marrying a single person they don't love romantically). The idea here is that the discrimination is not one of club membership, or lifestyle choice, but just the way someone is, and this being discriminated by the foundation club that allows no distinctions - American citizenship. No, you don't have to marry, but those who do get state-sponsored benefits, and this means it's a racket. All Americans should have equal access to government rackets, taking for granted that we are going to have them. Posted by: jimm at February 17, 2004 01:16 PM | PERMALINKWhy does my particular religious belief carry no weight? Why is it excluded? Because it's religious? What if it determines what I consider to be a moral value or virtue? I'll repeat this for Mark because you obviously skipped by it in your rush to indignation: "when we come together to make moral judgements as a society, your particular religious beliefs carry no weight (beyond the opinion of one person). What is it with conservatives and their victim complex? If you can't dominate then you're obviously being persecuted? Ignored? I swear it's like dealing with pre-adolescents. Posted by: Thumb at February 17, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: Employers can "discriminate" already by providing plans with different employee contributions for employees covering dependents -- including spouses -- than those paid by those with no dependents. Yes, but most large employers (and certainly gov't employers) treat all family plans the same. This will end. I wrote "And what happens when some spouses want to force one out in a divorce, and others don't?" But don't you think this will prove more intractable than the current situation? Basically, if one spouse wants a divorce now, he or she gets it regardless of opposition from the other spouse. The courts decide custody and monetary issues, with no real input into whether there will be a divorce. In polygamous marriage, many divorces (and marriage additions) will be contentious, and judges will even be deciding who gets to stay married. (Where does a person live if he is divorced from some but not all of his spouses? Or contrarily, what does a person do if his spouses can force him to divorce from the mother of his children?) Why assume they must meet collectively [to decide health care issues]? Do parents -- who are not one person, but fill a similar primary role with regard to their childern -- need to jointly approve medical treatment? AFAIK, the usual rule is one parent must give consent; likely the same rule would apply to spouses. If only one parent is present, then one makes the decision. If the
two parents are fighting and can't come to agreement, I'm pretty sure
there is no general rule that "the more health care the better." More
people, more problems, and much more risk of nonagreement. cmdicely - It's still anarchy. The mayor is not following the law. There is a well-defined process to determine constitutionality of laws. It is NOT up to a mayor to interpret the Constitution of California. It's up to the court. And until the court rules on the (un)-Constitutionality of a particular statute, the Mayor is obliged to enforce that statute as the executive. It's anarchy when people willy-nilly get to interpret the Constitution any way they want. Posted by: Out4Blood at February 17, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINKWhat I know is this. Right now, my family and I do not have the same rights or protections as other families. How long should we be willing to wait? Posted by: Terrance at February 17, 2004 01:34 PM | PERMALINKYes, but most large employers (and certainly gov't employers) treat all family plans the same. This will end. This is false. I've worked for large private and government employers, and none of them have treated "all family plans" the same. Admittedly, there will be likely more variation in the types and costs of plans available, because there will be more possibilities to cover. This isn't a big deal, nor does it offer the probability of substantively new kinds of discrimination. But don't you think this will prove more intractable than the current situation? No, not really. In polygamous marriage, many divorces (and marriage additions) will be contentious, and judges will even be deciding who gets to stay married. The parenthetical is going to be false so long as marriage requires consent. I suspect a simple guiding rule will be adopted for divorce procedings where there is disagreement. One simple rule is that the marriage is dissolved entirely, and any groups which want to (by unanimous mutual consent) remain married may do so. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 01:36 PM | PERMALINKClarifying a touch, all Americans have equal membership rights before the law as a condition of citizenship and the legitimacy of the state itself. None can be discriminated against. And, if we take for granted that we will have government rackets, inevitably, than access to these ought to be offered to all equally, and the choice left up to them to join in or not. Ironically, the most logical and legal argument against same-sex marriage would be to assert that gay individuals can still freely play the racket - they just have to do so absurdly and against their happiness by marrying someone of the opposite sex even though they romantically love members of the same sex. But then, what's the purpose of sponsoring marriage then? It's not needed to get people to fall in love - that just happens. It certainly isn't need to get people to have sex - that happens. But if it's about raising children in a stable home and encouraging monogamous sexual relationships, than there's no clearcut reason to ban same-sex marriages. In all honesty, we don't need to government to enforce morality where
it tends to naturally occur. Loving, monagamous relationships happen
irrespective of government, and the most compelling argument of all is to end the government marriage racket and thus the controversy. Thumb: Sorry, but you're mistaken on the rush to indignation thing. I'm not indignant at all. You are also mistaken about me being "conservative," having a "victim complex" or feeling like I'm being persecuted or ignored. I'm not conservative, I don't feel victimized or persecuted. Lots of people ignore me. The question was why my particular religious belief carries no weight when making moral judgments as a society when everyone makes moral judgments for all kinds of reasons. Why is religion excluded as a basis for making a moral judgment? Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKIt's still anarchy. The mayor is not following the law. Its not at all anarchy, even if the Mayor's action may be illegal. There is a well-defined process to determine constitutionality of laws. Yes, there is. People act in accordance with their interpretation of the law, and one of the disagreeing parties takes the other to court to force compliance with their interpretation. This has not been departed from. It is NOT up to a mayor to interpret the Constitution of California. Arguably, since only administrative agencies and not political subdivisions of the state are prohibited from doing so, and since the mayor has a sworn duty to the Constitution, it is, in fact, up to him to do so, right up until a court with jurisdiction tells him he is wrong. It's up to the court. This is true. And until the court rules on the (un)-Constitutionality of a particular statute, the Mayor is obliged to enforce that statute as the executive. Actually, no, this is incorrect. Generally in the US, the executive may disregard a statute or portion of a statute that is believed unconstitutional until compelled to obey it (and its not that uncommon at most levels of government in the US), although California state law prohibits state administrative agencies from doing so. Of course, the Mayor is not an officer of a state agency but of the City and County of San Francisco, whose power vis a vis the state is set by the State Constitution and not by any statute inconsistent with it. It's anarchy when people willy-nilly get to interpret the Constitution any way they want. You obviously have very little grasp on anarchy. Posted by: cmdicely at February 17, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKTerrance: "How long should we be willing to wait?" I would not ask you to wait. I would ask you to fight politically to get what you want, by passing statutes or constitutional amendments in favor of gay marriage. What I oppose is gay marriage proponents thinking that their cause is
more important than separation of powers and the constitution, that the
ends justify the means (i.e., judicial fiat). I also think that such
means are more apt to lead to backlash. It's precisely the fear (and
result) of expansive judicial interpretation that led Clinton to back
the Defense of Marriage Act, and which might lead to a federal
constitutional amendment, which is so poorly drafted no one knows what
it will ban. It's anarchy when people willy-nilly get to interpret the Constitution any way they want. This is silly. First, the Constitution has nothing to say on the subject of gay marriage or marriage. This is a racket that was dreamed up later and unfortunately not accompanied by a court ruling of its unconstitutionality. The Constitution clearly states that the powers not enumerated therein are left to the states and to the people. The California state constitution, on the other hand, is another matter. By passing laws banning same-sex marriages, state legislators, including citizens in the case of initiatives, violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. and likely the California constitution. It's a state-sponsored racket that discriminates against individuals for the way they are, irrespective of personal choice in the matter. Unless you want to argue that gay people are perfectly able to still get married to a straight person (or to a gay person of the opposite sex in a four-way deal), which is a valid argument but hardly sound, then the soundest course is to get out of the marriage racket altogether. If government gets out of the marriage business, than who's left to outlaw polygamy? An interesting question, and the best reason of all to support same-sex marriages, since the government racket continues, polygamy may be prevented, and the benefits of nuclear families and monogyamous sexual relationships will continue to be encouraged and reinforced. In my mind, don't ban gay marriage, establish the legal concept of civil unions (as being between two consenting individuals), and be done with this matter. This issue has a lot of twists and turns! Posted by: jimm at February 17, 2004 01:50 PM | PERMALINK
My wife and I were talking about the gay marriage flap this weekend and we came to a couple of points we couldn't figure out for ourselves. 1. An awful lot of the bother seems to be over the word "marriage". Honestly, the phrase "gay marriage" makes us feel a little yucky in the way "civil unions" does not. We started to wonder why gays would risk a potentially calamitous backlash (with codification of anti-gay discrimination and possible violence) all over the use of the word "marriage" instead of "civil union" or another, less sterile, euphemism. Because there is a huge body of laws, local, state, national, and rules (hospital rules, etc) which are based upon the word "marriage" (and its relatives like "married" and "spouse"). These can't be changed to "marriage or civil union", but would have to be changed one by one.
And this is Part 2 of the answer to your first question. "Marriage" must encompass the civilly-recognized joining of two individuals into a family unit, be they two men, two women, or a woman and a man. Defining two "separate but equal at some time in the future when we get around to fixing the millions of pages of laws" terms can not work. You are quite correct, though. The spin is that this is about the use of the word and the concept. The reality is that the word and concept are not nearly so highly-guarded as the necessary consequence, which is that all the priviledges of heterosexual marriage would suddenly be opened up to those "deviants" who are "willfully defying God's Laws". "Spouse", in the US Civil Code, is shorthand for "the person who is generally the closest to you". Your spouse gets default say in medical concerns. Your spouse gets special consideration in posthumous handling of your estate. Your spouse has significantly more authority in all legal procedings than your other relatives. Yes, exceptions can be made to this, but it is very rare for a non-spousal individual to be given greater consideration in any dispute than, for instance, an individual's estranged parents and siblings. Personally, my religious beliefs have a built-in separation of civil marriage and Eternal marriage, so perhaps I just will never "get" the gut-level response of many anti-gay-marriage people. It seems obvious, though, that the civil priveledges and accoutrements of a civil marriage really have little to no relationship to the finer spiritual and Eternal nature of "Marriage". Joe Schmoe: Hospitals do not routinely turn away people who wish to visit dying patients. No healthcare provider would be so heartless as to deny a gay person the right to visit his or her dying lover. I'm sure it's happened once or twice, but 99.999% of the time this is a non-issue. 1) Visiting hours are tied to familial relationships. Generally only parents and spouses may stay after a certain hour. As a husband of a nurse, I can assure you that this does not generally include "partners"; if you aren't actually married, you aren't allowed to stay the night. 2) Medical proxy laws are very explicit. The default medical proxy is a spouse. The secondary medical proxy is a direct blood relative (parent/child). Domestic partners aren't recognized by any medical proxy law that I know of. Medical proxy is where you can decide the best course of treatment for your incapacitated spouse. 3) Any allowance given to a domestic partner is immediately and completely superceded by that of a blood relative. That is, even during "normal" visiting hours, the domestic partner can be turned away if a blood relative so orders.
Sure would keep the 1040 forms a lot simpler that way! Really, though, the larger problem comes not with plural marriages, but with entertwining, plural marriages. If Mr X is married to Ms A, and Ms B, and Mr Y is married to Ms B and Ms C, and Mr Z is married to Ms A and Ms C: Are Mr X and Mr Y married to each other for civil purposes? Who gets the tax deduction for Ms B? Not an unsolvable problem, but it exponentially increases the complexity of the rules required. As a programmer, that's my argument for not allowing plural marriages :) As a member of a church which has before advocated plural marriages, I have no theological argument against it, just the practical one.
I am 100% in favor of the state marrying people of the same gender. Why is that so hard for religious people to understand? I agree 100% (although I reserve judgement on my church marrying people of the same gender ... I trust the judgement of my church leadership in that respect).
Regarding child support, not procreation, I believe you are a bit off base here. I believe that two gay men can provide a much more loving and supportive home than one heterosexual man, both from the practical aspects (division/specialization of labor) and the educational aspects (two points of view for the child to learn from instead of one). I also believe that two gay men who have made a public and civilly-binding (as much as any marriage, at least) committment to each other and their adoptive children will provide a significantly stronger "provision of support" to their children than two gay men who have been legally barred from such a public and binding union. There is no shortage of children looking for adoptive parents. As a society, we're not lacking for "breeders". We are, however, lacking for nurturers and for those willing and able to give some of themselves to the benefit of the next generation. Granted, in other times the problem has been just the opposite. When
half of your children could expect to die before maturity, there is a
significantly larger impetus to procreate over simply being a parent to
someone else's children. I just heard that one of the Judges in the lawsuit filed against the San Francisco marriage license debacle has put off a ruling until FRIDAY?! Still working on my all-SECULAR reasons to prohibit "gay marriage" - hang in there everyone. As for Jet Tredmont: "Because there is a huge body of laws, local, state, national, and rules (hospital rules, etc) which are based upon the word "marriage" (and its relatives like "married" and "spouse"). These can't be changed to "marriage or civil union", but would have to be changed one by one." Wouldn't the most DEMOCRATIC method be to actually have the debate and change that through the legislature rather than judiciary?
I'm not too sure about that. Not for any NEWBORNS here in America. Putting that aside, why make it TOUGHER for said grown children - more study is needed into the consequences of raising children by same sex "parents". Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 02:23 PM | PERMALINKSorry, but you're mistaken on the rush to indignation thing. I'm not indignant at all. You are also mistaken about me being "conservative," having a "victim complex" or feeling like I'm being persecuted or ignored. I'm not conservative, I don't feel victimized or persecuted. Lots of people ignore me. The question was why my particular religious belief carries no weight when making moral judgments as a society when everyone makes moral judgments for all kinds of reasons. Why is religion excluded as a basis for making a moral judgment? Well okay then, my bad. You're just a garden variety idiot with a lot of straw busily stuffing an empty suit. Better? Let me break this down one more time. When Mark said, ". . . your particular religious beliefs carry no weight (beyond the opinion of one person)" he's saying that your opinion doesn't have magical super powers just because you formed them through your personal Deity (or any connection to said Deity). It also doesn't mean, contrary to your protestations, that you are excluded or that religion is excluded, it simply means that religion doesn't bestow upon someone special bonus points beyond the opinion of one person. Posted by: Thumb at February 17, 2004 02:39 PM | PERMALINK"To those cursing me out: "May I suggest it is YOU showing a "hate-filled" attitude on this thread, not I?" Charlie, you compare the true love that is the center of my life to murder and pedophilia--and you then have the nerve to complain about the alleged lack of civility with which those sentiments are received? Charlie, whatever may be true of being gay, being an asshole is
certainly a choice, not inherent. Nevertheless, I would not outlaw your
right to breed. That's all the civility to which you are entitled,
under the circumstances. I have bad news for some of those who are fence sitters or are on the right side but still feel uncomfortable about gays. You may not feel like it, you may have fine rationalizations about how you really aren't discriminating in an unfair and unconstitutional way, but I believe history will judge that you are. I'm sure there were lots of people who felt the same way about miscegenation and were quite sincere. History has judged them wrong and out of step with the times. History will judge you this way as well. Gay marriage is inevitable. It's already the law in Canada, and I don't see their cities going up in flames and their society turning into Lord of the Flies or Joe Millionaire or anything as awful as that. In the unlikely event a constitutional ban is passed, within a generation or two it would be repealed just like Prohibition. We are evolving and becoming more tolerant and better informed of issues and the world than ever before. Of course there will be changes. Racism was acceptable to millions of people just decades ago. Sodomy was illegal in many places until a year ago. Wives are no longer property as they were for much of the last century. And gays are gaining acceptance toward equal rights very quickly. History will judge this as just another stage in that line of granting greater freedom and tolerance, just as racism and sexism is being done away with little by little. What the right wing is really scared of is that gay marriage will become law and everyone will quickly find out it didn't mean a damn thing in their lives. Six months after gay marriage is legal there will be gay divorce, and Court TV and such shows will have greatly improved ratings for a time. But by and large it wont effect anyone except the gay community themselves. It will be such a non-event in the end that the right wing will show themselves to be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Posted by: Eclectic at February 17, 2004 02:58 PM | PERMALINKCharlie- I think you are a good person. Isn't it wonderful to disagree? God Bless America! Now let's focus in on the issues for a moment: We are in complete agreement about "taking a closer look." Excellent advice. You agreed with me that left-handed people are deviant, and that there is no apparent reason to discriminate against them. Is left-handedness a choice? OK, now watch closely: what is your evidence that homosexuality is a choice? (Aside: I agree with the person who posited a continuum from homosexual through bi-sexual to heterosexual... implication is, for some it may be a choice, for others not.) I have you positing choice. You are making an assumption about something you have freely admitted knowing little or nothing about, and clinging to it. Second, why does it matter if it is a choice or not? Isn't the question whether the behavior is harmful to others? Where is the harm to others? Homosexuality--as far as any of us knows--has always been a fact of human existence. Are you arguing that civilization cannot withstand the continuing influence of this segment of the population? Doesn't history put a damper on that line of thought? Charlie, I support civil unions, not marriage, for gays because I think there is a fundamental difference with a same-sex union. They can't procreate. That makes them different. So call it something else... call it civil union. But where is the harm to others? You say you don't mind if adults engage in this behavior privately. So if the behavior doesn't offend you, why do you want to discriminate against these people? Posted by: obscure at February 17, 2004 02:58 PM | PERMALINKYou guys are actually starting to convince me on this. Gay marriage is probably a good thing, not just something that should be tolerated. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 17, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKInteresting facts, notable gay people dept: Richard the Lionhearted, leader of the 3rd Crusade, one of the greatest warriors of all time. J. Edgar Hoover, one of the biggest jerks of all time. A LARGE percentage of the ancient Greeks, brilliant innovators, philosophers, statesmen and fathers of our blessed democracy. People are the flowers of this world. Posted by: obscure at February 17, 2004 03:10 PM | PERMALINKFascinating stuff, this last set of postings. The issue of polygamy will come up sooner than later since polygamy has been more widely accepted in the past than gay marraige. A couple of posters hit the nail regarding group marraiges. Much of
our law is based on two person marriages, and libertarians are chomping
at the bit to get the debate moved up to group marriages. I am waiting
to see if liberals are ready to modify the entitlement system to support
group marriage. You agreed with me that left-handed people are deviant, and that there is no apparent reason to discriminate against them. Is left-handedness a choice? I was mulling this earlier, in the sense of a trait or characteristic that is not a choice but that there are clear differences in treatment. Personally, I was thinking of someone who is "born violent", whatever that could mean, and is not given full rights as a result of that, due to their dangers to others. This isn't a great example, but it serves the point. One may talk of tendencies, but it's another thing to postulate such as the dominant tendency resulting in behavior, or a behavior. So, someone with a genetic tendency to violence, isn't necessarily doomed to commit a violent crime - there are other factors involved, and to whatever extent choice. In addition, though perhaps society could scat around the law by keeping a closer watch on such individuals in a "genetic-dominated" society (which we still are not inevitably going towards), such individuals would still deserve equal treatment before the law. Now, to lefthanders. There may be various propensities postulated for left-handers, but there is no definitive study that clearly shows this as the dominant influence on behavior, and there certainly is no justification for discriminating against the left-handed. So, passing a constitutional amendment to require everyone to masturbate with their right hand would be absurd on the face of it. The only difference with homosexuality here would be "functional" arguments, i.e. people aren't "made" to have sex with each other in the butt, or for any reason other than the encouragement and accomplishment of procreation. To put it simply, there is no persuasive case for harm to be made in the case of homosexuality or same-sex marriage. The harm is truly imaginary, but real to those who want to champion particular moral values and community standards. So, until the case can be made much more persuasively than currently that same-sex marriage will lead to disaster, which is far from obvious, than the community will just have to live with it. Otherwise, what's to stop them from taking the precedent against same-sex marriage on community standards and discriminating against those who are not Christian, or who speak English, or who practice wicca or paganism? This is clearly differentiated from the case against polygamy, in which a stronger case against polygamy may be made and potential harm shown, and largely for a reason opposite to the drive behind same-sex marriage. What is this drive? For same-sex marriage, individual freedom and empowerment. For polygamy, it's often a case of male empowerment over women, and over each other, in a feudalistic-type structure, where those with more wealth have more wives. One wonders if women would actually ever choose a polygamous marriage in the absence of gross distortions in power between them and men and/or coercion. To be honest, the concept of "open marriage" is a much more modern and egalitarian reality in terms of expanded marriage ideas and sexual partnering. The institution of polygamy only seems to fit in regressive (in terms of liberalist) social environments. Posted by: jimm at February 17, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKCharlie- one more thing. You make a mockery of your claim to being a reasonable person when you suggest that a homosexual is "free" to marry someone of the opposite sex. Really, that isn't reason, that's a closed mind. Posted by: obscure at February 17, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKI won't repeat most of the good points made, or the Fourteenth Amendment argument I discussed earlier today, but I will follow up with an argument having to do with the magnitude of the change and human abilities to estimate those quantities. In general, we tend to overestimate the magnitude of change on short time scales, and underestimate change on long time scales. Those who are saying today that gay marriage is a "seismic event" [link] are probably incorrect. Anybody old enough today to understand this issue will continue to think of gay marriage (and potentially, it's legalization) as an "issue." But our grandchildren won't think it's any more exceptional or worthy of comment than most of us consider interracial marriage. Would anybody posting here today even look twice at an interracial couple? Well, until 1967, it would have been illegal for that couple to marry in 16 different states, and not all of those states were in the south. Thirty years later, thanks to the Warren Court, the world hasn't collapsed, marriage is still a revered institution, and nobody bats an eyelash if they're introduced to an interracial couple. Societies and social institutions are far more flexible and adaptable than we typically give them credit for, IMHO. Marriage isn't going to go away as an institution, nor is anything "seismic" going to happen in this country like a sudden explosion of people "becoming" homosexual. Thirty years ago, when Roe v. Wade struck a compromise on legal abortion, many were worried about an "epidemic" of abortion sweeping the nation. No such epidemic occurred -- CDC data on the subject show an increase in total legal abortions from 1970 through 1980, but a decrease from 1990 onward. The initial increase is considered a bit suspect, as people who formerly had "illegal" abortions began doing it legally in clinics, etc. The net effect is that legalizing abortion did not result in the bad effects many had claimed. Just as legalizing same-sex marriage will have few readily available consequences, compared to the benefits we obtain FOR EVERYONE by consistently defending and extending our rights under the Constitution. Posted by: Mark Madsen at February 17, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINKWhoops... contradicted myself! But in the context of supporting civil unions I think I still have a point. Sorry, Charlie. Posted by: obscure at February 17, 2004 03:32 PM | PERMALINKSuppose that the overwhelming majority of residents of El Cajon believe that 14 is a better age, since that's when most kids begin high school. Then, without any public debate, the DMV office in El Cajon starts handing out licenses to any 14 year old who meets all the other criteria. Just a little harmless fun, right? Substantial likelihood of harm, because prior to a certain age, immature people behind the wheel of a car can get people killed. I see no parallel to gay marriage, which harms no one. Or try the drinking age, which is 21 in California. Now suppose
that an overwhelming majority of the residents of Santee felt very
strongly that the drinking age really ought to be 16, as it is in much
of Europe. Rather than lobby Sacramento to change the law and forego
federal funding, they simply give their local bars the green light to
sell liquor to anyone who appears to be 16 or older. And hey, when a
court rules against them, as it (almost certainly) will, they'll (almost
certainly) stop. So what's the problem? 16, no way - they aren't legal adults. 18, on the other hand, I think you could make a (weak) case for. But: "In the United States of America, on the other hand, the decision was taken in 1987 to raise the minimum purchase age to 21. While there is clear evidence of a reduction in road traffic fatalities amongst young people since the implementation of this legislation, research results have not shown conclusively that the new drinking age was solely responsible for this public health and safety benefit." (http://www.icap.org/international/drinking_age.html) I think the main thing here, though, is that most municipalities know
that if they were to unilaterally drop the drinking age, they'd have
more drunk dead teenagers on their hands and a lot of 'splainin to do.
Barring the odd lynching, it's very unlikely that anyone is going to die
as a result of gay marriage in San Francisco. I am waiting to see if liberals are ready to modify the entitlement system to support group marriage. This debate on banning same-sex marriage is very dangerous. For, once you open the Pandora's Box, any and all information at our disposal may be brought to the case. What if a better argument is made that 2-parent households are not the best for raising children? What if it is argued that polygamy also encourages a "closed sexual loop" in terms of disease? Our sense of marriage in America is clearly romantic, in that two people fall in love, have kids, and raise a family. That's what marriage means to 90%+ of America, and to many of these it's the ultimate accomplishment or sacrament. Ought this be denied to those who fall in love with people of the same sex? No. And hopefully we'll end the argument there. Otherwise, science could give a serious beating to tradition, and this debate could go where most never wanted it to go. As for polygamy, it's doubtful, as I mentioned earlier. In a free
society, it's about "open marriage", not polygamy, and the government
can't do anything about it short of spying on everyone's sexual
behavior. The slippery-slope to Polygamy argument: I would think that a civil society could allow monogamous gay marriages while restricting polygamous marriages and be internally consistent while doing so. Would it be possible to argue that polygamy causes too much confusion in the contractual/commercial aspects of matrimony? After all, one of the primary reasons for the state?s involvement in marriage is to codify and clarify lines of decision making, ownership and custody. As I see it, polygamy is based on a rather quaint, pre-modern, and sexist notion that women exist for the benefit, and are the property, of men. Polygamy, it seems, could hardly be successful in an environment where all members of a marriage compact are endowed with equal social, economic, and legal rights. Talk about chaos. But if, just if, some weird reading of current federal jurisprudence
would lead to the extension of the right of ?Polygamy?, I would have to
think that the relatively few who would take on such a burdensome
arrangement would not be a cause of much social cost. Therefore I
humbly and hopefully correctly suggest that polygamy is a non issue in
the topic of gay marriages. You know, laws against murder, stealing money from your shareholders, stealing elections, beating the piss out of your neighbor for expressing differing political opinions, and laws against racial discrimination are just human creations too -- just like marriage. That doesn't mean they should be thrown out in a rush because they inconvenience a minority of people, even if the people inconvenienced feel sorely discriminated against. The whole history of the 20th Century is one of a progressive rush to utopia, which usually ended with one or the other herd running off the cliff. Or being run off the cliff, more accurately. While emotional appeals are quite touching - "gay is the new Black" - it's more important, I think, to ask the question of why the laws were there in the first place, and what place are we progressing to, when we chuck out the old social structures. Destroying the system of racial oppression made sense. There was a profoundly moral backbone to the movement, as the Catholic priests, the Black Baptist preachers, and the Jewish activists could tell you. I'm not sure de-defining marriage makes as much sense. Social institutions like monogamous marriage evolved, they weren't created on a whim, and when we destroy or irreparably alter such institutions, we often set into motion destructive chains of events. Even the best of ideas - such as Title VII, prohibiting all sorts of discrimination - can have very bad unforeseen consequences. One of the sponsors of Title VII, Hubert Humphrey, promised famously that he would eat the bill if it resulted in racial quotas. Well... within four years of its passage, that's exactly what happened, and the recent U. of Michigan Supreme Court cases appear to have enshrined racial preferences as a Constitutional value, probably immemmorially. I'm not sure that revolutionizing marriage is quite as noble a notion as desegregation and racial equality was; hence I fear that the negative unforeseen consequences will be that much worse. Nobody on the pro-gay-marriage side has answered those questions satisfactorily, IMHO; although the emotive slogans have been flying rather fast and easy lately. Unfortunately, bumper sticker slogans are a poor substitute for well thought out law, and well evolved social institutions. Posted by: Al Maviva at February 17, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKA bug in the ointment raised today in the S.F. Chronicle is that the state will not accept the marriage certificates when they are sent to Sacramneto. State law says the certificate forms must be state approved. San Francisco altered their forms without state approval. So if the forms are returned without certification, I believe the marriages are null and void. Posted by: Meatss at February 17, 2004 03:51 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, this statement of yours made me laugh out loud, in a sardonic, not-at-all-merry sort of way: Not for any NEWBORNS here in America. Putting that aside, why make it TOUGHER for said grown children - more study is needed into the consequences of raising children by same sex "parents". Those two sentences are packed with so much ignorance that they've compressed into a super-dense form of idiocy, a black hole of doltishness. * There's a market for newborns, Charlie, just as there is for everything else. Healthy and white-skinned ? sure, they just fly off the shelves. Minority babies, babies with physical or mental impairments, babies born with drug dependencies ? they tend to stay in stock for a while. It's the invisible hand at work. * Allowing a gay couple to adopt would be tougher on the child than staying in foster care? What's your support for this assertion ?? you've seen Boy's Town a whole bunch of times? If you'd ever come anywhere near any foster system, you wouldn't be quite so blas? about the consequences of your righteous moral standards. (Not that you'd ever have to deal with those consequences yourself.) No foster kid I've ever known would've turned down a placement just because the grown-ups were gay. Not one. If you're not even going to try to pry open that clamshell that apparently serves as your brain, why do you even bother posting here? Posted by: dix at February 17, 2004 04:04 PM | PERMALINKYou know I don't mind Republicans like Charlie at all. I've been to a couple friend's wedding (unstatesanctioned), they had their own vows to each other, their families and all the cousins and kids came, everybody danced at the reception, I thought it was a beautiful wedding. Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 04:19 PM | PERMALINKAl M.- Just a thought. While poetic, I am thinking that the above quote lacks specifics. What herds, which cliffs, how does this exemplification of the law of gravity inform the current debate? Just another thought about: ??we often set into motion destructive chains of events.? Life is a messy business, there will be fits and starts and TONS of
unintended consequences. Yet I?d like to think that if we error, if we
are able to error on the side of the human heart, might it be possible
that those unintended consequences will be worth the price of admission? Regarding child support, not procreation, I believe you are a bit off base here. I think you missed the point. I'll try to make it simple through structure: 1) Society has determined it is appropriate to, unless and until other arrangements are made, hold biological parents responsible for the material support of their offspring. 2) An important public purpose of marriage is to provide incentives through public recognition and benefits for couples to enter into a union which provides a legal presumption of biological paternity (and, therefore, assigns responsibility for support without case-by-case legal wrangling) of any children produced. 3a) Marriages between two men will never utilize such a presumption. 3b) In marriages between two women, such a presumption will always be wrong. 4) Therefore, marriages between two members of the same sex are different in a way rationally related to a public purpose served by marriage. (Note that I'm not arguing the merits of the distinction, or even the
legality since I think its unlikely that the rational basis test is the
right one -- but the question posed regarded rational basis, and that
was the point of my response.) Keith misses the point with: "I would have to think that the relatively few who would take on such a burdensome arrangement would not be a cause of much social cost. Therefore I humbly and hopefully correctly suggest that polygamy is a non issue in the topic of gay marriages." First, to define terms, polygamy is the general definition for multiple spouses of various genders. You can have three or four different sexes in your polygamy marriage. Second, the whole point of polygamy is to take advantage of entitlement grants that were written when marriage was limited to two. Many of us absolutely intend to marry the uncle and auntie, or neices or nephew or grandmother or inlaws as necessary to extract the maximum amount of monthly check from the government and company. Sex or domination of females have nothing to do with it. When domestic partnerships became standard practice in California companies, we all "partnered" with whatever person maximized our take from the benefit plan, be it girlfriend, uncle, grandmother. Posted by: Matt Young at February 17, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINK As I see it, polygamy is based on a rather quaint, pre-modern, and sexist notion that women exist for the benefit, and are the property, of men. That might be remotely credible (although still wrong), if polygamy was exclusively polygyny and did not include polyandry. Polygamy, it seems, could hardly be successful in an environment where all members of a marriage compact are endowed with equal social, economic, and legal rights. This is an interesting conclusion in want of a supporting argument. Publius: "Why is religion excluded as a basis for making a moral judgment?" Answer: It is not. You are free to look at all those gays getting married and judge them to be immoral. The question is whether you should be allowed to stop them from getting married based on your religious judgement. If we are to make a moral judgement together as a society, we cannot use religious arguments because they are not accepted by all. Epist made this argument much better than I can. The hard part, as you point out, is deciding what are our shared values. The Declaration of Human Rights was an attempt at that, and the process continues. The crux of the issue is that you cannot deny something to another person unless allowing them that thing would harm others. And, I don't see how other people getting married affects you. When people tell me that gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage, I like to chime in with, "I know I'm going to get divorced if they start letting fags get married." I like to think that anyone can see how preposterous this is. Posted by: Mark Gilbert at February 17, 2004 04:29 PM | PERMALINKTsk, Tsk, Tsk. Will they never learn. One group decides that "now is the time" to have a local executive unilaterally interpret the constitution in a manner that, Viola! magically conforms to what the majority within that region believe is the "right" way to live. Result - advantage to the left for today (prior to injunction). Long term advantage: to the right - they will now co-opt this tactic and advocate gun rights, and/or whatever "constitutional" issue strikes an individual mayor's (or similar leader's) fancy. Wow - what a great way to mobilze your opposition. - a quick, figurative punch in the nose instead of a long-term erosion of their base. I'm sure that this issue will be as successful as the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Posted by: Californio at February 17, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINKIsn't this polygamy thing a rehash of the dreaded satntorum that is the inevitable result of... Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 04:34 PM | PERMALINKIt's worth remembering that it doesn't have to matter whether homosexuality is deviant or any of that when it comes to the status of gay couples' marriage in law. The law doesn't stop people from getting married to people likely to abuse them, or to people that just aren't right for them. The law doesn't stop people from spending more than they can really afford on wedding gifts. It doesn't require the bridesmaids and groomsmen to wear sensible good-looking outfits. It doesn't prohibit a sadist and a masochist from marrying each other, nor a coprophage and someone with irritable bowel syndrome. It doesn't prohibit hasty divorce, even when children's well-being will suffer. It doesn't stop people from having children they can't afford to raise, nor from being rotten parents. It doesn't make infidelity a crime, simply grounds for dissolution of the marriage. So even if it were the case that homosexuality is in every case a
completely voluntary behavior and provably unhealthy, that doesn't mean
that it would be the place of the law to prohibit gay marriage. Only if
homosexuality is not just really bad but worse than all of the
above behavior, some of which does subject innocent bystanders to
potential harm, would it warrant prohibition, and it would be a lot more
obviously consistent if people now fighting gay marriage were also to
fight more of the evils within and around straight marriage. "Result - advantage to the left for today (prior to injunction). Long term advantage: to the right - they will now co-opt this tactic and advocate gun rights, and/or whatever "constitutional" issue strikes an individual mayor's (or similar leader's) fancy." Don't be stupid, they've been doing that for a long time. Check Florida 2000. Or was that sarcasm? Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINKDavis P said: I am curious. How was the Supreme Judicial Court?s ruling an act of judicial fiat? As I understand what happened, the case was appealed to that court. Using precedent and a rather common and common sense reading of their state?s constitution, they came to an understanding that *their* constitution prohibited withholding state provided benefit from a group of benefits. It is not a high jacking of government; it is a part of government playing the role it was meant to play. If, as it seems there is a need for an extended political process to sort this issue out, so be it. Cry havoc, and loose the dogs!! As the complaint that, there was an underhanded (my paraphrasing)
maneuver to thwart the democratic process, not! It was a parliamentary
roll of the dice that worked. Its part of the process. The other side
will reorganize and try again. As will we. I hope to see you there,
metaphorically speaking. Matt young said: Sex or domination of females have nothing to do with it. When domestic partnerships became standard practice in California companies, we all "partnered" with whatever person maximized our take from the benefit plan, be it girlfriend, uncle, grandmother" you did? yuck!! And you think I represent disfunctionality? Pul-leeese. I tried to follow this entire thread, but alas, I am too weak. As I
see it, sexuality is a fluid thing- there's clearly heteros on one side
and homosexuals on the other, but there's always going to be a gray area
inbetween. If someone chooses to deny the idea of "gay marriage"
because of the possibility of 'crossover', then maybe they should also
deny the idea of marriage because of the high rate of infidelity. It
happens-- But do human failings really have that much impact on the
notion of civil unions? Morality and law butt heads often, and here's
just one instance. Re: Keith misses the point with: I probably did miss a point or two as (per matt and cmdicely) I was just raising points to inspire conversation. On a personal note I do get more than slightly annoyed when my
emotional orientation is judged by others in such a way that I get cut
out of certain choices, benefits, and/or protections. It is even more
annoying when such a conversation devolves (or if high jacked) into
topics well beyond my universe such as polygamy, pederasty, and fun with
animals. Timothy Klein: And they said "there's nothing counter-productive for society" (see more below : ) "When I married my wife, I became part of a family that has several homosexual members. Once you humanize the 'other,' it becomes much more difficult to justify treating them as anything less than full humans. Over time, I have come to realize that something that makes me uncomfortable is a) no big deal, and b) the discomfort was in large part due to my own ignorance." Perhaps another "large part" was common sense that the species would not survive if all we had were homosexual marriage - sure, that is the worse case scenario, but, I think we should at least have a discussion about all the possible consequences before we put this to a vote. BTW: I don't think the gay activists are going anywhere else, so the WORSE the Democrats have to fear from them on Election Day is them staying home. "After all, I am very, very uncomfortable with what a medical doctor does for a living. They chop people up, work with nasty germs, etc. But I respect and appreciate doctors. It is something analogous with homosexuals. It is not something I want to do personally, but so what? They are people like anybody else." Sure - they are people, but a closer analogy would be Drs. Josef Mengele or Sigmund Rascher - you wouldn't "respect and appreciate" those doctors, would you? " People choose to be Catholic, Buddhist, Wiccan, Republican, you name it -- I don't hold it against them. So even if homosexuality is 100% chosen (which I doubt), what does it matter? It doesn't." It does matter, if you don't equate freedom of religion and speech with freedom of deviant sexual behavior. "And we're then back to fear and discomfort. Which are also exactly the kind of traits that racists or other bigots have. So you have to call a spade a spade. Being uncomfortable with the practice of homosexuality is fine -- trying to disallow said practioners rights is not. Under any circumstances." "Any" circumstances - are you SURE about that - how about the "right to marry in a Catholic church"? The "right to kill those who are uncomfortable with the practice of homosexuality"? Maybe feed them to the lions again? I could keep going . . . Sugar Plum Fairy asked: "Are there any other reasons besides religious ones?" Yes - I've noted some on other threads, including not only the damage inflicted on the individuals involved, but also society as a whole. We restrict "marriage" in many different ways - no brother or sister are allowed to marry for many of the same reasons. You are not for abolishing the laws against (consensual) incest, are you??? They "love" each other, don't they? Plenty of research supports the fact that a stable family, with one mother and one father, is the OPTIMUM for raising children and productive citizens. Of course, that optimum does not always result in the best results, but why are we so willing to throw in an unproven variable by taking away one (or both) of those gender role-models? These studies go to not just the physical and mental consequences, but also the larger societal impacts as well. At this point, I think more research is needed on the consequences of doing away with traditional marriage roles. I was going to cut and past a variety of studies here that at least raise the question, but cmdicely probably recapped this the best: ". . . prominent among the public purposes of marriage was to create an incentive for couples to form a union that would provide a presumption of biological paternity with a probability of being correct to simplify provision of support, a purpose which homosexual marriage does not serve. While there particular heterosexual marriages may not meet this standard, medical technology makes it rather fluid as to which ones do not, and making the distinction takes resources that the state feels are unwarranted." What I'm saying is that public debate before we decide this would be the best course of action. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. VR: "Nice how you picked up on my typo and made a lame dig. Pointing this out makes you feel good, I'm sure. Glad to be of service." I was not making ANY dig - I have learned after a few weeks here to be very careful to be as clear as possible - I was simply clarifying. "Yes, the Founding Fathers were Christian. But, they understood the value of keeping church and state separate." So do I. "Thus, I disagree with your claim that America is a Christian nation." Let me get the definition of "State" and "nation" out - maybe we don't really disagree after all. JB and dsg: "There's a separate but related battle everyone should focus on; stopping Representative Marilyn "Mad Cow" Musgrave's Marriage Amendment, which would for the first time in the Constitution's history codify discrimination against one group. Whether you think Gavin should be marrying same gender partners or not, don't let them Muss with the constitution." Well, if the judiciary seems intent on changing the law without any input from the democracy, what other way would you propose the people express their will? crockmeister and byat: " If the two guys down the street are legally married, how does that affect the "sanctity" of your own marriage, Mr. or Mrs. Social-Conservative?" It's not just my marriage - every marriage down the road is
jeopardized - I think it was this thread I posed the 'worse case
scenario' what would happen if EVERY person was in a gay marriage. Give us a couple more wedge issues like this or "One Nation Under
God" and I doubt you will be very pleased with the results come Election
day ; ) "Marriage is good for the health of society. Married couples end up with higher incomes and fewer problems with crime. Children raised with more than one parent are healthier, better learners, and also less prone to crime and various vices. Married couples are more likely to commit themselves to stability in the form of home purchases, and are less likely to be vectors for difficult-to-treat diseases." Isn't that what I've been saying in all these threads?! "None of this seems to me dependent on the gender of the parents." Except, of course, that all of these benefits you just finished listing have occurred (in America at least) through families consisting of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. We simply don't know that taking that out of the equation will end in the same results, just like we don't know if you substitute a Great Dane for the "ONE MAN" above, if you get the same result. Shouldn't we at least know that before we throw the baby out with the bath water? "Marriage: it's good for everyone who wants it." Even a brother and sister? Matt Young: ". . . Libertarians celebrate it as an attack on big government everywhere." Too much of that, however, results in anarchy. Suffice it to say I did not see anything posted by David Nieporent with which I disagreed (yet ; ) Alex Merz: "Homophobia is, at base, an attempt to master one's own desires by controlling the actions of others." You're suggesting that some of us CANNOT instead have a valid concern about what opening these particular floodgates will do to future generations and society as a whole? annie: "San Francisco has not received 200k in license fees . . ." I've seen this a few times now - whether they collect lots of money from gays or not, you don't think it's going to cost San Francisco MORE THAN THAT to defend the lawsuits, and what about having to refund all of those fees once the Courts rule?! I've also seen "a minimum of 10%" gay people - where are you getting that figure? BTW: I already addressed the faulty logic about "If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one." Matthew Saroff: "It turns out that opposition to gay marriage increases markedly with age. (I think I saw the poll on Daily Kos) This implies that in the next 10 or so years, the poll numbers will flip." Even more reason to ratify the FMA now. Christian: "I get so tired of the ignorant assumption thrown around that the modern, Christian attitude on marriage is the one that has dominated all of human history and prehistory. It's just not true." I never said it was - it has worked in America for the past 228 years. We no longer recognize marriages for the "continuation of land holdings in the family" or "concubine relationship that was not binding in any legal way and was all about companionship", but I understand very well some out there want to take us back to the hetairai, etc. Jon: "Hey Charlie and all the other gay-bashers . . ." I obviously don?t consider myself a "gay-basher" - no one (on our side at least) is advocating violence toward ANY human being created in God's image - hate sin but love the sinner, you know? Much to the contrary, Christians should reach out to gay people whenever and wherever we can. If I had the time, I could describe for you many situations in which I've done exactly that. It's a commandment we've received from the Lord Jesus. "Please find us a place in the teachings of Jesus where Jesus condemned homosexuality." Well, since Jesus Christ is the same God that gave us Leviticus, and never rescinded that part -I would start there. All sex outside of marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) is a sin - and whether I have personally sinned like that or not, there are many other areas of my life where I have fallen short. Regardless, we should have compassion toward those who are in violation of God's ordinances. Jesus was more compassionate toward the woman caught in the very act of adultery than He was toward the hypocrites in the church. This is our model and our mandate. If you only want to look at New Testament Scripture, try Romans 1; 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10; 1 TIMOTHY 1:9-11; and JUDE 1:7. All that aside, though, my purpose here is to present the SECULAR reasons for opposing "gay marriage" so perhaps your questions would be better posed on a different thread? "Also - speaking of the founding fathers: Charlie, perhaps you could enlighten us about the manner Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, Madison, etc., were "Christians"? These folks were all Deists - and were viewed by the Bible-thumpers of the time as infidels." While Jefferson and Franklin were not Christians, Adams, Washington, Madison, and the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were. I still don?t see your point though. Laria: You see - I just KNEW there was something we could agree on ; ) "Religious values that deprive people of their civil rights have no place in this society." I have ZERO interest in depriving people of their civil rights - in fact, I don't even want to restrict them of any other right they already share with every other citizen - I simply think we should PAUSE and think about the possible consequences before we grant homosexuals SPECIAL RIGHTS. pennywit: "Roy Moore can be distinguished. No court order has prevented San Francisco from continuing to issue marriage certificates. Moore, on the other hand, defied a court order." That's one distinction, sure it is. "If Newsom is given a court order to halt and continues to issue marriage licenses, then she should be relieved from her job." We'll see about that (and whether anyone else here supporting gay marriage thinks so once that order is - hopefully - issued ; ) Larry Hanry: "Is homosexuality a chosen, unnatural lifestyle?" Yes. "Where does the individual with genitalia of both sexes lie?" Good question - current technology allows us to answer this - anyone with a "Y" chromosome, and through natural process of puberty, has a vagina = female. Next question. Publius: "What if you are not a religious lunatic? What if you went to college, got a post-graduate degree, voted for Clinton twice and believe government has a role to play to alleviate suffering and still have sincerely held religious beliefs that differ from those supporting gay marriage? Do you have a voice in society . . ." I guess not. ". . . or are you effectively silenced by the vitriol and hatred coming from the 'wingnuts' on the left?" Did you mean "on the right"? "Believe it or not, reasonable people can disagree." Amen! Katherine: "Anyone who uses the phrase "special rights" -- which originated as a response to anti-employment discrimination laws -- loses all my respect." O.K., would granting the right to a human being to marry his / her pet animal qualify as a "special right"? "Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in the U.S., recognizes gay marriage." Some "Christian" denominations are headed that way too. That's why I argue above based solely on the SECULAR reasons. It's much, much easier that way. Tony Shifflett: "Give me something I can bite into -- an argument with some meat in the burger." After you read all this, let me know when you're ready for the next course : ) Mike Cohen: "I'm gay and I think this is the wrong time for the issue. It should wait until after the election, when (hopefully) we have a Democrat in the white house. With Bush against it and supporting the FMA, he'll try to push through as much anti-gay policy as possible during the rest of his term." Well, it seems like it's going to be an issue whether we like it or not. "Charlie, I'm also an Atheist and don't care much for your religion (or any other for that matter)." That's definitely your right as an American citizen - freedom of religion you know - which is why I can make the above argument solely on SECULAR grounds. Coriolanus: "I'd be interested in knowing exactly how homosexual acts are 'harm people and are detrimental to society'. Can you explain exactly what you mean, Charlie?" I have on other threads - but it basically boils down to all the statistics about shorter life spans, more diseases, negative impact on mental health, etc. Is THAT were we want to consciously send the next generation. Angelica: "Give civil unions ten years. That ought to be enough time for mainstream America get over the heebie-jeebies. I bet as soon as the next generation take power this isn't even going to be an issue." I agree that incrementalism would have been much more successful - too bad your side had to have it ALL, RIGHT NOW! Lydia Nickerson: I'm sure you'll let me know if I couldn't do that : ) Edward: "Gay hatecrimes are the single biggest category of high school bullying -- this is the result of the religious right and their hateful ways." Link please to statistics please? Thumb: "I look at the issue of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. If 5-10% of the population is really born gay, which does seem to be the case, what was the evolutionary prerogative at work for this to come about?" Which is why I don't think they were "born gay" ; ) "For any given communal group it would have been a dangerous risk if every hunting/warring party was comprised of all the men and all the women remained at camp. If the men, while separated, were to be killed in the hunt (or battle) or the women were killed by raiders or wild animals (or either group by disease) that specific small society would most likely cease to be." If you have proof it happened some other way, or any questions about what I have posted, let me know (preferably without the curse words, if at all possible) xfrosch: ". . . a constitutional amendment - doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of coming to pass on his watch, even if he's elected to another term." How do you back that up - especially considering everything's that happened since the federal DOMA passed overwhelmingly and more than 3/4 of the States already have laws on the books defining marriage and "one man and one woman"?! "The proper retort to baiting on this issue is to simply point that out, observe that this is an issue over which the President has no jurisdiction or control (all the power being in the hands of Congress), and move on." I think I pointed out above that the President has no control besides the "bully pulpit" and that the States, not Congress, have the ultimate power. Stewart Dean: "1) what is marriage? (If you don't define the subject, any discussion is a train wreck)" O.K. "marriage" is the "legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife" - don't make me pull out Easton's Bible Dictionary too. "2) are there any non-religious reasons NOT to allow same-sex marriages?" Yes - see above. "we do supposedly separate church and state...thus the importance of this questions." Luckily, the people can VOTE based on their religious beliefs if they want : ) "3) what is the purpose of marriage?" One of the primary stabilizing institutions that society uses to further civilization. "What other civil rights do you want to put to the electorate? Some of us remember "Irish need not apply" Immutable characteristics such as race, color, creed, sex should NOT be left for a vote - valued choices, such as freedom of religion either - homosexual behavior is neither (which is why the nature vs. nurture argument is so important). Hart (and epistemology re: polygamy): "First, Please take a moment to learn the history of the sacrament of marriage in roman catholic theology. Then, let's talk about the how institutions change over time." I thought we had to discuss this from a solely SECULAR point of view?! "Secondly, polygamy is the most mentioned model of marriage and family found in the bible." O.K., you asked for it: the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage is definitely documented in the patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record. Important to note that government / rule by King was not God's original plan either. Our Lord Jesus Christ corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt. 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honorable" (Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev. 19:7-9). Remember - YOU asked ; ) "Thirdly, economics have and will continue to determine the model of marriage that a society adopts." O.K. - but just because we have the spare time to finance all sorts of depravity, does not mean those are good for us as individuals or society collectively. mrsantos: "This decision by the mayor will affect the way we see ourselves, more than the way people see us... and there lies the beauty of Newsom's move... even if the certificates are annulled for the 2500 people that got married, their lives will be forever changed." You see what I mean? tristero: "Weird that anyone cares about this. As long as no one forces you to marry someone you don't want to marry, I can't possibly understand why anyone would object to people celebrating their love and receiving all the legal rights they deserve." Are you also for brothers and sisters being legally married? Obe: "Sure, same with slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc." This is, obviously, much more different. "No one is asking you to give up your religious beliefs or saying your church has to marry gays." Yet. "Why do you feel entitled to force your religion on everyone else under the guise and sanction of law? You have no right to do that at all." I've just stated the secular reasons above. cmdicely: "Somewhat tangentially, does anyone have links to the briefs filed in the San Francisco case? I'm particularly interested in how the challengers are establishing standing, on the one side, and what precedent the county is citing in support of its Constitutional argument, on the other." http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/ccfsf21304cmp.pdf I think that at least catches me up to this morning's posts - I'll see what else has been posted since. Let me know if you have any other questions in the meantime : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINKThere is NO logical reason at all for banning gay marriage and not giving gays the same rights that others already enjoy. If you think there is some reason why others shouldn't enjoy the same freedoms we do, then you do not believe in the freedoms that our men are supposedly fighting for overseas right now, hypocrites. Go join Osama and his ilk- (you're both all for a government run on ideological beliefs) and go get fucked. Whenever Charlie and any other neanderthals on this site give their "arguments," it all boils down to the same things: 2. I persinally hav problembz and am uncomfrtable with what gayz do in private so therfor they shouldn't be allowed to do thoze thingz 3. Hey, you guyz are the hate mongerz...I have freedum of speeeech, I kin bee agnst gay rites an be meen to gayz if i want to! They don't even realize they are using the same exact arguments they tried to use against interracial marriages years ago. Some folks just never learn from history. Nor do they even have a clue what their forefathers' religious beliefs actually were when they claim to speak for them- it goes on & on. It just boils down to discrimination and bigotry under the guise of "traditional values." Please. Posted by: dd at February 17, 2004 05:39 PM | PERMALINK(I copied the rest of today's posts from everyone not already on my ignore-list or cursing at me, but I doubt I will get to those before tomorrow): There was one I can address right now to dix - even though it is technically off-topic: "There's a market for newborns, Charlie, just as there is for everything else. Healthy and white-skinned ? sure, they just fly off the shelves. Minority babies, babies with physical or mental impairments, babies born with drug dependencies ? they tend to stay in stock for a while. It's the invisible hand at work." Get me ANY unwanted newborns, minorities, with physical or mental impairments, born with drug dependencies, ANY newborns - and I'll get them adopted : ) ". . . If you're not even going to try to pry open that clamshell that apparently serves as your brain, why do you even bother posting here?" Maybe you should read my prior post and see if you have any further questions? Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKSorry, when I said "men" fighting for our freedoms, please know I actually mean men AND women valiantly fighting for our freedom. Posted by: dd at February 17, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKWhy shouldn't we change it if that's what we collectively decide to do? How do you collectively decide to do anything when one side is so obviously right and the other side is so obviously wrong and everyone seems content to tilt at stereotypes? There's not going to be a collective anything--just a nasty fight and people talking past each other. Democracy in action! Posted by: Publius at February 17, 2004 05:55 PM | PERMALINKNow that the issue of gay marriage is in the news, it is curious to see all of these wingnuts raising such a squawk about the ?sanctity? of marriage when we?ve never heard so much as a peep from them about atheists getting married. Surely there is nothing ?sacred? about heterosexual atheists joining in wedlock. Any of the various religions are certainly free to make whatever rules they want regarding marriage within their churches, but civil marriage is another matter entirely. Marriage between atheists and others who choose to marry outside of religion has long been recognized by all states. No amount of sanctimonious preaching ought to be allowed to interfere with the obligation of states to sanction marriage between any two consenting adults. I seem to recall something about the constitutional separation of church and state from some long-forgotten point in America?s history?this separation has served us well for nearly 215 years and ought not be abandoned lightly. Church rules ought not to dictate to the civil rules. The idea that there will soon be a push to amend the constitution to resolve the issue of gay marriage is very troubling. The constitution, as the foundation of our rights and freedoms as a people, is not a toy to be trifled with for partisan political purposes. Part of our constitution?s intent is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority; it is not intended to be used as a tool to enforce such tyranny. If we codify discrimination against gays, we will enter the path to perdition. Using constitutional processes to solve contemporary social issues would set a most disturbing precedent. As abusive as introducing blatant discrimination into the constitution may be, the potential for future abuses is enormous. Since the majority of American?s identify themselves as Christians, what could stop them from passing an amendment mandating affiliation with a Christian church as a requirement for voter registration? Or the majority of American sports fans from passing an amendment requiring attendance at three or more major sporting events? You can see how quickly and easily this descends into the absurd. If we are to remain strong as a country, we must remain an open and
pluralistic society?one of our greatest sources of strength?and
vigilantly guard the constitution from abusive manipulation by
unscrupulous adventurers. "Why is religion excluded as a basis for making a moral judgment?" It's not. You are free to make moral judgments based on whatever criteria you wish. However, I will never accept an interpretation of scripture as the basis for making any law, even if I agree with the law! Posted by: synykyl at February 17, 2004 06:07 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, this may seem irrelevant *and* impertinent, but I want some context not just caricature, so, I ask: What makes you smile? What moves you? What pisses you off? Posted by: Keith G at February 17, 2004 06:17 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote a really long post and didn't include a response to mine. *sniff* To raise a point made there and by others: Charlie might have some evidence to suggest that his version of marriage is a good thing. However, there seems to be as much evidence to suggest that allowing gay couples to form consensual, state-accepted partnerships would be a good thing. So how do we decide? Charlie seems to believe that his discomfort with "deviant" behavior (and, there are scare quotes in action, Charlie -- they mean you don't actually believe that something is true -- in this case, I do not believe that homosexuality is deviant.) and his religious beliefs add additional weight to his ahistorical, universalist claims about "society." Assume I buy those claims in the first place (which I don't -- the reasoning is weak and the evidence too generalized). Here's the question: why should your discomfort and your religious beliefs, Charlie, take precedent over the religious beliefs of those of us who believe that homosexuality is just fine? Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state? (Disclaimer: I don't fully accept the interpretation of that phrase to mean that no religious activity should occur in state functions. In such a case, however, I think that it is essential to include ALL religious (and a-religious) perspectives on an EQUAL basis.) So, again: Charlie. I disagree with your non-religious arguments, as you presumably do with mine (well, if you'd bothered to answer them). Thus it presumably comes down to your religious beliefs versus mine. Why are yours more important? (And... I'm a Unitarian, so don't go claiming that this is a Christian/pagan thing.) Posted by: Rana at February 17, 2004 06:21 PM | PERMALINKCalBlog says a same-sex marriage would upset 5,000 years of
tradition, which is an argument we often hear from traditional
religionists. However, the claim that there is a 5,000 year tradition
of marriage restricted to male-female unions is simply incorrect. The
late Yale historian John Boswell documented legal frameworks used in
ancient Rome to provide what we would call a civil union between two
members of the same sex--the use of collateral adoption statutes (see
Boswell's "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe), which provide legal
protections and inheritance rights to the partner of a deceased Roman
citizen.(One can argue with Boswell's assertions about the liturgies he
claims were intended for same sex marriages by the church, but Roman
legal traditions are another matter.) The first century Roman writers
Juvenal and Martial both mention same-sex marriage ceremonies in their
works. Further, in Petronius' Satyricon, the relationship the hero (or
anti-hero) Encolpius is described as being in with his boyfriend, Giton,
is called a contubernium, a relationship essentially equivalent to a
common law marriage that, while providing minimal rights under Roman
law, is nonetheless legally recognized. There is also a tradition of
same-sex marriage in China, most notably well established male-male
marriage customs in the southern province of Fujian which, according to
several Ming dynasty writers, featured both rites and festivities
(documented by Bret Hinsch in his "The Passion of the Cut Sleeve"). Rana- generally speaking, your take on the issue it the path that ideally this political debate will follow. Sure we are all born with a package of rights regardless of what variety of internal and external characteristics we process, but it is up to our society to enforce the fair use of those rights. Unfortunately, this can be an slow, evolutionary process. Witness the plodding progress made by other ?rights? movements in our society. Yes we have been a traditionally Christian society, and yes most Christian sects have not welcomed citizens with a gay emotional orientation into full citizenship. Luckily this form of discrimination is ebbing. This is one battle in a war that eventually will change this form of
discrimination. The fault line will be issue of to what limits restrain
a religious/moral group form imposing their will on others to the point
that individuals can be denied certain significant choices just because
they are different. Charlie- so your secular argument against gay unions comes to this: (drumroll please...) If everybody did it civilization would come to an end. That's the nut, right? Is there anything else? I guess I find this astonishing. So Charlie, to be consistent you must agree that freedom of religion in America has to go- and quick! How can we tolerate celibate religious communities... civilization would come to an end. Priests, monks, nuns- OUT! Dude, look at the structure of your "argument": You can't do X because if everybody did X there would be problems. Well, I guess I can't go to Yankee Stadium anymore... Charlie, you gotta get serious, man. Gays have been here since the dawn of civilization. Civilization is--incredibly--still going. I know you find this hard to believe, but try to take my word for it. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that roughly 10-20% of the population shows some interest in same-sex relations. That means that about 80% of the population doesn't. Do you think that gives civilization a fighting chance? Heck, I have a pretty good idea that you, for one, aren't going to suddenly up and decide to go queer. And guess what? I don't think I am either. That gives us a solid foundation to work with, don't you think? Especially since our little society of 2 is so diverse in its opinionation. Go on, take a deep breath. It's all going to work out just fine!
>>CalBlog says a same-sex marriage would upset 5,000 years of tradition Don't forget that Calblog claims to be adherent to the catholic church, and apparently, that he/she/or it subjects itself to the Wholly Babble. Or to the various dictates of the various popes. Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 07:30 PM | PERMALINKMore for Charlie- You admit that Jesus says not boo about homosexuality. Do you think if he had a strong opinion about this he would have been shy about stating it? You quote the old testament as condemning homosexuality. So this has some authority with you? Why don't you share with your fellow bloggers some of the other recommendations found in the old testament. Slavery? Not a problem. Cattle thief? Stone him unto death. The list goes on, does it not? Posted by: obscure at February 17, 2004 07:38 PM | PERMALINKWhat bothers me most about this issue is how blindly everyone is lining up to support gay marriage without any evidence relative to the possible effects of changing our social structure. Arguments about what may or may not have been done in Ancient Rome and China are utterly irrelevant to this debate. In order to make a change of this magnitude to our social order, those in favor of the change must demonstrate that the change will not harm society. The rush to legalization in the absence of evidence astounds me. Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2004 07:45 PM | PERMALINKBen, I'm wondering if the change will actually be of such a great magnitude. I would like to submit that there actually is little to change except attitudes. If I were allowed to wed the love of my life, I can?t think of many effects that would ripple out to general society. Most impact would be in some rather procedural conditions faced by us as a couple. I assume you know the list as it has been mention quite allot above. I would further propose that virtually no casual observer would be
aware of the change in the conditions of our lives. Nor can I figure
any economic impacts that would wash over to others. While I hesitate
to mention this, it is likely the general society will find a variety of
benefits from welcoming and even encouraging gay marriage as a way to
further stabilize this part of our greater community. Ben, First of all... this man is wrong about the 5,000 years thing. Rome and Egypt both supported gay marriage (which I have a theory about why the bible forbids it, because the Jews during the Roman period were being looked down upon heavily, so they stuck the gay marriage thing in to F*CK it up for them) So if gay marriage survived through 4,000 years with the Egyptians and 2,000 years with the Romans.... it can't be all that bad right? The USA has only been around for a little more than 200 years... give equality a chance. Posted by: Gary R. Hess at February 17, 2004 08:24 PM | PERMALINKKeithG -- The danger is inherent when marriage is decoupled from procreation. I am confident that you correctly assert that legalized gay marriage would have little or no effect on your marriage or most other currently existing marriages. If and when it becomes clear that marriage is no longer necessary for child rearing, we are likely to face catastrophic social costs. There is simply no longer any doubt that children have the best chance of success when raised in a stable family composed of the biological father, biological mother and their children: studies regarding crime patterns confirm that children who do not grow up in this circumstance have a much higher liklihood of going to prison. The problems inherent in the break-up of the family do not manifest themselves (at least initially) in the middle and upper classes. To the contrary, the lower classes have a much heavier burden. Lower class single parents simply do not have the options that greater resources afford. Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2004 08:28 PM | PERMALINKBethka -- Gay marriage is not about righting a wrong: This is not an issue of civil rights. Whether gays can live together in peace is an issue of civil rights. I certainly am not asserting that gay couples should not be permitted to live together if they so desire; what they do in this regard is entirely between them and their consciences. Marriage, however, is an issue of social organization. As such, society has every right (and responsibility) to determine whether a proposed form of organization is harmful prior to authorizing it. This is all I ask. Posted by: Ben at February 17, 2004 08:33 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Keith G: I'm not sure much, if anything visible would really change in our society. Those of us who live in urban areas already live in proximity to same-sex couples who -- lacking the ability to call it a marriage -- cohabitate. Would I notice, or anything in my daily life change, by allowing those couples to gain legal recognition? I doubt it. Gay and lesbian couple are allowed to adopt children (I'm not up to speed on limits or geographic factors here), at least where I live. What would same-sex marriage change about that? And it's not as if the ability to recognize a relationship as a legal marriage will change people's attitudes about religion. Gays and lesbians are spread across that spectrum as well. It's even possible that gays and lesbians would be more likely to increase religious attendance if discrimination against them waned. I'm not going to defend that last point too hard without further research because I don't have numbers. In summary, as I and many others have written about, the arguments for allowing same-sex marriage are many, and revolve around equality of rights as well as the probable lack of any negative social effects -- except in the minds of those who want to "roll back" to a social and religious state that frankly, never really existed in its pure form. In response to Ben, and following my posts this week, I believe that in our society and under our Constitution, the burden is upon those who *oppose* the extension of equal rights to demonstrate a compelling social and government interest in restricting rights. It is not, in my opinion, the job of a minority to demonstrate their harmlessness. In this day and age, after a century and a half of the struggle against slavery, universal suffrage, and the civil rights movement, how can any of us read the Bill of Rights and not conclude that unless there is a compelling case otherwise, extending equal rights to everyone should be our default action? In what way does it make us better as a people to deny equal rights to a significant minority which has suffered significant discrimination historically? Posted by: Mark Madsen at February 17, 2004 08:38 PM | PERMALINKBen, One thing is for sure: it's going to frighten a lot of people. Call the uptight, but the idea of gay spouses running the PTA is going to scare some people. But, as mentioned earlier, the same could be said during the racial liberation cause. That's still ongoing, but we're growing, and a lot less folks are fearful now than before. If it has anything to do with conquering our fears, I'd almost be for it for that reason alone. We have way too many irrational fears. What happened to the home of the brave? Let Americans be and prosper no matter their sexual inclinations and lifestyles. What's the big deal? It stops being one as soon as we stop making it one. Posted by: jimm at February 17, 2004 09:09 PM | PERMALINKAnd I mean people's private lives mostly, but in the case of gay marriage, or civil unions, a public matter as well. Posted by: jimm at February 17, 2004 09:10 PM | PERMALINKBen: You wrote: There is simply no longer any doubt that children have the best chance of success when raised in a stable family composed of the biological father, biological mother and their children: studies regarding crime patterns confirm that children who do not grow up in this circumstance have a much higher liklihood of going to prison. 1. Please supply a link to these ominous studies. Your summary sounds way overblown and rather Snopes-worthy. 2. Do you have any evidence to support your contention that a child's "success" is dependent on the presence of two biological parents of different sexes? In other words, is there any research controlled for factors such as income and education? How about this proposition: Kids benefit from the ongoing presence of more than one adult to share household and child-rearing responsibilities ? assuming that those adults are reasonably mature, sane, and interested in parenting. Seems pretty unobjectionable to me. Can you demonstrate that the gender or sexual orientation of those adults has any significance? If not, why should the configuration matter? And if benefiting the children is your real concern, how are you going to enshrine that principle in law? IIRC, the Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates; can't imagine that your for-the-children legislation would be popular with those God-fearing folks. And if it's really all about the children ? why shouldn't people have to be licensed to have children, the way they're licensed to drive a car or shoot a gun? Psychological testing might help, too. Wouldn't that assure the children of a better chance of success? The problems inherent in the break-up of the family do not manifest themselves (at least initially) in the middle and upper classes. To the contrary, the lower classes have a much heavier burden. Lower class single parents simply do not have the options that greater resources afford. Which is true of every problem faced by lower income families, whether one- or two-parent. Again, how does refusing to allow gay marriage address this fact? Posted by: dix at February 17, 2004 09:21 PM | PERMALINKBen wrote: "Marriage, however, is an issue of social organization" Ben, Ben, Ben...you never tire of this, do you? You know very well that marriage is, in fact, a civil right in our society because it was so ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. And you know this because I quoted the opinion to you. Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 09:25 PM | PERMALINKBen wrote: "studies regarding crime patterns confirm that children who do not grow up in this circumstance have a much higher liklihood of going to prison." Ah, found a new line of attack, did you? Please do cite those studies, won't you? Because the only studies that I'm aware of that reach this conclusion are studies where the child in question is raised by a single mother, not a child raised by a loving gay couple. Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINKBen wrote: "The danger is inherent when marriage is decoupled from procreation" Alas, Ben, that it has been decoupled from marriage for thousands of years now. When exactly are we going to see this "danger?" You know this, Ben, because it's been pointed out to you. You do not now need to be married to procreate. You have never needed to be married to procreate. You do not now need to procreate, to say that you will procreate, or even be able to procreate, to get married. You have never needed any of this to get married. Neither most marriage vows nor the civil ceremony or civil laws require that you procreate, say that you will procreate, or even be able to procreate. They never have. Ben, don't you get tired of repeating the same old debunked crap? Marriage and procreation are now decoupled and have been decoupled for a hell of a long time. That's reality, Ben. Deal with it; you'll be happier in the long run. Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 09:31 PM | PERMALINKBen wrote: "In order to make a change of this magnitude to our social order, those in favor of the change must demonstrate that the change will not harm society. The rush to legalization in the absence of evidence astounds me." Ben, gay relationships have been around forever. Recognized, open gay relationships have been around for decades. State-sanctioned gay relationships have been around for more than a decade. Full marriage for gay couples has been around for years. To date, there have been no studies that demonstrate any "harm" to society. Just when did you foresee this "harm" showing up? Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 09:35 PM | PERMALINKYou know what I love most about this debate? That the eventual outcome is not in doubt. Folks like Charlie and Ben are going to lose this one in the years ahead. They're on the wrong side of this issue and all of their hand-wringing is going to eventually going to come to naught. The best they can hope for is to delay the inevitable a few more years with a Constitutional amendment. I think there's a reasonable chance they'll lose that battle, as well, thankfully, and if they do, it's all over. Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 09:41 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "Yes - I've noted some on other threads, including not only the damage inflicted on the individuals involved, Too bad that there is no "damage inflicted on the individuals involved," Charlie. Nice try, but it's a bullshit argument. This has been studied for decades. The only "damage" is the damage inflicted by bigots such as yourself. "but also society as a whole." Alas, then, that you are unable to document any "damage inflicted" on "society as a whole." Were you going to back up your assertions anytime soon? "We restrict "marriage" in many different ways" And your point is? We restrict marriage when there is a compelling state interest in doing so. There is no such compelling interest in this case. "Plenty of research supports the fact that a stable family, with one mother and one father, is the OPTIMUM for raising children and productive citizens." Not really, Charlie. Most of the research states that the "OPTIMUM" is a two-parent household, which isn't quite the same thing. No research supports any harm to the children, your misreading of the Biblarz and Stacey report notwithstanding. Moreover, marriage and procreation are separate. This isn't about parenting or procreation, it's about the union of two adults. Gay parents will continue to have, adopt and raise children whether they are allowed to marry or not. Preventing gay marriage does not one damn thing to stop this. "but why are we so willing to throw in an unproven variable by taking away one (or both) of those gender role-models?" Because research demonstrates that there is no harm done to children of gay and lesbian parents. Moreover, as noted above, banning gay marriage does nothing to prevent gay men and women from having and raising children. "These studies go to not just the physical and mental consequences, but also the larger societal impacts as well." Alas that no studies demonstrate "larger societal impacts." You'll have to do better than that, Charlie. "At this point, I think more research is needed on the consequences of doing away with traditional marriage roles." Since we're not doing away with them, it's difficult to see why more research is needed. Charlie wrote: "Because ALL sexual behavior is a choice." Yup. Too bad we're talking about sexual orientation, not behavior. Guess what, Charlie? There is no requirement on married couples, gay or straight, that they actually have sex! Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "It's not just my marriage - every marriage down the road is jeopardized - I think it was this thread I posed the 'worse case scenario' what would happen if EVERY person was in a gay marriage." This is evidence in favor of my hypothesis. Charlie is bisexual, in denial, and madly projecting his own 'forbidden desires' upon the rest of the world. Why else would he suggest, even as a worst-case scenario, that every person could be in a gay marriage? To anyone who is fully heterosexual, the suggestion is absurd. I know that I would never want a same-sex relationship, no matter how legal it became. Why? Because I happen to be straight. (Well, and also because I'm already quite happily monogamous. My marriage is not threatened just because someone else gets married!) If Charlie doesn't know this from the inside with as much certainty as I do, then he can't be all the way straight. Well, it's possible, I suppose, that he fears his wife might leave him for another woman, and it is merely jealousy that is interfering with rational thought. Still, if he were straight, he'd know that he has no desire to leave her for another man, and therefore his scenario must be impossible. Alternately, of course... he could only be grasping for any weak argument, however thin, however ludicrous, to support a position he was raised to believe and is now discovering to be indefensible. Posted by: Canadian Reader at February 17, 2004 10:42 PM | PERMALINKNow, now, Canadian Reader; let's not be so hard on Charlie. After all, the poor guy obviously has a really weak marriage that simply cannot withstand even the slightest bit of pressure. Maybe that's why he spends so much time here? Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 10:46 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: Worse than I thought. Not just a black hole of stupidity, but an actual node of anti-thought. This was your response to my pointing out, contra your assertion, that it?s easy to find homes for all newborns, regardless of ethnicity or handicap: Get me ANY unwanted newborns, minorities, with physical or mental impairments, born with drug dependencies, ANY newborns - and I'll get them adopted : ) Lovely! Give me your FedEx account number and I?ll get right on it, you moron. I live in NYC; you sure you want me to ship all those babies to wherever you are? If you?re hooked into some transcontinental network of families willing to adopt ?special needs? infants for some reason other than cash value, why not share the contact info with all of us? There are plenty of babies needing homes, all over the country. Onward. I questioned your assertion that it was TOUGHER (sorry ? was that your word? whatever it was, it was all caps) to allow a child to be adopted into a homosexual household than to keep that child in foster care. You didn?t respond directly to my question, instead saying: Maybe you should read my prior post and see if you have any further questions? I did indeed read your previous post and learned that you consider homosexuality the equivalent of bestiality (O.K., would granting the right to a human being to marry his / her pet animal qualify as a "special right"?) and incest (Are you also for brothers and sisters being legally married?). Keep in mind that neither animals (dogs, cats, parakeets, ferrets, livestock) nor children are capable of consenting to sex and thus are ineligible for marriage. Your point is? Some "Christian" denominations are headed that way too [towards legalizing homosexual marriage]. That's why I argue above based solely on the SECULAR reasons. It's much, much easier that way. Yet you have not presented any argument against gay marriage that?s not based on your own personal religious beliefs. Oh, but wait: it basically boils down to all the statistics about shorter life spans, more diseases, negative impact on mental health, etc. Is THAT were we want to consciously send the next generation. Please present any sort of objective information you have that confirms your assertions that homosexuals are shorter-lived and crazier than the average human being. Also, you persist in your delusion that homosexuality is a choice: I don't think they were "born gay" ; ) Tell me, please, at what point you made the choice that you were sexually attracted to women. Isn't that the same choice? Finally, in reference to the poster pointing out the analogies between your arguments and those supporting slavery and anti-misceganation laws: This is, obviously, much more different. Indeed? Please, do tell. So. I?ve plowed through your gibberish and yet have not received an answer to my original question, which was this: Allowing a gay couple to adopt would be tougher on the child than staying in foster care? What's your support for this assertion ?? you've seen Boy's Town a whole bunch of times? If you'd ever come anywhere near any foster system, you wouldn't be quite so blas? about the consequences of your righteous moral standards. (Not that you'd ever have to deal with those consequences yourself.) No foster kid I've ever known would've turned down a placement just because the grown-ups were gay. Not one. My concluding question stands: If you're not even going to try to pry open that clamshell that apparently serves as your brain, why do you even bother posting here? Posted by: dix at February 17, 2004 11:09 PM | PERMALINKFuck all you, punk bitches. Fucking mumbles. Posted by: Yap at February 18, 2004 12:33 AM | PERMALINKI admit - I haven't read the 360 previous replies, but I have to add a correction - homosexuality is NOT a LIFESTYLE CHOICE (That's what the religious right and others on the right want you to believe, so they can deny that gays are a class to be given equal protection under the law). homosexuality - and the science is increasingly proving this - is inborn (genetic - a cluster of genes most probably). Ok, it hasn't been conclusively proven, yet, but, anecdotally, 98% of gays will tell you they've always felt this way, and certainly, never made a conscious decision to be gay. This myth of "lifestyle choice" is taking forever to die. Its no more a choice that eye color or color of skin, so therefore, equal rights are fully in order. Posted by: Don at February 18, 2004 01:47 AM | PERMALINKSo Charlie - are you first of all claiming that ALL of Leviticus applies to followers of Jesus? Secondly, your theology is as screwy as your sociology. Jesus claimed - repeatedly - to be God's Son, not God. Yahweh, the Father speaks in Leviticus - at least as far as the author of Leviticus is concerned. And since you can only quote Paul for your New Testament anti-gay references, I assume you are a Paulist, not a follower of Jesus - correct? (You might take the time to do a bit of homework on the real meaning of all of those words that have been so poorly translated into English from Greek that you think support the notion that homosexuality is a sin.) Perhaps you could clarify why you elevate the teachings of Paul over those of Jesus - who, as you've admitted, said nothing AT ALL obout homosexuality. Thirdly - so you made my point for me. Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Fourthly, Madison, Adams and Washington were certainly Deists. And, since Jefferson with editing from Franklin, was author of the Declaration of Independence, and Madison, on the whole, wrote the initial draft of the Constitution, it matters a great deal that their religious worldview was vastly different from the fundamentalists of that day. It was, in fact, the Deist worldview that allowed Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc., to imagine a secular government. they certainly didn't imagine this country as a "Christian" nation - whatever that means. Finally, regarding "gay-bashing" - yea, you are a gay-basher. A flaming gay-basher, at that. Posted by: Jon` at February 18, 2004 05:37 AM | PERMALINKExcellent posts by PaulB, Canadian Reader, dix and many others. If I was the ref, Charlie & Ben would have been counted out by now. But give them credit for trying... Posted by: obscure at February 18, 2004 06:12 AM | PERMALINKJon' wrote: "Finally, regarding "gay-bashing" - yea, you are a gay-basher. A flaming gay-basher, at that." Don't you just love the disingenuousness of someone like Charlie, who can and does say the foulest things about the "harm" and "damage" caused by gay men and women, to themselves, to society, to him, to his marriage, to all marriages, and then piously declaim, "May I suggest it is YOU showing a 'hate-filled' attitude on this thread, not I?" I think Jeanne D'Arc over at Body and Soul said it best: If you can look at this picture of two elderly women who clearly adore each other and have waited five decades to declare that love to the world, and not share their joy, I don't think I want to know you." Posted by: PaulB at February 18, 2004 06:49 AM | PERMALINKBen went wrong,not when he claimed that stable marriages are good for children, but he went wrong when he assumed that stable marriages come from government sanction. Government has been anything but protective of stable families, and the sooner the gays get their government sanctioned marraige, the sooner families can drop out of the government sanctioned marriage business and begin managing their own affairs. Nothing could help the American family more than kicking government out of their lives, and the more that libertarian gays help in this process the more we should support them. Gays are actually, and really supportive of family values. Their takeover of government marriage is less a stab at marital bliss and more a stab at libertarian freedom from government domination. I read (and cannot source the reference) that gays are split into two groups. The larger group is the libertarian group (the good group that will save families from government dependence) and the smaller marital bliss group (the group that will bring oppressive government control to families). Every Christian family should get on their knees and thank god that libertarian gays are there in force, probably saving the American family from certain death at the hands of those who demand more government control. The gays who just want government sponsored marital bliss can join the Republican conservative socialists and get out of the Democratic party. Posted by: Matt Young at February 18, 2004 07:07 AM | PERMALINKIt's not just my marriage - every marriage down the road is jeopardized - I think it was this thread I posed the 'worse case scenario' what would happen if EVERY person was in a gay marriage. There ya go. Charlie's either just yanking the collective chain or he's monumentally stupid. Fortunately, the prescription is the same: Ignore.
We had slavery for millenia. Did we change it's defenition? No, we banned it. We had child labor for millenia. Did we redefine it? Again, no. Marriage, on the other hand, has always been defined by the male/female bond. There is no such thing as a same-sex marriage. Posted by: Random Numbers at February 18, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINK We had slavery for millenia. Did we change it's defenition? No, we banned it. We had child labor for millenia. Did we redefine it? Again, no. Marriage, on the other hand, has always been defined by the male/female bond. There is no such thing as a same-sex marriage. So if we follow your logic, then we should ban marriage? Charlie: To correct just one of your many incorrect assertions, you state that anyone with a "Y" chromosome has a vagina. Not true--I have a "Y" chromosome and must obtain them on a time-share basis. Of course you meant that anyone with a "Y" has a penis...but that's not true either. There are known cases of people genetically "XY" who are externally indistinguishable from females, and not through surgery either. Not that it matters either way. Such people tend to be raised as females, to relate to the world as females, and to fall in love, I would expect, with males. Yet you would forbid them to marry males because they don't meet your personal criteria. Whether those criteria concern sex chromosomes, religious status, or skin color matters not. You would force them into a situation where homosexual marriage is the only one which would satisfy your errant classification system. Gay marriage is coming, and soon (by generational standards.) The only remaining question is how much damage will be done to the nation, its Constitution and its society by people like you standing obstinately on the train tracks. Posted by: Chris Leithiser at February 18, 2004 09:20 AM | PERMALINKSome of Charlie's comments: Let's start with a classic: "I don't have any [expertise in all matters homosexual]." Yeah, Charlie, we can tell. According to Charlie, homosexuality: According to Charlie, granting homosexual marriages: According to Charlie, there is no distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. Charlie also has some trouble with the basic facts about homosexuality: "I doubt they number "millions" though." The flaws and outright errors in the above statements are left as an exercise for the reader. Suffice to say that there are many. However, Charlie doesn't "hate" anyone, as can be seen by the fact that he hasn't used "a single cuss word" in this thread. Instead, the poor baby is deeply wounded by the "hate-filled attitude" that we're displaying towards him. Posted by: PaulB at February 18, 2004 09:28 AM | PERMALINKBen... what about the gay parents who raise children? Or what about bi-sexuals who get divorses and want to live happily with their homosexual partner... Homosexuals can and do addopt. They need just as a stable household as "normal" families do. Posted by: Gary R. Hess at February 18, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINKWow - you leave the computer for a while and look what happens?! I have dutifully copied all of the posts since last night and will respond when I can - for the record, however, PaulB, dix, Yap, rea, Tim, Canadian Reader, dd, and anyone else who cannot discuss this without resorting to name-calling, will get no further response from me. Just to clear something up (in case this is why you are name-calling): I have never said that homosexuality is the equivalent to murder, incest, beastiality, or even polygamy (although I've always been fond of slippery slope arguments and now that I think about it, I do recall once pointing out that both murder and homosexual ACTS are conscious choices - I don't think that anyone's going to claim the opposite is true - "involuntary man slather" for instance). I also don't want to TAKE AWAY any rights gays already have - we are discussing the specific ADDITIONAL right of "gay marriage" here, correct? When I brought up murder, incest, beastiality, or even polygamy, I think every time, it was to use someone's own logic against themselves (I even try to use their exact same words, substituting only "gay marriage" in their own argument). So, if you were on the receiving end of anything other than such a rhetorical question which points out the obvious - that you could not possibly use the same logic as applied to murder, for instance - let me know and I will attempt to clarify. I am not here to insult anyone - simply state my case, of which I'm certain. And ask that full disclosure and democracy reign supreme rather than judicial oligarchy. See you later. Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "When I brought up murder, incest, beastiality, or even polygamy, I think every time, it was to use someone's own logic against themselves" Unfortunately, this claim doesn't fly, since your own "logic" was fatally flawed in that you compared homosexual orientation to specific harmful actions. Comparing a loving gay couple in a 50-year relationship to murderers, pedophiles, or other offensive characters is insulting and stupid. Oh, and Charlie, I long ago gave up on getting any kind of sensible response from you. I'm simply pointing out the deep, fundamental flaws in your arguments. Whether you choose to respond or not matters to me not at all. Your own words condemn you far more effectively than anything I can say. Posted by: PaulB at February 18, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINKO.K., I'm back - I just saw this on CNN: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he was "troubled" by same-sex weddings in San Francisco, California, and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage. But he declined to say whether he is any closer to backing a constitutional ban on such vows. "I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision." "I am watching very carefully, but I am troubled by what I've seen," Bush said. He didn't answer directly when asked whether he is any closer to
endorsing a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, as conservative
groups say the White House has assured them Bush will do. "People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully." Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have lined up outside the ornate San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples six days ago. City officials said 172 couples were married Tuesday, a pace that would bring the total number who have taken vows promising to be "spouses for life" to over 3,000 by Friday. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Under the decision, the nation's first legally sanctioned gay marriages are scheduled to begin in mid-May. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/bush.marriage.ap/index.html I think the surest way to get FMA ratified quickly is for judicial activists to uphold what we are seeing in San Francisco, etc. I just wish they had been satisfied with "civil unions" and 99% of all the rights of "marriage" but no, that was not enough. And, for the last time (hopefully) I have to repeat myself - homosexual orientation is NOT the equivalent to murder, incest, bestiality, or even polygamy. Once I get the responses done to everyone else's posts from above, I will add that to the discussion. Sorry for the delay. Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 01:47 PM | PERMALINKdix -- 1. As I explained on another thread, I have professional contact with a juvenile probation agency. More than 75% of the children under supervision come from broken homes (compared to a percentage of the general population of less than 1/2 that). 2. I recall reading a specific study (the title of which I forget and do not wish to spend the time looking for) that was done by 2 university professors (from large schools somewhere in the Midwest, as I recall). The study began in the early 1970s and ended within the last 2-3 years. It tracked a representative sample of boys through adulthood: Boys who grew up in broken homes were 3x more likely to go to prison as young adults; those whose custodial parent remarried were 4x more likely to go to prison. Conclusion: its not 2 adults in the home; its the 2 original parents. 3. I never drew definite conclusions about the sexual orientation of the parents. I said that taking as a given that children from broken homes are more likely to have problems, it seemed to me that the issue should be studied before we experimented with different family structures. Posted by: Ben at February 18, 2004 03:05 PM | PERMALINKPaulB -- 1. As I explained to you previously, Loving v. Virginia was not a case about exercise of a fundamental right. It was a case about equal protection of the law -- the plaintiffs prevailed because they were members of a suspect class. I am aware of no ruling where the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental right such that the state cannot put reasonable restrictions on it. For 200+ years in the US, restricting marriage to a man and a woman who are not marriage to anyone else has been deemed a reasonable restriction. 2. Marriage is inextricably linked to procreation as a matter of historical fact. Moreover, there is no question that the traditional family is the ideal form of social organization for rearing children for the reasons cited above. The fact that not all married couples have children is irrelevant to the larger point, so you should get off this hobby horse. If you cannot see this, then you and I disagree (n.b., while I have some support for my assertion, you have none for yours). As for my repeating "debunked crap," please let me know how this is debunked so that I can satisfy my concern that it is debunked somewhere other than in your mind. 3. Recognized, open gay relationships have, indeed been around "forever." Gay marriage has never been around in the US or Western Europe (until the last 10-15 years). See the difference? 4. The initial outcome may or may not be in doubt: it remains to be seen what will happen. It also remains to be seen whether whatever happens is a good thing. If you pay attention to what I am saying, you will clearly see that I advocate study of the issues in order to determine whether this is a good idea. I am not so arrogant as to presume that I have all of the answers. I submit that some humility on the part of the advocates of gay marriage may be in order given that there is absolutely no evidence to support the widely held assumption that this will do no harm. Posted by: Ben at February 18, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINKBruce Baugh: I actually agree, that's why all the studies showing lower life expectancy, higher risk factors etc., doesn't really matter AS BETWEEN THOSE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS. What SOCIETY has to concern itself with is the collective cost of all that and, more importantly, the likely impact on future generations, and I think it behooves SOCIETY to discourage future generations from behavior that is destructive not only to themselves individually, but also SOCIETY as a whole. All that can be done through SECULAR evidence (I quote from the Bible only to convince those for whom the Bible is supposed to hold special meaning as the inerrant Word of God, not to influence those who already discount the Bible). ". . . Only if homosexuality is not just really bad but worse than all of the above behavior, some of which does subject innocent bystanders to potential harm, would it warrant prohibition . . ." There you go - a new record - I agree with you yet again. Now, here's where the rubber meets the road: are any of the following "bystanders subject to potential harm" innocent enough for you: (1) children raised up by a SOCIETY which legitimizes "gay marriage" and therefore encourages sexual deviancy, (2) single people who want to get married but are deprived of mates who go for "gay marriage" instead, or (3) taxpayers who end up footing the bill in the end if this grand social experiment fails? ". . . and it would be a lot more obviously consistent if people now fighting gay marriage were also to fight more of the evils within and around straight marriage." You obviously have not seen my rants on fatherless households, heterosexual sex before marriage, or no-fault divorce then?! Maybe another thread for another day - right now, if we can't even stop THIS TIDE there's little hope we will be any more successful on things already "normalized" ; ) markle: "Now that the issue of gay marriage is in the news, it is curious to see all of these wingnuts raising such a squawk about the ?sanctity? of marriage when we?ve never heard so much as a peep from them about atheists getting married." Maybe because we value "freedom of religion" more highly than "freedom of deviant sexual behavior"? "Surely there is nothing ?sacred? about heterosexual atheists joining in wedlock." Yes there is - whether they care to admit it or not. "Any of the various religions are certainly free to make whatever rules they want regarding marriage within their churches . . ." That's next, right after "gay marriage" becomes legal you know? How many churches do you know that refuse to marry inter-racial couples? "but civil marriage is another matter entirely. Marriage between atheists and others who choose to marry outside of religion has long been recognized by all states. No amount of sanctimonious preaching ought to be allowed to interfere with the obligation of states to sanction marriage between any two consenting adults . . ." See my comments above - I quote from the Bible to convince those for whom the Bible is supposed to hold special meaning, not any one else. Let me know if you have any other questions about the "separation of church and State : ) "If we codify discrimination against gays, we will enter the path to perdition." That's about as specious as saying that "gay marriage" will abolish all heterosexual marriage. synykyl : "You are free to make moral judgments based on whatever criteria you wish. However, I will never accept an interpretation of scripture as the basis for making any law, even if I agree with the law!" That's fine, as long as you agree to abide by the law legitimately passed by the rest of us who do accept Scripture as the basis for said law. Keith G: "What makes you smile? What moves you? What pisses you off?" My family, church, and good lawyer joke all make me smile. I can't think of anything recent that has "moved" me, although I hear that Mel Gibson's latest movie may do that (come to think of it, we watch "It's A Wonderful Life" every Christmas too and family traditions like that "move" me). A real good answer to those questions is going to take a much longer response than I have time for right now - although PaulB gets close, I can't think of anything that really "pisses me off" - can you narrow the questions down a bit? Back on topic, though, is your next point: "While I hesitate to mention this, it is likely the general society will find a variety of benefits from welcoming and even encouraging gay marriage as a way to further stabilize this part of our greater community." I completely agree - now, let's adequately research those benefits AND detriments, have a fair and open debate, then put the matter up for a vote - that's the best I could hope for : ) Rana: "Charlie wrote a really long post and didn't include a response to mine. *sniff*" No slight intended - rest assured that my responding to all of these while I'm doing other things can get a bit hectic. "To raise a point made there and by others: Charlie might have some evidence to suggest that his version of marriage is a good thing. However, there seems to be as much evidence to suggest that allowing gay couples to form consensual, state-accepted partnerships would be a good thing. So how do we decide?" State legislatures - see my response to Kevin G. above. And if judicial activists force the issue, then resorting to the Constitutional process is the only alternative. "Charlie seems to believe that his discomfort with "deviant" behavior (and, there are scare quotes in action, Charlie -- they mean you don't actually believe that something is true . . ." Thanks for explaining that - I'm still new to this whole "chat" thing. ". . . why should your discomfort and your religious beliefs, Charlie, take precedent over the religious beliefs of those of us who believe that homosexuality is just fine?" They don't - given our freedom of religion, they are EQUALLY as relevant to your conclusion as to mine. If people using your criteria command the necessary votes, that's how a democratic republic was DESIGNED to work. It's when people using your criteria DON'T have enough votes, and resort to using Judicial Oligarchy instead, that we are getting dangerously close to "taxation without representation" again. "Haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state?" Yes - even if I hadn't, cmdicely above gave a fairly accurate synopsis of Jefferson's phrase. Now, Rena, I think that answers all of your questions (and for the record, I'm not here to get into a debate over Unitarianism either). Jim Neill: Thanks for setting the record straight on this myth of the hallowed 5,000 year old tradition of marriage solely between a man and his wife. I think Ben has addressed all those points adequately - all I am interested in is the last 228 years of "American" tradition and where we are headed from here. Obscure: "Charlie- so your secular argument against gay unions comes to this: (drumroll please...) If everybody did it civilization would come to an end. That's the nut, right? Is there anything else?" If that's all you got out of it, I guess there's nothing else we can discuss. For the rest of you out there, my "worse case scenario" is a valid hypothetical question - if our society decides to take this route, one logical conclusion is that EVERYONE takes "gay marriage" seriously and partakes. I think it's pretty much common sense that the species would not survive if all we had were homosexual marriages - sure, I hope that's not likely, but, I think we should at least have a discussion about all the possible consequences before we put this to a vote "Gays have been here since the dawn of civilization. Civilization is--incredibly--still going. I know you find this hard to believe, but try to take my word for it." Gay "marriage" has not been here since the dawn of civilization, right? BTW: just to use your logic against you - "murder" has been here since the dawn of civilization and we are still incredibly still going - does that make murder a "good" thing too? DISCLAIMER: I am not equating gay "marriage" with murder. "Let's say, for the sake of argument, that roughly 10-20% of the population shows some interest in same-sex relations. That means that about 80% of the population doesn't. Do you think that gives civilization a fighting chance?" Not in the long run. "Heck, I have a pretty good idea that you, for one, aren't going to suddenly up and decide to go queer. And guess what? I don't think I am either. That gives us a solid foundation to work with, don't you think?" Not really, since the two of us are going to die sooner or later. "Go on, take a deep breath. It's all going to work out just fine!" Oh - that I already know for certain - see Book of Revelation. "You admit that Jesus says not boo about homosexuality." I did not say that. "Do you think if He had a strong opinion about this He would have been shy about stating it?" I'm not God, but He wasn't shy, and maybe it was such a settled a matter back then, that it didn't warrant any further comment - in fact, there would be no need for anyone to wonder if God approved of "gay marriage" for another 2000 years, right? "You quote the old testament as condemning homosexuality. So this has some authority with you?" Of course - the ENTIRE Bible is the Word of God. "Why don't you share with your fellow bloggers some of the other recommendations found in the old testament. Slavery? Not a problem." Not true - slavery was a HUGE problem back then, even before the racial component was added, in what we think of slavery today. "Cattle thief? Stone him unto death." And, up until 1880's, that was still the punishment here in these United States (or Territories ; ) "The list goes on, does it not?" And, there's an answer for every one. Bethka: Obviously, we disagree where the burden lies - regardless, you can't object to full disclosure and a fair vote, can you? Then we don't have to worry about where the burden of proof lies, first or second hand evidence notwithstanding. Mark Madsen: Because, then the "default" would be in favor of every other deviant behavior that (hopefully) at some point even YOU would have to agree it should not be in "default" to. "In what way does it make us better as a people to deny equal rights to a significant minority which has suffered significant discrimination historically?" For the LAST time, everyone homosexual person has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS I have. Don: "I admit - I haven't read the 360 previous replies, but I have to add a correction - homosexuality is NOT a LIFESTYLE CHOICE . . ." I never said that it was - it may or may not be, but the science has yet to determine the question conclusively - homosexual BEHAVIOR, on the other hand, is clearly a choice. That's why I disagree equal rights are fully in order. Jon`: "So Charlie - are you first of all claiming that ALL of Leviticus applies to followers of Jesus?" "Applies" is not the word I would use. ALL Scripture is useful for teaching. Or maybe you meant to say something like "Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets . . . but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven"? Maybe not. "Jesus claimed - repeatedly - to be God's Son, not God." Jesus claimed to be God AND God's Son - He is One and the Same - let me know if you really don't understand that concept (because I suspect that you do). "Yahweh, the Father speaks in Leviticus - at least as far as the author of Leviticus is concerned." But "Yahweh" does not translate to "Father" - I actually think the "speaker" in the Old Testament is Jesus the Son - the Living WORD OF GOD from before the beginning of time - because Jesus the Son is One with the Father for all eternity past and future. The only time I clearly see God the Father speaking is the event recorded at Luke 3:22, and that is obviously a very unique point in time when God CHOSE to send His Son to be born in human form and, once and for all, die for mankind's sins (if you have any questions about that, may I suggest Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", opening in theatres nationwide Ash Wednesday, February 25th http://www.fandango.com/movie_page.asp?mv=57327 : ) Back to your point, though. God's name in the Old Testament - YHWH (Yahweh) - translates literally as "I AM WHO AM" or simply "I AM." In John 8:24 & 58, Jesus is referring to Himself with God's own name. The scribes understand Him as such and respond by throwing rocks at Him. They wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy - referring to Himself as God (John 5:18). It should be noted that the name YHWH, being too sacred in ancient times, could not be uttered, so the Hebrews said "Lord" instead. Maybe that's where you are mistaken about Yahweh being only the Father. "And since you can only quote Paul for your New Testament anti-gay references, I assume you are a Paulist, not a follower of Jesus - correct?" That's not true - see above. "Jesus never condemned homosexuality." Yes, He did - but more importantly, when He came to earth, He did not overturn His prior rulings on the matter. "Madison, Adams and Washington were certainly Deists. And, since Jefferson with editing from Franklin, was author of the Declaration of Independence, and Madison, on the whole, wrote the initial draft of the Constitution, it matters a great deal that their religious worldview was vastly different from the fundamentalists of that day. It was, in fact, the Deist worldview that allowed Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc., to imagine a secular government. they certainly didn't imagine this country as a "Christian" nation - whatever that means." Well, I have plenty of evidence that Madison, Adams, and Washington were Christians - someday I suspect we'll all know for sure - who nonetheless did not desire a Christian STATE. I'm a Christian, and I don't want a Christian STATE either. An official Church State is a lot different than a nation with Christian citizens voting their conscience - again, let me know what you don't understand about the distinction. Matt Young: "Ben went wrong, not when he claimed that stable marriages are good for children, but he went wrong when he assumed that stable marriages come from government sanction." Ben never said that government sanction is what creates stable marriages, but maybe he will clarify that better for you. I would simply point out that American government has never before sanctioned anything BUT stable marriages - we shouldn?t change that without (1) evidence that "gay marriage" will in fact be "stable" or (2) acknowledgment that we no longer care if government sanctions "unstable" marriage. "Government has been anything but protective of stable families, and the sooner the gays get their government sanctioned marriage, the sooner families can drop out of the government sanctioned marriage business and begin managing their own affairs." Well, there's one argument I hadn't heard yet. Is total anarchy next? Or, what happens when the "marital bliss group" takes over? I'd much rather take my chances with government sanctioning what it has for 228 years. Alli Gator: "Face it: you wingnuts just don't want gays to have any rights. Never have, never will." What part of "I don't want to TAKE AWAY any rights gays already have - we are discussing ADDITIONAL rights here" don't you understand?! Chris Leithiser "To correct just one of your many incorrect assertions, you state that anyone with a "Y" chromosome has a vagina. Not true . . . Of course you meant that anyone with a "Y" has a penis." Thank you for the correction - of course that's what I meant. Someone else had mentioned that as a clear bright line and in the rush I mixed my chromosomes. Luckily for us, nature does not have the same problem, so I think whatever aberrations there are can be dealt with. As a general proposition, wouldn?t this bright line test cover 99.9999% of the cases? Any other "incorrect assertions" you care to point out? "Gay marriage is coming, and soon (by generational standards.)" So is Christ's return - but that doesn't mean we simply give up all moral standards in the meantime. "The only remaining question is how much damage will be done to the nation, its Constitution and its society by people like you standing obstinately on the train tracks." Well, even if it "only" is 15 years (the time it took to repeal the 18th Amendment), I guess that's the best we can hope for on this earth anyways. Gary R. Hess: "Ben... what about the gay parents who raise children? Or what about bi-sexuals who get divorses and want to live happily with their homosexual partner . . . " I think Ben already answered that part just fine. "Homosexuals can and do adopt." That's unfortunately true in many States already. Of course, I agree with the State of Florida that they shouldn't. "They need just as a stable household as "normal" families do." You see - I knew it - we CAN finally agree on something : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKMatt Young -- Charlie is right: I never said that government is responsible for creating stable marriages, and I certainly do not believe that it is. To the contrary, I want to prevent government from destabilizing current marriages and from creating incentives for people to bear and rear children outside of the traditional family. All I ask is for a chance to participate in a public debate about this issue, followed by a vote in a democratically elected legislature. Judicial tyranny is no different than any other kind of tyranny. Posted by: Ben at February 18, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKMrs. Bush says "gay marriage" is shocking. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/laura_bush_interview&printer=1 February 18, 2004 -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last night
called for San Francisco to terminate its ongoing gay-marriage
marathon. It was the first time Schwarzenegger weighed in on the controversy since San Francisco's new mayor last week ordered city officials to lift the ban on gay marriages there, a move that openly defies the state's Proposition 22. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/18232.htm /b They can't ALL be wrong, can they? Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 04:14 PM | PERMALINKBen: Should you not then, with your 'traditional family' focus make it illegal for non-married hets to bear children? And illegal for single folks to raise children? Posted by: lordwhorfin at February 18, 2004 04:16 PM | PERMALINKlordwhorfin -- I live in the real world, so I am well aware that the ideal situation is not always possible (and maybe not even best in rare situations). That doesn't mean that I want to throw all standards on the trash heap, however. I want government to encourage virtue and refrain from rewarding vice. Posted by: Ben at February 18, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINKTo put it another way, I know that people will continue to steal even though stealing is illegal. Recognizing this does not make me want to make thievery legal. Posted by: Ben at February 18, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINKWe should probably look into impeaching Superior Court Judges James L. Warren and Ronald Quidachay or however else we can (legally) get them off their respective benches. Also, those opposed to same-sex marriage found an unlikely champion in Rep. Barney Frank, who said San Francisco?s decision to challenge state law and grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples could damage efforts by gay rights advocates to defend the Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage. ?I was sorry to see the San Francisco thing go forward,? said Frank, an openly gay congressman from Massachusetts who shared his concerns with fellow Democrat and Mayor Newsom before the city began marrying gay couples last week. In an interview with The Associated Press, Frank expressed concern that the image of lawlessness and civil disobedience in San Francisco would lead some in Congress to support a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Frank said he had hoped the Massachusetts court's decision upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry would serve as a national model for orderly, legal protection of gay marriage. ?If we go forward in Massachusetts and get same-sex marriage on the books, it?s going to be binding and incontestable,? Frank said Tuesday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4251510/ Sounds like we'd also better get Bush to make a major speech pushing for the FMA sooner rather than later. Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKCharlie and Ben can blather on all they want. Whether it's about what's in the BuyBull, their pious concern for the sancitity of marriage and the children, or the effects it will have on society, comparing "deviant" homosexual acts to murder and pedoplilia... I'll sum it up in a short post- Their arguments still boil down to the same thing- that gays should not be able to enjoy the same rights as other human beings. Still reeks of homophobia and bigotry no matter how you slice it and dice it. Posted by: dd at February 18, 2004 05:43 PM | PERMALINKdd, I'm not sure I should even respond to your comment since the ad hominem nature of his attack indicates that you lack a substantive response to the arguments made, but here's the short answer: I think my prior posts clearly indicate that I am not advocating that homosexuals should be in any way denied the opportunity to lead their own lives as they see fit; how they do so is a matter of individual conscience. When they demand societal approval, however, they must be prepared to demonstrate how it is in society's best interests to advance that approval. Ridiculing religious faith, concern for society's weakest members, and concerns for social institutions amounts to nothing more than pure selfishness. Why not show the same respect for others that you demand for yourself? Posted by: Ben at February 18, 2004 06:54 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "I just wish they had been satisfied with "civil unions" and 99% of all the rights of "marriage" but no, that was not enough." "I just wish those black people had been satisfied with the seats at the back of the bus, but no, that was not enough." Bigot. Ben wrote: "I am aware of no ruling where the Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental right" Ben, what more do you need than the words of the ruling itself (see below)? Why do you try to pretend that those words, and the words of Skinner v. Oklahoma, don't actually mean what they say? All of your handwaving does not change these words, Ben, and does not change the fact that marriage is a fundamental right in the United States. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law." Ben wrote: "Marriage is inextricably linked to procreation as a matter of historical fact." You keep saying it, Ben, but you've never proved it. Not once. Not a single source, not a single study, not a single logical series of statements. You simply keep repeating it over and over and over again, ad nauseam. I've already pointed out to you that you're wrong by the simple fact that we do not require, and have never required, procreation as a prerequisite for marriage. Two people can get married for any reason they want -- mutual love, support, convenience, finances, health, greed, sex -- anything, Ben. Child-rearing is not now, nor has it ever been, required. Now what was that you were saying about supporting your position, Ben? "Recognized, open gay relationships have, indeed been around "forever." Gay marriage has never been around in the US or Western Europe (until the last 10-15 years). See the difference?" Yup. But it's pretty much irrelevant to the point you were trying to make, that we need more time to study. We already know the answers to most of the questions you're asking about gay men and women, gay relationships, children raised by gay parents, and gay marriages. There is ample evidence to support the assertion that this will do no harm, Ben. Posted by: PaulB at February 18, 2004 07:07 PM | PERMALINKOur resident bigot, Charlie, wrote: "I think it behooves SOCIETY to discourage future generations from behavior that is destructive not only to themselves individually, but also SOCIETY as a whole." Gee, Charlie, you keep saying this, but just like Ben, you've never even tried to prove it. If the destructiveness of homosexuality is so prevalent, surely you can find all sorts of examples to back up your assertions about it's "destructiveness" to the individual and to "SOCIETY." Because you see, Charlie, you're dead wrong about this supposed "destructiveness." And the best science to date confirms that you're dead wrong. "All that can be done through SECULAR evidence" Gee, too bad that you've been unable to actually find any such evidence. "1) children raised up by a SOCIETY which legitimizes "gay marriage" and therefore encourages sexual deviancy" Since this "sexual deviancy" will continue to occur whether "SOCIETY" legitimizes it or not, your point is nonsensical. "(2) single people who want to get married but are deprived of mates who go for "gay marriage" instead" Now this is just pathetic. So you're actually claiming that gay men and women will be better off in loveless, sexless heterosexual relationships? Man, what the hell are you smoking? This is a recipe for misery, Charlie; it always has been. Just ask those gay men and women who have tried it. "or (3) taxpayers who end up footing the bill in the end if this grand social experiment fails?" Oh, please. This is just silly. This is as absurd as your argument above. It's not a "grand social experiment," since gay relationships have been around forever and since gay marriages have been around for a long time now. "Maybe because we value "freedom of religion" more highly than "freedom of deviant sexual behavior"?" You're perfectly free to practice your religion any way you want, Charlie, regardless of whether gay men and women can marry or not. And "deviant sexual behavior" will continue, Charlie, regardless of your religious views and regardless of whether gay marriages are allowed and even regardless of whether homosexuality itself is outlawed. This is just dumb. "Yes there is - whether they care to admit it or not." Man, you're setting a new record for stupid arguments. Charlie, two atheists going to the city clerk to get a marriage license involves no "sacred institutions" in any way, shape, or form. If anything, it's a business arrangement. "How many churches do you know that refuse to marry inter-racial couples?" Now? Very few. Years ago, prior to Loving v. Virginia, many. Decades from now? Few churches will block either, but that's because the last of the bigots like yourself will be gone from the scene, not because anyone has to be forced. "For the rest of you out there, my "worse case scenario" is a valid hypothetical question" No, Charlie, it's not. "if our society decides to take this route, one logical conclusion is that EVERYONE takes "gay marriage" seriously and partakes. Bullshit, Charlie, pure and simple. That is emphatically not a "logical conclusion." It's not even a valid reductio ad absurdum. There is nothing logical about it, nothing even remotely possible about it, much less probable. You might as well claim that lightning will strike everyone if we allow gay marriages and introduce that into the debate. It's just as likely and just as foolish. "regardless, you can't object to full disclosure and a fair vote, can you?" We don't "vote" on fundamental civil rights, Charlie. The Constitution specifically prohibits allowing the majority to take away those rights and provides for judicial redress if the majority tries. "For the LAST time, everyone homosexual person has the EXACT SAME RIGHTS I have." And for the LAST time, no they don't. You are free to marry the person of your choosing; they are not. You have rights that they do not. And all your handwaving on this issue is just silly. I'm reminded of Anatole France's famous remark: "The law, in its
majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under
bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." |