From ABC News/AP:
Gay couples have been marrying in Massachusetts for more than three years, but the battle over same-sex marriage in the only state that allows it is anything but settled.
Lawmakers meet Thursday in a special joint session to decide the fate of a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn the landmark 2003 court ruling granting gays the right to marry.
They have three options: send the question to voters next year, kill it, or postpone the vote.
The outcome could not only have an effect on gay couples hoping to wed in Massachusetts, but on the fate of same-sex marriage nationwide and even the presidential ambitions of former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Both sides have pumped thousands of dollars into television, radio, Internet and telephone campaigns. Amendment supporters accuse Gov. Deval Patrick of trading job offers for votes, something Patrick denies. Democratic heavyweights such as U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called local leaders, fearing a nasty gay marriage fight could detract from the presidential race.
Much has changed in Massachusetts since the last vote when lawmakers narrowly backed the amendment.
Last session, two of the state’s three top political leaders, Romney among them, opposed gay marriage. Now all three, including Patrick and new Senate President Therese Murray, who presides over the joint session, support gay marriage.
Patrick, who is personally lobbying lawmakers and on Saturday became the first sitting governor to march in Boston’s gay pride parade, has warned of “great passions and great fear and great intolerance” among supporters of the amendment.
This, of course, takes us right back to yesterday’s discussion—the charge here being that those who oppose gay marriage are, of necessity, “intolerant”—which is shorthand for “homophobic” or bigoted, and is meant to shame amendment supporters into silence.
But as I’ve argued here on numerous occasions, plenty of legitimate arguments have been marshaled against same sex marriage that have nothing whatever to do with “intolerance”—a point made manifest by those same opponents’ support of civil unions, binding interpersonal contracts, and all the trappings of marriage save for the shoehorning into the definition of the term marriage an arrangement that has no historical or traditional claim on the term.
But Governor Patrick—like President Bush and Linda Chavez, eg., on Immigration Reform—has taken the cowardly route, and has used the Progressive gambit that seeks to galvanize opinion out of fear of social ostracism, rather than shown a willingness to engage critics and opponents on their actual arguments.
I am—and always have been—open to being persuaded that disallowing same sex marriage runs afoul of the Constitution. I don’t believe it does—I reject the comparisons to Loving, though were that comparison made in defense of civil unions (rather than “marriage”), I should find it far more compelling—and I believe the state can show a compelling state interest in sanctioning traditional marriage while not wishing to give those who wish to broaden the definition any wiggle room that could, conceivably, lead (necessarily, I should think, given the legal thinking involved) to other relationships being granted the same status somewhere down the line.
And yes, I’m invoking a legal slippery slope here. But it bears keeping in mind that one’s mere ability to point out that an argument is relying for its rhetorical force on the slippery slope fallacy does not mean that the argument won’t prove true, ultimately—just that there is no evidence to support the contention presently, marking it as “hyperbolic”.
Yet there cannot be any such evidence until the door is first opened and legal challenges lodged. And as we’ve seen with “hate speech” and the war on fast foods (which follows from the anti-tobacco campaign, even as we were assured by supporters of the tobacco crusade that such an analogous campaign was laughable), the slippery slope is, with respect to the law, practically built in, thanks in large part to improperly constrained (or poorly written) legislation, an activist bent from certain members of the judiciary, and a fidelity to precedent—even bad or potentially unconstitutional precedent—by certain other adjudicators.
None of which matters much to the Governor, who seems quite willing to dismiss such concerns as mere “intolerance” of gays. Continues Patrick:
“All the (court) did was affirm an old principle that people come before their government as equals, that if the government is going to give marriage licenses to anyone, then they must give them to everybody, even if your choice of spouse is someone of the same gender” […]
But of course, the counter to that is that there are plenty of governmental restrictions on “choice of spouse” —from age to biological relationship to the number of spouses allowed, even when the arrangements would be consensual.
And it simply isn’t true that homosexuals are being denied marriage licenses—just that they are being denied marriage licenses for relationships that are not properly (or traditionally) defined as marriage.
Which is where civil unions come in. I don’t understand why the suggestion is so consistently made, by supporters of gay marriage, that granting only “civil unions” to same-sex couples carries with it a stigma and is therefore setting up second-class citizenship for homosexuals who have loving and monogamous same sex relationships. After all, their actual civil rights are protected—as they should be—and there is no discrimination here, unless you count an unwillingness to call something that is not marriage by the name of marriage discriminatory.
Semantically, this is a prickly problem: Because once you do call same sex couplings approved by the state “marriage,” that relationship becomes “marriage,” both legally and linguistically speaking. And by that same token, until you agree to legally sanction same sex couplings as “marriage,” it is not marriage —because “marriage” already has a traditional and historical definition that excludes same sex couplings.
So the question then becomes, what are the pros and cons of opening up the definition of marriage to legally include same sex partnerships. And as I’ve already noted, the concerns are sufficient, I think, to give us pause.
But proponents of same sex marriage know best, it seems—and so would like to keep the ignorant rubes from voting on the issue:
[…] Fifty-seven lawmakers have either voted for the proposed amendment or have pledged to do so. Changing eight votes would bring supporters of gay marriage below 50 votes and block the question.
Marc Solomon, campaign director of the pro-gay marriage group MassEquality, said activists are working furiously to round up enough votes to kill the question, arguing that the rights of minority groups shouldn’t be put to a popular vote.
“For us to be able to show the rest of the country that at least according to our Legislature that marriage equality is good and fine and worth protecting sends a message around the country that you can do this, too,” he said.
[my emphasis]
The trick of Mr Solomon here is, once again, to paint the “marriage” right as a civil right that is being denied homosexuals (it is not, anymore so than it is being denied, say, nuns or priests, for instance); once he’s done that, he is able to argue that those who wish to vote on the issue are, by implication, bigots who would vote to take away the civil rights of a minority group—an argument that raises the specter of past discrimination against Blacks, Chinese, Women, etc.—and one that pressures the legislature to avoid giving a vote on the issue to “haters.”
But if one believes, as many opponents of same-sex marriage do, that this is not a civil rights question, but is instead a question of vying for control over the way a traditional relationship is defined, refined, or expanded—than the proper way to decide such an issue is by putting it to a vote, not by judicial fiat or legislative blockades.
Again, many opponents of same sex “marriage” are proponents of civil unions. And in fact, from a libertarian perspective, there are those who would like to see the question of “marriage” divorced entirely from government sanctioning.
But that argument, I think, ignores the same compelling state interest arguments [evidently I am using this term improperly; thanks to Moops for the clarification] that place other restrictions on who is granted the “right” to marry.
And I believe that if proponents of same-sex marriage could convince the majority of voters that there is no teeth to the compelling state interest argument—and that by denying them “inclusion” into the ranks of the “married,” society is setting up a sort of pink Jim Crow dynamic—voters would support their efforts.
Until that time, however, I fail to see why the government—by way of the courts and certain legislatures—should circumvent the electorate in order to foist upon it a potentially (legally and socially) problematic dictate.
[…] Opponents of gay marriage fear a defeat for the amendment could spawn a new round of legal challenges to force gay marriage in other states, especially if lawmakers agree to rescind a 1913 law that keeps same-sex couples from other states from marrying in Massachusetts.
“If same-sex marriage continues in Massachusetts and with the 1913 law possibly being rescinded, then gay marriage would replicate to other states,” Mineau said.
And If this indeed happens—without voters being given a say—I predict that what may have come about over time naturally thanks to changes in social mores will become, like the right to abortion before it, a serious and contentious wedge issue for years to come.
Which needn’t have been the case.
Oh, Lord. I can already hear Andrew Sullivan wailing, screeching, and howling.
Historically, the problem is that the state both got into the marriage business and into the business of recognizing opposite-sex marriages in the distribution of rewards and penalties (e.g., the tax code).
It will be fun to watch H.R. Clinton supporters deal with similar issues regarding race in the battle for the Dem nomination.
Agreed, Karl. But they can argue compelling state interest—the desire to push social arrangements they (and the vast majority of their citizens) believe are in the best interest of the country’s survival and prosperity.
But the fact is, that long ago decision by the state to take on the definition of marriage employed traditionally gave the traditional definition added historical heft.
And for me, the real question is, why the need to expand the definition of marriage against the will of the majority if you can receive the government ‘benefits’ without having to enlist the aid of a semantic coup?
The background is that there was a referendum in which the citizens of the Commonwealth voted rather overwhelmingly to reject gay marriage. The legislature was constitutionally required to vote the issue within a certain period of time, and declined so to do by coming up with lots of excuses. Technically, the citizens of the Commonwealth have the right to recall any and all who were responsible. I hope they’ll exercise their right, not because I oppose gay marriage, but because of the abuse of office.
It is simply intolerable to allow that group of homophobic mouth-breathers, the citizens of Massachusetts, to vote on this. Clearly, from Roe v. Wade, we learned that judicial fiat is the way to best handle these prickly legislative issues.
Slick – HRC and her minions will not have to deal with that. They never get called on the carpet for the discrepancies between their professed positions, their statements, and their voting records.
Jeff – I have heard/read it claimed that the legal rights available through civil unions are not as expansive as are the rights via marriage. Is that the case? Additionally, with a lawyer, can’t the issues like inheritance, hospital visitation, medical power of attorney, etc … be easily taken care of without having to change the definition of marriage?
Semantic changes swing both ways, baby! It won’t surprise me in the least if, should the gay marriage advocates get their way, the traditionalists find a new term for describing traditional marriages. Then we’ll have effectively re-defined “marriage” as “civil union,” with this yet-uncoined new term becoming “marriage.”
I wonder what word will win?
<blockquote>And for me, the real question is, why the need to expand the definition of marriage against the will of the majority if you can receive the government ‘benefits’ without having to enlist the aid of a semantic coup?</blockquote>
Aside from bring joy to the tortured heart of Andrew Sullivan?
I don’t mean that (entirely) as snark, either. If Sully were here, he would no doubt pontificate on the topic of “separate but equal” for a while before turning the question around—if one accepts a civil union that has all the trappings of marriage, what difference does it really make if it is called marriage? If it walks like a duck, etc. Because for Sully (and I suspect many gay people), it is about more than the benefits—it is about forcing everyone to accept gay people and relationships as no different from straight ones. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Also, as to the benefits, we must remember that the current campaign for gay marriage is being waged in the states, but a state-created civil union is not “marriage” under the federal tax code. So the semantics matter in that respect as well.
One of the surest signs of the lack of rational argument is when someone reaches for the ad hominem hammer. Basically, if you can’t convince people or persuade your opponents, your choices are either to give up or hammer them into submission with personal and emotional attacks.
That’s why you never hear anyone trying to actually convince anyone that gay marriage is good or beneficial to society, you never see a pursuasive argument that homosexuality is proper and at least morally neutral. You just get personal attacks, the presumption of rightness (a priori), and condemnation for daring to disagree.
Part of the reason this works, that ad hominem attack is used and so successful, is because education emphasizes the need to not upset or offend over the need to be truthful and ethically right. The road to emotional persuasion has been well paved by decades of schooling that emphasizes personal feelings and that comfort and happiness are the highest possible ends a human can achieve.
JD: Regarding HRC I mean that supporters of HRC by necessity oppose Obama. It creates some pressure to explain “I’m not racist but,” when talking about nominating HRC.
Taylor: I’ve seen plenty of arguments for gay marriage that rely on benefits to society as well as equity. Stable relationships and private commitments to take care of another person benefit society.
Squid: Interesting point but that is probably a reason the government should stick to caling it one thing and let the citizens call it anything they want to. Gays will continue to fight for other people to recognize their relationships as equally legitimate – regardless of the name. But that’s a different (if related) issue.
CT, not every accusation of homophobia is ad hominem. There is such a thing as homophobia, just as there is such a thing as racism.
And sometimes it’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do to tell someone with whom one disagress that he or she appears to be racist or a homophobic.
I persoanlly think that most of the objections to gay marriage ARE homophobic. That is, at their core they are motivated by an emotion that can be summed up “I just don’t like it. I feel that it’s icky and wrong, so there.”
I also think that most of the secular, rational arguments against gay marriage that aren’t openly homophobic are little more than flimsy rationalizations, smokescreens that allow people to take a stance against gay marriage without admitting to their homophobia. But then sometimes the mask slips. And at that point, proponents of gay marriage have every right to say, “See, there you go. Just as I suspected. Homophobic.”
Exactly right. It appears that there are people who, for whatever reason, are made to love people of the same sex the way that heterosexuals love people of ther opposite sex. Not only should it be their right to marry the person they love as a lifetime romatic/sexual partner, but—if you believe in marraige—you should also be able to see that it should be beneficial for society that they allowed and even encouraged to do so.
I think, but don’t ask for links, that sexual preference has been given the same type of protections that race has in at least one federal law. I’m almost positive it has, in fact. Maybe in employment? Anyway, if it has, I think the comparisons to Loving are pretty tight.
Anyhow, I don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell you who you can marry…that’s the Pope’s job and any maiden aunts or extremely wealthy uncles.
What about homophillia? Does that result in watching too much Bravo and alternative art festivals?
Careful Techie. If you don’t stop you’ll turn into Kathy Griffin.
Thanks for proving Jeff’s point, Ted Dubya.
All arguments against gay marriage, then, are still inherently “homophobic” because, you know, eventually the “mask slips”.
Now read Jeff’s post again. Flimsy as a wet noodle you think it must be.
I don’t think so. Certainly not in employment. Maybe you’re thinking of a state.
That’s just so judgey. I personally think people can use whatever tone of arrogance or disdain they want when addressing Republican Senators, and still pretty much hit the right note.
By the way, the “mask” I wear?
Spider Man. Sometimes Yoda.
No Moops, I’m thinking of the federal gov’t. Something I read on benefits, right before I read about the army firing gay translators.
which is just silly, I mean how are they ever going to figure out if their uniforms match?
Ted:
It’s telling to me that you started with your homophobic argument (“I persoanlly think that most of the objections to gay marriage ARE homophobic”) and then carried the contention down to those of us (like Jeff) who are trying to make an honest argument (“that allow people to take a stance against gay marriage without admitting to their homophobia.”
While this may be your opinion (or feeling,) it has no more validity than any other unsupported “I personally think” contention. By the way you couch the ad hominem you are seeking to gain a “higher ground” that provides you with a self proclaimed superior moral position based on nothing more than “I personally think.”
Well, sir, I am a opposed to legalised gay marriages for exactly the reasons that Jeff states above. I have and will support civil unions and those laws that give full legal rights to same sex couples with regards to all of the economic and legal issues. I also have a lesbian sister in law whom I love very much. We have agreed to disagree on this subject. Since you don’t have a mirror into my heart, I guess that I’ll fall into that small minority of those opposed who are not “masking their homophobia.
As long as you “personally think” that’s OK.
One note that hasn’t been sung is the fact that some gays prefer civil unions as an expression of their uniqueness from hetero’s (or “breeders.”) Google it up, Ted, and you’ll see a wide variation of views within the gay community, even a few who are willing to speak out an opinion that the pursuit of “marriage rights” is sidetracking some very real legal needs now for gay couples.
Unless, of course, you “personally think” they’re hiding a self loathing form of homophobia. That would just be sad.
One hears claims that they can’t, or at least not all of them completely reliably, but then one also hears about crazy cat ladies leaving their fortunes to felines as well, so who knows? I find it hard to believe given the latter that the former isn’t a red herring, but maybe not.
This is a bit of a red herring, because gays are not a suspect class under the doctrine, and laws that discriminate against them only have to pass the rational basis test, and the state interest has to only be legitimate, not compelling.
At any rate, the “desire to push social arrangements they (and the vast majority of their citizens) believe are in the best interest of the country’s survival and prosperity” isn’t a compelling state interest under the doctrine. The majority’s belief that something is a good idea doesn’t qualify as a compelling state interest for doing that thing. The state would have to show that the law was designed to advance familial stability or something like that, and that it was narrowly tailored to do so. Even if they could meet the first prong, which I doubt, this would almost surely fail the narrow tailoring prong.
But again, compelling state interest and narrow tailoring are not at issue because gays are not a suspect class.
.
Ah, but it doesn’t walk like a duck. And it doesn’t look like a duck. It looks like it wants to look like a duck, but it doesn’t.
I recently sat through some hearings on this issue, and was amazed to hear the vehement LGBT arguments against civil unions.
This is yet another culture grab by the fringe fueled by shaming the majority, as Jeff has well noted.
I think you are romanticizing heterosexual marriage a bit. 99% of the rationale for that is all about the kids. Rightly so. I have yet to encounter a monogamous homosexual “marriage” consisting of partners that were themselves even slightly attractive. The fat ugly ones seem to have an easier time with the monogamy thing. Someone should do a study.
Jim/KC:
First of all, thanks to your hideous baseball team for humiliating the Phillies this past week. ;-(
Secondly, my daughter’s beloved has an Aunt who is in a horrific custody battle with a former partner, much of which would have been alleviated by the application of custody and property laws. Of course, some kind of a “pre-union” compact would have been nice as well as a conceptual legal document concerning custody in the event of a split. The human toll is heartbreaking.
I’ll only jump off the wagon when the argument turns to civil rights and the obvious desire to be just like us “breeders.”
CELEBRATE DIVERSITY!!
Well, LionDude, I did not prove Jeff’s point. I was careful to leave open the possibility that there are good, non-homophobic rational arguments against gay marriage. But, I’m just saying, I’ve never heard one that convinced me. Including the whole “its changing the definition of a word” argument.
It’s not as if the meanings of words are handed down by God. They are set by convention, and from time to time, those conventions are subject to change when the culture changes. The definition of marriage has never been set in stone. There was polygamy in the Bible, for example. And Jerry Lee Lewis quite legally married his 13 year-old cousin as late as the 1950’s. So obviously there has been an evolution of the convention of marriage over time, as social mores have evolved.
And BJTexas, what I’m saying is that the rational arguments seem so lame on their face to me that homophobia just seems a plausible explanation for the majority of them. I mean, I’ve just never heard one that stood up to a modicum of scrutiny. If you have one to offer, I’d be happy to consider it.
I’m just saying that I disagree with the argument being made here that the whole concept of homophobia is somehow off-limits to the discussion. It exists. It’s widespread. It is obvious, to me anyway, that it is a prime motivator for much of the objection to gay marriage, even if there are some people who oppose gay marriage who may not be homophobic.
That said, I don’t believe Jeff is homophobic—mostly because he seems willing to consider that gay marriage may be a good thing. He is open to argument. I confess I don’t know why he has not been convinced already.
As for gays who don’t wish to get married, I have no problem with them. Some of my best friends are gay people who don’t want to get married.
Ted – If we follow your “argument” most people against gay marriage are homophobic, and those that aren’t, just haven’t let their mask slip yet?
Well, in my state, Virginia, a constitutional amendment recently passed making it illegal for same sex couples to enter into contracts with each other that would simulate some of the same rights as marriage.
But even if this were not so, why should gay couples need to jury rig a contractual substitute for a relationship that hetero couples can take for granted?
I would love to see gay marraige approved, if for no other reason than it would throw a monkey wrench into the divorce courts. It will be a bit difficult for judges to automatically screw over the husband by taking away his house, custody of his kids, his income in child support and alimony, etc., when both of the divorcees are male or female.
When you have TWO single mothers, who do you choose to win the divorce lottery?
So you agree then, Ted, that this requires a change in the definition of the word, and that the “right” to which this debate refers is one that has never existed, given the current definition of the word.
Is that correct?
The “marriages” performed by the mayor of San Francisco and elsewhere, in addition to the court decision in Massachusetts have set the issue of gay marriage/civil unions back ten years, at least. They yet again tip the hand of the Left, showing its innate disdain for the democratic process in favor of judicial fiat and executive overreach. Constitutional initiatives banning gay marriage have passed in many states where the issue wasn’t even on the radar prior to these rash acts, making activists of those who would have otherwise been apathetic to the adoption of same-sex unions had it been done legislatively. None other than Barney Frank, hardly a rock-ribbed mossback, concurs with me.
I’m a supporter of civil unions/marriage for gays, but I’m frustated by the utterly self-destructive manner that gay activists have gone about pushing their agenda. I’m a supporter of Second Amendment rights, too, but I’d consider fellow gun owners to be daft if they thought running around, waving their Glocks in peoples’ faces was going to do their cause any good.
Let’s get smart, people.
The dead guy.
Historically and world-widely, no man can marry another man, and no woman can marry another woman, so I’m unsure where the “minority group” grievance comes in.
But, hell, if the Church of Pennsylvania wants to start letting individuals of identical sexes get “married,” well, okay. I don’t think that’ll suddenly convince any real church to go along, and I don’t think the sudden appearance of “married same-sex couples” wearing matching (or not) gold bands on their fingers is going to upset society in any real or significant way.
That said, I don’t care what they call the same-sex arrangement, so long as it entails all the hassles and “penalties” traditional married couples have to face and comes with the elimination of work-related benefits for “unmarried committed” gay couples who refuse to go down the “marriage” path.
Cutures and societies can adapt to new social arrangements over time, and I don’t see any actual harm imposed on ours by the adoption of same sex “marriage,” slippery slope of other “non-traditional” “marital” arrangements acknowledged. You want to marry a dog? We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
All of that said, though, I think the citizens of a state/nation have an inherent right to determine how and if such things are changed, and it would be shameful and disgraceful not to let them vote on a topic of such obvious interest to them.
Our best friends are a lesbian couple, strictly monogmous, and are both what one would call “hot.” They’re also expecting twins soon, a boy and a girl.
I would say that most people who are against gay marriage are homophobic, yes—some quite openly. There are others who recognize it that is no longer considered acceptible in some circles to be openly homophobic and so they couch there objections in terms that that are seemingly indifferent to homosexuals.
But I am willing to consider the there are a third set of people—including Jeff, and, for example gays opposed to gay marriage—who are not homophobic in the least but who have rational objections to gay marriage. I’m just saying…
1. Never heard such an argument that convinced me yet. Willing to listen.
2. Don’t think that recognizing that homophobia is a major factor in many, if not most, of the objections to gay marriage is, in and of itself, mere ad hominem designed to avoid a real argument.
Oh yeah. Lesbians. I always forget about them.
The problem is the amorphus definition of “homophobia.”
I think what spooks people isn’t the issue of gay marriage, but the much-broader language being used to argue for it. Keep the debate philosophically narrow, and you’ll see opinion change, I predict. Widen it, and you will indeed open the door to slippery-slope challenges.
Will it be graded on a curve? Finals are such a beeyatch.
They use code words, don’t you know.
Ted must have missed the discussion a few posts back with LF.
Would you say that most who favor gay marriage are openly heterophobic?
Good questions, Pablo.
I would agree that it requires a change to the definition of the word, but that such a change is already underway, because words are defined not be some arbitrary ultimate authority, but by usage.
Currently there are gay couples in America who are “married” according to themselves and their families and their communities. Its just that this marriage is not yet recognized by the state, so those quotation marks around the word above are in a liminal phase.
Now the more interesting question is: Does a right for gay people to marry exist prior to the society’s recognition of that right?
We might ask the same of other civil rights. Did the right for all men and women to be considered equal under the law exist prior to T. Jefferson? Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation? Prior to the end of Jim Crow?
Was such a right an invention or a discovery? I think it was asserted by a a few, and eventually acknowledged by many, that the right to, say, vote belonged to women or blacks BEFORE they right was recognized by society.
I think that the right for two consenting adults to enter into marriage with each other has been discovered, is being asserted, and eventually will become as widely recognized.
Wanna guess which group of Americans are most strongly against gay marriage? Like over 90% opposed?
Blacks.
Indentity politics cage match!!
So much for keeping the debate philosophically narrow.
Ted:
You can quote the Bible or Joseph Smith or Jerry Lee Lewis all you want but this isn’t about a minor adjustment or evolution of a convention. Marraige has a long tradition steeped in commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of living life together, procreating and raising a family, with all of the legal and societal protections that recognition provides. You would argue that the differences between hetero and homo committed relationships are insignificant against the “clear” understanding of the “good.” I would argue that it’s not a matter of good,m it id the matter that there is a clear and significant difference between hetero and homo committed relationships.
This has nothing to do with making a value judgement between the two. It has everything to do with providing all of the legal protections for same sex couples without fundamentally redefining what makes marriage unique. One can state this position with intelligence and without “homophobic” rancor.
I don’t expect you to agree or to even understand. You certainly didn’t understand Jeff’s point about homophobia. He didn’t suggest that the word should never be used. Instead he argued that it’s used too often, either to stifle debate completely, establish a perceived higher moral ground or incorrectly based on a misreading of an opponent’s intentions or attitude.
So how much of your contention that “It is obvious, to me anyway, that it (homophobia) is a prime motivator for much of the objection to gay marriage,” is based upon rational analysis and how much is based upon your own projection of your desires? Only you know for sure.
As far as gays “opposed” to marriage, you missed the point. There are gays who are more concerned, as Jeffersonian pointed out, with getting the legal protections and who don’t want the label of marriage which ties them to heteros (breeders.) The rush to make this a civil rights issue has resulted in a back lash that has hurt the legal protections of gay couples. Civil unions are simply a smarter, better way “legitimise” Gay relationships, provide legal protections and, at the same time, celebrate the differences that exist between the two forms of reltionships.
Then, we don’t have to burn the bridge before the guy who wants to marry his emu.
A lot of this has probably been covered already, but bears repeating.
This whole “gay marriage” thing is not about “issues like inheritance, hospital visitation, medical power of attorney, etc”, as you don’t need to be married, regardless of how orthodox or otherwise your sexual proclivites are, as you can assign these matters to anyone you choose. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or woefully ignorant.
Nor is it about “Stable relationships and private commitments to take care of another person”. Especially in these modern times, it should be clear to all that having a piece of paper from the state that says “marriage license” on it is absolutely no guarantee of a “stable relationship” nor a “private commitments to take care of another person”. The divorce rate among married couples makes that quite clear.
No, what this is about is “acceptance”. The “gay activist” crowd started pushing this a few years ago (IMNSHO more to keep themselves gainfully employed than anything, rather like all the other civil-rights-for-deaf-redheaded-lesbian-shortstop-mothers gangs out there), more in the manner of a solution looking for a problem than anything else.
The arguments offered up for gay marriage can really be boiled down to “because we say so, and if you don’t agree with us, you are an e-vil Rethuglican homophobic hater and frog fornicator (that’s right, they FUCK FROGS, too)”.
The fact is there is nothing stopping any same-sex couple from living as a couple, sharing all the same things that hetero married couples do. But that’s not good enough; they want the imprimatur of the state placed on their couplings, so they can wave a piece of paper under those nasty breeders’ noses and say “See, we are just as good as you are. So there”.
This is because the gay community knows that over 95% of the people, no matter how “open-minded” they are, in their heart of hearts are still going to find what homosexuals do in bed as “icky”. (Of course, the fact that homosexuals feel exactly the same way about heterosexual sex, well, they don’t want to talk about that. That’s “different”. Yeah, right.) And it drives at least a few of them (those who are inclined to join various “gay activist” groups, for instance) nuts. Never mind that such feelings among straights has absolutely nothing to do with any (and in the main, nonexistent) “irrational fear of homosexuals”. It’s called human nature. (I don’t like spinach, and I think it’s very “icky”. Does that mean I have an irrational fear of spinach? No. It means I don’t care for it and won’t eat it. A nontrivial difference.)
It does not matter that upwards of 40 years ago society at large basically said to the gay community “Hey, go right ahead. Do your thing. We don’t care. Whatever floats your boat, and all that”. But it was not enough. It never is for some people.
No. But then I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who was heterophobic. (I’ve heard of them.)
I’ve met TONS of homophobic people.
In fact, I would posit that gay marriage is prepondorously a white, upper class issue. Almost all ethnic groups are opposed to it.
Damn, I feel positively Machiavellian!
Yeah, we’ve abandoned a tight, concise debate over a narrow set of acts to be legislatively recognized by the state and turned it into a judicial Rorschach test. Farewell, Rule of Law…
Actually, the relevant question is should there be such a right now. The N.J. court did about a good a job marshaling the arguments against exending marriage to homosexual couples, and its not all that persuasive, to me. And, although there are some arguments that don’t rely on aversion (although they may sometimes be motivated by it) I certainly haven’t seen the self-professed non-homophobes offer them up here.
Jeff’s worry about vocabulary, in this instance at least, seems misplaced. Concerns about who should grant this right (the legislature or the courts) can be legitimate – but, admit it, they are mostly thrown out there primarily as a road block to extending marriage rights, and secondarily as a consitutional concern.
Correction: The N.J. court did about as good a job AS POSSIBLE marshaling the arguments against exending marriage to homosexual couples, and its not all that persuasive, to me.
I was once called a breeder by a gay man. Not that I accused him of being heterophobic, but this was a relatively long time ago, before we had all these politically motivated phobias.
Or is that phobiae?
Egad…I’ve got phobia-plural phobia.
Come to think of it, isn’t avoidance of heterosexual sex by homosexuals a form of phobia?
Additional correction: I meant the majority in the New York majority opinion did about a good a job as you can defending the no marriage position.
Marriage is a social construct, it is societies recognition of a familial contract. How the fuck could it exist before society’s recognition?
It’s not necessarily heterophobic to not want to spend every other damn weekend in the middle of summer at a goddamn wedding. Is it?
Why, yes. Yes it is.
Yeah, didn’t they score like 18 runs one game or something? Normally that’s about two weeks’ worth of scoring for the Royals. Not sure what happened there; alien doppelgangers, perhaps.
I’m not sure the application of custody and property laws would make the human toll any less heartbreaking, but perhaps it would make things more organized. Ted–whoever he is– says that some states might prohibit such legal arrangements as discussed. Now that seems like something that might not hold up to legal scrutiny if it doesn’t also apply to opposite-sex partners who are unmarried.
I think the state should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage in the first place.
It seems to me a test could be made. Offer Andrew Sullivan a Solomonic bargain. From here on out, the government will only recognize “Civil Unions.” “Marriage” will be stricken from the books. All arrangements currently labeled as “marriage” will be covered under “civil union,” be it straight or gay.
Then if you personally want to call your arrangement a “marriage,” you can, and if you want to call someone else’ arrangement a “civil union” you can do that, too.
But the State will not be imposing language. It won’t force people to live in “stigma” (nevermind whether that’s actually possible) and it won’t force others to call something a “marriage” when they clearly feel that it is not.
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that Sullivan and the Gay Rights lobby wouldn’t bite. The point of the legislation, ultimately, isn’t simply about rights. It’s about using the State to enforce a worldview.
Well, all right. Go ahead and have gay marriage. See if I care.
Just so long as it’s not interracial.
I am a proponent of Amos solution: the state should only be in the business of civil unions, which are purely a legal matter and open to all. Marriage should be up to the Church, or what ever social group/tribe you prefer. Should make everybody happy, but it won’t.
If you are young enough that most of the bridesmaids are still single, then it might be. Otherwise, no.
Slickdpdx, I oppose same-sex marriage because it eliminates the logic of limiting marriage to two persons per union. The logic is, one person of each sex.
Suppose humanity had evolved with three naturally occurring sexes, the participation of each being necessary to successful reproduction. Marriage would thus exist today as a union of three persons—one of each of these sexes.
Not two, and not four. Three.
Changing the underlying definition of marriage eliminates any logic to barring polygamy—beyond, that is, the “we say so” line that SSM proponents claim society could impose after embracing SSM.
Of course, if “we say so” is a legitimate reason for limiting the definition of marriage, it’s just as valid for the present definition as for the one being proposed. So I doubt that, in the long term, honest SSM proponents really want to depend on that argument.
And I have never heard any other convincing reason why SSM would not lead inexorably to legalized polygamy. The only convincing response I’ve ever seen has been from people who think legalizing polygamy wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
If mainstream America hears SSM supporters saying that though, the margins by which SSM gets defeated at the ballot box will widen considerably.
I think we have a consensus then. What’s the next issue?
My main arguement against gay marriage is that I own two cats, both of which I love dearly, we are committed to each other, I want to have ‘children’ with them… but the government won’t recognize my ‘relationship’ with them.
I am worried that when I die, I can’t leave them my money and house, and they won’t be able to tell the doctors to pull the plug according to my living will..yada yada yada….
It’s just so unfair, that’s all I’m sayin’.
But it’s the ‘felinophobia’ that really hurts though….
That’s whay it’s an interesting question to me.
The the right to vote is a social construct as well. Does it make sense to say that men women had no right to vote until men granted it to them? Or that men finally recognized that women had the right to vote?
Does the same apply to the right not to be held in slavery?
* * * * * * *
Then you would be in favor of ending marriage as an institution altogether, I assume, because, you know, what’s the point? Or are you okay with people engaging in this futile practice if they so please?
Well, I’m not part of the gay community, but I think that 95% sounds a little high. Particularly since many, maybe even most, heterosexual couples engage in some of those practices themselves. (If you aren’t getting a little fellatio in your marriage, then I think that puts you in the minority.)
But the point is this: were you to put a gun to my head and force me to imagine what you do in bed, Cave Bear, I suspect I would find that “icky” as well. But thankfully I am under no obligation to imagine such a thing, and in any case, the ickiness of your sex-life has no bearing on your right to marry any consenting adult whom you please. So should it be for all consenting adults.
But I wonder what other people on this thread think of your post. If you don’t want gays to marry because you think it’s icky, then isn’t that just a reflection of an irrational distaste for something that is really none of your business? And isn’t that homophobia? And if so, is it an argument-dodging ad hominem for me to say so?
Only some Americans have recognized that Iraqis have the right to vote, and a lot of those withholding recognition of that are women. Nancy Pelosi in particular seems pretty unimpressed with the idea. What say we get this resolved before anyone here stateside gets too far ahead on picking their colors?
There is no right to vote, voting is a privilege.
At one time, yes. Now it is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well here’s one, slickdpdx.
This is what I had in mind, Moops. And I was offering it on the premise that we take this issue to be a civil rights issue, which I don’t believe to be the case.
Thanks for correcting my legal gaffes vis-a-vis compelling state interest. I usually end these posts by noting I’m not a lawyer, and so there are obviously some phrases with specific meaning in law that I use too loosely at times.
As for Ted’s arguments:
I noted that, once a culture accepts the term “marriage” to encompass same-sex unions, at that point the convention will have legally changed, and same-sex couplings recognized by the state would become marriage. Similarly, until that time, marriage has a conventional meaning that is backed by a long tradition. And as you noted (and as I did as well), the state putting restrictions on marriage (age, number of spouses, biological relationships) is nothing new.
So, just as you can’t see how someone can object to gay marriage, I can’t see how someone cannot recognize the linguistic concern—or the potential for judicial expansion should the language of any statute permitting same-sex marriage not be made airtight.
Further, even if the language is made air tight, if you grant that homosexual unions are a civil right, why would not consensual polygamy or polyamory not be considered a civil right, as well?
I take your points, and I wrestle with this issue—my commitment to language and my fear of the judiciary’s ability to massage and finesse interpretations out of what is intended to be narrowly tailored legislation keeps me cautious—but I think you are off-base in assuming that the majority of opposition to same-sex marriage has to do with homophobia, unless you are defining homophobia as a dislike of gay sex.
To me, that isn’t homophobia unless the dislike is used to punish homosexuals legally or socially. Which isn’t the case here: most Americans affect the live and let live creed, and would just as soon not have to hear about what goes on in other people’s bedrooms (unless they are celebrities, or
smokin’ hot lesbians).
Rather, I think the problem is that many people who believe in the sanctity of marriage, from a religious standpoint, feel like an interest group is trying to cheapen the history and tradition of the relationship they’ve entered into.
For my part, I resist same sex “marriage” that doesn’t come about naturally through evolving social mores as not marriage at all—but rather another arrangement that is insisting on being called marriage.
You see this kind of constructionist argument in many areas of identity politics—including attempts to turn sex (by way of “gender”) into a social construct, the result being that one merely has to, eg., claim one is “male” to gain the “right” to access the men’s locker room at Harvard.
Which is not to say that heterosexual coupling somehow the Platonic ideal (that’s debatable, though what is not debatable is that it is the biological ideal, from the perspective of species propagation and nurturing); but rather to say that imposing such deconstructive exercises as redefining marriage, or turning sex into gender to undermine the biological distinctions, on a society that is not ready for them is likely to bring about a backlash, and force those who may have been allies to reconsider.
So, BMoe, it sounds as if you’re saying that the right have a voice in your government—and even the right not be held in slavery—is not a natural thing to be recognized by a just society, but rather a privilege to bestowed on an individual by some (hopefully benevolent) authority. Is that right? Would that authority be the collective?
TW: young69 Google that and see if you get any “icky” hits designed for heterosexuals.
Personally, I prefer the Amos solution as well. It seems to work for Italy, if I recall correctly. The Amos solution doesn’t solve the fundamental problem, however, which is that government-regulated benefits must be based on concrete criteria. I can think of two ways to settle what is and isn’t a marriage:
1. The government recognized institution of marriage (or civil unions under the Amos plan) is defined by the people via majority vote, either through the legislature or by state-constitutional referendum. We’ll call this the conservative position.
2. The government recognized institution of marriage (or civil unions under the Amos plan) is open to any group of consenting adults that wants to define itself as marriage. We’ll call this the progressive position.
To avoid the argument that I’m fighting a strawman, it might not be the declared progressive position, but if marriage is a civil right, there’s no reason to restrict it in any form from anyone that is capable of entering in to a contractual relationship, and if arbitrary criteria like the number of people in the relationship is capable of being used of denying the status of marriage / civil union, then arbitrary criteria like genders involved is also capable of being used of denying the status of marriage / civil unions.
I don’t see any problems with two people of any gender having the benefits of marriage, but when groups of more than two adults start taking advantage of the benefits of marriage, then the whole thing collapses. If I’m an employer, and an employee claims that the six adults that live with him are all married to him and I have to give them all health insurance, then either I or my regularly-married employees are screwed.
The privilege both derives from that authority and sustains it. If there is no authority, there is no vote. And we don’t let children do it, we don’t let non-citizens do it and we don’t let felons do it. We also don’t let people do it anywhere or anytime thay like.
Pablo and McGeehee’s efforts to make arguments that require more than “you’re a homophobe” are appreciated.
My reply to McGeehee is the benefits of marriage are not denied to heterosexuals who do not intend to have children or whom cannot or just end up not having children. That’s because, in my opinion, the social benefits of marriage are not limited to child rearing.
My reply to Pablo is: I think that there are real issues concerning role models in hetero & homo parent couples. Hopefully everyone does the best they can. Sometimes I wish we COULD license who can have or raise kids but we can’t. We can only take ‘em away from the profoundly unfit parents.
I understand Jeff’s point but when a court rules the state must extend the same benefits to homosexual couples, the status of “marriage” seems to be an important part of the benefits if this thread is any indication.
I admit I don’t have a great answer to the polygamy thing except to note that a limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage is less vulnerable to attack on equal protection grounds. Although the Lemon test has been a little bruised by the recent peyote ritual case, the argument that limiting marriages to two people impermissibly infringes on a religious practice should fail the ”Lemon test.”
We can also refrain from pretending that a same sex couple is just as good as a hetero couple in terms of child rearing. You know, as a society.
Why is that? What we’re talking about here is redefining the entire concept to fit the wishes of a minority. What precludes another minority from making the changes they like?
”…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Like that. Government is itself a social construct, in the American (and generally the Western) model: its form and its behavior are properly determined by society at large rather than by an oligarchy or an aristocracy or a theocrat or a dictator. That’s my primary problem with gay marriage-by-fiat: it excludes the consent of the governed from the equation.
How dare you, Tim, call me (or a whole bunch of other people you’ve never met) homophobic? No matter how unconvincing you find an argument against gay marriage, it does not follow that the argument is footless – unless of course you consider yourself the actual arbiter of merit, which is pretty illiberal.
I have no “fear” of homosexuality, no objection to same-sex couples’ committing to one another (just the opposite!) and having children together as long as they’re subject to the same scrutiny I am as a parent, living next door to me, walking down the street hand-in-hand or engaging in public displays of affection unless they’re the same kind that make me roll my eyes when heterosexual couples engage in them. I don’t hope that my children will be gay (any more than I hope they’ll be infertile, and for similar reasons), but if they are, I’ll be fine with it. I do strenuously object to being labelled reflexively an anythingphobe.
PablO asked what precludes another minority from making the changes they like? See the Lemon test reference (and link!) in the same post. Civilis’s arguments above are among those that would help satisfy the Lemon test.
Frankly I don’t care one way or the other about gay marriage. Have at it I say. Perhaps homosexual folk can do a better job of it than we breeders. Just keep it between two people (for obvious financial reasons – health insurance and etc).
However, the fact that we’ve started up with this “insertmypetcausehere-phobia” nonsense bears comment. “Phobia” is a word with a definite meaning. Throwing that label out with such casual disregard dilutes the meaning of the word. It’s an intellectually lazy practice, and that laziness is a worse blight on society than any number of supposed social ills.
Like someone mentioned earlier – I can dislike a thing without harboring some irrational fear of it. Or, in more simplistic terms “icky” does not equal “fight or flight response.” Often calling someone a homophobe is often just one more way of bludgeoning someone for their unwillingness to condone a lifestyle. By and large people have a distaste for gay sex it’s true; on the other hand, most folks simply don’t care enough to actively hate and/or fear it.
I’m in the camp that thinks civil unions are okay, but I don’t want it to be called marriage, for the reasons Jeff and others have stated quite eloquently.
And I also think the big push to call it marriage is, as others have stated, more a way to cram acceptance down everyone’s throats than a true desire for equality. I can understand this desire from a certain standpoint, but you just cannot force your minority values onto the majority. The only result you should expect from that approach is a backlash.
Much like what has been happening.
Unfortunately the crux of the matter is that “civil unions†or same sex marriages cannot be defined as a “civil right.†There is no right to be married; it is a privilege that has either directly or indirectly defined by the government. Much like getting a driver’s license, certain criteria – though state mandated: age, biological relationship, etc – must be met in order to validate the relationship as marriage or to be legal. No one has the right to be married & the government has the right to not recognize any relationship that falls outside the pre-defined scope such as it is. If the government doesn’t have that right, then any relationship, regardless of public or legal acceptance, can then be called marriage, legally.
Also we have now added a new legally defined type of human being that is neither male nor female – genetic & physiologically defined – but homosexual.
Secondly, homosexuality by definition is a type of sexual preference (same sex), not a defining characteristic such as race, religion, sex or national origin & by calling or defining marriage solely on sexual preferences we have inadvertently changed what was traditionally defined as a state recognized & defined relationship to be wholly defined by sexual preference only.
Personally I think that any 2 adults, regardless of sexual preference, that want to authorize each other certain liberties or powers should be allowed to legally – but that is not a marriage. Much like a pilot’s license does not allow one to legally drive a car, granted powers do not define a marriage.
Lastly one other item never mentioned or addressed is if same-sex unions are legally defined as marriage, does this mean that if I have a room-mate for 6+ years, I have to worry about him becoming a common-law wife/husband/partner, regardless of my sexual preferences? Do I now have to worry about same-sex palimony suits, just because one person can now claim a legally defined relationship that is solely based upon his or her sexual preference, as a defacto relationship? Or am I just homophobic by not recognizing the fact that someone else’s sexual preference does not define them, me or our relationship?
How does any of this influence the question of same sex marriage?
When homosexual couples wish to undertake the same commitment and responsibilities as heterosexual married couples, its hard for me to see how denying that the same rights afforded heterosexual couples isn’t a kind of punishment. Generally those rights have little bearing on anyone else, but they are of tremedous importance to those who seek them. And this is particularly so if the main (or underlying) objection is that it makes you feel icky. And as such, by your definition, that distaste is homophobia.
Point taken. But I guess I still sense a little homophobia lurking in there, when the operative word is “cheapen.” I was married in a secular wedding. Does my marriage “cheapen” a devout Catholic’s marriage? Isn’t it really irrelevant? Wouldn’t a Catholic’s objection that my marriage somehow “cheapened” his—and his fervent political activities to prevent the state’s recognition of my marriage based on that feeling—amount to a form of bigotry?
Regarding polygamy: Are there any rational objections to be made to polygamy beyond the fact that they would “change the definition” of marriage? (Or, in actuality, change it to a definition that would have suited the denizens of the Old Testament just fine.)
I assume there are. I can think of some. Some have already been mentioned. If so, let’s make those arguments against polygamy, and not entangle them with the the arguments against gay marriage. I also think it’s worth mentioning that these same slippery slope arguments were made in opposition to interracial marriages.
I assume this was directed at me (Ted). First of all, homophobia exists. It’s not some meaningless term of abuse that I’ve invented to smear people. In my younger days of digging postholes for a living, I’ve worked alongside more than one person who thought nothing of declaring “I think all gay people should be lined up and shot.” (My reaction the first time was a shocked and polite demurral. My reaction the second time was to say, “So did Hitler.” Which was much more satisfying then and now, Godwin’s Law notwithstanding.)
All I’m saying is that I think this sort of sentiment is (1) not as rare as you might think and (2) even more prevalent in forms than are less violently expressed. It’s a factor. All I’m saying is that I won’t be told that I am not allowed to suspect, and utter my suspicion, that some version of it may lurk behind some of the more weak-ass arguments against gay marriage. ANd I’ll definitely call it when I see it, live and in the flesh.
Agreed. Give me an argument, and if I don’t agree, I’ll give you my reasons why I think its weak (as I have done so far, albeit, admittedly, more tersely than I’d like.) If we had world enough and time… Alas, I have to go offline for the rest of the evening.
I think violating prongs is just categorically wrong.
Dude, what I thought the Lemon test was and what you said it is are totally different. For example, mine only uses one prong, that’s just the way I roll. I mean you could have more, if you’re into that. I’m not, but hey, whatever. I also typically use three lemons, if you had more prongs, you’d need more lemons as a matter of course…then there are the gloves, which you don’t mention at all. And I gotta ask, are you a waterbed guy? Because, you know, I’m really not, but it’s totally OK if you are, I won’t judge.
Ted, how is it “punishment” to not create an entirely new “right” out of whole cloth?
No, not if your belief is that marriage is a sacrament performed in God’s church by His agent on earth and sanctioned by the big guy Himself. And you’re entitled to have and to voice such opinions here in the good old USA. It’s not bigoted in the least, but I’m beginning to see where you get the notion that opposing viewpoints must be morally derelict.
All possible redefinitions of marriage have an important place in a discussion about redefining the term. That you’d rather invoke a different argument that isn’t at all analogous does not invalidate the use of the pertinent, relevant argument regarding the malleability of the word.
Taylor: I’ve seen plenty of arguments for gay marriage that rely on benefits to society as well as equity. Stable relationships and private commitments to take care of another person benefit society.
Every one of those arguments is a priori, a presumption of homosexual activity not being wrong or bad for society – something almost every human society and religion for millennia has held, world wide. That’s a lot of opposition to overcome, and simply insisting it then going on with your case does not fit the bill.
I really wish people would stop using the idiot term “homophobia” it’s just goofy. It’s like the “bright” designation for atheism – it’s a deliberate invention to manipulate society and perception that has almost nothing to do with the actual topic.
Oh, and voting isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. Rights are from an absolute objective source, cannot be taken away, and all humanity shares them. All you can do is limit the free expression of rights, not take them away. You can’t vote unless you physically have the legal ability to have your say.
Marriage is the same way; you can’t have a right to marry, because it requires the permission and agreement of someone else, and cannot be exercised without others. The right to marriage suggests the government ought to assist you in getting a marriage when you choose. It also suggests that there should be no limitations on it that are not directly harmful to others, like free speech.
Even if you somehow believe the fiction that there is a right to marriage, nobody has the “right” to marry exactly whom they wish, in any case.
I didn’t say it was.
Historically, however, that is the underlying foundation on which the institution is built. If we are to continue to have an institution recognizable as marriage, it is my contention that the current definition works better than any currently being proposed.
The question of whether we are, indeed, to continue to have such an institution is a different issue, and that’s the one Amos has brought into the thread. It’s pretty much an either/or proposition.
What happens when laws banning polygamy are challenged on secular grounds—the “right” to marry whomever, and however many, one pleases?
What basis is there for rejecting that challenge?
Does it count as homophobia if I oppose gay marriage, but I’m bisexual? I ask, because there are gays out there who think the idea of an enforced monogamy contract between two homosexual people flies completely in the face of what (their vision of) the gay lifestyle is about: ready access to sex with partners of their choice and minimal commitment, should they so choose, and continued independence of means even if they do choose to settle with a long-term partner. “Marriage” would just get in the way of this, the same way it clamps down on a young male bachelor’s carousing.
While I know this isn’t the case with your sister(?) and her partner, Ted (it’s been a while since I read your explanation of your particular stake in the argument, sorry), it’s a position that does exist within the gay community.
Anyhow, that (and the implicit TMI) aside–I oppose the idea of “gay marriage” (but not civil contracts that otherwise allow those in same-sex partnerships to pool their resources and get tax breaks/benefits/whatever from doing so) because I don’t think of marriage as a “love pledge” between two consenting individuals. Sure, that’s a part of it, but it’s not all of it, because there’s a lot more (including child-rearing, for fertile couples who choose to go that route). Just pledging to take care of another person you love beyond all others doesn’t require marriage; I have a best friend I unhesitatingly place in that category without needing to call it “marriage”.
(Tangentially: I think this view of marriage is what has led to an increasing divorce rate–or, at least, it’s a part of it. If all you think it is is a “love pledge” and you’re not mature or willing enough to actually work at staying in love, it seems perfectly reasonable to get a divorce once the infatuation’s over. But that’s not this discussion.)
As for the snarled case of children and child-rearing… Children derive a tangible biological benefit from having their genetic parents, male and female, around to raise them. Girls raised in the absence of their biological fathers (or full brothers) hit puberty much faster, and puberty sooner = higher likelihood of teen pregnancies, shortened life expectancies, stunted growth (from growth plates closing early), etc., etc.. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there were similar issues for boys–so there’s a tangible, biological harm associated with not giving kids both biological parents. Yes, “two loving parents” is better than “one loving parent” or “no parents at all,” but saying that being deaf is better than being deaf-mute doesn’t mean we should prefer being deaf to being able to hear. Adoption, single-parenthood, and the like are admirable (and in the case of adoption, something very much worth continuing), but they’re also a response to a pathological condition of the nuclear family unit. Less-optimal states, to put it in a heartless way.
All that said, I think the “love pledge” idea of marriage–with homosexual or heterosexual couples–is intrinsically harmful for any kids that come along, too, since it puts the focus for partners engaged in it not on the whole family but on their counterparts. And kids suffer when their parents are more interested in the wellbeing of other people. And, given that most of the arguments I see marshaled for SSM are “why can’t two people have their love for each other legitimized and protected”…
Well, you can see where this is going.
Also, saying childless couples are an argument against limiting marriage to heterosexuals ignores the fact that:
1) Most married couples (well–those who weren’t shot-gun married, or remarriages, etc.) start as childless to begin with, so it’s a transitory state in most cases;
2) As such, they’re generally an “invisible class” where marriage is concerned.
ADDITIONAL POINT: Marriage is not love; it’s property continuance.
Whether your stuff goes to your surviving spouse, reverts to someone’s family, or gets passed on to the children, that’s the other basic idea (besides childrearing) underlying the institution.
The only thing worse than a homophobe is a SELF-LOATHING gay person. You’re the LBGT version of Michael Steele or “Jews for Jesus.”
Oh dear.
I’ll go buy some carbon credits or something to offset this. :<i></i>(
Oh, darn it. Look what you made me do; I got HTML all over my face.
TW: comes75. I–I suppose it is a little like code bukkake…
…I feel so dirty.
McGehee, tsk tsk. Wrong playbook.
INAUTHENTIC GAY/BISEXUAL!
If gay marriage is a right then so must be cannibalism. Cannibalism has been practiced far more often in human history than gay marriage. Of course there are a lot more Federal Judges who are gay than are cannibals but what does that mean? Nothing! It only takes one cannibal judge. One judge makes a majority. Let that be our
mottobumpersticker.A constitutional amendment legalizing cannibalism is just as likely as one legalizing gay marriage. Slavery has a constitutional amendment. Universal suffrage has a constitutional amendment. Alcohol has two! How hard could it be? Yet gay marriage will never have even one constitutional amendment.
Let none frame the false question, “What about the one getting eaten?” That question is not allowed about our sacred right to abortion so it is of necessity ruled out here as well because to do otherwise would brand us all as hypocrites. Get thee behind me, hypocrites!
Finally, which would be of greater benefit to society? Cannibalism, of course. Think of all the children going to bed hungry this very night. Any one of them would feed a dozen others. Think of the millions of pounds of potential hotdog meat now moldering in the ground. We could end hunger in America and solve the population explosion practically overnight. Cannibalism would even help reduce global warming. Can gay marriage promise as much? I think not.
It appears as if we have an equilibrium. With one group claiming to define “properly” and another “intolerance.”
Something tells me that if proponents of gay marriage used language like “Jim Crow” or “separate but equal” you would be objecting. No matter how thougthfull the lessons of the relationship between Brown and Plessy can be for the wisdom of creating a separate system for homosexuals.
The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendment mention the right to vote.
The problem is that civil rights trump everything else. If marriage is a civil right, than how can we deny any consenting adults the opportunity to marry?
My fundamental problem is that there has to be some level at which we say that majority rules. If the majority say that marriage includes homosexual couples, then marriage includes homosexual couples. If the majority say marriage is a civil right, then we can’t deny consenting adults the right to marry. It’s a both fundamental strength and weakness of America that ultimately a majority of Americans can do anything, including destroy the whole system.
While you have your anecdotal evidence, there’s a difference between that and “I don’t like gay people.” To most Americans, there is no difference between someone with a homosexual preference and one who engages in homosexual activity, and to define oneself as homosexual is to define one by ones sexual preference. We have a right to form judgments about people based on their behavior. Ideally, such judgments should only form a small part of our opinion about people, but we’re human and fallible.
I’m a socially inept introverted geek. I was teased unmercifully throughout school because of it. I have a minuscule chance of ever getting a date. In a sense I’m jealous that I never had clubs formed by the cool kids to demonstrate their geek solidarity, and no one’s lobbying for special legal privileges on my behalf.
I have a friend that brags about his sexual accomplishments and how he’s managed to narrowly avoid ending up a father while still in high school, thus ruining his life. I think much less of him both for doing something incredibly stupid and for acting as if sex is the focal point of his life. I’m not afraid of his lifestyle, I’m afraid for him because I think that his focus on sex is unhealthy and stupid. He’s a friend, so I can’t abandon him, but were he merely an acquaintance I’d probably take a disliking to him due to his attitude.
This is absolutely none of my business Civilis, and yet I won’t let that stop me. From one socially inept geek to another.
First of all, since I have no idea how old you are, I would make very sure that never having a date is okay with you. If not, then you had better do something about it, and the sooner the better. I can attest that even the socially inept can find dates. You may not get as many as some others, but those are the breaks.
Second, you might consider looking for more friends who are more like yourself. It’s much easier to meet new people if you have friends to mix with. This one friend you mentioned will never be able to help you in any way in that area.
Of course, overcoming the established patterns of one’s life can be difficult. I struggle with it often myself.
They are using very similar language—but I choose to let the actual victims of those legal travesties (i.e., African-American people who—as previously noted in this thread—oppose same-sex marriage) do the objecting. It’s more delicious that way.