Gay Patriot Header Image

Democratic Governor Favors Gay Marriage Ban; Gay Groups Silent

Whenever a Republican Governor indicates his opposition to gay marriage — or vetoes a bill establishing gay marriage in his state — gay groups raise a ruckus and level all kinds of insults against him. Even when those Republicans make clear their support for state recognition of same-sex unions (albeit called something other than marriage). Last week, in his first post for this blog, AverageGayJoe followed the progress of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Virginia, pointing out how a number of Old Dominion Democrats, inluding the commonwealth’s new Democratic Governor Tim Kaine supported it.

This morning, Eva Young e-mailed me to share Tim Hulsey’s excellent post noting how that Democrat is about to pulled a Clinton and make good on his pledge to sign that marriage amendment now that it has passed the Virginia General Assembly. The governor’s signature will allow the proposal to appear on the Old Dominion’s November ballot.

Tim reminds us that the gay Democratic organization Virginia Partisans touted Kaine’s win as a “terrific victory.” Looks like Kaine’s following in the footsteps of another Democrat whose election gay people supported, but who proved faithless once in office. Before the election, Bill Clinton made nice to the gay community, asking for our money and our votes, only to betray us within a few days of taking office. Shortly after his first inaugural thirteen years ago, that Democrat sought to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but when he was unprepared for the opposition to his plan (which he then could have accomplished with an Executive Order), he backtracked and signed on to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” thus codifying the ban and making it more difficult to repeal.

If anyone still believes that gay groups are truly nonpartisan, their reaction to Governor Kaine’s pledge should convince them otherwise. While this Democrat has indicated support for the measure at least since January 13, neither the Human Rights Campaign nor the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has seen fit to issue a press release faulting this Democrat for his pledge. Quite a contrast to their reaction to similar actions by Republicans, nearly all of whom, unlike Kaine, had not been backed by gay rights’ groups.

And it’s not just left-leaning gay groups who are silent. On the same day that the Washington Blade reported Kaine’s intentions, Log Cabin, issued a press release accusing the Florida GOP of being divisive (with good reason). This ostensibly Republican group couldn’t find time, however, to issue a statement faulting the Democratic Governor of the Old Dominion for backing a proposal similar to one for which they took their own party to task for supporting in the Sunshine State.

Given their silence on this Democrat’s actions, it’s clear that gay groups hold the GOP to a higher standard. They seem less willing to take on Democrats than they do Republicans. Especially given their early opposition to Judge Alito, it’s now more clear than ever that these groups act not so much as nonpartisan organizations concerned with issues important to the gay community, but as the gay and lesbian adjuncts of a broader leftist movement, closely allied to the Democratic Party.

It’s sad that the one gay Republican organization with a national presence has yet to call them on that. And that that supposedly Republican group is quicker to take on its own party than the opposing one.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

ADDENDUM: Eva has more on Kaine here.



  1. 1. The HRC and other groups should highlight this entire amendment’s process through the legislature and to the voters. Virginia is turning into a such a pathetically backward state on this issue.

    2. The 16 January article you linked to had the writer inferring that Tim Kaine supported the amendment and therefore supporting bans on both gay marriage and civil unions. An updated article in the Washington Blade on 20 January clarified that thed governer is signing the proposition forward but doesn’t agree with the language in the bill as being too broad. Whether that means he supports civil unions or not, I don’t know. However the fact that he agrees, in my estimation correctly, that the current bill is incredibly overreaching is a half decent sign, which I guess is the best we are going to get out of that ass-backwards state.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 22, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - January 22, 2006

  2. It’s worth noting that Pam Spaulding has been pushing this story – and Pam is very much a leftist.

    She’s also calling out the Democratic Party for using Kaine as their “messenger of inclusiveness”:

    It’s a fair criticism of Log Cabin for missing this opportunity. Stonewall Democrats doesn’t miss the opportunity to bash Schwartzenegger for his veto. Log Cabin shouldn’t be missing the opportunity to bash Kaine.

    Ofcourse – it’s the Florida chapter of log cabin that is grieving something that state gop did in Florida – and the Florida chapter is an affiliate of both the party and Log Cabin. So your comparison between the two events isn’t totally fair.

    I’m more appalled by the NGLTF and HRC – because both of those groups have many more staff than Log Cabin – and they should be publicly criticizing anti-gay democrats – but they show their bias here.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 22, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - January 22, 2006

  3. Eva—my comparison is fair because Log Cabin National posted this release on its web-site. I don’t fault them for taking issue with the Florida GOP. Indeed, had I been in their position, I would likely have made clear the group’s concerns, though I would have toned down the rhetoric a notch.

    It is striking that they’ll fault their own party for one thing and ignore it when Democrats do almost exactly the same thing. And that’s why my comparison is fair.

    Yes, these gay groups have more staff than Log Cabin. But it doesn’t take much effort to draft a simple press statement taking issue with a Democratic Governor.

    Given the gay groups’ unwillingness to take on Democrats, it seems ever more incumbent on Log Cabin to do so. But, they have once again passed up an opportunity to show their Republican stripes, while ever eager to take on the GOP to show their kinship with the other national gay groups.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 22, 2006 @ 3:06 pm - January 22, 2006

  4. If Kaine was in favor of the gay marriage ban but wasn’t opposed to civil unions, then his options are to veto the bill, and explain that position.

    Comment by Just Me — January 22, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - January 22, 2006

  5. As I said – I agree LCR missed an opportunity here – but you did too. Pam Spaulding took on the Democrats for putting Kaine up to respond to the SOTU address. Nothing from John Aravosis – and nothing from Gay Patriot missing this opportunity to bash an anti-gay democrat. In your most recent post on Kaine – you neglect to mention that Kaine is the person tapped to give the response to the SOTU – which really adds insult to injury.

    The latest press release LCR issued was on January 18 – announcing the new board members. There was a Jan 13 press release which attacked the Florida Republican party – and this was based on what the Florida Chapters had already done – so this was truly a grassroots effort – filtered up to LCR. That’s normally something that you would applaud. The other question is this – has Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia made any public statement about Kaine’s latest? I don’t see any press release on their website about this.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 22, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - January 22, 2006

  6. How did Bill Clinton “betray” the gay community? By appointing gays and lesbians to high office? By increasing spending for AIDS? By trying to eliminate gay prejudice in the military? By talking openly about matters and issues that really concern gay Americans? By helping spread the word that condoms reduce contraction of AIDS? I’ll concede I wasn’t happy that he signed DOMA, so ONE strike against him. Why not tell us all the other gay-unfriendly things he did? Come on, tell us!

    Comment by Stephen — January 22, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - January 22, 2006

  7. Stephen – name one openly gay official that Slick Willie named to a higher office. And Janet Reno doesn’t count – she’s still in denial.

    Also, you seem to forget that Bush has put more money and effort into combating AIDS than the Clintonistas ever did. More than one demoncRAT has said as much.

    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 22, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - January 22, 2006

  8. Clinton ran on the platform of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. After he got in – and got opposition from Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, he caved – and gave us DADT.

    I’ll agree that Bush II’s support of abstinence only – condoms don’t work – education is poor public health policy. I think this abstinence only nonsense pre-dated Bush though.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 22, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - January 22, 2006

  9. Eva, I’m not sure it’s entirely fair for you to say as you do in comment #5 that we missed an opportunity here. I did address this briefly in my update to Average Gay Joe’s piece which I cite in this post. Because he had posted on it, I focused on others topics I wished to blog on last week.

    I am grateful for your e-mail drawing this to my attention. It reminded that we needed to revisit this topic. And I particularly liked Tim’s post to which you linked me.

    But, unlike Log Cabin, we are not full-time nor are we paid for this. And given how busy I was last week with a number of obligations as well as my studies, I’m surprised I blogged as much as I did.

    Believe me, we will be addressing the fact that Kaine has been tapped to give the response to the SOTU, a move which, on the one hand, shows that the national Democrats are sensitive to their image problem, but on the other, suggests that they take gays for granted.

    As to Log Cabin, the simple issue is that they’ve had 9 days since the Blade announced Kaine’s support of the gay marriage ban. Given that the release on the Florida GOP appeared on national’s site, they recognized this as a national issue.

    In the end your attempts to excuse Log Cabin ring hollow. Because the real issue here is their silence. You seem more interested in taking us to task for failing to blog on this—even though we have—than in faulting Log Cabin for their total silence on the topic. Let me repeat, unlike us, Log Cabin’s staff are paid. It’s their job to do such things. And by not commenting on this, it suggests that they, like other gay groups, are unwilling to take on Democrats while ever eager to challenge (what they claim is) their own party.

    Your comment suggests, alas, that you are ever eager to criticize us – and excuse Log Cabin.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 22, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - January 22, 2006

  10. only one political party has within its platform language that discriminates against gays. that’s the republican party, folks. wake up while you can; the republicans want to destroy privacy…not only with their anti-gay stance, but by also telling women what to do with their bodies, and by telling people when and how they can die, and worst of all, by their foul assertion that spying on others is ok.

    this is a filthy political machine and if you support this charlatan regime, you’re complicit in these utterly anti-american activities. shame on the republican party.

    Comment by rightiswrong — January 22, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - January 22, 2006

  11. Um, rightiswrong, once again, so eager are you to attack Republicans that you ignore the post to which you attach your comment.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 22, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - January 22, 2006

  12. Mr. Moderate: yet he still signed it. He did exactly as Clinton did when it came to DADT and welfare reform, whined about both of them and then signed his name. What else am I to think of such a man other than he has no spine and lacks the courage of his convictions? Say what you will about Republicans like George W. Bush, but he isn’t afraid to stand up for what he believes. Dems like Clinton and Kaine say one thing while knifing you in the back.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — January 22, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - January 22, 2006

  13. Let’s not revise history, Stephen.

    Beginning in the 1995 Federal Budget Clinton submitted, he ZEROED out AIDS drug funding. It was Rep. (at the time) Tom Coburn and the GOP Majority in the House who led the way to restore the funding to AIDS programs that Clinton tried to cut in every budget except his last… when Algore was running for the White House.

    Comment by GayPatriot — January 22, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - January 22, 2006

  14. One question has always bothered me, that being, why did gay activists back in the 1970’s early 80’s use the mantra ‘right to privacy’ concerning the activities in the gay bathhouses in both NYC and San Francisco whereby allowing AIDS to spread from the bath houses into the mainstream gay culture because the health officals in those cities feared that the gay activists would condemn the government for ‘invading gay’s right to privacy’? As I recall, the promotion of condom use and encouraging monogamous relationships did not occur until the early 1990’s after AIDS had managed to infect the mainstream gay community killing hundreds of thousands at which point the problem became so dire that the gay activists had no choice but to confront their devastating activities of upholding ‘right to privacy’. Reagan did not ignore AIDS as declared by the gay activists, they accused him of ignoring AIDS as a decoy to hide the fact that their ‘right to privacy’ mantra failed miserably when it came to addressing the problem of AIDS and how keeping the bath house open without any recognition of the disease these bath house had helped to spread.

    This ‘right to privacy’ is the same reason why females who have undergone abortions yet are forced to suffer the consequences in silence because NOW holds up that ‘right to privacy’ mantra everytime the issue of abortion is discussed.

    It is one thing to live a private life, a right granted for all to enjoy, but it is another to use ‘right to privacy’ when dealing with public health issues that affects everyone.

    That said, most activist movements are not interested the issues they claim to present rather they are interested in tearing down those institutions which get in the way of their cause. For example, Earth liberation Front is not interested in the environment per say, they are interested in tearing down capitalist societies and they use trees as an excuse to attack The System. NOW is not interested in equality for females they are interested in destroying males as a means for vengence against The Man, specifically the white ones.

    Take this from a women who was mislead by feminist activism, gays would have better luck formulating their own rituals for ‘marriage’ than using that institution as a means to overthrow the established definition.

    As it is today, heterosexual cannot marry same-sex any more than homosexuals can therefore there is no reason to claim inequality. Don’t allow yourselves to be decoys in activists intentions otherwise you’ll end up loosing your identity (in the case of AIDS, your life)

    Comment by syn — January 22, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - January 22, 2006

  15. I seriously wish there was a way to configure my settings so that when I come to this website I only get GP’s postings, and am spared Dan’s blather. You know, I don’t agree with GP, but at least his posts are interesting and provocative. GPW’s are little more than whining, self-important dribble.

    Comment by RealValues — January 22, 2006 @ 6:38 pm - January 22, 2006

  16. Dan – if you read my comment, I said you had a valid point that Log Cabin Republicans missed an opportunity to bash the democrats – which they shouldn’t have missed. So I didn’t “excuse Log Cabin”.

    I just didn’t think the Florida situation was a good example of how LCR national likes to bash republicans – because this situation started with the local clubs in Florida – who have a long history of being team players with the party – and helping republican candidates win.

    On the other hand, where you feel short was in comparison to Pam Spaulding – a leftist gay blogger – criticized big time here when she got nominated to the weblog awards – who has been on the Kaine issue big time this week. Pam’s base is mostly liberal – so she gets criticized for raising Kaine over Kaine big time. I don’t read the blade regularly – and Pam Spaulding brought the Kaine matter to my attention – so I posted several items on this one.

    Comment by Eva Young — January 22, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - January 22, 2006

  17. Never, your comment in #17 makes no sense whatsoever since I have already done something. I have pointed out how HRC and NGLTF failed to criticize Democrats for the same things for which they lambaste Republicans.

    And if you don’t like my “attacks” as you term them, then take issue with my points for implied within my post is that HRC and NGLTF should hold Democrats and Republicans to the same standards.

    If you think all I do is whine, then you haven’t read my posts. So I suggest that before you comment next time you read my posts, familiarize yourself with my arguments, then address the points I raise.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 22, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - January 22, 2006

  18. I couldn’t agree with #17 more… GPW, all you do is whine… you can use all the 25 cent words you want, it’s still just whining… like i said, at least GP’s posts are interesting…

    Comment by RealValues — January 22, 2006 @ 9:10 pm - January 22, 2006

  19. Real, if that’s what you feel I do, then prove your point by referencing my posts when you comment. And make sure you check out all those where I include a positive message at the end, including (& especially) those on gay marriage. It might help you to search the site for all the times I have praised Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch.

    Until then it seems I have accomplished something if I get some, such as you, so upset that you can repeatedly hurl insults at me and yet fail to address the actual points I make. By Stephen’s standards (in comment #33 to this post, that’s tantamount to admitting that everything I wrote is true.

    Thanks for confirming the effectiveness of my rhetoric.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 22, 2006 @ 9:32 pm - January 22, 2006

  20. If you say so, Never

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 23, 2006 @ 12:07 am - January 23, 2006

  21. Never… In response to what you wrote in #17….

    Last I checked, it wasn’t GPW’s job to do something about it. The HRC and NGLTF on the other hand…. That’s what they’re supposed to do. That’s what their claim to fame is. Call out discrimination whenever and where ever it rears it’s ugly little head. Am I wrong? (Hell… gay groups get themselves off by crying “oppression” any chance they get.)

    His point is more than valid. The reason being is that if this involved a Republican governor and the HRC and NGLTF remained silent on it, you’d be pitching hysterics.

    But now… because it’s a Dem… we shouldn’t expect those who “champion our cause” to come to our rescue?

    Why the double standard?

    Comment by Chad — January 23, 2006 @ 12:30 am - January 23, 2006

  22. #19

    From your blog:

    Liberty, equality, compassion, respect for hard work, and yeah a sense of humor.

    So…what are you waiting for somebody to die so you can somehow inherit these?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 23, 2006 @ 12:38 am - January 23, 2006

  23. #23

    Aren’t HRC and NGLTF supposed to be non-partisan?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 23, 2006 @ 12:39 am - January 23, 2006

  24. Only when it comes down to explaining why they won’t attack Democrats.

    Heck, I expect any day now to see a press release from them claiming that Kaine is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, just like they did for John Kerry’s antigay stances.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 23, 2006 @ 1:37 am - January 23, 2006

  25. I don’t have much use for either HRC or NGLTF. Neither of them have accomplished much of anything. I would prefer donating to my state (MA) and regional (New England) organizations, which have actually accomplished a few things.

    Two things did it in for me with HRC and NGLTF. One, when they agreed to not endorse any federal anti-discrimination law that did not include “transgendered” as a protected category, in addition to “sexual orientation.” It wasn’t as though they were anywhere close to getting “sexual orientation” added to federal anti-discrimination law anytime soon, but this would have just made it harder.

    Second, they seem to have branched out to tackle other causes, such as abortion rights. To me, that would seem to dilute their focus. We have been going round and round on the NYTimes gay rights board about whether preserving Roe v. Wade is a “gay” issue (I don’t believe that it is) but HRC and NGLTF branching out into other areas seems to be a bit dumb, when they haven’t accomplished much of anything for gays & lesbians.

    Regarding Democrats? I’ll bash a few.

    Bill Clinton–he signed the Defense of Marriage Act and then advertised the fact on radio stations in predominantly christian areas during the 1996 re-election campaign. That’s one reason why I call him a “snake-oil salesman.” He did issue an executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. But that was not until 1998, when he was in the midst of the Monica Lawinski scandal, and needed all of the friends he could get. Apparently, some gays believed that Clinton was their friend. Andrew Sullivan published an article in one of the Oct 1998 editions of the Advocate (I forget which one) entitled Sex, Lies And Us laying out the argument. It used to be on-line, but apparently is no more.

    Mike Dukakis, former governor of MA and 1988 Democratic candidate for president, and virulent homophobe. His administration obstructed the addition of “sexual orientation” to the state’s anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws. (We could argue whether there should be such laws, but that’s a different topic.) His administration also refused to allow gays and lesbians to become foster parents or to adopt–to the detriment of the children.

    Billy “corrupt midget” Bulger, brother and protector of the notorious Boston gangster Whitey Bulger. Billy was the corrupt MA Senate president during at least Dukakis’s terms in office as governor. He was also a virulent homophobe.

    John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University. He ran for MA governor in 1990 against Bill Weld. He was a virulent homophobe, too. He self-destructed during a television interview.

    Tommy Finneran, the recent speaker of the MA House, who recently resigned under a corruption scandal. He was also virulently anti-gay. His Democratic replacement, Sal DiMasi, is virulently pro-gay.

    Going outside of MA:

    Max Baucus, who ran a gay-baiting campaign ad against his Republican rival in the Montana senatorial election in 2002.

    A fellow named Sanders (I forget his first name) who made a gay-baiting comment during one of the “debates” in the South Carolina US senatorial campaign in 2002.

    All of those mentioned above are Democrats–except for Bill Weld.

    Comment by raj — January 23, 2006 @ 3:23 am - January 23, 2006

  26. I want to know the proper gay response to Syn, comment 14. If this is true, then ‘Angels in America’ is pure propaganda. Perhaps gay history is deliberately falsified and if that is true, there are greater problems than the issue of gay marriage or gay military. As a Army veteran (which isn’t true of many gay writers here or elsewhere,) I can tell you the whole idea of prejudice against gays is ludicrous. In every unit I was in every variety of sexual orientation was quite open, not flaunted, but open. The ‘dadt’ policy was a mistake. A ridiculous band aid to a problem that didn’t exist, actually worse than the passive policy that existed for hundreds of years. More gays are now drummed out under the ‘data’ agreement than before. The only way a gay man or lesbian could be thrown out before was by deliberately outing oneself, and then insisting–against the typical wishes of commanding officers–that the Army followed through. The funny thing was, heterosexuals hoping to leave early took far more advantage of it than gay men!

    Comment by John — January 23, 2006 @ 8:04 am - January 23, 2006

  27. I agree, GPW, that all gay organizations should take Kaine to task if he does sign the bill, and they deserve all the criticism if they don’t. However, I don’t see how LCR criticizing Kaine would help though. The Republican candidate that Kaine defeated is much more homophobic. In fact, I remember one of his attacks on Kaine was that he (Kaine) would support gay marriage. The unfortunate thing is Virginia is stuck with garbage like that. I probably spent about a total of 60 days in Virginia last year. I’m glad I won’t be going there any more.

    Comment by Pat — January 23, 2006 @ 8:49 am - January 23, 2006

  28. Being against gay marriage, Pat, isn’t homophobic. I find that among heterosexuals there are many reasons for their position re: gay marriage, and that homophobia isn’t one of them.

    Still, no one to explain Syn’s questons and my own at #28.

    Comment by John — January 23, 2006 @ 10:23 am - January 23, 2006

  29. John, I agree that being against gay marriage isn’t necessarily homophobic, but signing a bill such as what Kaine will most likely do, does qualify as homophobic in my book. Mileage may vary for you and others, I’m sure.

    Comment by Pat — January 23, 2006 @ 11:27 am - January 23, 2006

  30. Also, John, I haven’t heard a rational reason by anyone against gay marriage. These are the reasons I’ve heard.

    1. A marriage is between a man and a woman (very convincing???).
    2. Two people of the same sex can’t procreate (but it’s still okay for straight couple with no intention or ability to procreate to marry).
    3. I don’t want them there courts to legislate from the bench (which still doesn’t justify the reasons to be against gay marriage).
    4. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (my personal favorite).
    5. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman for a gazillion years (forgetting that a lot of traditions have changed relatively recently, like using computers, indoor plumbing, etc.)
    6. Sex between people of the same sex is disgusting.

    Comment by Pat — January 23, 2006 @ 11:48 am - January 23, 2006

  31. Point of order. There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” The only issue is “same sex marriage.” When my partner and I applied for our marriage license here in Massachusetts, the town clerk did not ask about our sexual orientation. It was fairly obvious that both of us were male.

    Regarding Pat’s rhetorical points (I’m sure that they were meant in jest):

    (1) No, not very convincing.

    (2) Neither my mother nor my mother in law, should they wish to remarry, could procreate.

    (3) Courts very frequently rule–not necessarily from the bench. It’s called “maintaining the rule of law.”

    (4) Actually, if there was a Steve, under christian mythology, god would have created him. It has been a while since I read Genesis, but, if memory serves, after Cain killed Able, he absconded to the land of Nod, where he found a spouse. The land of Nod appears to have been well populated–maybe even with a Steve. Where did the Nodians come from?

    (5) Actually, marriage has traditionally between a man and a gazillion women. If memory serves, King David of the old testament had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Horney dude.

    (6) If someone believes that, he shouldn’t engage in it. It isn’t rocket science.

    Comment by raj — January 23, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - January 23, 2006

  32. #32 — Actually, at least four of those reasons are fairly reasonable. You just don’t want to see things from other people’s perspectives. It’s easier for you to simply dismiss them as bigotry without really trying to understand them.

    Even though polygamists in this country are preparing lawsuits using same-sex marriage laws as precedents to claim marital rights, and even though the Canadian government has issued a recommendation to legalize polygamy… no one on this forum has yet apologized for attacking me when I stated that the precedent of basing same-sex marital rights on access to benefits would lead to people in polygamous and incestuous relationships demanding the same rights. So, let me just remind you. I was right. You were wrong.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2006 @ 5:43 pm - January 23, 2006

  33. I actually think the issue of children is a legitimate concern. Marriage does in fact provide security for children more effectively than no marriage. And while heterosexual couples may not be able to produce or choose not to produce children, they do in fact have the biology that is requires to produce children-homosexual couples can’t produce children without some medical intervention or an adoption.

    I don’t think it is wise to dismiss this part of why the state sanctions marriage.

    That said I don’t think this argument neccessarily precludes homosexual marriage, given that some homosexuals do have children (either from marriages before coming out or through adoption/foster care), but I do think in this debate both sides need to do more listening, and less attacking.

    Comment by Just Me — January 23, 2006 @ 6:08 pm - January 23, 2006

  34. I can also similarly turn around any argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

    1. “We have to have SSM rights, because I want to be able to inherit my partner’s property and get custody of her kids.”

    Oh, and you’re too cheap or lazy to hire an attorney to make a contract to that effect.

    2. “Well, straight couples get those rights automatically. And besides, I want to be included in her health coverage.”

    Oh, so basically, marriage is just a pinata full of benefits that you want access to.

    3. “No. I want society to recognize my commitment to my partner.”

    Because, without a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy, your commitment is meaningless? Why not just accept civil unions then? You’d get recognition and benefits.

    4. “No! Because even if the benefits are identical, it’s still not the same. It would make us feel like second class citizens.”

    Oh, so this isn’t about practical considerations, it’s about symbolism and feelings. Does everyone have a right to demand the government recognize their feelings? What about polygamists and people in incestuous relationships?

    5. Incest? Polygamy? Ewwwwww! Disgusting! People have a right not recognize those kinds of relationships.

    Comment by V the K — January 23, 2006 @ 6:10 pm - January 23, 2006

  35. I’m still waiting for an answer to my post in #7. I think that the demoncRATS know that they have no answer for it whatsoever. And that is why I don’t vote demoncRAT.

    Point, set, match. I rest my case.

    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 23, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - January 23, 2006

  36. #36 V the K, you make a good argument for getting rid of all marriage. Good luck to that.

    Comment by Pat — January 24, 2006 @ 7:26 am - January 24, 2006

  37. Some people think the real intent of SSM is to destroy marriage. Comment 38 validates that belief.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2006 @ 8:49 am - January 24, 2006

  38. V the K — January 23, 2006 @ 6:10 pm – January 23, 2006

    Incest? Polygamy? Ewwwwww! Disgusting! People have a right not recognize those kinds of relationships.

    Incest is not a legal relationship. Same sex marriage–like opposite-sex marriage–is.

    Polygamy was dealt with in the 1879 US SupCt decision of Reynolds vs. US. Do a google search if you want to read the text. The Court addressed the issue of whether the Congress’s ban of polygamous marriages in the Utah territory violated the US Constitution, primarily the free exercise and establishment of religion clauses of the 1st amendment. (Congress has and had plenary power in the territories, and so it was not limited by Article I, section 8.). The Court examined the evidence and determined

    (i) that there was a rational basis for the ban on polygamous marriages, and

    (ii) in response to the free exercise and establishment claims, the Mormons might believe that they are called to polygamous marriages, but that doesn’t give them the right to engage in polygamous marriages.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 9:02 am - January 24, 2006

  39. Sounds like someone has no problem with the government legislating morality, so long as its a form of morality he agrees with.

    Comment by V the K — January 24, 2006 @ 9:53 am - January 24, 2006

  40. V the K — January 24, 2006 @ 9:53 am – January 24, 2006

    If this is supposed to be responsive to something, you might be well advised to say what it’s responsive to.

    Comment by raj — January 24, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - January 24, 2006

  41. #39 I agree that some people think that the real intent of SSM is to destroy marriage. Not sure how my comment validates it. I simply feel that the definition of marriage should be simplified by taking out the words “opposite sex.” There are good reasons for doing so, as well as it being non discriminatory. Marriage of close relatives also simplifies the definition, but there are compelling reasons to not do that. Polygamy involves expanding the definition of marriage, and I do not find a compelling reason to do so, and I don’t see it as a means to strengthen relationships. Also, marriage as you know, is more than a piece of paper. In any case, even if SSM were to happen, those who don’t want or need the piece of paper don’t have to get it. No biggee.

    Comment by Pat — January 24, 2006 @ 2:36 pm - January 24, 2006

  42. Marriage of close relatives also simplifies the definition, but there are compelling reasons to not do that.

    What are they?

    Comment by Just Me — January 24, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - January 24, 2006

  43. Just Me — January 24, 2006 @ 4:19 pm – January 24, 2006

    To Pat’s #43 Marriage of close relatives also simplifies the definition, but there are compelling reasons to not do that.

    you responded

    What are they?

    I don’t know of any “compelling reasons not to do that,” either, but we’ve discussed the issue several times over the last few years on the NYTimes gay rights board, and the general consensus was that it was unnecessary. One of the primary purposes of marriage is to create a familial relationship where none existed before, or at most a tenuous one existed (as in the case of distant relatives). In the case of close relatives, a familial relationship already exists and is quite evident, so marriage would not be necessary.

    Regarding Pat’s comment #43 “Polygamy involves expanding the definition of marriage, approval of polygamy may involve expanding the definition of Greco-Roman marriage, upon which western Europe and our law is based, but it is quite Biblical. One of the Israelite kings (David I believe) was reported as having 700 wives and 300 concubines. That sounds to me like polygamy.

    Comment by raj — January 25, 2006 @ 5:48 am - January 25, 2006

  44. One thing missing in the Tim Kaine bashing here….there is no role for the Governor of Virginia in the amendment process. Here is the text of Article XII, Section 1 on Amendments:

    Section 1. Amendments.

    Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in the Senate or House of Delegates, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, the name of each member and how he voted to be recorded, and referred to the General Assembly at its first regular session held after the next general election of members of the House of Delegates. If at such regular session or any subsequent special session of that General Assembly the proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the voters qualified to vote in elections by the people, in such manner as it shall prescribe and not sooner than ninety days after final passage by the General Assembly. If a majority of those voting vote in favor of any amendment, it shall become part of the Constitution on the date prescribed by the General Assembly in submitting the amendment to the voters.

    Comment by Jason C — January 25, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - January 25, 2006

  45. #45: You DID read the article, didn’t you, Ridor?

    The measure was defeated 14-21. Eight Republican senators joined with six Democrats to ensure the amendment did not get the required “super majority” which is required to change the Idaho Constitution. (story)

    Idaho already has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but Republicans say they fear with an amendment the law could be struck down in court.

    But some senators, including a handful of Republicans, who voted against the measure in 2005 pledged to renew their opposition.

    “My contention is, that is not the way to use the constitution,” said Sen. Chuck Coiner (R-Twin Falls). “We have a law on the books. It’s not challenged. It’s a very contentious issue. It will burn up a lot of legislative time that could be used more constructively.”

    Bye now. Go back to kissing your homophobic Democrats’ asses.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - January 25, 2006

  46. Jason, if there’s no role for the Virginia Governor in the process, why hasn’t Governor Kaine said as much and remained silent, instead of coming out and making clear his opposition to civil union as well as gay marriage?

    In that case, his public stance is more telling. He’s the one who should be silent. But, instead the national gay groups are.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 26, 2006 @ 1:38 pm - January 26, 2006

  47. What I just can’t begin to understand is why gay marriage bothers someone as an issue. There is no gay marriage proposal, as far as I know, that will force me to marry a woman. So why would I care if two women want to marry, or two men? A committed relationship is a committed relationship. More power to anyone who can find someone to love and care for in this world.

    Comment by LaPopessa — January 29, 2006 @ 10:03 am - January 29, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.