As I worked on my piece yesterday on HRC President Joe Solmonese’s silly letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, I found the post growing in the writing. What began as mild mockery of an activist for insulting a man he was (ostensibly) trying to influence became, in part, an expression of my support of a public debate on amending the constitution to define marriage.
While I oppose Senator Frist’s proposed amendment, I do agree with what one thing he said in the 2004 Senate debate on the issue. “The question before us is fundamental: should marriage remain the union of husband and wife?” He’s right; the question is fundamental. And such a fundamental quesiton requires serious debate.
Those who advocate gay marriage should welcome such a debate. If they believe, that it’s (to use one of the terms they’re fond of) about “basic fairness,” then with solid arguments they should be able to convince a majority of the American people of the wisdom of their position. As these advocates present their case, those now opposed to (or skeptical of) changing the centuries-old definition of marriage will realize that individuals who want to marry someone of their own gender, enter into such a union by accepting its responsibilities in order to secure its benefits. Good arguments could make it easier to change their minds.
These advocates need to bear in mind that they’re proposing a significant social change. And there has always been opposition, some sensible, some not-so-sensible, to such changes. While many cultures have recognized same-sex unions throughout human history, I am (as of yet) unaware of single one (until the past decade or so) that used the same term for such unions as it did for those joining two individuals of the opposite sex.
We’re in this situation we are now (with many states amending their constitutions to ban gay marriage and with Congress considering such an amendment to the federal constitution) because some gay-marriage advocates tried to bypass public debate and force the change through the courts.
When these advocates got a Hawaii court to agree to change that definition, Hawaii’s citizens moved to amend their state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Through popular referenda and legislative action, a whole host of states followed suit. Momentum for a federal constitutional amendment only picked up steam after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court required the Bay State to recognize same-sex unions as marriage.
While “troubled by any constitutional amendment that is not about democratic governance.” Charles Krauthammer believed that gay-marriage “activists have forced the issue. What is the alternative to nationalized gay marriage imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts?” Peggy Noonan agrees, seeing the president’s support of “the marriage amendment [as] a decision to join a battle that had already begun. Massachusetts’ courts and San Francisco’s mayor forced his hand.“
Thus, Andrew Sullivan got it wrong*. Those who advocated amending the federal constitution to define marriage were not declaring war; they were merely joining the debate.
It seemed odd to me that someone, as gifted in debate as Andrew, by responding to the president’s pronouncement with such venom, would ally himself with those angry voices on the left who see all opposition as animosity. To be sure, some of the opponents of gay marriage don’t have a very favorable opinion of gay people. Others, however, have legitimate concerns about expanding the definition of marriage. The president’s statement (announcing his support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage) clearly puts him in the latter camp.
The president, like many opponents of gay marriage (including, to some extent, yours truly) has serious reservations about changing the definition of an age old institution. Marriage evolved as in institution uniting individuals of the opposite sex into a lifelong partnership. Thus, we should understand why some may have serious reservations about altering that institution.
In the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, then-candidate Dick Cheney (who, like me, disagrees with his the president on amending the constitution) recognized the difficulty of the issue. While many advocates of gay marriage herald the first part of his statement on the question of same sex unions, “freedom means freedom for everybody,” few of those advcoates noted what he said right after that.
He acknowledged that “the question . . . whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of [same-sex] relationships or if they should be treated the same as a traditional marriage” is “ a tougher problem” than the question of allowing people to enter into whatever kind of relationship they wanted to. (Emphasis added.) I agree with the Cheney’s further comments that this issue should be left to the states.
And while I also agree with the First Lady what we should not make gay marriage a campaign issue, I welcome a national debate on gay marriage. If its advocates are really serious about their cause, they too should welcome such a debate as it would more readily bring that issue to the attention of the American people.
It’s unfortunate that too many gay activists attempt to bypass that debate by calling their opponents (on this issue) names or accusing them of declaring war. Instead of such angry rhetoric, they should respond with serious arguments. And who knows, in making such arguments, they might change a few minds.
Senator Frist is right. This is a fundamental question. I, for one, am eager to engage in a serious conversation on the topic. And I invite supporters of gay marriage to join me.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*It was this post which began the process of turning me from a regular reader of his blog into a frequent critic.
As our Supreme Court has noted on more than one occasion: “Fundamental rights may not
be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
The Courts have also ruled that “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.” This is a position that the vast majority of heterosexuals have embraced when talking about their own right to marry.
If we accept that both of these statements are true, then it is unfair to ask gay people to have their fundamental rights put to a vote. No one suggests that the States should have the right to ban interracial marriage on a case-by-case basis, and that interracial couples should go to the voters for approval. The same goes for interfaith couples and couples who are unable or unwilling to produce children. The idea that gay couples should be put in this position flies in the face of our constitutional jurisprudence (which is one reason why doctors and grad students shouldn’t be holding themselves out as constitutional scholars).
Nobody has the “right” to get married. Nearly every state prohibits certain groups from getting married.
I oppose the Amendment on two grounds:
1. It weakens Federalism by strengthening the power of the Federal government over the States.
2. It’s like putting a band-aid on a severed artery. The problem isn’t gay marriage; the problem is an out of control judiciary which has taken upon itself the role of the legislature. Roe v. Wade is yet another example.
Having said that, the Amendment isn’t going anywhere. They couldn’t ratify the idiotic ERA. There’s no way they can ratify this either. I have more important things to worry about, like the war.
Anonie –that was SCOTUS ala Robt Jackson circa 1943 commenting in the Flag Salute case… for him and the majority on the Court he was speaking about the enumerated rights in the 1st A…. not “rights” such as gay marriage, the right to have unlimited cable access, the right to a good tasting light beer or the right to decent pizza crust.
Real “rights” per the 1st Amendment… not your contemporary, transitory political agenda.
When I think of a right, I think of it applied to all people equally.
I realized that people we deem as children, brother and sister, etc. don’t get married. There are certain requirements per state either by blood test to waiting periods, to certain ages of consent. Also, Daniel here has brought up an intelligent point. Instead of forcing it down people’s throats with ‘it’s my right!’ there definitely should be open debate because this is an established institution, and people in general do not want to change something unless benefits and the costs are presented for them. I like how Daniel observes that people are making no-gay marriage amendments to their laws, because they feel it is in defense of this institution that they feel threatened activism in the courts, rather than societal decisions after a reasoned debate.
From when I speak to people about gay marriage. Many oppose it, not because they think homosexuals are sinful and horrible people, but they don’t see marriage as defined as such. Many more people said at the very least that if it was called something else, but not changing the definition as marriage, and was given the same and benefits as marriage, then they would have no issue with it.
I do also agree with #2 . Federalizing anything of the sort would be quite silly and open for political manipulation. It should be determined by the society of each state. Marriage is a societal issue fundamentally, as #3 gave great examples of other relative things.
The moves of the GOP on the Constitutional Amendment are not to “debate” the issue. For them the issue is already decided, ostensibly by God. Their current agenda on the issue, whether it be at the federal or state level, is to cut off debate, not encourage it. And in a GOP controlled Congress, you are not going to see a “fair” debate on the bill anyway. At least not in the sense that they ill deliberately go out and find opposing points of view to air.
#5 – Then simply let it be a debate over whether now is the time to cut off the debate!
And since when do 2 wrongs make a right? The only reason some on the Right want to cut off debate (via constitutional amendment) is, as pointed out in GPW’s post, because some on the Left FIRST tried to cut off the debate by getting unelected judges to impose gay marriage as a fait accompli.
You can’t morally slam what came second (the Right’s move) while ignoring what came first (the Left’s).
#2 – “Nobody has the ‘right’ to get married. Nearly every state prohibits certain groups from getting married.”
That may be, but something is profoundly perverse and unjust about allowing convicted death-row murderers to get married but not upstanding gays.
Or about going on and on about the purpose of marriage supposedly being procreative or child-rearing (to justify a homosexual exclusion), when in fact, sterile / child-incapable couples are allowed to marry all the time and lesbian couples have kids all the time.
Before we begin the debate, could we first define the meaning of “gay marriage” as the current definition ‘same-sex union between a man and a women’ is confusing.
Once again, Anonymous misses the point of the post to which he attaches his comment — the point is that I welcome a debate on this issue — and wonder why some advocates of gay marriage are afraid of such a debate.
A serious debate on a complex topic, what a wonderful idea.
As a woman who has been married to the same man for 27 years, I can assure you, marriage is not all about “rights”. As a very commited Jew I feel strongly about marriage and family being the building blocks of what we call Western Civilization. Marriage in Judaism has evolved. It has taken a couple of thousands of years for Judaism to outlaw poligamy, and that only after living amongst the Christians for a centuries.
On the otherhand, does a monogomous gay couple add to the stability of our society? Of course they do. At the moment they have to work harder, make legal and fiscal arrangements on their own.
Civil unions, such as the one being proposed in Colorado make more sense to me.
So please, bring on the discussion, and Dan, I hope this can move beyond your blog, because I would love to hear more than soundbites and blanket statements.
Epileptics, autistics, etc.
syn, I’ve always thought that those who are pressing for “gay marriage” seek a law (or the repeal and modification of many laws) that will allow gays to marry –in a Church, in a courtroom, in City Hall, under the boardwalk, skydiving out of a plane, on a Sunday or a Tuesday, before an Elvis impersonator or whatever suits their fancy and within the bounds of decency.
When others seek “same sex unions”, they are asking for a set of legal and societal protections and benefits (wrongly thought of as “rights”) found in a sanctioned civil marriage –and in some states, found to a lesser degree in common law relationships. Do we generally think of legal benefits as “rights”? Yes. Does that add to the confusion? You betcha.
Can a same sex union be called a marriage? Not unless we redefine marriage and amend our laws. Do a majority of Americans support gay marriage? No. Do a majority support civil unions? Yes.
Can it be used as a wedge issue? HowieDean is trying to by playing up the ReligiousRight ala the 700 Club visit. 1st Lady Laura Bush and Veep Cheney think that using the issue as a wedge to divide Americans is a bad idea. Go figure.
When I say “gay marriage” I don’t mean same sex civil unions. When I say “protections and benefits” I don’t mean rights. Can a benefit from marriage be construed as a legal right? Sure but it makes the debate even more confusing.
Does a gay person have a fundamental moral right to marriage? Sure. Do they have a legal right? No. Can they share in the same benefits and protections that a married couple now enjoy? I hope one day that will be the case but it’s a long, hard slog to get there.
My partner and I, in our eyes, are married. We’ve taken extensive steps to insure that most of the benefits of our legal relationship will survive a test of pragmatic reality in a world hostile to the concept of gay marriage. We know we’re unique; we consider what we have a privilege –a rare one indeed.
androx at #4; thanks. I really do think I have a right to a good tasting light beer and decent pizza crust –all at the same dinner, too.
“Nobody has the “right” to get married.”
Marriage of any kind is a contract. Generally individuals have an inherent right to conclude contracts. Some types of contracts are excluded from this; a contract involving the sale of someone into slavery is one example (I am not being facetious; this is all too common in the world these days.) but the burden of proof should be on those who want to restrict this general right of contract.
The first comment and the thrust of the post are not in conflict – the debate ought to be whether or not rights are subject to a vote; whether an individual’s rights are subject to approval by society. If the notion of limited government does not mean that the authority of the community or society, organized into government, stops at the rights of individuals, that these rights are inherent in individuals rather than being grants from the government, then what does it mean?
I would agree with that — then, I wouldn’t allow convicts, death row or not, to get married. And hey, the liberals shouldn’t have any trouble with that; they love criminals, the more violent, the better.
Not supposedly. But you’ve put your finger on the real problem: the cultural re-definition of marriage as being all about ME! ME! ME! instead of having a family. After all, if marriage were all about ME! ME! ME! then there’s no reason to prohibit incest, is there?
So if marriage is about having families, and we know lesbians have families (in the sense of kids) all the time – then lesbians should be allowed to get married. For the children!
Jim, the ability to enter into a contract is not a “right” nor is marriage. To reduce the conventional notion of marriage to a “contract” is to retreat toward the ill-fated decaying province of those in our culture who would debase the primary organizing and stabilizing force of marriage on our culture. No wonder the right talks about attempts to modify marriage as a culture war –as a values issue.
“Any kind of marriage is a contract” makes the point for those who argue it is indeed a culture war. To the vast majority of Americans, marriage is not simply a contract. And shame on all those profitable divorce lawyers and TV sleaze show hosts who have presented it as such.
And just a question – do you support the imposition of fertility tests as a requirement for a marriage license?
It seems like you ought to, for consistency. Or why should straight couples with no intention or capacity of ever having kids (e.g., the elderly, or the abortion-practicing) be granted a State marriage license? Remember, it’s “not a right”.
Oh please, are you reducing this to the school recess playground politics of “well he started it!, No, he did!” etc? How childish.
And of course you raise the old canard of “this is all the fault of liberal activist judges and liberal militant homosexuals”. Bullcrap.
Were there liberal gay people seeking the right to get married? Yes. Were there also conservatives seeking the same thing? Yes. And both through use of the courts.
This may be a difficult concept for your FoxNews addled brain to grasp big C., but there simply are plenty of gay and lesbian American families out there, of whatever political stripe, who feel that they are being treated unfairly by their own country.
Enough with the stupid Liberal Conspiracy theories. The major GLBT organizations originally had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the marriage equality movement. Now of course its a great fundraiser for them. Just as it is a great fundraiser for those on the Right. But the grass-roots movement across America for marriage equality is a lot broader than either.
Incidentally, if you were exactly the same as your next door neighbor, but he got tax breaks you didn’t, for whatever reason, what would your first impulse be? To go to Congress? Call your elected Representative?
Pfft. I doubt it. The first thing you would do is get on the phone with your lawyer and talk about suing somebody or something. And that wouldn’t be “cutting off debate”, it would be starting one. And in the same grand tradition of all American debates. Bah.
#16 – I have to disagree.
First, just as a very general point: the ability to enter a contract is absolutely a right. A “right” is: a moral principle governing and defining the interaction of 2 or more people. Among our God-given moral or natural rights is the right to negotiate and enter mutually beneficial agreements with other people, a.k.a. contracts.
If the State may deprive an adult non-criminal of the LEGAL right to make such contracts, to that extent, the State is immoral. One of the (few legitimate) functions of the State is to be an objective third-party interpreter of contracts and to correct objective injustices arising from their gross violation, i.e., to enforce contracts. If an adult non-criminal can’t get that much out of the State, the State isn’t doing its job.
Next, as for marriage – from the State’s viewpoint, marriage is in essence a highly specialized or “pre-defined” contract whereby 2 unrelated adults declare themselves to be a specially tightly bound legal and economic unit, otherwise known as “a family”. Marriage may well be other things, from a religious viewpoint; I am talking here about the State’s viewpoint.
Given that this particular contract is closely pre-defined by the State and carries with it particular State benefits, it can fairly be viewed as a State-granted privilege, rather than a right. I’ll grant that.
But then you get into the whole question of whether the State is administering or distributing the privilege in a fair and appropriate way. I say it isn’t – see #6, #15, #17.
Gay marriage FEELS like a “right” to many, because of the fact that everyone has a general moral or natural right to be treated fairly by the State. Although marriage may not be a right per se (as I have chosen to grant you), nonetheless, it is unjust to deny marriage licenses to otherwise-qualifying gay couples.
Having said all of that, I remain a supporter of civil unions (if that’s what the rest of society is willing to grant at this time), and in opposition to gay marriage imposed by mere judicial fiat.
#18 – For the record, Gryph, I have yet to ever watch a single minute of Fox news.
Now enough of your ugly, boring wah wah wah; back to the real discussion with the grownups.
No. I have characteristically conservative views about fatherless families, be they lesbian couples or single mothers — particularly if they have boys.
But — and this is a big but, and where you’re going off the tracks with the assumption you made — I do not propose a governmental or legal solution to all problems. If I did, I’d be a liberal.
But marriage is FOR THE KIDS in #14, right?
Lesbian couples with kids are a fact. Those families – meaning, those kids – merit the relative stability and protection afforded by marriage, rather more than do the abortion-practicing or elderly straight couples currently being given it.
GrampaGryph, check your meds box… you took too many of the wrong tabs this morning. I thought we took out grumpy and replaced it with sneezy in your case? jk –but man, you got “ornery” and “grouchy” down pat.
Calarato, all fair points. But doesn’t the strongest one you favor for gay marriage, as I understand your points, the one which argues it morally just for a society to grant that “right” or privilege to gay couples? We have lots of instances where society sets aside “morally just” choices in favor of the rule of law or other principles… how would you balance those instances against the morally just argument for gay marriage?
Just trying to get it right.
Oh, and Calarato… (#15) lesbians aren’t the only ones who have families… gay guys do too. And, from personal experience, I can tell you we are much better parents than and couple of nuturing, maternal small engine repair dykes in flannel shirts. We just are… and it isn’t all about fashion sense, either.
Thanks Matt 🙂
I am having trouble understanding your question. If society democratically changes the law to allow the lesbians-with-kids of #22 to get married, then rule of law is still being followed (and distribution of the privilege of marriage is made more just, simultaneously).
Could you give me an example of the conflict-of-principles you have in mind? (Warning – I have to run out the door and may not get to it until later)
Sorry -I just broke the “3 comment rule” of my own design.
#22 – P.S. –
Unless your real position here, RWP, is that the lesbian couple shouldn’t have had kids in the first place? (If so, let me know and we’ll agree to disagree.)
Those kids merit families with strong, traditional male role models.
I don’t feel comfortable saying that lesbians shouldn’t have children. I won’t go that far. I will say, though, that everything that’s wrong with marriage is cultural, and that there is no fast legislative solution.
How’s that?
First of all, we have to examine the difference between marriage and civil marriage. Civil marriage is a legal contract endorced and enforced by the states and federal govt, whereas a marriage need no license or otherwise documented permission from a third party. From this, we can see two things. 1. civil marriage is not a right. This is implicitly true as the states require a license to pursue one and certain types of relationships are forbidden from being recognized as a civil marriage. 2. marriage as a non-civil institution is also not a right as it requires permission of other parties as opposed to allowing individuals to do as they wish.
In the grand arena, we do not see proponents declare civil marriage as a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right, but at best a civil right. Civil rights are distinctly different from fundamental rights in that they require complacency from the masses to exist. Since that has not happened, we are not even talking about a civil right that exists, but one that proponents say should exist.
Obviously, I can understand the desire to recieve benefits from the government. However, an inherent responsibility is carried with civil marriage. That includes even needing permission by a judge to divorce. But on the larger scale, we have to examine why civil marriage was endorsed financially and by policy in the first place whereas gay civil marriage has not.
What seperates these two? Well, the only thing that CAN seperate them in every case is the ability to produce offspring purely as a result of that relationship. I’m not talking about adoption or insimenation. Im talking about kids being made PURELY as a result of that couple. That is the one capability that hetero relationships have that homo relationships do not. This has been long recognized and our restrictions upon who may pursue a civil marriage have reflected that. IF the relationship is too close, the kids may be no good in the future labor force. relationship = banned. If at least one of the participants is too young, they stand a far less chance of raising a mentally healthy child. Relationship = banned… and so forth.
As a nation, we have consistently treated civil marriage as a non-right and placed restrictions as to be conducive to a child who is born and raised healthy. After two hundred and thirty years, what is the compelling reason to change this policy, and perhaps our concept of rights?
Why should the federal government not reserve the power to pick and choose who is endorsed by policy and finance? Both of those realities are very constitutional, why should a non-right supercede constitutionality?
Some questions need to be answered.
“First of all, we have to examine the difference between marriage and civil marriage. Civil marriage is a legal contract endorced and enforced by the states and federal govt, whereas a marriage need no license or otherwise documented permission from a third party.”
This is a baseless distinction, unless the disitinction you are making is between religious marriages and civil marriages. If that is the distinction, then you are wrong about religious marriages. In Christianity at least marriage is seen as a three-way relationship with God at the center, without whom there was no valid marriage, and traditionally various churches absolutely did exert their authority to permit or forbid these marriages. Even here in America where the multitude of Protestant splinter sects call themselves churches, they still exert this authority and refuse to marry just anyone who walks in.
“2. marriage as a non-civil institution is also not a right as it requires permission of other parties as opposed to allowing individuals to do as they wish.”
Bingo! Well said – the requirement for permission to marry was at one time the single most important test of whether a person was free or serf. Serfs had to get permission from their lords. Is that what you are proposing for this country?
“Well, the only thing that CAN seperate them in every case is the ability to produce offspring purely as a result of that relationship.”
Actually, as is evident from centuries and millenia of law on marriage, the main concerns were 1) inheritance – who is or is not a legtimate heir 2) class boundaries – no “marriages” between “spouses” from different classes, especailly slaves, of whatever color 3) employment security for wives – alimony laws, restrictions on divorce, etc 4) continuity – polygamy and other work-around for the failure to produce sons to continue the family. (The family, not the human species – daughters counted for nothing usually). These all involve children in one way or the other. True.
So what does all this have to do with modrn marriage laws in our country? Show where in laws concerning civil marriages there is any explict reference to children as any explicit purpose of mariage. Do these laws presume to make any reference to a purpose at all?
Back to religious marriages. The Church has never allowed barrenness a as a grounds for annullment, (It has insisted on procreation as the only purpose for sex; supposedly this is not contradictory because sex is not the purpose of marriage (!), Jesus didn’t allow it as a basis for divorce, and St. Paul cautions against getting married because the end is so imminent. This notion that Chrisitianity depends on or promotes “the Family”, or that children are the purpose, is new and pagan.
I think there is a fundamental difference between the current debate about gay marriage and earlier gay rights issues. Previously, the argument was that the government should “butt out” of gay people’s lives; that what consenting adults did behind closed doors was no one else’s business. This argument resonated strongly with me and most of the people I know. Now, however, advocates of gay marriage are asking that the government “butt in” and offically endorse their personal relationships.
To me this is a very different question. I am Libertarian on many issues, and any time someone asks the government to take a greater role in people’s private lives, my first “gut reaction” is to oppose it. I am more than willing to be convinced that I am wrong on this issue. However, I need to hear new arguments for this new direction in gay rights before I start writing my elected representatives.
P.S. Calling anyone who asks “Why gay marriage?” a homophobe (which a loud minority has done) does not help convince undecideds that your position is the rational one.
The fact is that a great many lesbian couples with children DO make sure their kids have steady male role-models in their lives (close friends, brothers, etc.) The whole “Ozzie-and-Harriet” family model is actually a very recent development — and, by all appearances, not a particularly successful one. Throughout most of history, in most cultures, the task of raising kids was not left strictly to the parents, but was shared with members of the extended family and community.
It is ignorant, not to mention insulting, to assume that if I ever have kids, I must not give a shit whether they are brought up decently or not. If you want to make assumptions, make them for yourself. The sort of assumptions that are made about gay people (we are stupid, we are irresponsible, we don’t care about anybody but ourselves, we are all addicted to pleasure, etc.) are a large part of the impediment in the understanding of otherwise fair and reasonable straight people. And to point out a handful of exhibitionistic famous gay or lesbian dumb-asses and say, “well, THEY’RE stupid, irresponsible, etc., so you must be, too” implies that we are not individuals; we are all alike.
I’ve known a great many people who’ve grown up with heterosexual parents, yet who either barely know one parent, or who wish they didn’t. I’ve known many more who had heterosexual parents who did not stay together, and who therefore were raised by a single parent. Human beings are far too complex, and our circumstances far too various, for facile, cookie-cutter slogans about “one man and one woman” to apply equally peachy-keenly to every situation.
As for whether we call same-sex unions “marriage” or not, who the hell cares what we call them? Why don’t we decide on a different term: one that will not offend the tender little sensibilities of all those morally-superior straight people out there?
I will call my own marriage whatever my partner and I choose to call it. There are more than a few straight people who wouldn’t like what I would call their “marriages,” if ever they were to ask me. I see some of the hetero couples running around today: swapping partners, cheating, playing games with their kids’ futures, and I think “Next, they’ll be issuing licenses to apes.”
What is heterosexual marriage becoming, if not evolution in the opposite direction?
Wow! There’s a lot of good debate going on here! Thanks, Dan, for having a site where I can read (mostly) good, thoughtful opinions on such a controversial issue. I have a feeling this issue is going to be getting even more attention next year, and it’s good to see there there are people who can debate reasonably about it without resorting to the typical attacks I’ve become accustomed to seeing on many other sites.
Some more of my $.02, if anyone cares.
#30 – I am not at all sure what you are getting at. As for your one comment, “…the ability to produce offspring purely as a result of that relationship…is the one capability that hetero relationships have that homo relationships do not…” – I must disagree. Countless heterosexual couples lack the capability, the same as gay couples – and yet are allowed to marry.
#32 – I largely agree. I consider my own views largely libertarian (though note small ‘l’; I don’t support the LP). However – in certain cases where the State has already butt in (however legitimately or illegitimately) and is very obviously not going to butt out, I figure the State should at least administer whatever it’s administering without regard to race, national origin, religion or sexual orientation.
That gay couples with kids here and now are excluded from the relative protection and stability of marriage / civil unions in most States, while straight couples without kids (and with no intention or capability of having any) are granted marriage, strikes me as indefensible.
#33 – You’ve gotten me to take a look at your blog 🙂
You have poor thinking skills. The fact is that “rational and reasonable” debate on changing such a fundamental thing as the definition of marriage WILL NOT sway a majority of Americans… it’s impossible because too many Americans have an inaccurate and cartoonish idea of what gay people are like –think “The Bird Cage”… I know no such faggotty gay people, yet the majority of Americans are certain they can immediately spot a gay person –by that, the majority of Americans mean a person like Ru Paul.
If gay people try to enter into a rational and reasonable debate on this issue with middle America… middle America won’t hear a word the gay people say because they’ll be distracted while imagining you in women’s clothes wearing lipstick and fishnet stockings . . .
A rational and reasonable discussion requires that middle America believes you to be a reasonable person. . . someone wearing a fruity hat, make-up and womens’ clothing is, by definition, NOT reasonable or rational.
All of the fancy words, and pop-politics you write about in your post have no bearing on the geunine reality of the perception of gay people in the America today. What world are you living in? Have you ever been to the deep south or the mid-west??? Ever?
Dan, GPW, I have no objection, in principle, to a debate over same-sex marriage. But as I said in a comment yesterday, it’s outrageous that the Senate is wasting time on this issue when there are much more important issues being ignored in the Senate and House.
Beyond that, Dan, can you name even one Republican Senator now opposed to same-sex marriage whose mind can be changed by an intelligent and reasonable debate? (One of the theocrats, Tony Perkins, was just on Fox News threatening Republicans if the FMA is not passed.)
The problem is that there have been a lot of factors undermining the institution of marriage, most importantly, American feminism. I do not oppose feminism as a whole, but if the mentality is that “give us what we want because you were oppressive jerks to us, and we’re here to knock you down to a second-class citizen” crap that is prevalent in most prominent feminists today. The fact that it has been much more accepted for single mothers to raise children on their own when they have had children out of wedlock, Roe v. Wade-where it is a double standard where the woman has all the power and no responsiblity and the man cannot have a word in edgewise about his reproductive rights, and yes, the cheapening of sex, therefore cheapening the relations between men and women. I have noticed that a lot of people are taught not to put importance in such an institution by noncommunication, entitlement, etc., therefore you have the people getting the high divorce rate, adultery, and other issues that are due to a failure of marriage.
I’m not saying that divorce will go away if we impose some rule. People are imperfect, and people will still make mistakes. I also am not for more laws enforcing my own personal morality. However, the thing is that we have forgotten as a whole to hold contracts with each other, especially in marriage, because men and women (mostly women) don’t view each other as equals in that regard. I also don’t buy the argument, “Well, people are going to do it anyway, so why not make it legal?” Adultery does happen quite a bit, but would making it legal make it better? Of course not, it would just break down the society all the more because there’s this institution established that it’s okay to screw around on your spouse, so why bother getting married in the first place? It tears up families, hurts the other spouse, spreads disease, etc.
Not that I’m equating gay marriage to such a thing, but I’ve ran into people that have that attitude of ‘make it legal because people do it anyway’, and unfortunately, that doesn’t work. I think Dan is quite right in opening up the debate that he has to at least give us some insight on the pros/cons of gay marriage. Also, there is a compromise, of which we can give gay couples the benefits of a marriage, but it could be called by another name. I’ve found that many more people support this than just calling two gay people ‘married’. (I’m speaking of a new term, rather than just civil unions, but would hold the same status as marriage.)
I have also noticed another thing. People make laws for two reasons: a) to establish laws in order to create a utopian society as deemed by an unelected few. (ex. Hitler imposing laws to scapegoat Jews and other imperfects to lead to their mass extermination.) or it is b) Society as a whole creates laws to protect institutions, families, individuals from certain things that they deem need to be protected. (ex. Murder. And the responses by some states thanks to some activists that want to push their views through the courts and NOT by the people’s by imposing gay marriage on them.)
I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks it’s remotely their business who marries whom as long as both are consenting adults.
I know many gay couples who have far more meaningful, and better suited relationships than many of my non-gay friends. Married or not.
Besides, if any of the gay couples I know got married, that would mean more weddings, which in turn mean more free booze, and I do love a good cake.
In addition, when I “married” my husband, it was a civil union. And it doesn’t make us any less “married”, than those who were united in a church. He’s still my husband, I’m still his wife.
I’m not sure how you move this ball forward. And actually resolve this debate in the country. But an idea I’ve had for a while is
The gay community simply give up the name “marriage”. It’s what freaks the other side out really. You codify most, if not all the rights received when u legally marry via a civil union or partner rights or partner union blessings if you want it to be more religious. Do we want the benefits of marriage or is this really about the satisfaction of saying “see we’re just like you, it is so marriage”! A long time ago I decided I wasnt going to wait around for any mass of incompetence like a “govt” to decide what makes me happy in day to day life. Can’t help but feel sorry for someone flying to London or Montreal to get sanctioned to be happy. But that’s just me.
I think the original commentary ignores a basic idea of our founders: while the majority in this country should rule, but the mob should not.
The passage of these anti-gay marriage ammendments is frightfully disturbing because over and over they are giving the mob the power to say that a certain right is ok for some people but not for others. This fundamentally changes the way our entire system of government has held together for 230 years. Why is it that gay have to sit around like second-class citizens and wait for the “right time” to enjoy the same civil rights as other people in this country. It’s turning back the progress this country has been making since the civil rights era. Unfortunately, many people are forgetting how much past generations fought for their freedoms in this country and things like the anti-gay marriage laws are nothing short of voting for hatred and prejudice.
Additionally, it’s unfortunate that conservatives have led people to believe that courts are something to be feared and dismantled. It is my hope that the courts will have the sense to invalidate these laws for the true crimes they are: denial of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th ammendment. History has already taught us that to deny rights to citizens in the constitution is an inherently bad idea (prohibition).
Too bad that the increase in lies and deceit coming from our government since January of 2001 has reached this point. Look at the estate tax: republicans have people believing that the gov’t is snatching the last few pennies from grieving widows. In reality, these taxes don’t affect estates worth less than $2million. This affects less than 1% of Americans. In all this talk about how awful the “death tax” is, have you seen one proponent for its repeal mention or admit to the $2million figure? No siree bob.
Bush – keeping the people confused for over a 20th of a century….
Actually, the taxes effect pretty much everyone that wants to pursuit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government decides and deems on who should pay taxes based upon the archaic argument and much disproven theory of class struggle. The death tax affects everyone. I have a friend that inherited a small sum from his uncle (under $1000) and the government taxed the crap out of his inheritence. The concept that one taxpayer is pitted against another is based on that archaic and disproven idea of the “poor and the downtrodden”. That argument doesn’t hold water with me. Also, considering that government has steadily raised taxes since Reagan and the Democrats (exception of Bush I) have constantly raised the rate of taxation for their social programs (of which the federal government is actually not supposed to do). I actually got a decent tax break and I don’t even break the $30K mark from Bush’s tax cuts. Yet, they are whining about how tax breaks only help the rich. I have noticed that the more money you allocate for yourself, you are technically ‘rich’ by the government, because you produce. We have invested 10 trillion dollars on the war on poverty, and it really hasn’t done anything.
As for marriage being a right, look at how it is applied. Can children get married? Can a brother and sister be married? How come states (other than the universal requirement that it is between a man and a woman) have different requirements of blood tests, waiting periods, different ages of consent, etc. In short, it is not a right, but an institution deemed by society. As Daniel maintains that in order to change that societal institution, there should be open debate on the pros and cons of why this should be changed. Mob rule would be that most people would think that gay people shouldn’t own guns or have property. However, it is a Constitutionally protected right within the Bill of Rights that should be applied equally to everyone. The rights issue is not really applicable here in the marriage situation.. What is wrong about overturning a vote in court, is that it takes a very slippery slide down. The courts are meant to be apolitical and maintain justice, and especially for the SCOTUS, it is to determine Constitutionality of the law or the Consitutional application of law. When people go under civil rights, it is usually under the premise of “We deserve it.” rather than a valid Consitutional argument. Marriage should not be politicized and the tax system should not favor one bracket over another or one union over another. That is why I see validation in that argument for pro gay marriage. However, again, it can be granted under another name.
If you want to speak of the minority being screwed by the majority, what about Waco? A bunch of fundamentalist Christians were deprived of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because it was based on mere allegations of child abuse. It was never proven in evidence at all. In fact, there was no evidence. Also, the fact is that they stormed the compound when they could have easily arrested Koresh (supposedly the main offender) when he rode on his bike to get groceries in town? These people weren’t doing anything to anyone, and the reason why they had a huge gun stockpile was the fact that they had a federal gun license for sale of guns. They were doing nothing wrong, and their home got stormed. So, like any other citizen would, they defended themselves. Not only was it incompetence from the people in charge, it was also government interference with their Consitutional rights of these people. These were in the minority. I don’t hear anyone crying for them. I would think these folks were treated as non-citizens as well. You have Roe v. Wade, where the women to men ratio in this country is 51% to 48%. Here you have a ‘Consitutional right’ which is not applied equally to everyone here. Isn’t that technically mob rule as well? Women are the majority over men, and they don’t have any responsibility yet all the decision making power and the man is helpless according to her wishes?
#35 “I must disagree. Countless heterosexual couples lack the capability(to have kids), the same as gay couples – and yet are allowed to marry.
That is true. However, there are two issues concerning that which come into play.
1: lack of ability to reproduce as a hetero couple (no adoption, fertility drugs, etc) is the exception whereas a lack ability to reproduce as a gay couple is the rule with absolutely no exceptions.
2. While the government is certainly just in picking and choosing which type of behavior it wishes to endorse to a certain extent, it is completely unjust to require people prove their fertility status in order to recieve a civil marriage liscense. It is an invasion of privacy protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras (see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460; or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486).
No such invasion of privacy is required or practiced to understand that a gay couple will never produce children purely as a result of their relationship.
As I said before, there are inherent differences between hetero and homo relationships.
If we are going to establish laws we must define the language; impossible to write laws based on words which have no meaning. Thus far in this debate the definition of gay marriage has not been defined, imagine trying to explain the meaning of ‘gay parent’; biologically speaking there is no such thing a gay parent.
Until we define these words and their meaning this debate will continue to move in circles just as what has occurred in the abortion debate ie., is the fetus ‘just a clump of cells’ for is the fetus ‘life’. At one time advocates on both sides argued on blind-faith however, technological advances have clarified the meaning of fetus establishing a concrete foundation for meaning. When abortion was debated emotional blackmail was used to influence thought ie., ‘patricarchy parasite pregnancy is oppressive for women’, ‘having babies will ruin your life better to abort’ children cause poverty so it’s better not to bring them into the world’ etc, etc yet all the while failing to establish the meaning of “fetus”. As I young women I fell for the idea that “fetus” is just a clump of cells simply because I did not want to appear backward to my peers. As a result of ignoring the meaning of “fetus” for most of my adult life I now recognize that I had tragically supported a policy which had basically allowed for the legal extermination of some 46 million human lives. I must now live the the consequences of my ignorance for the rest of my life.
As a result of my experience with the abortion policy I will no longer support public policies which cannot provide rational, definable meaning for those words used in establishing law.
How is it possible for lesbians have children?
Syn, I completely agree with you on your point. It seems that some people want to change things based upon emotion or rationalization, rather than by definition and reason. Abortion is one of those sad things. I personally view it as an option, but not a right. I used to think so. Elevating it to that status I have seen less people responsible and seeing it as a way out (deemed on them Constitutionally) way more than an option that is to be possibly considered. Also, they do not really go out of their way to tell the full consequences of such a procedure. They just pretty much tell you to be aware of “infection” afterwards.
Yup, let’s have a good ole boxing gloves off debate. It will force the activist left from pushing an agenda ahead through the courts and will also force the religious right out of their pulpits and make them debate rather than preach.
I”ll throw a wrench into the discussion, Marriage isn’t only about children. To quote Big Lizard
http://www.webamused.com/foolippic/archives/002510.html
“Marriage is the Great Civilizer. Women and men are different, and bring different things to the partnership; those differences are key to maintaining a flourishing civilization.”
#38 has it right, feminism has done a lot to undermine marriage, and I don’t see out society being better off for it. Making marriage into a “rights’ only issue is very one sided, marriage has many more responibilites than rights.
#46 – “A just question.” Why don’t you ask them? There are many events or places you can go to meet them and their kids.
Jim-
Within the constructs of religion, annullment of marriage has to do with consumation of vows. If the couple does not consumate their vows the marriage is annulled. Here is another example of language and its application to law. I suppose technically speaking male homosexuals can consumate their vows, albeit in a non-procreating venue, however what can be said of female homosexual consumation?
Leah’s comment leads to a great question which those serious about gay marriage must address. Can we use the institution (of gay marriage, should it develop) to “civilize” gay men?
Many gay men are in monogamous relationships. Their contributions to this debate are essential.
“but I’ve ran into people that have that attitude of ‘make it legal because people do it anyway’, and unfortunately, that doesn’t work.”
False. This is exactly what happened with religion – people just gave up trying to maintain a common, standard religion because it cost too much blood.
Syn,
Since you make your points in a civil tone, they deserve a civil answer.
1) imagine trying to explain the meaning of ‘gay parent’; biologically speaking there is no such thing a gay parent.
Simple. I am an example. I am gay, Iwas married. We had children. He is my child. Now I am divorced. He is still my child. Been, there, done that, got the kid.
2) How is it possible for lesbians have children?
If a man mounts one. People arrange this kind of thing all the time. Even straight people do this, if the man happens to be infertiel or if the woman’s uterus does not accept his fertile sperm. Stright people also use surrohgate mothers if the woman cannot concieve. Anotherand very respectable arrangement in China, for instance.
3) Within the constructs of religion, annullment of marriage has to do with consumation of vows.
Within law annullment is appropriate in cases where the marriage was therefore never valid in the first place. With regard to a Church annullment, the vows may have been consummated, but if the spouses for instances happened to be too closely related to have married in the first place, annullment is appropriate. I used the term in connection with religion because the Catholic Church doesn’t accept divorce at all, and annullment was the next best thng for the point I was trying to make.
4) however what can be said of female homosexual consumation?
There are gadgets for that kind of thing, and fingers work well too.
52. What makes you think it is the men that marriage is intended to civilize? It wasn’t women who invented writing, metallurgy, mathematics and so one (Yeah, and it wasn’t men who invented stew and bread and woven cloth.) Anyway, the dominant concept of marriage in the West for a long, long time that in marriage the hysterical, wild and animal side of human nature, woman, came under the ennobling and civilizing influence of the rational, higher side of human nature, man – or sme such shit. This other idea you have sounds like some kind of Romantic twaddle. Actually, both kinds of twaddle trade in noxious stereotypes. Sometimes when two wrongs cancel each other out, they do make a right.
Men in monogamous relationships and the civilizing influence- when my ex-wife needs a Hollandaise sauce, who do you think comes and makes it?
I have seen several comments in this thread blasting “conservatives” and “Republicans” for issues other than gay marriage. Considering that many Democrats (including John Kerry during his Presidential campaign) have spoken out against gay marriage, I don’t see how this helps your cause. Instead, I think that you are only alienating about half the people you want to convince by inserting partisan politics into the gay marriage debate.
Sadly, most politicians seem to be more concerned with getting re-elected than they are in principals. Even if you are right about the stand taken by most Republican politicians today, most will change their tune if enough of their “conservative” voters support gay marriage. But those same voters will likely tune you out if they hear more insults from you than rational reasons.
Major change in the views of the two main American parties is possible. Don’t forget that the majority of the Democratics in Congress opposed the Civil Rights Act. In only a few years the Democrats changed course, because the voters forced them to.
#53. “False. This is exactly what happened with religion – people just gave up trying to maintain a common, standard religion because it cost too much blood.”
Actually, that is an innacurate view of religion. I think all religions start off with the herd mentality where they group together for their own survival. Then they either go through self-criticsm and soul-searching by individuals that realize that some things are meant to be taken metaphorically, historical context, and other meanings. Of course in all religons there are literal contexts, but it is not always so. Take for Christianity. Yes, there was intolerance and infighting in the early years, along with some regrettable things in the name of God. However, the basic fact is that it has had time to streamline itself. Take the Protestant Reformation for example, the Renaissance, and then the Enlightenment. It was all about how people personally viewed God. Also, the basic premise of Christianity is your own personal relationship between you and Christ. Before, it was the Church and God. Now, it’s more of an individualized form with different denominations.
What makes you think it is the men that marriage is intended to civilize?
I don’t think it is only men who need civilizing, women need it as well. Broadly put, men are too physical, women too emotional. It is the tempering of both that brings about “civilization”.
Leah, exactly, the tempering.
why should two persons in love be denied to marry ? this wont create more gay people…just more happy people. good people are good people period.