Marriage, Monogamy and Blogging
One of the great difficulties we bloggers have is that often other obligations intervene, making it difficult to address all the topics we would like in the time we have. Given the Senate debate next Monday on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA, the renamed Federal Marriage Amendment), I had hoped to do a series of posts this week on gay marriage, in the belief that we should use the occasion of this high-profile debate to promote a serious discussion of this very important issue.
But, given my obligations for my grad program as well as those as president of the LA chapter of my college alumni association, blogging has had to take a back seat. And then when I finally had a moment yesterday to write, I was drained from my previous work that I only had the energy to dash out a few “stream of consciousness” pieces instead of the essays that I would rather write.
It struck me last night that I was remarkably more personal in my lesbian post than I had intended. It also occurred to me that a serious discussion of gay marriage may require all of us to be more personal. After all, it will be the personal stories of individuals in monogamous same-sex unions that will do more to advance the cause of gay marriage than repeating the same old silly nostrums about “marriage equality.”
I’m hoping to devote some time later this afternoon to a few posts on gay marriage and monogamy, but may regrettably have to save some of my thoughts until after the Senate debate. Since I may not be able to blog as much as I would like, I highly recommend, you check out the columns of one of the sharpest (if not the sharpest) advocates of gay marriage — Dale Carpenter. (My position on the issue is only slightly different from that of Dale.)
Unlike most gay-marriage advocates, Dale takes the time to understand the conservative opposition and not reduce it to anti-gay animus. He also takes the time to craft intelligent arguments, free of cant. So check out his page at the Independent Gay Forum and peruse his columns. A good antidote to the pathetic posturing of HRC and other gay groups who would rather attack supporters of the MPA rather than put forward solid arguments. (Dale has also been bloggin this week at the Volokh Conspiracy.)
I have also had more time to ponder Andrew Sullivan’s post on hypocrisy which I addressed here yesterday. I think what really bothered me about the piece is that, particularly in the week before the Senate debate on the MPA, Andrew brought up that the difficulty of monogamy (for men) without making a concomitant commitment to monogamy (as an essential aspect of marriage).
Not familiar with Dan Savage’s thoughts, I did not know that he has said that if you cannot stay faithful, marriage is not for you. (Thanks to an adorable reader for informing me of that.) With that as context, I see Andrew’s thoughts a little differently than I first did. Yet, he should have made that clear (in his post).
Let me conclude by making a point I have been making almost since I started blogging (indeed long before that), if we going to talk about marriage, we need to make clear that we understand that monogamy is an essential aspect of the institution. If we’re serious about marriage, gay people need to develop other institutions and promote patterns of behavior which encourage monogamy, reminding us why it is not only good for us and our beloved, but also for our relationships, our friendships and society at large.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
15 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Monday June 5 will be the 25th anniversary of the first CDC report describing the deaths of five gay men in Los Angeles — the 25th “anniversary of AIDS”.
Bush will use that same day proposing a federal ban on gay marriage. Perfect timing.
Comment by Jim Burroway — June 2, 2006 @ 6:51 pm - June 2, 2006
#1 – Yes, perfect timing…because Bush has done more for AIDS and AIDS-related causes in 5 1/2 years than Bubba Clinton did in his two terms in office.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 2, 2006 @ 8:35 pm - June 2, 2006
And therefore it’s a perfect date on which to atempt write discrimination into The Constitution?
Comment by hank — June 2, 2006 @ 8:56 pm - June 2, 2006
Hank, you are obviously a product of public schools, because you think that just because a President introduces an amendment that it will pass automatically.
For starters, it must pass both houses of Congress by a simple (read=50.1%) vote and then be ratified by two-thirds (read: 34) of the states to become part of the Constitution.
Now, you must REALLY believe that the President is the Anti-Christ because there is NO WAY the above will come to pass.
It all proves how smart the Founding Fathers were.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 2, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - June 2, 2006
I said “attempt”.
How nice that you had a
private school education. lol
Comment by hank — June 2, 2006 @ 9:07 pm - June 2, 2006
#5: “How nice that you had a private school education.”
Well, Hank, it couldn’t have been much good if he didn’t know what it takes for the Congress and the states to pass a Constitutional amendment – he got both requirements wrong. Hell, I knew that and I’ve only been a US citizen for six years. LOL!!
Comment by Ian S — June 2, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - June 2, 2006
#4 Peter Hughes — June 2, 2006 @ 9:02 pm – June 2, 2006
Go sit in the corner, put on your dunce cap, and read the US constitution. Presumably you learned how to read at your private school.
An amendment to the US constitution proposed by the Congress requires approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and, thereafter, ratification by 3/4 of the states.
There is another mechanism by which the states can force a constitutional convention, but that isn’t in issue here.
Comment by raj — June 3, 2006 @ 3:17 am - June 3, 2006
raj – thanks for clarifying that seems to be more in line with what I learned with my homeschooling that stopped at the fourth grade level. Just a note, nowadays they tend to put a time limit on state approval.
As of this morning, I am officially against gay marriage. I heard sound bites of the President’s radio address where he spelled out all of the benefits of traditional marriage, e.g. stability, community, blah, blah, blah. So clearly he believes that gay marriage is something entirely different – exactly what I’ve no idea. So as of today, I am officially for marriage.
Comment by ralph — June 3, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - June 3, 2006
Ian and raj, in your typical liberal self-righteous intellectual indignation (which must come with the territory), you seem to miss the underlying facts:
Whether or not it is 2/3, 3/4 or whatever proportion of Congress of the states to pass an amendment is irrelevant; what you both seem to forget is that (a) it is an election year and certain initiatives will be put forth for each party’s base and (b) it is not up to popular voting per se but up to the Congress and state legislatures to vote up or down any proposed amendment.
With that being said, there is NO WAY IN HELL that the 435 members of the House – who are all up for reelection this year – are going to vote on an emotional issue that may throttle them in November. Same goes for the 60-odd senators who may or may not be up for election, as only one-third of them will be in this year.
Add that to the growing list of states who are already or will be proposing to pass their own state constitutional amendments defining marriage, and this amendment is DOA.
Simply put, if you think that any US rep or senator will dare to put their political lives on the line for a so-called “wedge” issue in what will be a tight mid-term election, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.
Anyone remember Clinton’s attempt at trying to get a balanced-budget amendment through Congress? The year was 1994. See what happened to Congress that year?
Some people never learn.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 3, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - June 3, 2006
Thank you Peter H. for revealing your incredible shallowness in such a succinct manner. You are a veritable haiku in short story writing.
Why it could be your epitaph:)
“you are obviously a product of public schools, because you think that just because a President introduces an amendment that it will pass automatically.”
RIP
Comment by hank — June 3, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - June 3, 2006
#9 “in your typical liberal self-righteous intellectual indignation”
Oh please, you sanctimonious twerp. It was your condescending dig, “Hank, you are obviously a product of public schools”, that deservedly led to the scorn that your gross ignorance provoked. A man of confidence would have simply admitted his mistake and thanked those who corrected him. Obviously, you’re not that type of man.
Comment by ian S — June 4, 2006 @ 12:44 am - June 4, 2006
#9 Peter Hughes — June 3, 2006 @ 7:18 pm – June 3, 2006
Ian and raj, in your typical liberal self-righteous intellectual indignation….
Oh, so, now, according to you, it’s liberal (a Schimpfwort–an epithet–around here, I know) to be able to read a publicly available document, one that is very well-known and freely available over the Internet.
Um…OK. If you wish.
BTW, regarding
Anyone remember Clinton’s attempt at trying to get a balanced-budget amendment through Congress? The year was 1994. See what happened to Congress that year?
I saw what happened to Congress in 1994, but it is far from clear what you are referring to. I have seen more than a few theories as to why Congress changed hands in 1994 (more than a few of them coming from gun enthusiasts, by the way), but none of them related to a proposed balanced budget amendment.
There had been previous attempts to get balanced budget amendments through the Congress, and none of them passed. Why? Because politicians want to spend. And, not only that, but also because voters want them to spend, whether or not they have the money in the bank. If the politicians don’t do “tax&spend” (as the Republicans accused Democrats of doing), they do “borrow&spend” (as the Republicans actually do).
Comment by raj — June 4, 2006 @ 2:10 am - June 4, 2006
I refuse to fight a battle of wits with two unarmed opponents.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 4, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - June 4, 2006
3
Comment by hank — June 4, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - June 4, 2006
[...] of the reasons I have cited Dale Carpenter in two recent posts (here and here) is that he for one is making the most of the recent debate and offering serious arguments on this [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Where’s the Debate on Gay Marriage? — October 22, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - October 22, 2008