Where’s the Debate on Gay Marriage?
One of the things contributing to my sour mood of late has been my dashed hopes for a serious debate on gay marriage. I don’t hold with those (like HRC’s Solmonese) who see this latest Senate debate as a distraction from the real issues of the day.
As our society becomes increasingly accepting of homosexuality, it’s essential that we address the issue of state recognition of gay unions. It is quite possibly the most serious social issue facing gay America and we should be delighted of the national attention it is getting.
But, from what little I’ve seen of the Senate debate, it’s been most depressing. Instead of addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of the proposed constitutional amendment. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has been using the debate (just like the gay groups, including Log Cabin*) as an excuse to bash Bush. Advocates of the amendment, by and large, seem to think that gay couples threaten marriage while ignoring (what even serious social conservatives see as) an even worse threat to the institution, divorce. (More on this anon.)
I have favored a debate on this amendment, even though I oppose it, because I had hoped it would raise a serious discussion of two very important questions: (1) how the state should treat same-sex unions; and (2) what is the role of the constitution in “settling” such contentious social issues.
Perhaps I’m just naive to believe that people can responsibly debate contentious social issues. (Some of the comments to this blog should have disabused me of this naivete long ago.)
One 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 important topic. Perhaps there are some Senators, like New Hampshire’s John Sununu in the last Senate debate, who are making good arguments (speeches which I did not discover when I checked the debate on TV or on the web).
But, for now it appears to me that the debate I had hoped to see is not coming to pass. I’ll try to do my utmost (on this blog at least) in the next few days to rectify that.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*More on this anon, I hope.
UPDATE: Seems Stephen Miller at Indegayforum agrees with me:
the response of even those Democrats and moderate Republicans voting against it–i.e., suggesting the topic itself is unworthy of debate–is also indefensible. What a display of gay political impotence all round, and a missed opportunity to make a positive case for the principle of equality (or even something closer to equality, such as civil unions)
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
“Perhaps I’m just naive to believe that people can responsibly debate contentious social issues. (Some of the comments to this blog should have disabused me of this naivete long ago.)”
If you think that issues are seriously debated on the floor of Congress, you are certainly naive. If you think that issues will be seriously debated on a blog where the original owner regularly insults people and fires off derogatory slogans and such, you are certainly naive. And if you think that President Bush really wants the debate that you are envisioning, you are more than naive. This is politics and you are looking for a seminar room or European debate room. No one cares about ideas or truth in this marriage ‘debate’–they are following polls. Sorry that your hopes are dashed.
Comment by jimmy — June 5, 2006 @ 5:28 pm - June 5, 2006
“my dashed hopes for a serious debate on gay marriage”
Oh please you don’t “debate” anyone.
To you, there are only two types of people, people who go along with the Admin and Raving Liberals. So, in this world, who gets to be a critic?
Comment by David Jones — June 5, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - June 5, 2006
I guess, David, that you haven’t read those posts where I criticized the Administration (or much else on this blog for that matter).
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 5, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - June 5, 2006
I’m genuinely curious Dan, how can I not be critical of Bush when in addition to this shameless political move he is rubbing salt in the wound by inviting so-called “ex-gay” groups like Exodus International to the Rose Garden for this?
Comment by Average Gay Joe — June 5, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - June 5, 2006
Why do you fear Exodus, AGJ?
Homosexuality, whether we like it or not, is a combination of nature and nurture. Because of the latter, the possibility exists that it can be reversed or attenuated.
If someone really, desperately wants to change their orientation and is willing to go through what Exodus will put them through, that is their business, not mine; if they choose to do so, it does not diminish or harm me as a person in the least.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2006 @ 6:40 pm - June 5, 2006
Oh please, NDT. It’s not “fear” of Exodus I have, it’s anger at their shameless tactics and “fear”-mongering against gays who disagree with them. The fact that the president is embracing them at the Rose Garden speech to support the FMA is quite telling.
Comment by Average Gay Joe — June 5, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - June 5, 2006
Oh and btw, I’ll be the first person to defend someone’s right to “change” their orientation even if I do not agree that such is possible. The first grounds I defend this on is religious freedom. The second being personal freedom.
Comment by Average Gay Joe — June 5, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - June 5, 2006
I too am unhappy that there will not be a serious debate on civil unions or same sex marriage. Unfortunately both parties would rather demagogue the question rather than have a serious dialogue and decision process to do what is best for our country. My wife and I, who often agree on issues are on opposite ends of the arguement. I am fine with civil unions of some sort while she is dead set against them. Her arguement is that it would open the door for polygamy which we both agree is, in most cases, damaging to the women and children in those relationships. I could use a national dialogue to help me decide what I think is best. Unfortunately the politician bastards on both sides have stolen the issue for their own partisan purposes and turns this into a no win for the country. Too, damned bad.
Comment by davidb — June 5, 2006 @ 7:47 pm - June 5, 2006
AGJ, you should be critical of the president for doing this. I have never said you shouldn’t. I had just hoped this move, despite its political motives, could have sparked a good debate.
When I was in college, before I came out, I brought Phyllis Schlafly to speak. A Marxist professor delighted in her talk, not because he agreed with Mrs. Schlafly but because he saw how it promoted great conversations about feminism and the role of women in society. Perhaps it was that success of endeavor that inspired my optimism for a serious debate.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 5, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - June 5, 2006
Serious debate? Oh please! The leftist/left-wingnut D’s could give a rat’s ass about debating marriage equality, and the rightist/social right-wingnut “R’s” don’t believe we should exist or have the “choice” to exist, let alone rationally debate the merits of a positive (let alone negative) proposal. The reason for the quotes around the “R” is that these essentially blue dog D’s in R clothing spend like drunken sailors, have abandoned our Party’s principle of federalism (government closest to the people is best, and most responsive), and generally ignore all other elements of Republican principle all for the sake of their theological beliefs or hatred of what they fear … anything homosexual or gay.
You want a serious debate on marriage equality? Hold it in a non-election year, in front of the cameras and not in little out of the way committee rooms.
Comment by GOPValues — June 5, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - June 5, 2006
Exodus does not change orientation, I don’t think even they make that claim. Since they don’t really even recognize it AS an orientation, they just don’t see it from that point of view. There are only straight people behaving badly in their world. Gays don’t exist. So yes, NDT, you should fear if the the President is giving them any legitimacy. And changing ones orientation “by choice” is not an option given to younger gay and lesbians who’s parents are sending them to anti-gay re-education camps that do their best to teach these children that they are shit. If you don’t care about gay adults, you might consider the welfare of gay and lesbian children and young people, who just saw their President tell everyone that they were not really a part of the American Family.
You know NDT, you have really got a chip on your shoulder about anyone critisizing the President today. (or any day really) But the plain fact is that Bush is just being a complete asshole on this issue and there is no way you can possibly spin it as otherwise. So get over it.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 5, 2006 @ 10:45 pm - June 5, 2006
Wow, supposedly gay people saying to leave Exodus alone and let them do as they please? That is truly twisted, self-loathing logic.
Comment by Kevin — June 5, 2006 @ 11:03 pm - June 5, 2006
Ding, ding, ding. It’s a three ding-a-ling day for Gramps and Kevin.
First, we work to take away NDXXX’s “Gay Card” ala Jesse Jackson’s taunt that he’d revoke any black person’s Black-American card if they voted for Bush. Just don’t tear up any Gay Cards, boys… I think you’ll be needing it when the conservatives round you up in the concentration camp drive later this year…. lol.
Then we get the ultimate gay put down when logic fails the sputtering left: ta da, you’re a self-loathing gay man. Good for you Kevin; one more “ding” on the GayLeft card and you can turn it for a rocking chair next to Gramps on the Victims Porch down on the Democrat Plantation.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 5, 2006 @ 11:12 pm - June 5, 2006
And changing ones orientation “by choice” is not an option given to younger gay and lesbians who’s parents are sending them to anti-gay re-education camps that do their best to teach these children that they are shit.
So advocate that these children be taken away from their parents and their parents stripped of the right to raise them.
Go ahead, Gryph; I dare you.
One of these days you’ll figure out that the best way to protect children is not to go around insulting their parents and demanding that they be taken away from them. I only hope it’s before you do something REALLY stupid.
If you don’t care about gay adults, you might consider the welfare of gay and lesbian children and young people, who just saw their President tell everyone that they were not really a part of the American Family.
(shrug) They saw the Democrats they’re supposed to worship say the same thing in 2004 and just a few weeks ago on The 700 Club.
Personally, I think self-worth for a person should be based on more than what the law says about them, but I’m just different that way.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2006 @ 11:15 pm - June 5, 2006
#5: “Homosexuality, whether we like it or not, is a combination of nature and nurture.”
There is no scientific evidence that “nurture” is involved. I know that’s what your intellectual comrades, James Dobson and Joseph Nicolosi spout all the time – the latter makes a lucrative living off it – but what’s your excuse? Are you really a scientist or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
Comment by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 12:25 am - June 6, 2006
When I was living in Las Vegas and going to MCCC, I would frequently run into the therapists who worked on the “escapees” from Utah. The escapees were very smart, very Mormon, very married, GAY fathers. They were men who had sold their personal identities to meet other people’s expectations. Many were graduates of Mormon aversion torture, I mean training. You can only live in denial so long when you can see others living happy lives as gay men and women.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — June 6, 2006 @ 1:14 am - June 6, 2006
And as for a civil debate about gay marriage, would you entertain a “civil” debate on the repeal of the 13th Amendment?
And as for the Constitution, the only amendment to prohibit anything was repealed.
The Constitution, unlike the 10 Commandment’s Thou Shalt Nots, is a bunch of Thou Shalts.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — June 6, 2006 @ 1:21 am - June 6, 2006
#15 by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 12:25 am – June 6, 2006
Um, just to remind you, nature and nurture are both involved in any social group, from an evolutionary standpoint. Nature begets nurture, and vice versa. Ernst Myer, noted evolutionary biologist, pointed that out in an article in the July 2002 issue of Scientific American.
Regarding comment #5, there is no evidence that the pseudo-religious clap-trap that Exodus is peddling does anything, except raise money for groups that are peddling anti-gay political rhetoric. As a result, the idea that “if they (Exodus) choose to do so, it does not diminish or harm me as a person in the least” is ludicrous. It certainly does diminish you as a person (you have fewer rights than other people) and it certainly can lead to your harm (if their rhetoric encourages the police, for example, to choose not to protect you because they perceive that you are gay–it has happened).
Comment by raj — June 6, 2006 @ 1:22 am - June 6, 2006
It would help if the proponents of the “Marriage Protection” amendment were honest in the debate.
On Monday alone I personally watched 29 occasions when right-wing talking heads on Fox News, Republican politicians and spokesmen for right wing religious organizations waved the red flag of “activist” judges — and most included judicial action on voter-approved amendments in Georgia and Nebraska without telling the truth about those judicial decisions.
Georgia has a constitutional provision that limits ballot issues to one subject. As was pointed out before Georgia’s election, the proposal to ban same-sex marriages violated the one-subject provision of the state’s constitution. A state judge struck down the amendment for that reason. The judge didn’t rule on the same-sex marriage ban itself and if properly worded on the ballot in another election would likely pass muster with that judge.
The worst distortion of facts involves Nebraska’s constitutional amendment approved by 70 percent of voters in 2000. Its provisions were not set forth in sections. It is a one paragraph amendment. The first sentence defines marriage as between one man and one woman. That sentence was NEVER an issue in the federal lawsuit against the amendment nor in the U. S. District Judge’s decision voiding the amendment. The second sentence, which proponents of the amendment and the churches paying for the pro-amendment campaign tried to hide, went far beyond the issue of marriage and sripped gays of other rights. Opponents of the amendment, including most of the state’s Republican-leaning newspapers, raised issues about the second sentence but voters ignored them. It is this second sentence that WAS the issue in court and in the judge’s decision.
The two judges cited above were not activists promoting same-sex marriage. They were simply ruling on constitutional issues unrelated to marriage.
A lot more state amendments are going to be challenged because most, like Nebraska’s, go beyond defining marriage. Proponents of these amendments overreached because they knew voters, inflamed by fears of gay marriage, would vote “yes” without understanding or even reading the full texts and ramifications of the amendments.
(And to be honest with readers, I must state that I hope the U. S. Supreme Court, turning to the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, ultimately voids all of the state bans on same-sex marriage. Having said that, I must add that, like others have said at this blog, I wish gay activists had first pushed for civil unions instead of “marriage”. I think the religious right would have vigorously fought civil unions, too, but there would have been some chances to win public support.)
Comment by Trace Phelps — June 6, 2006 @ 2:00 am - June 6, 2006
Kevin, why is it self-loathign to tell Exodus as they please? In a free society, they have the right to be wrong, to spread their message and we have the right to challenge them.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 6, 2006 @ 5:38 am - June 6, 2006
#18: “Um, just to remind you, nature and nurture are both involved in any social group,”
Yes, but homosexuality is not a social group. How homosexuals deal with their sexual orientation is clearly affected by “nurture” but there is no scientific evidence of which I am aware that the underlying sexual orientation changes after birth. If nurture was really so involved in establishing sexual orientation then Exodus would have many examples of changed orientation instead of just changed behavior and John Money’s unfortunate experiment to raise the infant Bruce Reimer as a female attracted to men would have been successful.
While I cannot rule out ANY influence of nurture in establishing sexual orientation, absent scientific evidence for a role, you cannot categorically state that nurture IS involved. That is the assertion to which I objected in the first place.
Comment by Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 10:57 am - June 6, 2006
#21 Ian S — June 6, 2006 @ 10:57 am – June 6, 2006
Yes, but homosexuality is not a social group.
Homosexuality is not a social group, but homosexuals live in one or more social groups. As do heterosexuals. As do sinister (left-handed) people. As do blind people. As do black people. And so forth.
So, if I am a blind, left-handed, and black homosexual, what social group am I a member of? Answer: all of them. And, if I am a blind, left-handed, black homosexual, what issues are am I supposed to emphasize? I don’t have the slightest idea.
The point that Ernst Myer was making (and you really should read the article–it may be available on their web site http://www.sciam.com ) was that, from an evolutionary standpoint, organisms that live in social groups (which are not limited to humans) select mates that are more likely to help the social group, not the particular individual. He was arguing in connection with the tendency towards altruism, but the point is obviously more univeral.
Comment by raj — June 7, 2006 @ 2:11 am - June 7, 2006
Well, I’m sure we’ve all heard by now that the senate defeated the mpa by a 49-48 margin. Some supporters say they will continue the fight, but I think it’s dead in the water as far as a federal amendment. What we all need to do (should be doing) is working on our state legislatures at state level. That’s where this issue affects us the most — in the states we live in.
Comment by ndtovent — June 7, 2006 @ 1:08 pm - June 7, 2006
[...] to define marriage, I faulted gay groups upset that we were even debating this amendment (e.g. here). It’s not that I supported the amendment, it’s that I welcomed the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Needed: A Serious Debate on Gay Marriage — October 22, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - October 22, 2008