Gay Patriot Header Image

Non-Traditional (for a gay dude, that is) Views On Gay Marriage

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 11:31 pm - November 2, 2006.
Filed under: 2006 Elections,Gay Marriage

Well, today I did it…I dropped off my absentee ballot on its way to what we call my “HOR” to be counted with the other suburbanites in Metro Denver. I’d have mailed it off sooner, but struggled with one particular referendum.

I know, by virtue of the fact that I’m a gay man, I’m obligated to oppose defining “marriage” as being between one man and one woman. Yes, yes…shudder at the thought.

But then there is Referendum I, into which super-dooper rich Colorado gay dude Tim Gill among others have poured tons of money and effort.

The beauty of Ref I is that it allows gays and lesbians to enter into “Domestic Partnerships” that, ostensibly, are the same in a civic sense as marraige. Ultimately I did the “right” thing and voted against amending the state Constitution (Amendment 43), and for Ref I. Thank Heavens, I’m sure to be welcomed with a warm reception back into polite gay company.

However, Referendum I is harder to vote for than the Gayarazzi wants you to believe…that is, if you believe in anti-discrimination. But then again, if you believe in what the gay community stands for (or used to say they stood for), most of this is moot anyway…

I’m sure to face the wrath of not only lefties who lurk in the comments section of GP, but also (surely a much more respectful) disagreement from my fellow bloggers here when I say this, but I’m against gay marriage. But that comes from my libertarian roots.

What I’d like to say to both sides of the marriage debate is: “You’re both wrong”

It’s like this, you see:

To the religious folks who are up-in-arms about “destroying” the “sacred institute” of marriage, I say, You’re absolutely right, it would be destroyed if gays were allowed to marry. But you know what? You reap what you sow. Millennia ago (or whenever), the Church abdicated its authority over marriage by allowing civic institutions to confer the status upon thier subjects. Today we (Americans, that is) live in (Thank God) a representative democracy. As such, when you allow The State to label people as “single” or “married”, you kinda have to suck up whatever they want to define it as. Render unto Caesar, the saying goes.

Case in point: There will never be a marriage between two guys in the Catholic church, no matter how the mores of American society change. And yes, I know that the Catechism implores us to take civic action and ensure our societies live according to God’s plan…but if that were so, why let civic institutions play a role without the church in the first place? If nobody’s recognized as being “married” in the Catholic church without a Catholic ceremony (this is true), then why even bother with what The State says? By allowing The State to have legitimacy (rather than, say, reclaiming it, to include even the word “marriage”) in this arena, you don’t really have much to bitch about if you ask me.

And don’t think that us queers get off so easily either. Time was, we were screaming (well, okay, I was a child, but I remember the vocal ones doing so) about how the Government should stay the hell out of our bedrooms and our lives. Why suddenly do we care what they think about us? Could it have anything to do with the elimination of the Marriage Penalty tax? Hmm?

(As a side note, would be funny, wouldn’t it, if Gay Marriage won at the same time the Leftist Gay “Leaders” got Charlie Rangel as the W&M Chair? Welcome back, Marriage Penalty Tax! And just in time!)

More seriously, marriage is not a civic thing. That is, it oughtn’t be. I am fervently against gay marriage becuase it’s not The State’s place to involve itself in our interpersonal relationships.

Case in point: You know that, in Colorado a judge determines that your relationship is “irretrievably broken” when you file for a no-fault divorce. That means you are obligated to explain to a servent of the state that you and your spouse aren’t getting along in order to dissolve a contract that you both want out of. What sort of civil contract entails such personal disclosure? It should be none of the government’s business what the status of your personal relationships are, right? Isn’t that what we’ve always said?

Furthermore, in many states, adultery is grounds for divorce. Which is to say, if evidence is presented and a case made to show your spouse was engaged in extra-marital sex, even if consensual, you can end that legal contract. Talk about Big Brother!

Oh, and what’s more, for those who say that gays aren’t allowed to marry, I say hogwash! You can go to any number of churches and get married (heck, some will even let gay clergymen get married). Are you so beholden to the state (so slavish a subject?) that you won’t consider yourselves married unless you have a piece of paper stamped with the Seal of the County Judge? Sounds like a real healthy relationship you’ve got there!

The answer here is this: (ha ha…That phrase in a political discussion is refreshing! But anyway,) Marriage should be ended as a civic institution. Leave that to the churches and communities and families and friends. Give us a document, a form contract that I can fill out with another person (or heck! persons!) that includes durable powers of attorney, living wills, hospital visitation rights, and all that stuff. If you want, you can keep the same papers you have now, just scratch that damned “M”-word off them.

It’s called Domestic Partnership or Civil Unions. Individuals partake in contracts and litigation all the time without the government involved in thier personal lives. As the government, they are responsible only to enforce (or help enforce), when necessary, the agreed-to tenants of a legal contract. Take all that personal stuff out of it, and I’m all behind it.

Back to the matter at hand for Coloradans: Specifically the part of Referendum I which troubled me most, because when you read the actual Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act (which Ref I would put into law), is that it’s specifically for “same-sex couples” (Para 14.15.102). How “fair” is that? Is the good the enemy of the perfect? I hope not, and I hope that, if Ref I passes, the great people of the Centennial State will soon see fit to update this law and include everybody, and not just one special segment of society.

I say, Domestic Partnerships for All! Marriage for None!

Nick (ColoradoPatriot)

Share

80 Comments

  1. Several issues have arised about this issue:

    1) It will cost Americans money – this makes no sense since both partners are working and already contributing to the tax base. A man & woman who are married and the mother stays home, is actually contributing less than the two working gay/lesbian couple – if anything, straights should pay more!(just kidding)

    2) It will destroy the institution of marriage – is the institution that fragile? If yes, then what do you have to lose? If not because it’s so strong then it would be able to stand on its own irregardless of gays getting married.

    We should be deciding as a nation what we are considering to be socially acceptable behaviors and make laws based on those behaviors. If there are people who really believe homosexually is wrong for whatever reason, I suggest they get moving to try and outlaw it. Otherwise they are engaging in discrimination toward a population within our society of whose behavior has not been outlawed as socially unacceptable.

    I don’t understand the community’s reasons for not pursuing civil unions instead, your church can marry you in either case and you take the sting out of the argument from which you will never win as you cannot change people’s minds, even if they pass a law, you can’t legislate their thoughts or beliefs.

    Comment by Scooter — November 2, 2006 @ 11:41 pm - November 2, 2006

  2. Scooter:
    Great ideas. To play Devil’s Advocate (no pun intended), I think those who are concerned about what some of them call the “destruction” of marriage see any fundamental change to it to be its demise.
    Kind of like a watering-down of what it means to them.
    If they think marriage is between a man and a woman, and someone comes along and “redefines” it, that pretty much means, marriage as they’ve known it no longer exists.

    We don’t have to agree with them, but some respect for their point of view may be in order.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 2, 2006 @ 11:52 pm - November 2, 2006

  3. Believe it or not I am a gay male and these are my thoughts on “gay marriage”
    I believe the greatest danger in a society putting homosexual relations on an equal footing with heterosexual ones is that it has a terrible affect on the morale of the society as a whole. It’s effect is to trivialize the importance of real marriage. Instead of granting something to homosexuals it takes something away from heterosexuals and society as a whole. What it takes away is the belief that love, marriage, family, and ultimately life itself are important. Everyone, even homosexuals themselves know that homosexual relations do not produce offspring and therefore do not have an importance beyond satisfying the needs of the adult parties involved. Everyone, even homosexuals themselves, know that raising children requires that the adults must be concerned with the needs of the family as a whole and must at times sacrifice their individual desires for the good of something greater then themselves-that being the family.
    The effect of putting homosexual unions on an equal par is that it is a loud statement by society that there are no greater goods, no higher values to consider than an individual’s wants, that the individul and his/her needs are paramount. Perhaps this approach that one should not ask what one can do for a relationship but what the relationship can do for one is why gay relationships are so short lived. A society that eliminates the subject of offspring from what a marriage is is a society that defines it not as a selfless obligation but a selfish pursuit. When a society starts defining what is acceptable and good solely on satisfying peoples desires then a society eliminates morals in general. Shall I redefine what theft is just because someone has something that I want?Such a society can’t stand. Aside from creating a lawless anarchy such a belief sucks meaning and purpose out of life. Humans need to be involved with something greater than themselves, they need to have something of value beyond their desires.

    Human desires are infinite, as soon as one is satisfied it loses it’s value and the mind pursues others. Religion and god are necessary for humans because the values that come from them are independant of our desires and place limits on them and our behaviors. Religion comes from the belief that life has a value beyond our transient desires,that we can still be happy when they are not all met. In other words that life has a meaning and a purpose.When a society ceases to believe this it will wither and die.

    The homosexual marriage debate strikes at the very heart of this issue. It is not out of hate or ignorance or bigotry that people object to gay marriage. It is out of a need to defend life and the belief that it is special, that their families are special, that individuals are not replaceable, that the world has a deeper meaning beyond a trip to the shopping mall or a string of random sexual encounters. I guess it is a belief that life is beautiful.

    Gay males in urban centers have a suicide rate three times that of their straight counterparts. Urban centers are where they go to live the gay lifestyle unencumbered by societies rules and values. Anyone who has ever lived in a major western city knows that they have managed to create their own bubbles in these cities where they live as they wish. What they find when they get there apparently is not beautiful or meaningful. Aside from the high suicide rate their rates of substance abuse and mental illness are also high. It is foolish in the extreme to think that legalizing gay marriage will aleviate any of these ills. It will only force society as a whole into the hell that they chose for themselves.

    In countries where it has been legalized this is what is occuring. these countries are fairly small and homogenous as well as socialized. the populations in these countries were accustomed to accepting what their governments told them. They accepted that heterosexual marriage and families were no more important than two gay men living together for a year or so. We are not so easily led in this country and perhaps that will be our salvation.

    Once again, legalizing gay marriage won’t change their lives or relationships in any way. it is not about granting them something. It is about taking something away from everybody else by devaluing it. It is the same as a government printing as much money as it can untill all currency is worthless.

    Comment by ahksel — November 2, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - November 2, 2006

  4. ahksel,

    a straight in gay clothing. I don’t buy it for a minute that you’re gay. Nice try. All your arguments are the ones I see constantly on the Far Right Blogs, you’re not fooling anyone.

    But it was worth a try.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 12:20 am - November 3, 2006

  5. “Kind of like a watering-down of what it means to them.”

    Oh what power would one group have to remove the “meaning”, so fragile is their institution.

    Good counterpoint and I’ve read that on some blogs in the past and I find it interesting that the idea of “change” is so threatening. They never speak their fear, they only speak their hate.

    Great post!

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 12:23 am - November 3, 2006

  6. Scooter:
    Nevermind, I guess, that part I said about respect for the other viewpoint.

    For what it’s worth, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if someone came to your house, removed all your things and replaced them with a decor that was more fitting to his tastes. Perhaps burned all your pictures and personal effects that captured images and ideas of your loved-ones (while you watched, of course) and replaced them with pictures of how he thought your family should look and behave. Oh, and then expect your family and friends to look and act that way.
    After all, is your life so fragile?
    All I’m saying is, they do deserve some respect. If you’re not willing to give them that, what on earth makes you feel they’re ever going to accept you?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 3, 2006 @ 12:31 am - November 3, 2006

  7. BTW – I would love to see marriage wiped out of our society; no more tax benefits, no more special treatment; nothing.

    Allow people to move freely within relationships as they choose; each individual takes personal responsibility for his/her choices, don’t have kids unless you are prepared to raise ’em on your own(you never know what might happen to you or the other person in any situation); don’t depend on someone else for your meal ticket; be accountable for the choices you make.

    We don’t own people. The idea that a “marriage certificate” deems ownership in any way, shape, form, or intent towards bounding one to another, is ridiculous and extortion in the very least.

    Each day, each person in a relationship makes a choice to move toward or away from the person they are involved with by the very nature of the behavior they exude. There are only 2 options in relationships, toward it or away from it.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 12:32 am - November 3, 2006

  8. #7:
    Well, that was kind of the point of my post…Civic marriage, that is.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 3, 2006 @ 12:34 am - November 3, 2006

  9. “what on earth makes you feel they’re ever going to accept you?”

    This is a mistake that too many gay people make, I(we) need no one to accept me(us). It’s irrelevant. I couln’t give a hoot what someone thinks of me, my life, my choices, as long as I’m not engaging in socially unacceptable behavior, it’s none of their business.

    I often tell those who like to discriminate based on their dislike for something that isn’t illegal: “who’s minding your business while you’re so busy minding mine?”

    Words to live by – for ALL of us.

    Irregardless of your statement about “removing respect”, as an American who lives in Democracy, I respect your right to have your opinion whether I agree with it or not. Perhaps that’s not your point of view living here in America.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 12:37 am - November 3, 2006

  10. I think that the views of those who think that me and my boyfriend would destroy marriage deserve precisely as much respect as those who claim the earth is flat. The fact that there are far more of the former than the latter is not really pertinent; the truth of a proposition is not dependent on the number of people who accept it as truth.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 12:48 am - November 3, 2006

  11. McCain says NO to gay marriage and anything that looks like it: http://www.azcentral.com/blogs/index.php?blog=85&title=mccain_is_star_of_proposition_107_tv_com&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&blogtype=Pluggedin.

    Who runs the Republican Party?

    Comment by sean — November 3, 2006 @ 1:33 am - November 3, 2006

  12. I don’t think gay marriage would destroy marriage but I also don’t think that anyone can honestly say that marriage isn’t at risk. It is. Desperately so. They aren’t wrong about that. Marriage is at risk.

    #7 Family *is* ownership. That’s why we use the terms we use, *my* mother, *my* father, *my* son. It’s why we say “disown” when it all goes bad, but it’s got to go pretty darn bad before “disown” is an issue. We choose our spouse or our mate, form a new family, and build together. You can’t *build* if the other person is going to just walk away one day.

    Comment by Synova — November 3, 2006 @ 2:06 am - November 3, 2006

  13. I’m not sure why Nick thinks folks on the left would have a problem with what he suggests i.e. government sanction of civil unions for ALL and leave “marriage” to the churches. (BTW, that would represent a significant re-definition of marriage since non-religious atheists would no longer have access to marriage.) The problem with what Nick suggests is that it is impractical. Most of those virulently opposed to SSM do not want any recognition of gay relationships – just take a look at Prop 107 here in Arizona. So good luck in convincing people to give up their state marriage certificates in exchange for civil union certificates. In the meantime, give gay people the right to have a state-issued marriage certificate that we’ll gladly trade in for the civil union one along with everyone else.

    As for the notion that recognition of same sex relationships damages heterosexual marriage, the latest statistics say no.

    Comment by Ian — November 3, 2006 @ 9:02 am - November 3, 2006

  14. To the religious folks who are up-in-arms about “destroying” the “sacred institute” of marriage, I say, … You reap what you sow.

    Pretty similar to what I’ve said. Over the last few decades, marriage has been eroded by open marriage and no-fault divorce. If marriage today is treated as just a pinata of social privileges and benefits, its because heterosexuals have allowed it to become as such. If marriage were still expected to be a lifelong, monogamous commitment with not many side-benefits, gays wouldn’t be interested in it. Neither would a lot of heteros.

    Since legal parity could be achieved through civil unions or through minor tweaking of existing laws, I’ve long since come to the conclusion that the gay assault on marriage is primarily a vanity issue. Activists want the “in your face” to the Christian Right, and others have self-esteem issues that they think will be assuaged by a piece of paper from a Government bureaucracy acknowledging their relationship.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 9:22 am - November 3, 2006

  15. Okay, reading the lead post and comments, I gotta say I agree with Ian and just cannot believe I’m reading the poster’s comments about gay marriage “destroying marriage”.

    That poster has exactly ZERO evidence of that. In fact, Ian’s link totally proves the poster wrong.

    But reading this guy before, I tell you Ian, he’ll never admit he’s wrong. They don’t do that here. They just either just blather on with exactly whatever the GOP and Evangelical extremists tell them to say or they torture argument anyway they want in order to rationalize their betrayal to their own.

    I’ve been reading here a while and I have to ask: what the hell is it about the majority of people writing here that they feel such a need to side with people like that hypocrite Haggard out here claims?

    I know this is a GOP site, but really, have you so warped your opinions on everything to fit the hypocritical GOP/Evangelical agenda that you’ve lost all track of who you are and what you, as citizens of this democracy, deserve out of it?

    Now I think I know how freedom fighters in other countries and other times have felt as they fight for liberty, knowing that there are people just like them who fancy themselves “loyalists” to a tyranny and work to undercut everything they’re doing.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 9:25 am - November 3, 2006

  16. “Since legal parity could be achieved through civil unions or through minor tweaking of existing laws…”

    I’d be for that, provided it was a FEDERAL civil union law according the SAME rights to gay people as to straights. Would you be for that, man — a Federal civil union law?

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 9:30 am - November 3, 2006

  17. Would you be for that, man — a Federal civil union law?

    No.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 9:37 am - November 3, 2006

  18. And just for the record, I also oppose Federally mandated speed limits, drinking ages, toilet flush water usage limits, minimum wages, and about 100,000 other things the FedGov has no business sticking its weiner into.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 9:53 am - November 3, 2006

  19. #12 – You don’t understand the statement or you live in a distortion of life that you believe there is ownership over people, implied or explicit. You have a right to do that, it’s just not healthy.

    Here’s the delusion exampled: “You can’t *build* if the other person is going to just walk away one day.”

    Uh, this happens to be the reality EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY! And if they die? Hmmmm…same outcome.

    Did you not read the rest of my post?

    “Each day, each person in a relationship makes a choice to move toward or away from the person they are involved with by the very nature of the behavior they exude. There are only 2 options in relationships, toward it or away from it.”

    An individual can get up and walk out at any minute. If extenuating circumstances are your extortion of the other person, so be it, but at some point the dislike for the relationship will outweigh the extortion and the person will leave anyway.

    Why go down that road. Each individual agrees that they have the time they have with one another to enjoy, when one or the other is ready to move on…move on…or not. Why would you want someone to be with you who doesn’t want to be with you? Why would you use extortion to keep that person with you…unless of course, you’re an unhealthy individual with emotional “disease” that believes you own people.

    Before you go getting all emotional about what I’m saying, think about it for a few minutes, an hour, a day…don’t just jump to your own conclusion. Look at it, examine it, examine your own beliefs and how you came to assimilate them.

    If you never examine yourself, your indoctrinations, how do you ever change in life? This is precisely the problem with the Religious Right, why make it your’s, as well.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 10:41 am - November 3, 2006

  20. […] I found this post on marriage and specificaly the gay marriage controversy interresting. His argument isn’t for or against gay marriage, but points out silly it is to have a state defined status and regulation on personal relationships. What excatly is the point? If you step back from the age old convention, it looks a bit Orwellian doesn’t it. […]

    Pingback by alexhessler.com » Refreshing view on Marriage — November 3, 2006 @ 11:24 am - November 3, 2006

  21. Web Reconnaissance for 11/03/2004…

    A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention….

    Trackback by The Thunder Run — November 3, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - November 3, 2006

  22. If nobody’s recognized as being “married” in the Catholic church without a Catholic ceremony (this is true)…

    Not quite true, Nick. In fact, the Church recognizes the validity of all marriages which she deems “good and natural.” The Church teaches that while non-Catholic marriages are not “sacramental,” they are valid. That is to say, they are presumed valid, unless they can be proven to be null. A homosexual marriage, for instance, would be null, as would a bigamous marriage, or a forced marriage, inter alia.

    The Church does require that Catholics marry sacramentally. Because of this rule, “lack of canonical form” is grounds to annul a non-Catholic civil marriage, but only if one or both of the spouses is Catholic. And so it would be more true to say that no Catholic is recognized as being married without a Catholic ceremony.

    It’s a bit of a nitpick, since it does not do damage to your larger point, that the Church is free to withhold recognition of homosexual unions. But it’s an error nonetheless, and paints a misleading picture of the Church’s teaching on matrimony.

    Comment by Sean Gleeson — November 3, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - November 3, 2006

  23. And all this time I thought Jefferson meant:

    “…that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - November 3, 2006

  24. Well, I don’t find anything particularly unreasonable with what Nick is saying.

    As far as the poster “ahksel” goes, yes there really are gay men and lesbians that think as he does. It would not be the first time I’ve run across such. Especially among the Exodus crowd.

    However, his arguments are stupid and prejudiced for very obvious reasons.

    By “stupid” I mean that his internal logic does not add up.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 3, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - November 3, 2006

  25. Excellent post, Colorado Patriot, for presenting both sides of the gay marriage issue. I agree with almost all of your points. I do believe that those that are worried about gay marriage destroying “traditional” marriage are best advised to worry more about their own marriages. This, by itself, will strengthen marriage.

    I also think it would be a good idea that the government get out of the marriage business. But in reality, that is not going to happen. At least not any time soon. As long as the government recognizes marriage between and a man and a woman, but refuses to recognize a marriage between two of the same sex, the latter couple has second class status. If that’s what some feel about gay couples, then that’s their opinion, and they are entitled to it. But I respectfully disagree.

    I do respect ahksel’s opinion, but I do not get your analogy in response to Scooter. If gay marriage is allowed, I have no interest in going into his house to change his decor, or change ahksel’s view of marriage. If he feels, as a gay man, he doesn’t want to marry, then he can certainly choose not to. If anything, it almost feels he has come into my home, not change the decor, but says that my relationship with my partner is not as worthy as a straight relationship.

    Like many other things that change over the years, so has marriage. It initially may have been created and recognized by governments, because of the potential of offspring. But that has changed, as all churches, as far as I am aware, have no problem marrying couples that cannot have children because of age or infertility. (In theory, I suppose the Catholic Church does have a problem marrying straight couples that can bear children but won’t).

    And although one can say that marriage has been damaged because of no fault divorces, etc., maybe so. I have no facts to back this up, but it has been my impression that before this happened, many marriages were a result of coercion, and even if not coerced, many marriages only stayed together simply for the sake of staying together. The woman (or perhaps the man) was forced to stay married to someone who abused them physically, sexually, verbally, or continuously engaged in extramarital affairs, etc. If what I suspect is correct, then marriage was on shaky grounds for a long time.

    But getting back to government. As long as marriage is going to be recognized by the government for a long time to come, it makes sense to for gay marriages to be allowed. I liken this to hate crime laws. A lot of people are against them because one’s thoughts should not be considered part of the crime (even though murder does exactly that, and no one seems to have a problem with that). But if hate crime statutes are going to exist, I would want sexual orientation to be part of the protected classes. Otherwise, that sends a terrible message about the value of homosexuals over others.

    For those that do want goverment to get out of the marriage business, ironically, I think allowing gay marriage might just get the job done.

    Comment by Pat — November 3, 2006 @ 12:50 pm - November 3, 2006

  26. #22: A few days after writing that, Jefferson attended an Episcopal service conducted in the House of Representatives. I don’t think Jefferson thought ‘wall of separation’ meant what the ACLU would like us to believe.

    ‘Wall of separation’ as the ACLU defines it entered American jurisprudence through Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, a racist bigot and Klansman, who used it as justification to deny Catholic schoolchildren the right to ride on public school buses. Not out of fear of establishment of a state religion, but because the bastard just hated Catholics.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 1:20 pm - November 3, 2006

  27. The things I learn on this site! Hugo Black was in the KKK? Did he know Robert “Sheets” Byrd socially, or did they just lynch blacks together once?

    Thanks, V da K. You da man!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - November 3, 2006

  28. […] Well now, that’s a loaded subject.  Anyway, they are not my thoughts but Gay Patriot’s.  He has a provocative post up today about why he thinks both the pro-gay marriage crowd and the anti-gay marriage crowd are wrong, or at least looking at the topic through the wrong lens. To the religious folks who are up-in-arms about “destroying” the “sacred institute” of marriage, I say, You’re absolutely right, it would be destroyed if gays were allowed to marry. But you know what? You reap what you sow. Millennia ago (or whenever), the Church abdicated its authority over marriage by allowing civic institutions to confer the status upon thier subjects. Today we (Americans, that is) live in (Thank God) a representative democracy. As such, when you allow The State to label people as “single” or “married”, you kinda have to suck up whatever they want to define it as. Render unto Caesar, the saying goes. […]

    Pingback by johnopedia » Blog Archive » Thoughts on Gay Marriage — November 3, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - November 3, 2006

  29. #25, you want to deflect the statements of Jefferson for whatever your personal agenda is, when the fact remains, Jefferson wrote in the DOI that the government does not endorse nor disuade people from their religion and that he “explains” that writing in his letter.

    THAT was the point being made, not any of your hijacking of the subject as you intended to do by trying to morally equivocate his letter with your example.

    #24, nice post!

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - November 3, 2006

  30. Sorry, I had DOI on the brain, COTUS.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - November 3, 2006

  31. Something else to add to the list the Federal Government has no business getting involved in:

    The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has concluded that school districts violated the law by having cheerleaders only at boys’ basketball, baseball and softball games, and not at girls’ games. . . .

    The superintendent of the Vestal Central School District says the federal agency expressed concerns about the amount of promotion girls’ sports received compared to the boys’ program.

    He says from now on, cheerleaders will be required to perform at an equal number of girls’ and boys’ games.

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - November 3, 2006

  32. But will they be male cheerleaders at girls’ games? If so, I can bet you that a lot of otherwise non-motivated fans (read: females and gays) would show up, especially if the guys were hot.

    Maybe we could get Barney Frank to vet them first? Oops, bad choice of words there. Just a joke – I misspoke.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - November 3, 2006

  33. Scooter

    My name is the same on manhunt.net, also on bigmuscle.com.

    Why is it so hard to believe that a gay person, who has tried to make the lifestyle work, became dissilussioned and finally reached the same conclusion that others have reached. As I see it, my choice was to either face the reality of what the gay lifestyle really is or go out in a blaze of drugs, promiscuity and the resulting STD’s that is typical of gay men. Instead of trying to numb myself to the existential emptiness of the gay liffestyle I decided to face it.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - November 3, 2006

  34. by the way, contrary to what so many state, redefining marriage HAS nearly destroyed it in those countries, specifically the scandinavian ones, that have done so. Google it yourselves and see, marriage rates have plummetted. It is extreemly arrogant to state that if it cannot survive a change of definition then it wasn’t a worthy institution in the first place. You are CHANGING it’s definition, you are changing what it IS, when you do that you are robbing everybody else as surely if a government infaltes a currency. You are taking the childish view that happiness is in itself a goal and the only goal that matters. I say happiness can only be achieved by attaining goals that have meaning. It’s a byproduct, not an end in itself. gay marriage shifts society towards abandoning values, purpose and meaning. Life then becomes an empty exercise devoid of any joy or any feelings in general. Gay society has even recognized this and coined terms to describe those that have become jaded.
    Gay relationships only have the potential to create something that will last at most the lifetime of the parties involved. This though, is so rare in the gay world that it can be considered non-existant. Real families produce future generations and are in this way creating something that has a sort of immortality. This in itself is enough to give the relationship a deep meaning and tie the members into the circle of life and creation.
    How many of us are motivated to stick with a partner when the relationship does not have any value besides sexual satisfaction? Apparently none of us are. The fact that gay relationships are notoriously short lived is not a result of societies disapproval but a result of our not placing any kind of life or death importance on them. When two gay men separate it is hardly an earth shaking situation for them. When a family breaks up it is, it is a tradgedy for the children.Gay Marriage will not change that situation in the least. In the scandinavian countries the percentage of gays that take advantage of the civil unions and marriages is miniscule. The overwhelming majority of the civil unions and marriages that do take place are unions where one parter is a citizen of another country. So the few gay marriages that do happen are primarily entererd into to take advantage of laws that would give citizenship or residency status to the foreign partner.
    It is not surprising that a gay person would argue that marriage in general has no value because to him it wouldn’t. To those who raise families it does, and it is very important. Gay people are making a big mistake to try to rob society of this institution just to make everything equal.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 6:22 pm - November 3, 2006

  35. Bobby, two words of advice for you: Try Xanax.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 7:04 pm - November 3, 2006

  36. “The fact that gay relationships are notoriously short lived is not a result of societies disapproval but a result of our not placing any kind of life or death importance on them”

    Extortion, plain and simple. You don’t own people.

    Ahksel- the fact that you have become disillusioned is not because the “lifestyle” is the way it is but because you haven’t found the relationship that works for you. I’ve been in relationships for 14 years and single now for 7 and very happy. I don’t need another person to make my life happy or complete, neither do you, you just don’t know it yet.

    To demonize gays or their agendas for enabling civil liberties by suggesting that your failure to engage in a substantial relationship as one of drugs, promescuity and std’s is just stupid. EVERY group has their issues on a continuum of health/ill-health. You sound more like Bitter Spice than a happy camper, but it’s no one’s fault but your own that you’re unhappy.

    If you happen to find joy out of the gay community, that’s great, but it doesn’t demean the gay community because of it. Wow, I hate cauliflower, but I love spinach, therefore cauliflower sucks. Grow up!

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - November 3, 2006

  37. re Pat
    Your post made me chuckle. A little dramatic don’t you think?
    “it almost feels he has come into my home, not change the decor, but says that my relationship with my partner is not as worthy as a straight relationship.”
    Two things.
    One, feelings are things like fear, anxiety, sadness happiness. Your funny little scenario of me coming into your home and chastising you is a thought. One calculated to make you seem victimized which you try to validate by calling a “feeeeeeeeling”.It makes you come accross as a bit emmotional and not to be taken all that seriously.
    Two, I would never be so arrogant as to abuse anyones hospitality by criticising their decor or circle of friends nor do I invite myself into other peoples homes.I realize that liberals cannot debate issues and instead try to villify those they disagree with. I’m afraid you have mischaracterized me. I don’t have to go into your home to tell you that your relationship is not as important as a straight one, I can tell you that on here.I can tell you right here that it does not contribute to the continuation of society and it does not require the sacrifices that a a married couple must make to raise that future generation.
    You make the mistake of assuming that because I believe it is not AS important that I believe it has NO importance. That is simply no the case. I after all I am a gay man and I have a need for companionship myself. I may struggle with the my need for companionship and my simultaneous reaction to reject other man who gets too close. I could go into how I feel that two people of the same sex face personal idedntity issues when they become too close and in the case of men they feel an impule come from deep within to re-establish this identity by being non-monogamous after a year or so. I could go into how the sex difference between a man and a woman enables them to get close without this threat. I could go into how divorce rates rose as women became more masculinizd (clothes, career, daycare) thereby blurring some of those differences.I could go into how many gay men reject emmotions because they can’t stomach them and instead try to fill the void with mmeaningless impersonall sex. How the only thing they let themselves feel is lust and how this creates an ache that they try to assuage with alcohol, drugs and more meaningless sex. I could go into all that but I think many people are mor comfortable just hating someone who disagrees with them on the gay marriage issue so why bother. If you have found a BF and are happ then perhaps you are luckier than most. Just for my own curiosity though, are you monogomaous? If not then how can you even pretend to claim your relationship is equal to a traditional marriage?

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 7:20 pm - November 3, 2006

  38. re scooter
    14 years in a relationship and 7 years single since then….so what’s your point, that I shouldn’t disagree with my elders?

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - November 3, 2006

  39. #3: I guess it is a belief that life is beautiful.

    Apparently, you don’t believe that gay life is beautiful, but it is… or that gay relationships can be every bit as beautiful and life-affirming as straight ones, but they certainly can.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 7:35 pm - November 3, 2006

  40. #6: For what it’s worth, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if someone came to your house, removed all your things and replaced them with a decor that was more fitting to his tastes. Perhaps burned all your pictures and personal effects that captured images and ideas of your loved-ones (while you watched, of course) and replaced them with pictures of how he thought your family should look and behave. Oh, and then expect your family and friends to look and act that way.

    I do not know what this is meant to be a metaphor for (!), but if you mean to imply that gay marriage is like doing that to someone’s home, that is entirely erroneous. If gay partnerships are viewed as marriages, either in the public sector or the private, it will have no effect on anyone’s home life or how they live their own lives. If there is any effect, it would be along the lines of hurt feelings, and wouldn’t that just be too damned bad? 🙂 (Although sensitivity to more “traditional” mores about marriage are necessary to any intelligent activism, I readily admit that I don’t really have any respect for those mores, or consider them to be at all rational.)

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 7:40 pm - November 3, 2006

  41. re kdogg36. My point was that judging by the symptoms, most gay men don’t find it beautiful, or perhaps you’re saying they just think it’s something to die for? Do you think it’s beautiful to have sex with countless men whose name you don’t even want to know? Do you think Manhunt is beautiful? Do you think a lifestyle where the common sentiment is ” looking for a hot tpo/bottom for no strings fun” is beautiful? Do you think a lifestyle that would generate site such as manhunt, where people post profiles with genital pics and not face pics is beautiful? Is it beautiful that people want to have sex with someone without even knowing what their face looks like because that would be too intimate?Perhaps you are talking about all of the public cruising areas where men go to have sex with multiple partners every day.`Or maybe yoiu think restroom sex is beautiful. Or maybe it’s beautiful when one has a BF and one still takes advantage of all the other venues. Perhaps you really think I am straight and don’t know what I’m talking about. I assure you, I know exactly what the gay lifestyle is about and it is not beautiful, it is not warm, it is not spiritual.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - November 3, 2006

  42. re kdogg36
    as far as “life affirming”, nice little liberal catchphrase but it doesn’t really have a meaning, or it’s meaning is cloudy. I don’t know about “life affirming” but I know they aren’t life creating, do you realize I have to explain the patently obvious to you? They aren’t life creating and therefore they do not contribute to a societies future and therefore society has no value for it. Perhaps it may make you happy, but your happinesss is not important to the future of our society. Adults are concerned with things that are greater thatn themselves.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 7:55 pm - November 3, 2006

  43. Re Bobby
    I like the way you talk, the gay left is fascist for sure. How’s this for a chant: “hey hey! HO HO! Homofascism has got to go!”

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - November 3, 2006

  44. Re kdogg36
    The danger in changing the definition of marriage is not that people who are married will decide their marriage has no meaning rather it is that new generations will decide it has no meaning which is EXACTLY the situation in Scandinavia. It is sophomoric to argue that legalizing gay marriage will not affect people who are married today, no-one who is opposed to gay marriage opposes it because they think their marriage will suddenely evaporate and you know it. This arrogant attempt to trivialize those who oppose it is a transparent stalinist tactic. What concerns those who oppose it is it’s affect on future generations and all the eveidence shows that their concerns are well founded.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 8:14 pm - November 3, 2006

  45. Gay Marriage…

    I read this Blog entry with great interest, because I have been moving in this direction myself lately. I started my political life believing Gay Marriage would destroy an institution that had been pretty successful for thousands of years but the……

    Trackback by Dawnsblood — November 3, 2006 @ 8:16 pm - November 3, 2006

  46. Re # 36 there we go, a gay man’s answer for everything is drugs.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 3, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - November 3, 2006

  47. #42: re kdogg36. My point was that judging by the symptoms, most gay men don’t find it beautiful, or perhaps you’re saying they just think it’s something to die for?

    I don’t agree that it’s valid to judge me or my relationship based on the actions of other people. I have never engaged in a single one of the things you mention, so they have no place whatsoever in any judgment of me or my life.

    You are judging all gay people, including many loving and warm people with beautiful relationships, based on the traits of other people who just happen to also be gay. I dare say that this type of collectivist thinking is a major contributing factor in most of the greatest evils that have taken place in the history of mankind.

    I know exactly what the gay lifestyle is about and it is not beautiful, it is not warm, it is not spiritual.

    What you don’t know about, apparently, is my lifestyle and my wonderful relationship. If that kind of beauty has never been part of your own experience, I am very sorry.

    #43: as far as “life affirming”, nice little liberal catchphrase but it doesn’t really have a meaning, or it’s meaning is cloudy.

    You are probably right that “life-affirming” is a bit vague. “Life-enhancing” might be more precise: my relationship enhances my life, my boyfriend’s life, and I think it enhances, in its own small way, the lives of our friends and family and those who see us out and about sharing the joy of our lives together.

    I don’t know about “life affirming” but I know they aren’t life creating, do you realize I have to explain the patently obvious to you?

    It’s patently obvious to me that I can’t get my boyfriend pregnant, that is very true. But I don’t think the ability to have children — whether or not they choose to do so — grants a singular nobility or beauty to straight relationships as opposed to gay ones. I know of beautiful

    straight partnerships with no children,

    straight families with wonderful and precious children,

    gay partnerships without children, and

    gay families with wonderful and precious children, whose DNA is of course not a 50/50 mesh of both dads or both moms, but who are a loving and true family nonetheless.

    It’s hard to describe in words, but all of these have something essential in common. A shared joy in living; a lifelong commitment to work together for common goals, because life is so much richer together than apart; a recognition that the well-being of one’s partner or one’s family is important to one’s own well being, so that you would fight to the death to protect them from harm. The best life partnerships have all of these traits, and it doesn’t matter if they’re marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. The world or the church or the government may try to sort them into separate categories, but they are all essentially the same.

    They aren’t life creating and therefore they do not contribute to a societies future and therefore society has no value for it. Perhaps it may make you happy, but your happinesss is not important to the future of our society.

    Life is not lived in the future, it is lived in the present. It is a good and beautiful thing to have children and raise a family, but marriages and partnerships can be good and beautiful even if they do not produce children, because they add so much to the lives of each partner and those around them. I don’t think many people would disparage or condemn a marriage that failed to produce children, if the husband and wife were otherwise good, loving people who are committed to their well-being and the well-being of other people in their lives. Gay partnerships may be childless, but many of them, of course, are not. Either way, they should be judged on the same basis as other relationships.

    #46: The danger in changing the definition of marriage is not that people who are married will decide their marriage has no meaning rather it is that new generations will decide it has no meaning which is EXACTLY the situation in Scandinavia.

    I think the reports are mixed on that. There are so many factors swirling about; even if marriage is being progressively devalued in some particular country or society, I don’t see how one could attribute that to same-sex marriage policy. What I do know is that, if my own relationship (and ones like it) are recognized as marriages, it will only strengthen the positive value of the concept for children growing up in future generations.

    It is sophomoric to argue that legalizing gay marriage will not affect people who are married today, no-one who is opposed to gay marriage opposes it because they think their marriage will suddenely evaporate and you know it.

    I didn’t mean to argue that. I was responding to a specific metaphor drawn by another contributor to this thread.

    This arrogant attempt to trivialize those who oppose it is a transparent stalinist tactic.

    Alrighty then. 🙂

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - November 3, 2006

  48. “re scooter
    14 years in a relationship and 7 years single since then….so what’s your point, that I shouldn’t disagree with my elders?

    Comment by Ahksel”

    You’re making an assumption about my age which you would be wrong. Feel free to attack me personally since you feel bad about yourself and lack self-esteem to some desperate level that the gay community can’t seem to satisfy by giving you the love and the relationship you’ve been searching for your whole life. Good Luck with that!

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - November 3, 2006

  49. I’m thinking that I made a mistake by taking Ahksel at face value and responding carefully to his posts. But there were things I wanted to get off my chest.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 3, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - November 3, 2006

  50. My take on what I’m reading from the anti-marriage/anti-unions folks above: you respect yourself so little that you don’t even countenance the idea that you have as much value as heterosexual Americans and are therefore underserving of equal rights. That’s called something you guys don’t want to hear here: self-loathing. I wish there was a better word for it, ’cause I hate to offend what might well be otherwise good intentioned people. But I can’t think of a better description of what I’m reading. One of youse actually said above that gay marriage will erode heterosexual marriage — with no evidence, you say this. Why? There can be only reason — you accept what the bigots say and I would guess you do out of some need to belong to an ideology/party that really doesn’t give a shit about you (other than for your “chief of staff” skills, apparently).

    Not me, jokers. I was born as gay as a goose (whatever that means) and yet every bit as worthy, as valuable, as equal as any heterosexual — at least in my eyes and, thankfully, the eyes of everyone else in my business and private world. But, then again, I live in a God-blessed, Deep Blue State, where our legislature is 180 days away from figuring out what to call our equal status. I don’t have to grin big and shuffle along to make the bigots happy and accepting of me.

    I deserve every right that anyone else has — including the right to marriage (or whatever the fuck the hetero majority can live with calling it) and ALL of the benefits that flow from that CIVIL institution.

    I’ll continue to argue for that right because I am an American proud of the opportunity and promise my country offers every one of us. I don’t spend a second worrying about the spectre offered by the “stoic” above (and you, baby, need to really get over yourself big-time, as Big Dick might say) — the spectre of being bayonneted in a soccer stadium. Wha??? Are you THAT scared of being yourself? This is America. Despite having a significant segment of moralistic hypocrites, we are about nothing if we’re not about freedom, liberty, and yes, the word you guys hate so much here, “equality”.

    So I’ll go on arguing for what’s fair, American, and right. The rest of youse can just slink around here and worry about what the straight folks might think.

    So, Bobby, double that Xanax prescription I advised up above. You’re going to need a more of it than I first thought.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 10:56 pm - November 3, 2006

  51. “That’s called something you guys don’t want to hear here: self-loathing”

    It probably never occurred to you that perhaps some of us in this United States have greater ideas than the simpleton idea of “marriage”. It’s so easy to attempt to diagnose from a position of superiority, which only proves your inability to be either – a counselor or superior.

    Perhaps you’re the one that is the underdeveloped species in our society since you are incapable of bringing alternative ideas to the issue. This is what we call limited, but I guess you know that already.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:05 pm - November 3, 2006

  52. What? That’s all you got man — “underdeveloped”? Spit.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - November 3, 2006

  53. “What? That’s all you got man — “underdeveloped”? Spit.”

    If you had half the intelligencia you profess you would’ve understood an insult when you read it.

    “How do you not fall down more?”

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - November 3, 2006

  54. Actually, Scooter, when I read Eddie’s whining, what I get out of it is, “I (Eddie) have such a pathetically low-level of self-validation that my life is meaningless unless I can get a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy that approves my relationship choice.”

    Comment by V the K — November 3, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - November 3, 2006

  55. And you, old Scoots, don’t know “spit” — literally.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:24 pm - November 3, 2006

  56. Eddie, I understand that victims are constantly searching for an outlet to release their anger, self-hatred and opportunity to “tell of the world” by spewing their venom, we’ve heard from you and appreciate your lot in life that you are burden with when it comes to development. W e ‘ l l t r y a n d t a l k s l o w e r f o r y o u.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:24 pm - November 3, 2006

  57. “Actually, Scooter, when I read Eddie’s whining, what I get out of it is, “I (Eddie) have such a pathetically low-level of self-validation that my life is meaningless unless I can get a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy that approves my relationship choice.”

    Ahhhhh, yes, the sweet words of truth are spoken. Nice job VtheK!

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - November 3, 2006

  58. And, V, whatever rationale you want to use to avoid facing your own value, is fine by me. Just keep on shuffling, keep on grinning real big now.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - November 3, 2006

  59. Re-read number 52 comment above Scooterlicious. And put your damn glasses on this time. No victimhood in that, baby.

    Say, V. I think I just met your friend “Mr. Projector”. Damn, you guys do hang together, or should.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - November 3, 2006

  60. Ya know Eddie, when you drag a dollar through a trailer park you never know what you’re gonna pick up, but you’ve proved that here tonight with what to expect once you started posting.

    Thanks for the revelation, now we know what a dollar will buy.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - November 3, 2006

  61. Well, 11:30 in the East. Time for nappies. You guys stay here and keep the place warm. And remember to keep shuffling, keep grinning real big now. Oh, a favor please: remind Bobby to get that Xanax real soon.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:31 pm - November 3, 2006

  62. Eddie you’re under the impression that one need read your entire post to assimilate your disease. Not needed. The post I quoted from you speaks it very well.

    Efficiency. Learn it.

    Comment by Scooter — November 3, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - November 3, 2006

  63. Whoa. You slipped a couple of dingers in on me Scoots, one of which revealed that you didn’t actually read Comment 52 before characterizing it as containing victimhood, venon, etc. Too bad. You might have learned something your trailer park experiences have never taught you.

    Now this time, I’m REALLY going to bed. I have no intention of staying up all night, just to keep a couple of sassy old queens company.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 3, 2006 @ 11:41 pm - November 3, 2006

  64. I have to be honest, I thought Eddie’s post in #52 was rather good, though I try to be a little less provocative in my own posts. I don’t know what he’s said that is worthy of attack, for sure.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 4, 2006 @ 12:10 am - November 4, 2006

  65. There’s no reason for domestic partnerships if you ask me. Marriage and civil marriage are already seperate entities. One is social with authority sometime sought from the church(es) and the other is a matter of law. Anybody is free to be married, but to be civil married is a completely different monster. Nearly the only distinction between the two is what a couple (or group) can recieve in return from society. As ColoradoPatriot alluded to earlier, Civil marriage is distinct in that you need a license (documented permission from the state). Call it what you want, but if you need permission to do something, it can hardly be called a right. It’s for those reasons that we have a public acknowledgement that we CAN place restrictions upon civil marriage. Underage? Nope, you dont have the right. Already married? Nope, you don’t have the right… and so forth. The question ultimately lies in what the purpose of civil marriage is. For this, one need only examine what the laws reflect in any given state, not the nation as a whole. Different juristiction, different community, different concensus. It’s like trying to argue what wearing yellow clothes is supposed to mean in NYC and then applying that concept to the polar caps of Mars. This is why “the purpose of civil marriage” has escaped a concencus of definition for so long. To me, it makes perfect sense that societies afford benefits (incentives to get married) to married couples because the product of that marriage is generally a benefit to society as a whole. Ever seen the statistical comparisons of kids from single parents?

    If a couple isn’t (percieved as) going to be a benefit to a certain standard, it’s really no suprise that certain relationships aren’t endorsed by the public. But let’s face it, the central theme of the same sex marriage debate isn’t about securing or refusing endorsement from the church, it’s about securing or refusing endorsement from the state and the public. So we come full circle to a comparison between a legal institution and a social one, and they are already distinct. It’s just a matter of convincing the public that same sex marriage is deserving of the same benefits. I’d think a good place to start is to demonstrate that differences between hetero and same sex marriages are negligable. A difficult task considering the inherent differences.

    And ftr, I ain’t reading through 60+ replies before I post.

    Comment by VTSquire — November 4, 2006 @ 2:55 am - November 4, 2006

  66. Ahksel, sorry if my post seemed dramatic, and perhaps it was. My analogy was in response to ColoradoPatriot’s post. Again, I thought his blog entry was excellent, but I disagreed with what I interpreted his analogy about the house decor. I disagreed, because if gay marriage was allowed, I would not want to change anyone’s elses view of what marriage is. But then again, I don’t want anyone else who has (mostly) personal issues about gay marriage to prevent me from being married. So with respect to the analogy, it is my view that those who are against gay marriage are intruding more into my life, than those who are for gay marriage are intruding into the lives of those who don’t want gay marriage. I did not literally mean that you would come into my house and want to change the decor. But I see you said that you did not have to come into my house to state that my relationship is inferior. That was basically the point of the analogy.

    Kdogg’s responses, for the most part, echo my thoughts. Just a few of my own comments. First, I don’t regard myself as a victim. I’m fine with my relationship, and I do view it as important and valid as others. And, no, I don’t need a piece of paper validating my relationship. And if gay marriage, or even civil unions don’t happen, I’ll be okay. Really. But I do want, in my view, what is fair and what is right. And gay marriage would not have to change your views of gay relationships.

    One of the reasons that you stated for gay relationships to be inferior is because there is no chance of offspring to be produced. It is certainly true that gay couple cannot procreate. But do you also find that the relationship of married couples that do not have children are inferior? I have one brother who is married with children, and my other brother and his wife have no intention of having children. Is one marriage superior to the other? Or are they equally important, because assuming neither are infertile, they still had the potential? Should a person who is known to be infertile, or postmenopausal not have the right to be married? What about couples, whom for whatever reason, don’t want to procreate, but adopt? What about gay couples who want to adopt? Don’t mean to give you a hard time, ahksel, but I’m trying to understand your position.

    I can understand some of your sentiment, ahksel, as I thought for a long time that I could never have a meaningful gay relationship. In fact, I thought I could never have ANY gay relationship. So, although I never felt that other happy gay persons should be deprived of equality, I did play the victim card. But once I decided to embrace the way I am, things became easier, and I was able to feel that my life and my relationships were as important as anyone else’s.

    Ahksel, I agree with what you said about many gay relationships. Yes, some gays are promiscuous, take drugs, have sex in rest rooms like my former governor, etc. In many cases, it happens because they dislike their sexuality. And yes, some do it despite the fact they embrace it. News flash. Many straight people do as well. Some continue to do this for the rest of their lives. And some are just “sowing their wild oats” and settle down and get married. So I’m not sure of the point there. Oh, some gay relationships are not monogamous. Agreed. But same with marriages. For the record, my partner and I are monogamous. I don’t see how the relationship could survive without it, but somehow, apparently many straight and gay couples do it. Go figure.

    Scooter, thanks for your praise of my above post. I don’t quite understand your response to Eddie Graziano’s post. His post was a bit provocative as kdogg says, but except for the fact that you would accept civil unions, his opinions seem to echo yours.

    Comment by Pat — November 4, 2006 @ 8:16 am - November 4, 2006

  67. I get it with the xanax already dude.Maybe your right and I do need drugs…but probably not.
    As to being bayonetted in a soccor stadium…If you knew anything at all about life outside your blue town you’d know that killing homosexuals in soccor stadiums is the bread and circuses of the arab world.I was trying to provide a distinction between a government that treats you well(but that you seditiosly slander none the less)and other governments that would be far less understanding of your sexuality.
    Your problem is that you’ve lived so long in this generous republic,that you can’t seem to imagine a world where your right to draw breath is in question.This great experiment of ours is an oasis of rightousness in a dark world and rather than count your many gains you obsess over your petty losses.
    My main point(which you don’t seem to want to address)is that we would be better served to allow the breeders this one boon.In so doing you would pacify the moderates and you would literally cut the legs out from under the evangelical fanatics.All i’m saying is that it would be wise to pick you battles more carefully.Do I believe that gay men like us should be able to marry like anyone else?absolutly.Do I think we should risk all the gains that older gay men have acheived in order to obtain instant gratification on this matter?Absolutly not.

    Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 8:39 am - November 4, 2006

  68. #67: Call it what you want, but if you need permission to do something, it can hardly be called a right. It’s for those reasons that we have a public acknowledgement that we CAN place restrictions upon civil marriage.

    I agree completely with that, and I am in truth a libertarian who’d like to see the government stop categorizing human relationships at all — it ultimately has no valid reason to do so. My comments on this thread aren’t really meant to be about state policy; to me the question is, should people view healthy same-sex partnerships as essentially identical to healthy straight marriages? And the answer to that is “yes,” for the reasons I have given.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 4, 2006 @ 10:56 am - November 4, 2006

  69. #69:

    risk all the gains that older gay men have acheived

    Which of these gains is at risk? The sodomy laws aren’t coming back. There’s no push to invalidate anti-discrimination laws any more. It’s only a matter of time before the military ban will be rescinded. What else are we risking? The worst case scenario would be a Constitutional amendment to ban SSM because such amendments are the hardest to repeal. But that only affects SSM which is illegal already in almost all jurisdictions. What do we gain by giving up? Absolutely nothing. The right wing homohaters will continue to hate and moderates will ignore us.

    I believe the reward vastly outweighs the risk of continuing to fight for what is, when all is said and done, simply the right thing. And, to echo the words of that old Stones’ hit:

    Time, time, time is on our side, yes it is

    Comment by Ian — November 4, 2006 @ 11:12 am - November 4, 2006

  70. Exactly Ian!So tell me,why is it imperative that we engineer a constitutional fiasco over a petty right that will eventually fall in our laps anyway.
    If you think that all of our gains can’t be wiped out in a fraction of the time it took to gain them you’re not very realistic.Time is on our side you say…I agree.So tell me again why it’s necessary for us to go to war with the breeders over a petty symbolic gesture that will eventually ceeded to us anyway?

    Comment by Bobby Alpy — November 4, 2006 @ 11:40 am - November 4, 2006

  71. Ahksel’s post in #33 is just flat out WRONG!

    The problem in the Scandanavian countries is that they allow relationships for ALL couples, straight and gay, that are LESS than marriage! Because they provide legal standing to something OTHER than marriage, THAT is why marriage is on the decline there… not because gays have been given the same rights.

    Comment by GOPValues — November 4, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - November 4, 2006

  72. Thank you kdogg. I probably should tone down the provocation and will take that to heart. I just get beside myself reading all these rationalizations for doing nothing, to go-along-to-get-along type stuff that I see here. These gay guys and sometimes gals (assuming they all are gay, you never know with the Internetsies), whether they want to think so or not, are my brothers and sisters and they’re cheating themselves of incredible joy, hope, and a sense of self-worth when they twist their views and soul to make them fit the Party Of Falwell-Robertson-Dobson.

    And Bobby, I’ve had to read and re-read your #69 above. I think we’re actually saying some similar things, so forgive me my Xanax references. That relates more to your typing style (and that Arab soccer stadium thing you talk about, as if the rest of us are not aware of that), which is frenetic. I prefer a little more order in what I read, but who’s to say…

    I need to repeat your last point here, just to read it all and address it:

    “My main point(which you don’t seem to want to address)is that we would be better served to allow the breeders this one boon.In so doing you would pacify the moderates and you would literally cut the legs out from under the evangelical fanatics.All i’m saying is that it would be wise to pick you battles more carefully.Do I believe that gay men like us should be able to marry like anyone else?absolutly.Do I think we should risk all the gains that older gay men have acheived in order to obtain instant gratification on this matter?Absolutly not.”

    OK, agree with most of that — but am not willing to placate the middle. I’m not going to be in their face with it at all, but I’m also not going to take any bad-mouthing from them. I’m going to try to help persuade them instead.

    Don’t agree with the “breeder” term. Find it really offensive. We don’t live in one of the nation’s “gay enclaves” and my life with my partner and our friends and family involve nothing but “breeders” (we’re unique among them in that regard). It would never occur to me to denigrate those I love by calling them “breeders”. Please try to drop that term, it just pisses me and other people off.

    Ian, thanks for your comment above in #71, if for no other reason than your reminder of that great line…

    “Time, time, time is on our side, yes it is”.

    Cheers guys. Happy Saturday.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 4, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - November 4, 2006

  73. Pat, you write (respectfully, thanks!):

    “I disagreed, because if gay marriage was allowed, I would not want to change anyone’s elses view of what marriage is.”

    But that was just the point of my post…the “view of what marriage is” is precicely what gay marriage would change.

    Not that either’s right or wrong, just that that’s what it is.
    Can’t really say it any more starkly than that, really.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 4, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - November 4, 2006

  74. I am in truth a libertarian who’d like to see the government stop categorizing human relationships at all — it ultimately has no valid reason to do so.

    I disagree. To me, it’s pretty self-evident that government has an interest in rewarding and condoning certain behaviors while condemning others. Felon v.s Victim, for example. Categorizing people is an inherent part of that. Besides, if gov’t wasn’t rewarding people for being civil married, what would we have to talk about?

    Comment by VTSquire — November 4, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - November 4, 2006

  75. You are a disgrace. Conservative my ass.

    Comment by Joe — November 5, 2006 @ 6:16 am - November 5, 2006

  76. ColoradoPatriot, I do understand your point. But I do question why people get so upset that when a right is granted to other people, that does not take any rights away from them. And the fact that they use the excuse that it will adversely affect marriage. My question is how? Will those people who are in straight marriages now say that, gee, now I am entitled to cheat on my spouse, be abusive, neglectful, etc., because two men or two women can now marry. Further, it’s not like gay marriage will force straight people to marry someone of the same sex. And it’s also not forcing churches to marry couples of the same sex. I think peanut butter is an evil food. But it doesn’t bother me that it’s legal to eat, and that other people like to eat it.

    But again, I do get your point. The reality is, that for whatever reason, people seem to honestly feel that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage. I am just trying to understand what the REAL reasons are.

    Comment by Pat — November 5, 2006 @ 8:33 am - November 5, 2006

  77. #73:

    that will eventually ceeded to us anyway?

    A lot of older gays and lesbians would like to see it come about while they’re still alive. The fact remains that the US is not in the forefront here. Gay marriage already exists in a number of countries. Whatever the USA does will not change that. At this point, I agree with Dan that the judicial approach is no longer effective but it has got us to where we are today. We need to keep pushing at the legislative levels because no one else will do it for us.

    Comment by Ian — November 5, 2006 @ 1:29 pm - November 5, 2006

  78. Bobby, thanks for the comment. And thanks for opening up that way in 78 above. It probably explains well why other conservatives here take an immediate defensive (and sometimes very Of-fensive) stance at the first appearance of any Democratic, liberal, progressive commenter.

    I think my early impressions of you were very wrong.

    Comment by Eddie Graziano — November 5, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - November 5, 2006

  79. Why aren’t the Republicans pushing for race, creed, etc. to be removed from all anti-discrimination policies in this country?

    blacks don’t need protection, do they? I mean, you can’t legislate morality *ahem-abortion/abstinence/sodomy-ahem* can you, Republicans?

    Comment by God of Biscuits — November 6, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - November 6, 2006

  80. america is a joke.
    ie. the LONG history of enslavement and discrimination and now america as lovers and bearers of freedom.

    gay people who dont want equality or recognition or arguably, freedom?

    what am i missing.

    Comment by this is my first and last post — December 13, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - December 13, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.