Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Community’s Two Conversations on Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:39 pm - December 31, 2006.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Gay Politics

In my most recent post on gay marriage, I repeated a point I have been making for as long as I’ve been blogging on the topic, noting that many gay leaders, including some staunch advocates of gay marriage, seem unwilling to debate this issue. I have long thought that a debate would serve us well, very well.

As I look at the conversations taking place on gay marriage, I see an interesting dichotomy in our community. On the one hand, in the judicial (and sometimes political) arena, gay leaders and activists are pushing for state recognition of gay marriage. In our communities, however, they seem reluctant to discuss what this institution means.

To be sure, there are exceptions, notably writers Dale Carpenter and Jonathan Rauch, the latter who penned a chapter, “What Marriage is For,” in his book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America which gets at the meaning of marriage.

We seem to be having two conversations on gay marriage. In pushing for gay marriage, advocates demand “marriage equality,” requesting that the state recognize our unions as it does straight unions — and call them by the same name. But, in our community, those very advocates seem reluctant to promote the idea of marriage. Unlike Jonathan Rauch, they are unwilling to discuss the benefits of this ancient institution.

It seems that just as gay leaders — and other advocates of same-sex marriage — are eager to keep the issue out of the political arena (preferring to push it through the courts), they’re also eager to keep it out of the social arena. They seem to see marriage as “right” to which we are all entitled, merely because the state grants this “right” to straight people. They limit their conversations on gay marriage to advocating for that “right,” state recognition of marriage.

Yet, if we are truly serious about marriage, we need to understand that while it is be a legal institution, it’s a legal institution with significant, social and moral aspects. We need not only bring the conversation about gay marriage out of the courts and into the public square, but also into our community organizations, the places we socialize and into our very homes.

In one of the few serious pieces on gay marriage, his 1989 essay “Here Comes the Groom,” Andrew Sullivan noted that it was “no accident” that his case for gay marriage sounded “socially conservative:”

Gay marriage also places more responsibilities upon gays: it says for the first time that gay relationships are not better or worse than straight relationships, and that the same is expected of them. And it’s clear and dignified. There’s a legal benefit to a clear, common symbol of commitment. There’s also a personal benefit.

That the “same is expected of us” means that, in electing marriage, we agree to undertake the same obligations that straight married couples undertake. If we’re serious about marriage, we need to talk about those obligations — and make clear that we are capable of meeting them. And while those obligations may be burdensome, there is a personal benefit to the sacrifices we make.

Marriage not only helps promote a more stable and secure social life for the individuals involved, it also helps deepen the connection between the two individuals joined in this sacred union. By fulfilling the obligations of marriage, we develop a more intimate relationship, a stronger, lasting bond with another human being. And thus together, we are better able to weather the difficulties which inhere in life — and to celebrate its joys.

As 2006 draws to a close, in order to show how serious they are about their cause, advocates of gay marriage should vow to talk more about their issue. They should make clear to the world at large that gay people who choose marriage are willing to live up to the obligations of this ancient institution. And to our own community, they need show the benefits that arise from meeting those obligations.

-B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)

UPDATE: One thing I have learned as I go through the mass of papers in my apartment is how long I have thought about these two “conversations.” I discovered a note where I had scribbled:

Two conversations on marriage: 

M[arriage] equality
covenant

As we push for the privileges which states offer married couples (which advocates calls “marriage equality”), we need make clear that we understand the covenant which marriage entails.

For, as I wrote on another piece of paper, in the marriage debate, the “burden is on those proposing change.” Since advocates of “marriage equality” want to extend the privileges of this ancient institution, long defined as a union between individuals of different genders to those of the same sex, they need to articulate why this change is a good thing — both for our society at large and for the individuals who would enter into such covenantal relationships.

Share

41 Comments

  1. I read about half of what you wrote and then I just couldn’t go on. Yes, the gay community wants equal rights and we won’t stop till we receive full marriage rights. Although, I think most gay Americans know what marriage is. That’s why they want it so bad because they know how important it is. We all grow up learning what marriages are. Not civil unions or any other lesser form of it.

    Comment by Paul — December 31, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - December 31, 2006

  2. Activists are chasing marriage just because they want an “in your face” to the religious right, which is why they won’t accept civil unions even when they construe identical benefits.

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - December 31, 2006

  3. And I’m not really saying that just to be a provacateur, I’m saying that as a student of human behavior, and in this case, left-wing behavior.

    I note the lefties in this forum can never really explain why their policies are better, or in many cases what their policies are. Instead, their meme seems to be “we have to beat you people.” The gloating after the mid-term elections wasn’t because they were looking forward to the implementation of any great democrat policies, but was “ha! we won! in your face!”

    I also noted in reading the left-wing blogs expressing chagrin over the death of Saddam that none of the lefties were able to discuss the execution on its own terms, but only “this must make the right happy, therefore we have to be pissy about it.”

    Absent this pathological need to be obnoxious, the logical course would be to accept civil unions while continuing to strive for marriage. But since that would not provide the psychological lift of taking marriage away from “the wingnuts,” it has to be marriage or nothing.

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - December 31, 2006

  4. Its an understandable position to take but with “who wants to marry a millionaire” and various hollywood marriage fiascos its a bit annoying to be told that we, unlike the others, have to prove our worthiness for the institution. I’m well aware that is what we will most likely need to do but try to be a little easier on us than the greater society.

    I do wonder how many gay marriage champions have even had a relationship last longer than a year to begin with and whether that relationship would be worth the legal entangelments of a marriage contract.

    Comment by VinceTN — December 31, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - December 31, 2006

  5. GPW, you are starting to seriously need an editor. Getting sloppy with the writing.

    #2. Yeah, I don’t understand why blacks wanted to use the same water fountains as whites. I mean…the same water came out of both fountains!! Why couldn’t blacks just be happy with their own fountain? Why couldn’t those trouble-making white liberals just be happy with their own fountain? Different fountains, same water!!! Duh!! (It is funny that in this specific case, both are at least called fountains.)

    #3. LOL!!!! Happy new year, armchair psychiatrist!

    Comment by jimmy — December 31, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - December 31, 2006

  6. And, seriously, what’s to debate? Marriage is good and a good. Citizens in the United States should be equal before the law. Civil marriage should then be available to all, gay and straight. Animus for a particular group in society on the part of some folks should not permit the exclusion of another group from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. End of story.

    The only people who find the need for some kind of debate are those that take seriously the claims of anti-gay and anti-gay marriage folks. Most gay people don’t. You seem to. So it is your debate. After all, it is your GOP, too. So get to work and debate the people that trouble you and stop asking everyone else to be troubled by anti-gay folks the way you are and to debate your talking points. It is your job, your party, the people on your end of the political spectrum, the ones you claim have no problem with you being gay relative to gay democrats having a problem with you being republican. Get to it, since it should be a cakewalk. (You can so easily leave the berating-the-lib-left-gays job to your co-blogger; he does it with such finesse.)

    Comment by jimmy — December 31, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - December 31, 2006

  7. Jimmy in #6, if you support marriage and think it’s a good institution for gay people, then make the case why it is so rather than limit yourself to the narrow “rights'” argument. That said, it’s pretty clear you didn’t get the point of the post because you don’t address it in your comments. (If you think my writing is sloppy, would you please indicate the mistakes I made so that I might correct them.)

    For millennia, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. But, the meaning of marriage has evolved over time. If it’s going to evolve once again, people who want to expand its definition need to make clear they understand — and support — the essence of this sacred institution, why they think this institution is good for gay people. Jonathan Rauch is one of the few advocates of gay marriage to have done so. And in this post, I encourage others to follow his example.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 1, 2007 @ 12:05 am - January 1, 2007

  8. I really don’t think marriage is that much of a mystery to gay people. I also believe that the vast majority of gays and lesbians have exactly the same expectations of marriage as straight people do. The opposition to gay marriage is not based on the belief that gays are somehow less serious about the institution but rather it’s based on the unalterable belief that our relationships are so immoral that to grant them any recognition would be intolerable and demeaning to the institution. So trying to convince the public that gay people will take their vows more seriously than Brittney Spears is of little if any use.

    Comment by Ian — January 1, 2007 @ 12:22 am - January 1, 2007

  9. #2, I suppose some gay activists are doing it just to get in the religious rights faces. Then again, the religious right vehemently opposes civil unions anyway. Also, some time last year when this discussion came up, I did support having civil unions first as a stepping stone to marriage. Interestingly there was at least one conservative and one liberal who both strongly opposed that, and basically felt it should be all or nothing. And right now, it really doesn’t matter. In New Jersey, we will have civil unions next month. In terms of the rights granted by the state, any couple in a civil union will have the same rights as a married couple. But since many of the rights of marriage come from the federal government, it really didn’t matter to me what they call it. Over time, I’m certain the name will be changed to marriage.

    #4 Despite Britney Spears, celebrity marriage disasters, and reality show garbage, I actually feel that marriage is stronger today than it was in the past. And more people take it seriously today than in the past. Also, I’m sure many of the activists who are pushing for gay marriage have not been in a serious relationship. But that does not mean that they won’t in the future. Or even if they don’t intend to, still want others in the community to have that option.

    As to Dan’s point in the post, it doesn’t seem fair that the gay community needs to make the argument for gay marriage, but under the circumstances, it’s practical. Dan outlines the reasons very well. First, as a matter of fairness, we should have equal rights with our straight counterparts. Beyond that, despite the cracks that many see in marriage today, most everyone see it as strong and necessary. It appears to be a benefit to society when two people are committed to each other and make that contract with each other, whether the couple chooses to have children through natural means or adoption, or choose not to have children. It gives more legitimization to gay relationships and that all now have the potential to be worthy of marriage. Gay children growing up will see this, and in time, there will be less young adults who enter sham (straight) marriages, and the hurt that it causes the spouses and/or children.

    Even with this right, no one is being forced to enter marriage. This is certainly the case with straight persons. If any couple same or opposite sex, prefer to take the circuitous route of getting many of the legal arrangements and protections of marriage without getting married, they are free to do so.

    With the rights come responsibilities. Once you’ve made the commitment, you have do all you can to stick to it. But like straight marriages, there will be divorces. I remember reading an article about a couple from Vermont who had a civil union. They had a child as well, and by Vermont law, the child was equally theirs. Well, the couple split up, and the woman who gave birth took advantage of the fact that another state didn’t recognize civil unions to get sole custody of the child. Anyway, with gay marriage throughout the country, there would be justice in the case where one party in marriage didn’t take the responsibility seriously.

    One other thing, Dan, in #7, I view gay marriage as simplifying the definition of marriage. For example, in many states the definition was equivalent to “A union of consenting adults of the opposite sex and the same race.” Then it changed to “A union of consenting adults of the opposite sex.” I want to change it to “A union of consenting adults.” In light of that, I believe those who feel that the definition should not be simplified have a compelling reason to do so. So far, the religious right and others have not done so. “It’s always been that way” is not a compelling reason. I think all of us can come up with compelling reason why shouldn’t also eliminate the word “consenting” from my definition.

    Comment by Pat — January 1, 2007 @ 10:11 am - January 1, 2007

  10. As a straight guy (yes, straight people read this blog), I don’t understand why this is even a debate.

    Why would gays strive for recognition from a community that despises them? Marriage, after all, is a construct of the religious institutions. It seems to me that ‘civil union’ (a secular version conferring all the same legal benefits and responsibilities) would be more appealing anyway?

    Why there is such opposition to the idea of “gay marriage” also confuses me. Whether it’s called a civil union, marriage, or something else is a matter of semantics. It’s beneficial to society to have stable committed households. I don’t understand why people can’t get beyond their petty biases to see the greater good.

    I could go on, picking things from each side that seem pointless or inconsistent, but I won’t.

    Comment by imnohero — January 1, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - January 1, 2007

  11. Citizens in the United States should be equal before the law. Civil marriage should then be available to all, gay and straight. Animus for a particular group in society on the part of some folks should not permit the exclusion of another group from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. End of story.

    Except that, if that is true, denying marriage to pedophiles, bestialists, incest practitioners, and and polygamists is a violation of their civil rights.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - January 1, 2007

  12. #11 – No it isn’t. Marriage, by definition, is something that 2 unrelated adult human beings enter into – to the exclusion of all others. The argument that it must necesssarily include pedophiles, animals, etc. – if it is to include gays – is therefore ludicrous on its face.

    The qualifications for WHO can enter marriage (as an exclusive union) have changed before. Even within the Bible, it changed from male-dominated polygamy (Old Testament) to monogamy (implied in New Testament). In the last century, it has changed from same-race only to allowing mixed races. I suppose we could make it allow incest or pedophilia, say, if we wanted to. But why should we? There is no rational reason to. While there ARE rational reasons for allowing gays into it.

    Having said that: The “we” I’m talking about there, who decides what marriage is and who can be in it at all historical times and places, is society-at-large. I.e., the electorate. The electorate, or the elected Legislature, should decide. Not unelected judges. On that basis, I have no problem settling for civil unions (while the electorate slowly comes around).

    Comment by Calarato — January 1, 2007 @ 3:23 pm - January 1, 2007

  13. Marriage, by definition, is something that 2 unrelated adult human beings enter into – to the exclusion of all others.

    The problem is, Cal, that there are four different conditionals placed on that argument — “2”, “unrelated”, “adult”, and “human being” that are not specified in the previous statement.

    Civil marriage should then be available to all, gay and straight.

    But you and I are really on the same page; we both believe that the electorate is who should be allowed to decide the conditionals. The problem is that gay leftists, the vast majority of whom are, as V the K put it, only after marriage because they want it as an “in your face” trophy.

    One interesting study that I should do is to take the individuals who got their fake marriage licenses as part of Gavin Newsom’s political buyout of the gay community and compare it the list of registered domestic partners in the state of California. I would almost be willing to bet money that the bulk of people who got those licenses are not registered as DPs.

    Why?

    Because being in a DP represents a legal commitment that requires responsibility to be taken and which cannot be dissolved without going through divorce court. Gay leftists aren’t interested in that; all they want is the marriage license to wave in peoples’ faces. And, interestingly enough, given that the lesbian couples who filed the California and Massachusetts lawsuits have both broken up already, I think the case becomes rather airtight towards that effect.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 1, 2007 @ 11:57 pm - January 1, 2007

  14. #11. Those things are all illegal. Homosexuality isn’t. And why you would actually use that argument indicates where your loyalties are: not with gay people. What a sad homosexual.

    Comment by jimmy — January 2, 2007 @ 4:10 am - January 2, 2007

  15. For example:

    “They seem to see marriage as [a] “right” to which we are all entitled, merely because the state grants this “right” to straight people. They limit their conversations on gay marriage to advocating for that right. [You repeat the same idea in the early paragraphs–redundant.]

    Yet, if we are truly serious about marriage, we need to understand that while it is be [while it is be?] a legal institution, it’s a legal institution with significant, social and moral aspects. We need not only bring the conversation about gay marriage out of the courts and into the public square, but also into our community organizations, the places we socialize and into our very homes.”

    More importantly, I think you are funny, telling me that I didn’t read your post or understand it and then going on to say that I spoke about “rights,” which I didn’t.

    “Jimmy in #6, if you support marriage and think it’s a good institution for gay people, then make the case why it is so rather than limit yourself to the narrow “rights'” argument.”

    I said: Marriage is good and a good. That means my evaluation of the institution is positive and that I recognize the good moral choice inherent to the relationship. It is obvious to (just about) everyone that marriage is good and a good. There is no “need” for gay people to make this case, since it is evident. Why repeat the obvious? What is interesting is that YOU think some kind of case needs to be made by gay people regarding marriage because, at some level, you are buying into the anti-gay arguments. I’m sure it is difficult to avoid these anti-gay arguments: they are abundant in your party. Most gay people, because they don’t align themselves with a party and organizations that work against them, aren’t confronted with these arguments to the degree that you seem to be. And, therefore, most gay people refuse to even entertain these insulting lines of thought. (Christ, the lady from Dallas just brought up pedos and dog humpers! How sad is that!) You are asking people to take seriously the arguments that you, to some extent, take seriously from anti-gay folks. Don’t be surprised when you are laughed at for it, sorry to say. Do straight people, as a class, have to make the argument for why they should be permitted to marry, even given the smattering examples of failure to respect and maintain the institution? No. That the burden is placed on gay people to say why they should be permitted entrance to civil marriage (which is not thousands of years old) is laughable. As PROUD gay people, many of us refuse to argue anti-gay people on their terms. The more important question is: why SHOULDN’T gay people be allowed to marry? The answers to that tell us something about the status of gay people in our society. A gay conservative or Republican just mentioned raping children, ejaculating in horses, and Fundamentalist Mormons. So, again, I ask you to please have the conversation with those people at the tables you have chosen to sit at. And best of luck to you, truly.

    Comment by jimmy — January 2, 2007 @ 4:30 am - January 2, 2007

  16. #12. Does the notion of minority rights enter into any of your heads? There is a tradition of the judicial branch protecting minorities from majority rule. Do gay people get to vote on whether straight people can enter into civil marriages? No. And even if it were a question of majority rule on the issue, we are a minority and, therefore, have no voice.

    Even anti-gay marriage folks know this. They may strategically complain about activist judges, but they know what the Constitution says. So they want to change it through amendments to render lesbians and gays less than full citizens. Scalia was right about the Texas decision–it does pave the way for marriage equality. (I only see marriage. I don’t see straight marriage or gay marriage–just marriage. That we even talk about the issue as gay(hypen)marriage speaks volumes. The Voting Rights Act didn’t make a distinction between black-votes and white-votes. As there is only voting, there is only marriage.) So the anti-gay folks get their wagons in a circle, pass the hat at church, and use the GOP to ensure that on the question of gay equality as it pertains to marriage (or anything that looks like it in some places) is headed off by amending state constitutions and, with W’s blessing, the federal constitution as well. The people don’t get to decide who is equal. In fact, neither does the Constitution. The Creator does and the Constitution merely reminds us so…until it is changed and we are made less.

    Let me do the Dallas Lady a favor: John Kerry was against marriage for gays, John Kerry was against marriage for gays, John Kerry was against marriage for gays. (She can supply the links!) But a certain party goes out of its way to amend constitutions.

    And that is why, again, this “debate” you are looking for, GPW, is a political family affair of yours. Again, good luck with it, truly.

    Comment by jimmy — January 2, 2007 @ 4:42 am - January 2, 2007

  17. #13 and others. And it is so very, very sad that “the debate” veers off into bashing gay people on the marriage issue. While GPW wants to raise some questions about the value of marriage and the gay community’s seeming disinterest in discussing it (on anti-gay people’s terms I should add), the comments become an another occasion to whine and hoot and holler about those pesky gay libs and gay leftists.

    For the record, most gay leftists aren’t interested in marriage personally, but have come to be concerned about it politically as the right steams ahead, enshringing second class status in constitutions around the USA. Most black nationalists, too, weren’t interested in participating in white society, but at the same time, fought for equal rights in the polity. That gay leftists aren’t personally invested in marriage doesn’t mean that excluding gay people from civil marriage is somehow acceptable.

    Furthermore, to disparage those who married, with great hope, in SF is just another instance of why most gay people don’t like gay Republicans/conservatives. Read what you write about gay people in these comments, on this blog. Would you like you?

    Comment by jimmy — January 2, 2007 @ 4:51 am - January 2, 2007

  18. Calarato, NDT, I believe it would be better for the electorate or the legislatures to decide this issue. But there is an equality issue here, and the matter has been brought to the courts. I suppose the courts could come back on any case that’s brought to them and simply say, “We’re are just figureheads and won’t decide on the constitutionality of this issue, and let the legislators decide it.” If that’s the case, what is the point in having courts? If you do believe there is a need, then remember it’s people that become judges, and not robots, so there will always be activism, even when it’s not intentional. Also, what is a judge to do when this issue comes up, really tries to not be activist in this issue, but really sees that not allowing marriage is unconstitutional?

    Comment by Pat — January 2, 2007 @ 8:25 am - January 2, 2007

  19. Jimmy, I agree with you that the Republican Party is worse than the Democrats on the gay marriage issue. But the fact is that most Democrats, including the leading contenders for President are against it. So there is plenty of room for debate there.

    Comment by Pat — January 2, 2007 @ 8:28 am - January 2, 2007

  20. Those things are all illegal.

    Can’t be. According to your previous statement, NO ONE can be denied sex and marriage for any reason; thus, that’s infringing on these peoples’ “life, liberty, and happiness” for them to be denied the right to have sex with and marry that which gives them pleasure.

    Again, jimmy, you said it was illegal and against the Constitution for the government to be able to regulate sex in any way, and that the government has to provide marriage to whomever wants it.

    Don’t blame me for the fact that you didn’t think the process through.

    Do gay people get to vote on whether straight people can enter into civil marriages? No. And even if it were a question of majority rule on the issue, we are a minority and, therefore, have no voice.

    Like I’ve challenged other gay leftists, raise a petition to ban straight marriage. You can vote on it all you want. No one’s stopping you.

    Furthermore, your whining about how our being a minority keeps us from imposing our will on others by fiat can only be reconciled by ditching democracy. While I know gay leftists like yourself wish we could, the rest of the country disagrees with you and puts more than a bit of importance on the right of people to vote.

    And here you finally reveal what is obvious to everyone else:

    For the record, most gay leftists aren’t interested in marriage personally, but have come to be concerned about it politically as the right steams ahead, enshringing second class status in constitutions around the USA.

    So, in other words, it is just hate and revenge on leftists’ part that leads them to demand marriage. And despite their demands that gays can’t live without marriage and are suffering and dying every day for lack of it, gay leftists don’t even want it — and they won’t even enter into the domestic partnerships that are already there.

    Furthermore, to disparage those who married, with great hope, in SF is just another instance of why most gay people don’t like gay Republicans/conservatives.

    LOL….you act as if you would like us if we didn’t point out how you lie about the necessity for marriage and how you refuse to enter the legal relationships and protections gays already have because you don’t want the responsibility.

    More likely, you dislike us in the first place because of our political and ideological leanings and are just using “gay solidarity” as a pathetic coverup and excuse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2007 @ 11:45 am - January 2, 2007

  21. But there is an equality issue here, and the matter has been brought to the courts.

    What “equality” issue, Pat?

    After all, it is perfectly legal to deny marriage to people on several different grounds — underage, genetic relationship, consensual, sound mind, multiple, species, etc. — and nobody whines about how their being denied marriage is an “equality” issue.

    The simple fact of the matter is that people are smart enough to realize that gay leftists like jimmy don’t want benefits or protections that come with legal responsibility and can’t be dissolved at a moment’s whim; after all, they don’t take advantage of the ones that are existing.

    They just want to exercise their hate and revenge fantasies against society and religion, and they hide it behind “equality”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2007 @ 11:51 am - January 2, 2007

  22. What “equality” issue, Pat? After all, it is perfectly legal to deny marriage to people on several different grounds — underage, genetic relationship, consensual, sound mind, multiple, species, etc. — and nobody whines about how their being denied marriage is an “equality” issue.

    Calarato answered that question nicely in #12.

    “whines”??? Hmmm.

    The simple fact of the matter is that people are smart enough to realize that gay leftists like jimmy don’t want benefits or protections that come with legal responsibility and can’t be dissolved at a moment’s whim; after all, they don’t take advantage of the ones that are existing.

    They just want to exercise their hate and revenge fantasies against society and religion, and they hide it behind “equality”.

    It was suggested as well, that this is done to shove it in the religious right’s face. I can’t speak for jimmy or any of the other gay people who want marriage, left, right, or whatever, for their motivation. All I can say is for me, my partner, and all of my gay friends, most of who are to the left of me, see it as an issue of equality, as well as the other reasons Dan, me and others posted. Granted, there is not much love for the religious right by most of us, but they simply aren’t worth it for spite, for such an issue of importance.

    The statistics of those who want to get married, but have or do not have DPs in the various states may be interesting, but probably irrelevant. There could be reasons for couples to not go for DPs that are different from what you suggest. My partner and I, for example, went back and forth as to whether or not get a DP well before the Supreme Court decision in New Jersey.

    You may be right about the motivations of some of the gay leftists. I suppose there will be plenty of gay people as well as straight people that will not take marriage seriously.

    Comment by Pat — January 2, 2007 @ 4:06 pm - January 2, 2007

  23. Calarato answered that question nicely in #12

    Indeed he did — by pointing out that the electorate is what determines who can and can’t get married.

    My partner and I, for example, went back and forth as to whether or not get a DP well before the Supreme Court decision in New Jersey.

    Why on earth WOULDN’T you, Pat?

    After all, isn’t the gay leftist argument that gay couples are suffering incredibly since they allegedly don’t have any legal benefits or protections whatsoever? It simply staggers the mind that, if these things are so important, that gay couples would be CHOOSING to go without — and that was my whole point.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 2, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - January 2, 2007

  24. Indeed he did — by pointing out that the electorate is what determines who can and can’t get married.

    I think you know, NDT, that that part of Calarato’s response in #12 wasn’t the one I was referring to. But in case you or someone else didn’t know, I was referring to…
    No it isn’t. Marriage, by definition, is something that 2 unrelated adult human beings enter into – to the exclusion of all others. The argument that it must necesssarily include pedophiles, animals, etc. – if it is to include gays – is therefore ludicrous on its face.

    As to the other point, like most couples, we went through the normal relationship thing to determine if we wanted to take that step. We did finally decide to do it last month, even though we knew that civil unions would be in effect in February. We wanted to get some of the legal stuff done now. We also talked to an attorney, and he said that even when we get a civil union, we will not have the same legal protections as married couples (not because of the name, but because it wouldn’t be recognized by the federal government).

    Anyway, just as we didn’t go for DP to spite the religious right wingnuts, we also didn’t let your alleged gay leftist reasoning determine what we should do as well. I don’t think I would call this extra lawyer crap that we have to do as suffering, but it is a big pain in the ass.

    So again, I don’t know if wanting equality by the leftists is suffering. Maybe those petitioners in Massachusetts are suffering as well. Who knows?

    Comment by Pat — January 2, 2007 @ 8:32 pm - January 2, 2007

  25. Bravo imnohero and Calarato.
    Well said.
    Although as a gay man with a 13 year relationship: still going strong, I feel no need to ape the straight world ( My lawyer long ago took care of the details), it is important to recognize the need for equality for those who feel they don’t have it.
    As for Mr 30’S retort. WHAT CAN ONE SAY? NUTS??

    Comment by huck — January 2, 2007 @ 11:59 pm - January 2, 2007

  26. But in case you or someone else didn’t know, I was referring to…

    And as I also pointed out, Pat, mine was a response to the gay leftist who insisted that “civil marriage should be available to all” and that it not being so was a denial of “equality”; I simply pointed out that said argument would also justify removing strictures against pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy as denials of “equality”.

    The lesson is simply this; marriage is not a “civil right”. It is a benefit granted by voters to that which they choose to benefit.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 12:41 am - January 3, 2007

  27. #20. You truly are the unhappiest homosexual on earth. I hope to every saint I can name that you don’t (incorrectly) tell people you are gay. That would give us all a bad, bad name.

    “Can’t be. According to your previous statement, NO ONE can be denied sex and marriage for any reason; thus, that’s infringing on these peoples’ “life, liberty, and happiness” for them to be denied the right to have sex with and marry that which gives them pleasure.”

    Actually, that is your very twisted and warped read, that “NO ONE” blah, blah, blah…. I am happy to see that other commenters are starting to see just how silly you are, and in such a dictatorial way. You seem to be like that guy at a social setting that doesn’t shut up, that speaks several decibels over other people as he cuts them off, makes nonsequiters, and just generally makes a clown of himself.

    Seriously, chap, dog humpers can’t get married because the law recognizes them as criminals and dog humping as a criminal activity. The law does not recognize homosexual sex as a criminal activity, as much as I know you wish it did, since you love the party and the people that fought to keep same-sex love criminal. But, it doesn’t. So for you to go on and on about this dog humping thing, it just makes me LMFAOFL, as I hope it was intended to do.

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 4:52 am - January 3, 2007

  28. “They just want to exercise their hate and revenge fantasies against society and religion, and they hide it behind “equality”.”

    And, GPW, I ask you: who would want to have a “debate” or a “conversation” with someone such as this, who argues either in utter ignorance or bad faith, and does so not on the part of gay people themselves? The crass projections of “hate and revenge fantasies,” the failure to truly appreciate gay people as they are and now as he imagines them, the insistent need to demonize gay and lesbian people (comparing us to dog humpers and child rapists? do you agree with this? you usually comment on your blog, so do you not think these comparisons stand in need of some sort of comment? do you think gay people are like dog humpers and child rapists and fundie Mormons?)…who would invite this guy even to dinner, at McDonald’s, let alone want to have some sort of “debate” with him? It isn’t even clear to me that he is for gay people at all.

    (And now I’ll take my answers to the questions I asked offline. There I will be able to hear the angry screeching feedback of the Dallas lady more clearly.)

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 5:00 am - January 3, 2007

  29. “The lesson is simply this; marriage is not a “civil right”. It is a benefit granted by voters to that which they choose to benefit.”

    What??? When did voters vote on marriage? Did they vote in Loving v Virginia? Please tell us when voters voted on marriage. I can’t wait to see what you come up with…

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 5:02 am - January 3, 2007

  30. Two conversations on marriage:
    M[arriage] equality
    covenant

    GPW, we are talking about civil marriage. We are not talking about covenants. Please don’t engage in the conflation of the meanings and aspects of marriage that anti-gay marriage religious folks trot out. Gay people are demanding to enter into civil marriages, not religious marriages. And, yes, while the state blesses and recognizes church marriages in the US, once can be married by the state without marrying within a religious tradition.

    The conversation we, collectively as gay people, are having with the larger society is about civil marriage. Yes, some groups within churches are working to have their relationships blessed in various ways, and those conversations take place between people within their religious organizations. The covenant conversation that you bring up is not at all necessary for the conversation about civil marriage, unless you think that the burdens is on gay people to prove that they are worthy of marriage. And if that is the case, I’m sorry to hear that you think that gay people have to prove themselves worthy and that you take seriously anti-gay arguments about gay people not being suitable for marriage.

    At the same time, the covenant conversation, as long as it is divorced from the institutional moorings of religious institutions, it will have to take place in the context of the gay community and culture. Therefore, it will take place with a plurality of worldviews included and these covenants will (and certainly have) taken on various forms. You seem to want to, as someone mentioned, ape straight people in the ideal (not in how straight people actually and really live out their marriages, which is itself diverse). And that’s fine. In fact, most gay people have the same views of marriage as the larger society. (Ever watch a 19 or 20yo girl read a bridal magazine? She might not even have the basic vocabulary to speak about what which she wants to enter into, and yet you want all gay folks to be marriage theorists and experts, articulate and evangelizing straight people everywhere about why gays should be permitted to marry?) They range from marriage as a logical outcome of a growing romantic relationship, to marriage as a way to settle down, to marriage as a relgious covenant, etc. (Interestingly, gays don’t often get married because one of the couple gets pregnant. What do you have to say about straight people who marry for such a reason? Have they had the conversation or debate required to enter into marriage?)

    My point is that marriage as a covenant is a conversation for within the gay community and that marriage as the right to enter into a civil marriage contract is a conversation with the larger American society. The former has to do with fathoming up and working out the forms and meanings of marriage as a relationship of love and care and support, the haven in a heartless world aspect. The latter has to do with the law treating committed adult gay and lesbian couples with the same respect, privileges and responsibities as straight people. The conflation of the two is unnecessary and unproductive. The equality aspect is adamantly necessary at the moment; the covenant conversation has been going on without institutional support for some time, for too few gay men, and will continue. But you want to talk about the forms of the covenant before marriage is even available to gay folks?

    More importantly, you think that those who are adamantly against marriage equality want to hear the details of two gay men’s covenant with each other? They couldn’t care less!! Perhaps some people who are in the middle on the question, undecided, or weakly committed to the anti-gay-marriage side will be persuaded by talk of the covenant. I myself, unpersuaded, think they, too, don’t really care about the details. After all, what happens between two people in a marriage is their own business, not something for a national conversation or debate.

    Comment by jimmy — January 3, 2007 @ 5:23 am - January 3, 2007

  31. And as I also pointed out, Pat, mine was a response to the gay leftist who insisted that “civil marriage should be available to all” and that it not being so was a denial of “equality”; I simply pointed out that said argument would also justify removing strictures against pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy as denials of “equality”.

    Not sure why, in response to my point about equality, you responded to someone else who said that marriage should be for all. I’ll leave it to that person to explain what they meant if he chooses. Calarato rightly said that marriage is about two consenting adults. Not one where one of the parties is a child, a dog or elephant or tree, or whatever. I don’t know anyone here that is making the argument that the right should be extended to children or non-human organisms. I would be interested in why Calarato’s and my argument would lead to polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc.

    The lesson is simply this; marriage is not a “civil right”. It is a benefit granted by voters to that which they choose to benefit.

    But as I said, cases were brought to the courts. The judges made their decisions and saw an injustice. Although I would prefer gay marriage be granted by the legislatures and/or voters, I am also relieved that judges don’t view gay couples the same as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. There’s some hope out there, I am happy to say.

    Comment by Pat — January 3, 2007 @ 7:57 am - January 3, 2007

  32. As 2006 draws to a close, in order to show how serious they are about their cause, advocates of gay marriage should vow to talk more about their issue. They should make clear to the world at large that gay people who choose marriage are willing to live up to the obligations of this ancient institution. And to our own community, they need show the benefits that arise from meeting those obligations.

    I think that the basic thrust of the original posting is correct: namely that the conversation about gay marriage should include positive arguments and not simply rights-related arguments. It’s a case of “both/and”, in my view.

    However, the “positive” arguments piece is tricky indeed, because there are currently many, many different, viable models for marriage and marital relationships among the straight community as well. It’s very easy for a gay or lesbian person to advocate a set of positive reasons for marriage, but yet have those reasons not resonate with a good portion of the straight world who view marriage differently from that gay person (and from other straight people as well). It’s particularly tricky because, although the issue at hand is indeed “civil marriage”, many people in the straight world view marriage principally as a religious commitment (and in some cases, as a sacrament), with the “civil marriage” piece of the relationship being secondary at best in their own understanding of the institution. So articulating a cohesive set of positive reasons for gay marriage amidst the wild pluralism that best describes the straight world’s range of views on the topic is very, very tricky indeed.

    I do agree that the conversation *inside* the gay world about marriage is very unfortunate. We should be discussing ourselves more thoroughly and openly — and hopefully without polemic — why marriage is good for gay people in its own right rather than simply viewing it as a civil rights landmark. And I think that this conversation — a conversation around commitment, responsibility, sexual ethics and the like — is long overdue among gay people. I think it’s because we are so diverse and have such divergent views. But nevertheless, it’s pointless to advocate for the opening of marriage to gay people if gay people themselves can’t agree at least upon a small set of ideas about relationships in general as they relate to marriage.

    Why should gay people have to do this, when straight people don’t? The answer is simple: we have never been able to get married, and the tenor of our relationship patterns and the way they have developed has never taken place in the context of marriage as a possibility. The institution has not influenced our behavioral patterns, which is remarkably different from the situation among straight people, where it exercises a dramatic influence on personal behavior and relationship patterns for both married and unmarried people. So, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work about some basic issues of responsibility, commitment and ethics in our own relationships and relationship patterns, and — GASP! — advocate these among ourselves.

    Comment by Novaseeker — January 3, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - January 3, 2007

  33. And, GPW, I ask you: who would want to have a “debate” or a “conversation” with someone such as this, who argues either in utter ignorance or bad faith, and does so not on the part of gay people themselves?

    That’s hilarious, jimmy, given that you insist in the following thread that GPW isn’t gay because he doesn’t believe your gay leftist dogma.

    And for all your attempts at flowery words, you and your fellow leftists have made it obvious that you don’t even want to take advantage of the legal relationships that exist now. The reason why is quite clear; then you would actually have to live up legally to the commitments you want to make.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - January 3, 2007

  34. NDT, just as it isn’t fair for jimmy or others to question your sexual orientation or use the “lady” garbage, I also don’t think it’s fair that you make an assumption about why “fellow leftist” gay people haven’t taken “advantage of the legal relationships that exist now.”

    The fact is that many gay people think that their relationships are just as valid as others, just as interracial couples in the past. Even if the approach is wrong in your opinion, don’t you at least think it’s understandable that people want equality, even if they themselves don’t want to get married, or ever, for that matter. Huck, and many other gay or straight persons, don’t want to get married. No matter what happens, they still don’t have to.

    As you said in another thread, judges have not viewed a significant enough difference in interracial couples to restrict the rights of marriage to same race couples. Now in the 21st century, judges are saying the same about same sex couples. I find that very refreshing.

    Comment by Pat — January 3, 2007 @ 2:03 pm - January 3, 2007

  35. The fact is that many gay people think that their relationships are just as valid as others, just as interracial couples in the past.

    Which, I would hope, has absolutely nothing to do with the legal status of the relationship.

    Even if the approach is wrong in your opinion, don’t you at least think it’s understandable that people want equality, even if they themselves don’t want to get married, or ever, for that matter.

    No.

    You see, Pat, when I was a mere lad of seven or eight, I was convinced that, in order to be “cool” like the other kids, I needed a ten-speed bike. Even though those kids lived in town, didn’t have horses to ride, and had paved streets, rather than what could kindly be called “dirt”, I was convinced that my life would be meaningless without a ten-speed.

    As my father finally put it, “You don’t ride the bike you have NOW.”

    And he was right.

    When my brother came along, he talked Grandma into covering the payment on the same.

    I think he rode it four times; after that, it sat in the garage, spokes broken and tires flat.

    As a result, Pat, I’m not a huge fan of the “equality for equality’s sake” argument. It reminds me far too much of the little kid who turns down a toy one minute, but then comes screaming about how he wants it when you hand it to his sister, even though there are plenty of other toys around with which he can play.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 3, 2007 @ 6:58 pm - January 3, 2007

  36. NDT, at least it’s a little clearer where we disagree. I understand your argument with the numbers, that gay couples aren’t taking advantage of what’s already offered. Fair enough. I’m not sure what this shows. It could be a lot of different things. First, I think it shows that it isn’t about waving something in anyone else’s face. I also think it shows that for many gay couples, they do take the commitment seriously. In other words, they see that there are legal arrangements, but aren’t just going to jump into it, because it’s there. We’ve seen plenty of straight couples jump on that ten-speed bike, just to have it rust in the garage a year or two, or just months later. I would hope if we are ever given that right, that people do not jump onto it just because it is available. And also, I wouldn’t want to be denied a right, simply because others don’t want it. As for equality for equalities sake, we disagree on that. Time permitting, I’ll comment on that later.

    Comment by Pat — January 4, 2007 @ 7:55 am - January 4, 2007

  37. NDT, as for “equality for equality’s sake,” first, I don’t think that the behavior you describe to those in the gay community pushing for gay marriage as unique. If you take any racial, ethnic, religious, or some other subgoup, and say that they can no longer marry, but, they can “take advantage” of domestic partnerships, and other lawyer services. And then say, if you are good, maybe we’ll let you have civil unions or marriage, in 20 years or so. Granted this is hypothetical and I understand you view this differently than gay marriage, but can we at least agree that this group of people would “whine” and fight for the right to marry, regardless of whether a majority of the voters support their right or not?

    Also, let’s get back to the bike analogy. Except this time, the whole time you are growing up, you are told you will NEVER get a ten-speed bicycle, but your brother will if he wants one. Maybe you don’t want one as a small child, and maybe you’ll never want one. But the point is, you KNOW you will never get one, and you know your brother will have the opportunity to get one if he wants. As a bonus, you will chastised for it, and told that you will never be worthy of having a ten-speed. Further, you won’t be able to get one when you move out of the house. Let’s also say that by the time you do move out of the house, you are told you can have a tricycle. And if you want, you can do some fiddling with it so that it has some of the features of a ten-speed. To me, this is the more appropriate analogy.

    So gay children grow up knowing that whether or not they even want to get married, know that they can’t. What has this done? In many cases, gay children feel inferior and not like their straight counterparts. Granted, inequality is not the only reason, as we know, but it’s definitely part of it. Of course, other parts of it are in some cases, being treated like crap from their parents, friends, etc., for being gay, being told in church that homosexuality is a sin, etc. For these children, if they see that the law recognizes them as equal, and not second class, these children can at least see a light at the end of the tunnel as they reach adulthood. What happens instead in many cases, gay children grow up being told, among other things, that it is normal, as teens, to date other teens of the opposite sex, and get married as adults. And then as adults, many of them do just that. We’ve seen the damage that that has caused. Equality would benefit heterosexuals as well, at least those who would have ended up marrying someone that is gay. Granted, if we had gay marriage tomorrow, some of these unfortunate marriages would still happen, but as gay marriage becomes just as normal as straight marriage, it would happen much less.

    By the way, I am a strong advocate of personal responsibility here. Any gay person, as an adult, needs to take responsibility for their actions, no matter what happened as a child. Not only because they should as adults, but because the victim card doesn’t work that well. On the other hand, it’s hard to just expect gay children, that at 18, magically throw out the negativity of being gay from the childhood. In my opinion, having equality would at least reduce one burden from a gay child entering adulthood. It’s hard to sum up all the things that goes on in one’s childhood that lead them to make the decisions one does as an adult, but I think you get the point.

    Also, just a question to clear things even more. If gay marriage came to a vote in California, how would you vote?

    Comment by Pat — January 4, 2007 @ 12:45 pm - January 4, 2007

  38. Pat, quite frankly, your belief that gays need laws to feel good about themselves and keep from doing things that are patently stupid frightens the hell out of me.

    You constantly keep trying to compare gay sex to straight sex, or insist that there is no biological, social, psychological, physiological, or relational difference between same-gender and opposite-gender couples, and I’m just not buying it. Nor is the majority of the United States.

    Tattoo this on your forehead….gays are not the same as straight people. That doesn’t mean we’re better or worse, just different.

    Once you accept that difference, you won’t have that problem.

    You won’t be insisting that gay teenagers feel bad because they aren’t the same as straight teenagers.

    You won’t be insisting that gays are “second-class” because the law realizes that there are significant differences between gay and straight couples.

    Instead, you’ll be prepared to ask the question…..what do gay couples really need, instead of assuming that we must be inferior because we don’t have the same thing as straight people.

    And, for your information, California already has the functional equivalent of marriage for gay people; it’s called domestic partnership. DPs are treated exactly the same under state law as are married people, all the way from tax through having to go through divorce court to dissolve the relationship.

    The people of the state overwhelmingly support DPs; they oppose gay marriage.

    Gays overwhelmingly demand marriage, but have, by and large, stayed out of DPs.

    To me, that makes the argument moot. The people don’t want gay marriage, but have no problem with DPs; gays want marriage, but steadfastly refuse to take on the identical benefits, protections, and responsibilities already existent in DPs.

    Furthermore, by keeping DPs separate from marriage, it becomes possible to rationalize and update the structures separately. For example, the single biggest hurdle for most gays who would otherwise want DPs from entering them, in my opinion, is the divorce law and communal property requirements. You would have a tremendous fight to change this law if it applied to all marriages, but it could be easily altered to become more sensible if it only applied to domestic partnerships.

    So thus, I would say “no”. We already have marriage under a different name, and it sucks so badly, few people want to enter it; furthermore, when they start playing with divorce and support rules for heterosexuals who pop out children and skip town, I don’t want my childless union to be subject to whatever things they decide to change for those purposes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - January 4, 2007

  39. Pat, quite frankly, your belief that gays need laws to feel good about themselves and keep from doing things that are patently stupid frightens the hell out of me.

    NDT, I agree with you that getting married to someone who you are not sexually attracted to is “patently stupid.” But apparently, for many people, it wasn’t and they wrongly felt it was a matter of survival in some sense. On the other hand, I don’t know of many cases where a straight child grows up, but enters a long term relationship with someone else of the same sex. Is it because straight children are smarter than gay children? Or is it because straight children had one less big time burden to deal with as a child?

    As for the “feel” aspect of it, I can understand you being frightened. My contention that the real reason the petitioners want to end gay marriage, is because of the way they feel. So a law that gave gay couples equality of state rights may be overturned because of the way people feel. It’s frustrating, but it’s the voters’ rights.

    Also, since Dan and others made the points that we should say why gay marriage would benefit society, I made the point regarding how gay children “feel.” It seems to me that it would benefit society by not having the esteem of a child ripped from them simply because they are gay. In my opinion, having equality will help that.

    You constantly keep trying to compare gay sex to straight sex, or insist that there is no biological, social, psychological, physiological, or relational difference between same-gender and opposite-gender couples, and I’m just not buying it. Nor is the majority of the United States.
    Tattoo this on your forehead….gays are not the same as straight people. That doesn’t mean we’re better or worse, just different.
    Once you accept that difference, you won’t have that problem.

    Hmmm okay, interesting idea. Well, first of all, I personally abhor tattoos. I don’t know where I was comparing gay sex to straight sex, besides the fact I’ve never had straight sex. And I never insisted what you claim I insisted. I am well aware of the differences between same-gender and opposite-gender couples. In my view, the difference isn’t as stark as you apparently think it is. In fact, I don’t view my relationship with my partner so different than, say my older brother and his wife, who are and will most likely remain childless, that I shouldn’t have the choice to get married like they did. You apparently view yours more differently. If that’s correct, then apparently you will make the choice to not get married. That’s fine by me.

    You won’t be insisting that gay teenagers feel bad because they aren’t the same as straight teenagers. You won’t be insisting that gays are “second-class” because the law realizes that there are significant differences between gay and straight couples.

    I never insisted that gay teenagers feel bad because they aren’t the same as straight teenagers. I’ve contended that many gay teenagers feel bad, because they have it ingrained from their families, friends, school, and/or church that homosexuals are inferior. And if that isn’t bad enough, the laws and inequality buttress that. And I doubt the laws we have are because the law “realizes” that there are significant differences between gay and straight couples. People who were biased against gay couples made these laws. There may have been good reason to enact them at the times they were enacted. But things change, and we are simply debating the best way to deal with these changes.

    Instead, you’ll be prepared to ask the question…..what do gay couples really need, instead of assuming that we must be inferior because we don’t have the same thing as straight people.

    Fair enough. But in the meantime, depending on what state you live, gay people either have a tricycle or nothing, while straight people have a ten-speed. So until this is rectified, gay couples not only have different rights than straight couples, but also inferior.

    And, for your information, California already has the functional equivalent of marriage for gay people; it’s called domestic partnership.

    Actually, I didn’t know that California’s DP is equivalent to the state rights that straight couple have with marriage. In NJ, the DPs we have are not the same. But the civil union law, which becomes effective next month, will.

    You do have some good arguments for keeping the DPs and marriage separate to accommodate possible different needs of gay and straight couples. I still feel that gay couples should have the choice of marriage. I agree that marriage (other than the gender issue) should NOT change to further accommodate gay couples. And if that means only a small percentage of gay couples enter marriage, then so be it. As you said, there are plenty of straight couples that don’t want to enter marriage either. Anyway, even if all gay couples took advantage of marriage, they would still be a small minority of married couples, and wouldn’t be able to change the divorce laws, if that really was an issue to gay couples.

    As I was saying, you have made some compelling arguments here which seem to me that you are either against gay marriage, or support it in some different context. That’s fine. But I still don’t get why you thought John Kerry was bigoted (even before the Missouri amendment garbage) when he apparently had similar issues as you and wanted to keep it separate. Has your position changed since then? Like you, I thought Kerry was bigoted on that issue, but I have since changed my mind.

    One last thing. I didn’t quite get your last sentence. If I understand you correctly, you would not want to enter a marriage, because then, as you stated above, divorce laws could become lax, and that’s not the type of institution you would want to enter. But you also are not in a DP either for the same reason?

    Comment by Pat — January 5, 2007 @ 2:51 pm - January 5, 2007

  40. Pat, you have the patience of a saint, and for that I praise you.

    If I understand you correctly, you would not want to enter a marriage, because then, as you stated above, divorce laws could become lax, and that’s not the type of institution you would want to enter.

    No. My concern is that marriage laws will change to make matters more difficult for those who marry, but then skip out on their obligations to their families left behind, which wil further exacerbate California’s already draconian rules concerning shared and communal assets.

    But I still don’t get why you thought John Kerry was bigoted (even before the Missouri amendment garbage) when he apparently had similar issues as you and wanted to keep it separate.

    My reasons are based on a logical analysis of the situation.

    Kerry’s are based on his own bigoted opposition and his crass attempts to manipulate voters on both sides of the issue for his own gain.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 6, 2007 @ 12:50 am - January 6, 2007

  41. NDT, fair enough regarding Kerry.

    Now I have a clearer understanding of your position on gay marriage. Thanks.

    Comment by Pat — January 6, 2007 @ 10:18 am - January 6, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.