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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.)

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.