Since we can’t count on the heads of gay organizations, including those dedicated to promoting gay marriage, to consider the merits of the institution, we have to go elsewhere. It seems the conservative press of late has done a better job of discussing gay marriage than the gay press, even on college campuses.
This morning, a reader forwarded me a piece from the Stanford Review, that university’s conservative paper where a gay conservative student, Yishai Kabaker, make a good “nutshell” case for gay marriage, writing, “the desire for gay marriage is not merely a fight for the legal and social benefits, but also a desire for the serious commitments that marriage entails.”
I would daresay that the average gay couple getting married in the Golden State understand what marriage entails and are ready to make those commitments when they take their vows. At least those married gay couples I know do “get” the obligations the institution entails.
Kabaker also recognizes the significance of the gay marriage debate in our culture, pointing out quite accurately that it “is a relatively recent phenomenon,” reflecting “a shift in the LGBT community away from sexual revolution toward the American mainstream.”
His essay is short, so is easy to read, and merits your attention. It is interesting that a college student can better summarize the case for gay marriage than can those who do so professionally. Just as this debate is a sign of a shift in gay culture, that a conservative student paper would publish this piece is a sign of changes on the right, a greater welcoming of gay individuals and a consideration of ideas of concern to us.
Leah: Give yer boy a high-five. You must be so proud. 🙂
Sorry, NO. Still NOT ENOUGH of a positive case for gay marriage. Still not explaining to the rest of society how gay marriage will be good for society. Citing **our own desire** for serious commitments is an insufficient justification for a State license that will compel others (third parties) to change their legal, financial and other behaviors toward gay couples who take the license.
Also – the writer seriously cites Andrew Sullivan as a “gay conservative” – yeesh!
There is a case to be made for gay marriage. I just don’t see anyone making it.
ILC, Back in the day, when Sully wrote seriously about marriage, he was a conservative.
Sure Jonathan Rauch is a much better advocate today – but once upon a time even Sully had some important things to say.
He was a Conservative by *modern* British standards. Remember, Maggie Thatcher brought us the myth of Global Warming; her administration generated and promoted much of the original research as a stick with which to beat the British coal unions.
By American standards, though, Sullivan was no more to the right than a 1980s moderate Democrat. (Think Al Gore back when he was sane, anti-Saddam, dynamic and attractive.) Since 2/24/04, Sullivan has been a despicable raving moonbat. (Trig Trutherism, anyone?)
Check out this catch by Boy From Troi:
http://boifromtroy.com/?p=7544
I will say this for the pro-Prop 8 spokesman, he at least shows more consistency in his view by excluding infertile hetero couples as well from marriage. I doubt many folks will agree with this though.
I’m not seeing a lot of evidence to support this. If this were true, than this behavior should precede the expanded definition of marriage, not follow it.
To use an analogy, it’s like giving financially irresponsible people mortgages and hoping it will make them financially responsible.
I think this is right on. As a conservative mother of a gay son, there is nothing I want more than for my son to be in a committed relationship and for him to be happy. Marriage really is the only means to be in a truly committed relationship. One has to put effort into marriage to make it work and to remain committed. I heard Tucker Carlson make a conservative argument for gay marriage one day similar to this and I immediately saw the conservative argument. By the way, my son happened to get the conservative gene and will be quietly voting for McCain.
I read this site every day and love it –
So, most commenters here don’t believe that there is a case for gay marriage? I’m a bit perplexed by the line of thinking that “will compel others (third parties) to change their legal, financial and other behaviors toward gay couples who take the license” is a serious burden.
How much of a burden was it for the racists who had to deal with interracial marriage legality in 1967?
Could you specify what specific financial or legal burdens would the marriage of a gay couple force on others more so than the marriage of a heterosexual couple? Two of my straight friends married each other. Other than a wedding present, I don’t recall my suffering any financial hit.
According to economic studies, California would see a positive financial effect. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Looking at places where gay marriage or civil unions have been instituted, can you point to data that show your argued negative effects? Please feel free to look at U.S. states, Canada, the U.K., or Spain.
As for the comment, “To use an analogy, it’s like giving financially irresponsible people mortgages and hoping it will make them financially responsible.” The implied bigotry against gay people is astounding. You are stating that gay Americans are innately less responsible than others.
What proof do you have of this statement? Given that the divorce rate is 50% amongst heterosexuals, why do you think that gays would be even more in danger of divorce?
Heterosexuals such as Newt Gingrich did not show much respect for their marriage vows. Newt famously dumped his first wife while she was in her hospital bed recovering from surgery. Newt then cheated on his second wife while he was condemning Bill Clinton’s infidelity.
Rush Limbaugh has been married more than four times.
John McCain cheated on his first wife with his current wife Cindy McCain. This adultery alienated McCain from Nancy and Ronald Reagan who thought McCain a cad.
Sorry, but statements that make gays into feeble-minded individuals as a subgroup of humanity is frighteningly bigoted and deserving of condemnation.
Finally, while it’s nice that the Stanford Review published the article, that does not say much about the larger conservative movement and its opinions of gay marriage. Sarah Palin and her friends at Focus on the Family remain solid foes of any recognized domestic partnerships for gays. And, the latest series of attack ads against Obama from the Christian Right specifically target Obama for his support of same sex unions.
The sad fact is that even as gay friendly as McCain and some moderates in the party may be, they are forced to endorse or take anti-gay stands when looking at a national audience. Look at Rudy Giuliani and his sudden switch against same sex unions.
Finally, gay people should no more have to be concerned about the affect of their being gay on a bigot than should a Jewish or Asian-American. I think America is a much better place for the contributions of Jewish Americans who have stood up against anti-Semitism.
Hey Laurie, as the mother of the young man who wrote this article, we have a lot to be proud of. I don’t expect my 20 year old to articulate all the reasons ILC would like to see.
But I know its’ my values that I was able to pass on to him that make him the man he is – not the fact that he happens to be gay.
At Stanford he immediately came out to the conservatives, they don’t care – there are more gays writing for the Review than any other publication on campus. On the other hand, coming out as a conservative to the gays – whole different story.
He is abroad right now, so he voted absentee for McCain. But during the primaries he had the pleasure of marching up to the polling booth and proudly voting McCain, while a whole line of Dems seethed because they ran out of their ballots.
Leah, for perfect clarity: my remarks were mainly an answer to GPW’s. GPW implied that we now had “[The] Case for Gay Marriage”; I’m saying, no, let’s keep going. In fairness to the article’s author, he probably wasn’t trying for that. He was only explaining “Gay Marriage as a Conservative Institution”. And in a very tight space; good job overall!
ILC, thanks for the clarification, but I doubt Dan feels that this is the case for Gay Marriage. If you notice, he did say: ‘A student’s Nutshell’
But you have to admit, that a small conservative paper on a medium sized Liberal college – has given more room to this debate than I’ve seen anywhere else – in the media, on the net or even on talk shows.
There is also a counterpart point of view, which is as it should be – open debate.
#6: V, is it possible that marriage has served to civilize otherwise promiscuous straight males?
Without marriage (and society’s [dwindling] expectations), would straight males be monogamous and accept responsibility for their offspring?
If the answer to my question is “yes”, is it possible that SSM may serve to “civilize” gay males?
I’ve never completely bought the idea that marriage is a right (as Kabaker points out, it’s a social construction). But I think SSM can provide benefit to society in the form of a framework that enables (not guarantees) monogamy, stability, and responsibility.
Leah,
its a much better case. made by a young man, than has been made by most, including those many years his elder. He’s on the right track.
I would only point out to him that he’s basically arguing that society should make policy based on what the country can do for him, rather than what he can do for the country.
There is a reason society supports, and subsidizes marriage, and if anyone wants to make easy work of figuring out what that purpose is, legislators have already told us. What they have said is, the reason the law supports marriage is because it is beneficial to society to encourage men and women to enter into legally binding relationships so that when children are born, as many as possible will be born into an arrangement that protects them and binds their biological parents to them.
Its a pretty sound argument in that A) it makes sense, and B) there really doesnt seem to be much compelling reason for government to be involved in relationships between consenting adults if the reason doesnt center around children.
Unfortunately, gay relationships don’t fit well into this definition. So what conservative proponents need to do is show that there are other benefits which gay unions would provide to society that benefit society enough to warrant taxpayer subsidy… Perhaps the argument that in lieu of nuclear families, committed relationships between adults are the best arrangement for children (as opposed to single parenthood or non-committed relationships). Or perhaps the argument that it is in society’s best interest to bring gays into the fold and civilize them, rather than leave them the radical underground counter-culture mess they have become, which is demonstrably detrimental to society… perhaps something else.
Make the strongest argument possible on the ground of how gay relationships benefit America, and then set about the work of convincing others it is correct.
I would suggest your son approach it from that angle — but that’s just me.
And i should say, whatever those arguments may be, they need to be based on facts and evidence, not feelings and wishful thinking — gays need to offer society a supported argument, not a social experiment.
AE, the article that was printed was edited way down. Also, no one can start from square one anymore. Because the CA court made a decision about the legality of Gay marriage – that is the starting point.
There is no longer a question of how society should proceed ‘normally’ with this issue.
I think we’ve seen this happen with civil rights, the country was moving in that direction – but not fast enough, and not in all parts of the country. So along come civil rights laws – and to be honest, while a lot of good came out of that – so did a lot of bad. The whole welfare system – which replaced the Black male as head of households.
Although gay rights and Black civil rights are very different things, we are seeing the same thing happen here, change society by judicial fiat – then deal with the consequences.
That is the starting point of the argument, not what would be the healthy way for society to deal with this issue. Another thing, marriage has been so degraded and broken down by society in general. So this may be the line in the sand that makes people stop and say – no more.
#6: V, is it possible that marriage has served to civilize otherwise promiscuous straight males?
At one time, yes. But because of the “Sexual Revolution” in the sixties, there is no such expectation any more. Marriage has become about benefits, not responsibilities. And women and children have suffered the most from this.
The implied bigotry against gay people is astounding. You are stating that gay Americans are innately less responsible than others.
Given that gay people say that their sexual orientation causes them to dress up two-year-old children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults masturbating and public sex, yes, that does seem to be the case.
Given that gay people say it is “common” and normal for people of their sexual orientation to have sex with children seventeen years younger than they are and that any attempt to enforce or raise the age of consent is a “veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth”, yes, that does seem to be the case.
Given that gay people make it obvious that it is common to have unprotected and irresponsible disease-spreading sex with uninfected sex partners, yes, that does seem to be the case.
Furthermore, given that gay people make it obvious that they don’t consider sexual monogamy and commitment to be “practical” in marriage because “men are pigs”, yes, that does seem to be the case.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.â€
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.â€
Finally, what reinforces this the most is that, when confronted with situations like this….the only thing gays like blakes can do is whine and scream about heterosexuals all being evil.
What these show, blakes, is not only that gays are irresponsible, but that gay liberals like you make excuses and enable this irresponsibility.