Making the Case for Gay Marriage
In the wake of Proposition 8′s passage, the folks at Pajamas Media asked me to offer my thoughts on the initiative. I did. And they posted it. Let me offer you the first three paragraphs:
While a strong supporter of legalized abortion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has long been critical of the court’s 1973 decision Roe v. Wade preventing states from banning abortion. She believes the ruling prevented the nation from reaching a consensus on abortion and contributed to societal divisions which continue today on the controversial issue.
Last month at Princeton University, she said that, in handing down Roe, the court “bit off more than it could chew.” She would have preferred a more incremental decision which “would have been an opportunity for a dialogue with the state legislators.” With more input from elected state representatives, we might have moved closer to a national consensus on abortion.
As it is with abortion, so too should it be with gay marriage. The issue will continue to divide us unless we bring the people, either directly or through their <em>elected</em> representatives, into the process.
Click here to read the rest!
19 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
She believes the ruling prevented the nation from reaching a consensus on abortion…
and
She would have preferred a more incremental decision which “would have been an opportunity for a dialogue with the state legislators.â€
Does Darth Vader Ginsburg not understand the language in the 10th Amendment? Yes, there is no consensus on the issue of abortion but the decision was wrongly decided because Roe flies in the face of federalism and attempts to find a right where none exists. The purpose of our legal system is not to find a national consensus and its responsibilities (whether to hear cases or defer to lower courts) should not be defined in such terms.
An incremental decision incrementing to what goal? This implies that Ginsburg agrees with abortion advocates, but that an incremental approach a la Saul Alinsky is preferable. That may be true with respect to the eventual enshrining of the non-existent right to abort (once we’ve reached that ‘national consensus’), but that doesn’t mean a majority is within the law or respects individual rights. What is a national consensus? 51%? Most states? A filibuster-proof Senate? Some vague atmosphere where the debate has died down enough that Ginsburg feels comfortable?
If you’re arguing for acclimation, then you are at least partly right and de facto rather than de jure. But as someone who is against same-sex marriage, I would be very wary of those who attempt to couch the struggle for marriage recognition in the contexts (legal and otherwise) of the abortion debate and the civil rights of racial minorities.
The issue will continue to divide us unless we bring the people, either directly or through their elected representatives, into the process.
And that’s exactly what Proposition 8 did.
Comment by Ignatius — November 8, 2008 @ 11:22 am - November 8, 2008
Can I ask you all something? What’s next after Gay Marriage? I refuse to believe that HRC and NGLTF are going to fold up their tents and find real jobs after gay marriage is the law of the land (especially in the Obama Recession). The civil rights movement started out with a reasonable set of goals… voting rights and equal treatment under the law. Then it metastasized into Affirmative Action, Reparations, and Truth Commissions. Every activist movement moves the goalposts after they win what they set out to win. So, I wonder what’s beyond marriage… and frankly, it’s worrisome.
Comment by V the K — November 8, 2008 @ 11:33 am - November 8, 2008
That is the battle cry these days. Yesterday I was told by an activist who said that the only way to go is through the supreme court. That the American public would never have come to fighting racism on their own – it’s only because of court decisions that things changed for the Black community.
I hate comparing the two, there is no comparison, they are very different issues. If gay marriage is ever to become acceptable to the public at large, it won’t because of playing the victim card.
Unfortunately, the Black grievances of today are all about victimology – unlike in the past when they were fighting true evil and discrimination. I think the election of Barry proves that.
Comment by Leah — November 8, 2008 @ 12:20 pm - November 8, 2008
What’s next after Gay Marriage?
Once it’s the law of the land, there will be pressure on the United Nations and world courts to make same-sex marriages universally recognized. And those who now oppose it will then be likened to those such as conservatives in primarily Islamic countries who would oppose such measures to the death. There is no middle ground. Either you’re with us, or you’re with the Religious Right, in this scenario Earth’s Religious Right; either you agree with every one of ‘our’ issues (so the self-appointed spokespeople say) or you’re a bigoted homophobe and mean-spirited radical hater.
Comment by Ignatius — November 8, 2008 @ 2:56 pm - November 8, 2008
#3 Agreed. The grievance industry has been very lucrative.
Comment by Ignatius — November 8, 2008 @ 2:59 pm - November 8, 2008
I am a staunch republican who knows a strong america is good for everyones rights, gay, straight, whatever. To be quite frank I would have opposed prop 8. Individuals should have the freedom and the right to flourish and feel joy be it with any loved one they choose. As for the politics, with the left clamoring at the gates ready to inflict massive damage on the long term economic and foreign policy of this country, do we on the right really have the luxury to rip ourselves apart over this issue?
Comment by robert verdi — November 8, 2008 @ 3:20 pm - November 8, 2008
Yesterday I was told by an activist who said that the only way to go is through the supreme court. That the American public would never have come to fighting racism on their own – it’s only because of court decisions that things changed for the Black community.
That’s just an admission by a Leftist that democracy is to be tossed aside when it doesn’t fit their policy goals. They love to wield that particular weapon when it stomps on an individual right they don’t like (usually, all of them) but when democracy doesn’t go their way, as Prop 8 did, then it’s all about protecting the minority from the majority!
The lesson gay activists need to learn is that the smallest minority in the world is the individual.
Unfortunately, they are so trapped in the collectivist mindset, courtesy of the Left, that they revert into tribal warfare at the slightest provocation — as the recent events in West Hollywood indicate. I wager the scapegoating of the Mormons is driven in part by the attempt to present a united face to us even as they are shouting the N- and F- words at each other.
The wages of collectivism, is endless war. I really hope gay activists can figure that out.
Comment by Seerak — November 8, 2008 @ 3:35 pm - November 8, 2008
#2: V, that’s a good question. It’s been my position that the “civil rights” path is the wrong path. And, no, the HRC won’t fold up its tent: they make their living ferreting out one grievance after another. When the supply of real grievances dries up, they’ll make them up (like the guy who objected to the term “black hole”).
Marriage isn’t a right (people are free to couple and procreate without state sanction – and they do it in droves). It is a social construct deemed by society to have benefits to society (although society places less and less value on these benefits).
This is why it is up to us (teh geys) to make the case as to why SSM is a benefit to the society. I voted “no” on Prop 8 because I think that changing the constitution makes it much harder to make the case. But I fully understand many of the “yes” arguments.
Given the way things seem to work, the “civil rights” strategy can be too easily hijacked by polygamists (Muslims in Britain are getting welfare for multiple wives), bisexuals (why shouldn’t I have a husband AND wife), pederasts, people who want to marry siblings, and all the rest.
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 8, 2008 @ 4:03 pm - November 8, 2008
I have yet to read anything that justifies gay marriage. I keep no company with the screaming, radical gay people, because they are like all single-issue zealots. They are a mile wide and an inch deep.
I can not think of any compelling state interest in sanctioning gay marriage and I have never read any “justification” that piqued my imagination.
Frankly, I think the idea is a dead end issue. There are some states that can be worn down to accept the issue, but eventually that will cause a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage.
Civil Unions will just have to suffice. For so many gays, the issue is really about directing society in general to accept homosexuality as co-equal.
Comment by heliotrope — November 8, 2008 @ 6:25 pm - November 8, 2008
Bingo! The mother of a gay man is on the forefront of the NO on 8 initiative. She is now in full battle mode against the religious, and under her breath, even the Black community.
Meanwhile, her son, who has had the same partner for a number of years now, never saw the need to get married while he had the chance.
It’s not marriage they want – with all it’s responsibilities and obligations. It is a blanket acceptance of the equality of homosexuals to heterosexuals. Except, they actually want more – they don’t want to become normative – they want to have the general population celebrate every deviant behavior they see fit – since we aren’t allowed to be judgmental.
Unless you are a religious person of course – than its’ no holds bar on the hate and demonetization.
Comment by Leah — November 8, 2008 @ 6:38 pm - November 8, 2008
Really now… let’s call a spade a spade. The Mormon Church did contribute millions of dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign. They need to be called on the carpet on this one. To do otherwise, is to ignore reality. The Mormons ACTIVELY pushed this on their flock of sheep (who don’t dare question the church elders). The Catholcis on the other hand, did not ACTIVELY demand the same of their congregants. It was far more passive. The blacks did it mostly on their own, based on their predominantly Baptist fundamentalist beliefs.
Call the Mormons on their bigotry11
Comment by Yaakov — November 8, 2008 @ 7:06 pm - November 8, 2008
As a solid republican who believes a strong America increases everyones rights, gay, straight, whatever I would have opposed prop 8. America is freedom and a person has the right to marry.
Comment by robert verdi — November 8, 2008 @ 8:50 pm - November 8, 2008
great line.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 9:14 pm - November 8, 2008
Heliotrope,
Would you agree that the so-called “gay community” is currently a counter-culture that is very damaging to society in a number of ways? Would you agree that it would be better if they were more integrated into society rather than apart from and fighting it? Would you agree that it is better for society if people are in monogomous committed relationships rather than promiscuous? Would you agree that while it is better for children to be raised by their biological and wedded parents, it is also better for children to be raised by two people in a loving relationship, bound legally to one another, than it is for children to be raised by single, unwed parents?
Those would be my arguments for gay marriage. What do you think of them?
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - November 8, 2008
Aside from service in the military which I think is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, the “gay agenda” as it was originally envisioned has been achieved.
What we now call the “gay agenda” is really war with religion, traditional gender roles, and frankly, anything else that makes gays feel bad about being different. What comes next is destroying those.
Despite their claims to the contrary, gay activists will try to force religious organizations to treat them and their relationships the same, and to the extent they fail they will work for “hate speech” laws as they have in Canada with which they will attempt to silence religious criticism of homosexuality (as they have in Canada). They will try to force religious organizations to adopt to them (as they have in MA). They will try to force religious organizations to let them use their premises for their ceremonies (as they have in NJ). They will try to force the state to remove the names of biological parents from birth certificates and substitute the names of the same-sex parents (as they have in MA) …etc, etc, etc.
Being gay means being different. Being different is hard — especially when religion tells us homosexuality is a sin. particualry since I think most people are naturally drawn to faith.
These are huge issues every gay must grapple with. The gay left deals with them with anger, hatred and by warring with religious believers — the people they believe, wrongly, are telling them they have no place with God. Hate, demogoguery, scapegoating and war are all far easier than theology, faith and introspection.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2008 @ 9:57 pm - November 8, 2008
The Mormons ACTIVELY pushed this on their flock of sheep (who don’t dare question the church elders). The Catholcis on the other hand, did not ACTIVELY demand the same of their congregants. It was far more passive. The blacks did it mostly on their own, based on their predominantly Baptist fundamentalist beliefs.
Translation: We’re too cowardly to attack two groups that our Democrat massas have told us are hands off, so we’re just going to make excuses for their behavior while we attack a group that leans Republican for doing the same thing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2008 @ 11:14 pm - November 8, 2008
American Elephant:
1) There is one particular group of gays that is counter-culture in an obnoxious, self defeating, loathing way. They damage society in teaching children, “acting up” in public and any variety of other ways. They are not a “community” so much as they are “thugs” on a low-esteem, self-destructive rebellion.
2) These characters are not going to be “integrated” into polite society on any terms but those of their own making.
3) The idea that sex ridden bees flitting from flower to flower and living from orgasm to orgasm are going to “reform” by the permission to marry is beyond my grasp of understanding.
4) Children raised by gays have not been sufficiently studied. Since, by definition, gays can not give birth to children, we are necessarily speaking of foster parenting. (I understand lesbian pregnancy.) At heart, I think radical gays should be limited to dogs and cats as love objects rather than children.
5) I would rather an adopted child have loving, monogamous parents. A child with same sex parents, or a transgender parent will be made to stand out in the school setting. But, in the sense that the child is “a rescue child” from state care, I know that conservative, thoughtful gay parents are a viable, needed option.
6) I am so biased about radical gays, that I can not imagine anything as simple as a marriage license curbing their idiocy. Unfortunately, their in-your-face activities, health burdens and screaming need to be “accepted” reflect badly on the large number of responsible, reflective and valued gays who serve the general society and culture.
7) I think many on this site would like to see the radical gays hosed down and neutralized in their actions. Radical gays are never going to be dragged into the common culture, because they have deep seated needs to go against the grain and a compulsive drive to be noticed.
9) I apologize if I have scratched too deep. When I was a kid, all gays were mocked. Now, we have a far more inclusive relationship between the straight and gay world. I am not going to a gay bar or show up at Disney World on the gay weekends. But, I am not resentful or in opposition to the fact of their existence. (Likewise, I am not going to a Goth gathering or a senior center kazoo band practice either.)
I think gays and straights have learned to bridge their differences in many remarkable and productive ways. From my vantage point, a marriage license is well beyond the horizon. Civil Unions are quite doable in many, if not most, states.
The difference between a Civil Union and a marriage license may seem to be merely symbolic. But it is a basic structure in Western society and overturning a basic structure necessitates the driving force of a revolutionary epiphany.
Comment by heliotrope — November 9, 2008 @ 10:43 am - November 9, 2008
Heliotrope,
I agree with you completely about radical gays. They are not going to be changed. I dont claim they are. I dont propose trying to change radical gays, I propose offering a more attractive alternative to other gays — feeling a part of regular society — while making it clear that society does not accept the counter culture’s promiscuity, drug use, etc, so that the number of gays choosing to be a part of normal society increases over time and the number of gays choosing the counter culture decreases.
This sort of change has already taken place to some degree in the gay community as gays have become more accepted.
But the reason we offer marriage benefits as a government, is to encourage more marriage. If we want more gays to behave in responsible ways, oughtn’t we figure out ways to encourage it?
The problem I see with civil unions, is that they actually undermine marriage. The 14th amendment requires that they be made available to straight couples as well, and so what you get is a percentage of straight couples who opt out of marriage in favor of civil unions. That doesnt strengthen the institution, it weakens it.
And again, I agree that loving, monogamous, married mothers and fathers are what is best for children. But when that ideal is not available, i think it is preferable for children to be raised by loving, monogamous legally bound same sex couples over single parents.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 10:08 pm - November 9, 2008
You give me great pause to consider.
I have as many negative (read angry) feelings about the Eliot Spitzers, Madonnas, B. Spears (who drops babies like an alley cat) and the bona fide trailer trash. They don’t deserve the right to call themselves married.
When act out gays drag their children into their psychotic displays, they wound the entire gay world.
I think divorce should be rare. I think marriage should be an awesome responsibility. But, I do not think that the state should set the standards, subject to the political winds and fads of the moment.
The state has already decriminalized rape to an almost nothing crime. In large part, that is because we broadened the actions that qualify for consideration of rape.
We have no-fault divorce that should soon be available at Wal-Mart. There is no reason not to treat marriage as another tax revenue source and make is Las Vegas quick and easy.
The issue is not the marriage license, it is to examine why the state values and encourages the institution. Swedes pair off and raise families and many never get around to marriage at all. Their “modern” culture doesn’t blink at what they have become. Some Swedes have a huge family reunion with their children and grandchildren and they go through a marriage ceremony as something to do before they choose where to be cremated. And they have no trouble finding a Christian-lite minister all dressed in purple and little girls draped with flowers to carry out the sham.
I can not believe that my marriage of 45 years has had any impact beyond my children. And I believe that really screwed up kids of a neighbor are directly related to their marriage. They swapped partners and divided the children at a bridge party some 30 years ago.
I wish you could license people to breed and marry, but I am a conservative and that is too much state intrusion for my liking.
End of ramble: Perhaps the time has come to haul the state completely out of the marriage business. Partners keep their own assets separate. Children of separation are a court problem until they turn 18. Partners may come and go. There is no tax or legal restriction or benefit to people who cohabit. Mental cruelty goes the way of the dodo. Turn the whole cohabitation business over to contract lawyers and shrinks.
That is pretty much the way Sweden works. Aside from their Ostrich-like handling of their militant Islamic minority, the Swedes fancy themselves as superior to any culture in the cosmos.
Comment by heliotrope — November 10, 2008 @ 10:15 am - November 10, 2008