One of the great difficulties of having a serious conversation on marriage with the great majority of gay marriage activists is their refusal to understand the significance of the social change they are proposing.
Yes, a number of cultures throughout history have recognized same-sex unions, but such recognition has been the exception, not the norm. In all my studies (which have been pretty extensive), I have yet to encounter a culture (prior to the 1990s) which identified same-sex unions with the same term it used to describe different-sex relationships, what we now call, traditional marriage.
As I’ve noted before, those cultures which called such unions “marriage” required that one partner live his (or her, as the case may be) in the guise of the opposite gender. In short, sexual difference defined marriage.
In the two best books published in recent years on marriage, only David Blankenhorn coming out against gay marriage in The Future of Marriage addresses gender difference. Jonathan Rauch, in his excellent book making the case for gay marriage, brings it up only to dismiss it.
In order to make a better case for gay marriage, advocates of expanding the definition of this ancient institution need make clear that they are indeed promoting a change. They can’t hang on the rights argument, particularly in a state like California which grants the same privileges to same-sex couples as it does to different-sex married couples, but just calls them by a different name.
Right now, in the Golden State at least (but perhaps nationally given this past weekend’s rallies), all the hullabaloo is over that name.
As one who recognizes that gender differences are real, I am sympathetic to those opponents of same-sex marriage (proponents of Proposition 8 ) who root their opposition in that understanding of this institution. Many of them actually favor (with some saying as much in the recent campaign) state recognition of same-sex couples just so long as the state calls them something different than marriage.
It seems that Arizona voters agree, rejecting a draconian 2006 ballot measure which would have barred state recognition of such unions, but two years later, voting (by a comfortable margin) for a measure which would have just prevented the state from calling such unions marriage.
If people are serious about gay marriage as something more than a means to get a government seal of approval on our unions, they need address the gender difference argument. They are proposing a change to an ancient institution. Let’s acknowledge that and say why it’s a good thing.
Let’s leave marriage with its opposite-sex component and accept benefit-equal civil unions. Then we can use all of our cutting-edge-gay-brainpower and think up some better terms for male/male unions and female/female unions. Maybe mantrimony and marryge (for all the womyn out there ;o) ). Just throwing this out there.
But if they don’t call it marriage, then how will they ever be able to use the full legal apparatus of the state to bring the hammer down on churches? And how will they get it taught in the schools?
Let’s be honest here. Aren’t those really the goals of this movement?
Finally! Thank you! I don’t think social conservatives (like me) will ever be convinced in “changing” marriage but for the first time … ever … since becoming a Christian, I am rethinking Civil Unions.
Anyway, thank you for recognizing the gender differences component. That’s a *very* big deal. Just like gay people don’t need to be blithely dismissed … neither do people who have a biblical sexual/marital ethic.
GPW,
How can you have a serious conversation with people who believe themselves entitled to what they want simply because they want it?
Very well said, GPW. I think that the gender issue might also be overlooked when talking about gay adoption-perhaps?
I do wonder however if those who supported the issue had thought it through as thoroughly and deeply as you have, and think that a good bit of it was indeed homophobia, or maybe just some good old “if it’s good enought for me, then it’s good enough to deny it for you”.
Dave, I think your comment is using too broad a brush and is too dismissive. I know many people who do honestly believe, and I agree with them, that the spectrum of rights and responsiblities should be applied equally across the boards, and this includes the sticky issue of “marriage”.
But then I personally never cared what it was called as long as it was fair and just for everyone.
GPW,
On the 16th, Timothy Kincaid posted about a protest at the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. He quoted from an article by the New Zealand Herald, where a wedding guest, Wilson Clyde said:
This led Kincaid to say:
I found Kincaid’s targeting of Wilson Clyde to be unfair; nothing in the article indicates Clyde wants homosexuals to be second-class. So I posted a comment that quoted your essay above.
NOTE: I’ve had an argument with Kincaid (over a different matter), so I’m on comment moderation right now. (This is the second time this has happened.) It may be a short while before my comment appears at the site.
How so, JimG?
I was talking about people who want same-sex unions recongized by the state as marriages. These are those who refuse “to understand the significance of the social change they are proposing.”
In fact, they often refuse to acknowledge they are proposing any social change at all. Take Tim Kincaid, for example. He considers any differentiation between same-sex and opposite-sex couples to be a violation of all the constitutions in the United States!
Dave,
You seem to me to be more specific about who your are talking about in #6 than you were in #3.
However, my experience has been different. I have found many people understand the change they are expecting from straight society, but feel it is important to push the issue instead of waiting for the culture to catch up.
I don’t always agree with the tactics or even if its that important to call it “marriage”, but just because that’s not that important to me doesn’t mean I can blame them for being antsy.
If we all contribute to the society then let’s all have the goodies across the boards.
My 2 C.
JimG writes:
Would this apply to polygamy or man and goat advocates as well?
JimG goes on to proclaim:
I guess that seals it. It does apply to polygamists and man and goat advocates as well.
#9
Careful. They might start calling you helioSantorum.
NOTE: I’ve had an argument with Kincaid (over a different matter), so I’m on comment moderation right now.
LOL….seems to be common at BTB. I was banned in a matter of hours. Fortunately, I have my own blog, which makes it easier to skewer Kincaid, Burroway, and their fellow bigots.
Not really. It was because the opposition successfully convinced voters that such “draconian measures” could effect them too, even unmarried heterosexual retirees. Don’t be so naive! That’s what killed the first ballot amendment. People won’t vote to take away their own rights.
This year, supporters came back with simple wording that made clear who the target group was: gay people. Once it was clear the amendment wouldn’t effect their rights, people more readily voted for it.
It really has nothing to do with what you’re peddling. You always want to give people the benefit of the doubt – to see good intentions, where there are none. So you construct these elaborate explanations to explain a simpler, more unpleasant truth. Sometimes I wonder whether you’re trying to convince us or yourself.
My other comment was caught by the spam filter. But it’s ironic, the same critique that is often applied to Democrats on foreign policy seems appropriate here. When it comes to gay issues, GPW – you always want to see gray, in a world of black and white.
An unadulterated example of what this is really about for the majority of gays. Most couldnt give a crap about marriage, what they want is for society to validate them.
(spits drink all over keyboard) I’m sorry? When did the party of “nuance” who pissed and moaned incessantly over “You’re either with us or against us” give a flying crap about black and white?
As I’ve noted before, those cultures which called such unions “marriage†required that one partner live his (or her, as the case may be) in the guise of the opposite gender. In short, sexual difference defined marriage.
Dan, I think you would agree, though, that that wasn’t a good thing. That a male would have to play the role of the opposite gender, especially if this was not his natural role. But what was the role of women in “traditional” marriage? To be subjugated to the whims of the man, among other things. Sure, some of the changes of marriage through the ages have been bad, but many have been good and needed for a fair and just society. These include having both partners as equals, not limiting women to their “traditional” roles, and not making marriage as a mere property transaction.
Obviously, there is a gender component here, because for the most part, marriage has been between a man and at least one woman. But the traditions of marriage have changed quite a bit over the past thousands of years, some for the good and some for the bad. But simply saying that marriage should remain between one man and one woman, because the genders (for the most part) have always been different is arbitrary. The burden is on both sides of the argument. And the burden on the proponents of opposite sex only marriage should be more than, “well, that’s the way it’s always been.”
#12 Erik,
They tried that arguement in Ohio, the voters saw right through it. In fact, all it took was to read the proposed DOMA and compare it to the law on the books and see they were the exact same thing, and yet none of the doom and gloom had come to pass.
And so far, none of the doom and gloom of the folks against the Ohio DOMA has, but we’ve seen in other states (CT, MA, CA) that what the yes on DOMA people feared has.
So, Erik, you may either believe that 30 states have’voted to have their rights taken away’ or you may believe we were educated and made a choice. Must I ask which you’ll choose?
This is really not difficult. You cannot claim to respect an ancient institution while simultaneously wanting to irrevocably alter it to the point of no return. The institution of marriage is ancient because of its components, not vice-versa. (Btw, the comparison of traditional marriage in all cultures to those in which a member of a same-sex partnership had to mimic the opposite sex is a pointless one if your point is to argue in favor of same-sex marriage: The success of such relationships was very likely culturally measured by its ability to ape the dominant tradition, the real thing; ultimately, I would imagine such a practice would only serve to affirm heterosexuality due to the relationship’s obvious shortcomings by the standards of the society in which it was practiced, procreation being paramount among them.)
The idea that there is this middle ground, this area of mutual respect between same-sex marriage advocates and those who are defending traditional marriage is pure chimera, a blogosphere confection. One may not agree with the tactics of many same-sex marriage activists, but as long as the goal is shared, let’s not kid ourselves that we can engage in respectful destruction. Someone who advocates for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not respect traditional marriage.
Then that leaves us at a serious impasse where no compromise can possibly be brooked, even though proponents of SSM do not agree with your characterization here. Since 19 states have likewise banned civil unions/domestic partnerships, it would appear that a knockdown, drag-out fight where any and all tactics employed in order to achieve ‘victory’ is all that’s left. The Religious Right is certainly doing this (hence why I mention these 19 states) and the pro-SSM advocates are doing likewise. Guess we’ll see who wins in the long run I suppose. Pity really. I think it would be better for society in the short term at least if a compromise was reached but that doesn’t seem likely at all. Except for a small minority, I don’t believe most gays would object to civil unions if they available in all 50 states and were treated legally as different but not inferior to marriage. IOW, same-sex marriage in all but name. That’s what this has come down to: a word which neither side agrees on the meaning about. I’m fine with leaving the word to heterosexual couples but I’m not willing to stand idly by while same-sex couples are left in the cold, legally speaking. Since the Religious Right is pushing for a total ban on everything where they think they can get it, I remain in the fight for full marriage rights.
I think it would be better for society in the short term at least if a compromise was reached but that doesn’t seem likely at all.
It has been reached: civil unions. In three related ways you’ve revealed that civil unions are unacceptable: 1) You state that they are a compromise; 2) They would only be for the short term, likely for purposes of cultural acclimation; and 3) You don’t recognize such a compromise has already been reached, indicating you neither value nor want them.
Just keepin’ it real.
No, I do not see where such a compromise has been reached when I happen to live in one of the 19 states where even civil unions/domestic partnerships are also banned. It is because of the tactics of Religious Right groups seeking to ban everything where they are able to, while compromising on such arrangements where they cannot, is why I do not trust the other side in this and see no choice but to push for full marriage rights. It’s nice in theory to speak about distinctions but when you are denied everything such talk doesn’t matter much. This seems rather pointless anyways since the very tone of your comments suggests that you are unwilling for any “meeting of the minds” as well but for different reasons. How do we satsify demands for “protecting traditional marriage” on the one hand with recognizing the civil rights views on this matter for the other side? Seems to me that civil unions/domestic partnerships will full rights/benefits/responsibilities as marriage would do it as long as it is nationwide. I’m not hung up on the word so much as the legal union. Without this, we are at an impasse and this will continue on. My generation may or may not see same-sex unions of whatever kind fully recognized in all 50 states, but the next will. It’s actually amazing we are even discussing it at this point, let alone have achieved some measure of success whether with full marriage in a couple of states to civil unions/domestic partnerships in some others.
John,
Move.
See that’s the lovely thing about ‘letting the states decide’ if you embrace that theory. You can move. You can take advantage of the fact that we have the Right of free movement in the country, and move to a place more to your cultural leanings.
Oh, you’re going to say that you have a job/roots/ect where you are? Well that’s the question. How much are you willing to give to ‘fight’ for your rights?
See, what I think gets forgotten is we have the Right of free association, and the right of redress for the government for our grievances. We don’t have the right to have the government obey our every whim. So the people in your state associated, and redressed the government to not create a government recognized social institution of your partnership. So move to where they do. Ohio’s nice this time of year, but our job market is poor.
This seems rather pointless anyways since the very tone of your comments suggests that you are unwilling for any “meeting of the minds†as well but for different reasons.
I apologize if you find my tone offensive, but I find a lot gets posted here that strikes me as unnecessarily confused, particularly about this issue. (This is a general comment not directed at you nor anyone else.) So, I try to cut to the chase.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by a ‘meeting of the minds’. Do you mean a compromise? Do you mean a conversation whereupon I sacrifice my logic just so we can part ways thinking we reached common ground? The point I’m making (however unsuccessfully) is that there are some conservative homosexuals who are claiming they respect tradition while desiring to destroy it and pretending that’s not what they’re really advocating. That is not possible because the institution is the tradition.
I have far more respect for those who honestly advocate something with which I disagree, namely you. But I see a meeting of the minds as an opportunity in which the two (or many) of us can converse and I’m grateful. And if you don’t like the same-sex status in your state, Livewire above has addressed that perfectly.
“An unadulterated example of what this is really about for the majority of gays. Most couldnt give a crap about marriage, what they want is for society to validate them.”
So AE, you can see into the minds of the MAJORITY of gays and communicate what they are thinking? Or perhaps you’re just a bigot, which is fine, just be honest about it. You’ve NO CLUE what the majority want on this issue.
#17 “So, Erik, you may either believe that 30 states have’voted to have their rights taken away’ or you may believe we were educated and made a choice. Must I ask which you’ll choose?”
Livewire that totally depends on how each state wrote their amendments and whether the voters actually took the time to read it all the way through. Certainly many made an educated decision but, as the complaint has been against Obama supporters, many simply saw what they wanted to, in this case “gay marriage” and that was all they needed. Did all 30 states specify just SSM or did some add civil unions and domestic partners of any combination?
To the last comment, stating that John should move in order to get more rights – One of the biggest problems facing gay people right now in their effort to move society toward a place of greater love and acceptance of them is their isolation from communities that don’t support them. Most gays feel that in order to live their lives freely, they have to go live with the choir, and therefore remove any chance of affecting greater change in their families and the communities in which they were raised. ‘Gay Ghettos’ are totally understandable in a society that isn’t open and free, but in one that is, purportedly anyway, they should seem kind of anomalous. I understand your argument, certainly, to the extent that I would never live in a red, or even purple, state – but I wasn’t born in one, either. Telling John he should move is really no better or productive than blaming all our woes on Mormons or other groups. Do you really want to live in an America reminiscent of the pre-Civil Rights era, where some groups can live in some states but are better off avoiding others, regardless of the connections they have there?
On the other hand, John, I don’t know if I agree that when denied everything, you should necessarily fight for the most contentious thing among the options given. No state should have the legal ground to deny equal rights to everyone, though there may be an argument to calling the doling out of those rights different things for different people (let’s just say there is). And I just want to clear up one thing: the original post states that in California, domestic partnerships give the same rights as marriage as things stand now – but that’s actually not true. For one, on tax forms, domestic partners are still considered ‘single.’ The lucky thing is that Prop 8 says nothing about forbidding the state from expanding these rights to full marriage rights. We would just have to call it something other than marriage. Frankly, I’m gonna say it: As a proud gay man, that would be just fine with me. I don’t really want your stinkin’ marriage anyway.
Real quick, but flawed analogy.
You can’t smoke in most any public building in Ohio. If my desire to smoke indoors was great enough, I’d have to relocate to another state. The difference is….
the CT supreme court rightfully saw there is a major and inequitable difference between civil unions and marriage. If the state is in the business of granting marriage licenses, then equality must reign and marriage must be granted.
I’m all for the state granting only civil unions to any/all couples. Marriage can be left to the church; and there are plenty of churches willing to grant marriage to same-sex couples. So, really it’s a moot point and if we’re only arguing over semantics, then the victory is at hand for equality and against bigotry and discrimination.
Bottom line: our bill of rights states all men are created equal. Now that the courts have sided that African-Americans aren’t just 3/5s of a man, that interracial marriage is justified and sodomy isn’t a crime, there’s only one conclusion to make. If you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own sex. Otherwise, full and equitable rights must be bestowed on all, or we aren’t truly free.
And marriage’s definition has changed over time, so don’t pollute the discussion with the weak arguments you’ve presented. Face facts, you might not care about marriage rights, but after seeing tens/hundreds of thousands protesting lately, your limited view isn’t shared by everyone.
So, back in your cave. Maybe you’ll get lucky and wake up finding its 1950 again.
Great blog and it answered some questions I have. Thank you. As to the comments about some states banning domestic partnerships/civil unions – isn’t that what the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is for? A contract made in one state is valid in another, right? Isn’t that why the marriage protectionists were so up in arms about Prop 8 and other states recognizing same sex marriage? If the legal protections offered by civil unions are the same as marriage and other states must recognize it, then what it the fight about? I am a conservative new to this blog (a blog I am HIGHLY recommending to my friends) so my apologies if this has been discussed before. I am trying to understand this issue more.
#28 Your argument would have merit were it concerning rights, but marriage is not a right and its recognition is thus subject to the people. As for discrimination, marriage laws discriminate against many forms of relationships and is not limited to homosexuals.
I should write a macro and post based upon certain keywords. It’d be a lot easier.
#28
As someone who is religious, I can totally get behind the civil unions for all when it comes to government and leave marriage up to the church concept. That lessons the possibility of lawsuits if a particular church decides they won’t be performing SSM due to their beliefs. For some of the Christian population, it is more about protecting from a seemingly inevitable onslaught of discrimination lawsuits and hate crime legislation against churches and church-run institutions than having some evil desire to supress anyone’s relationships. I think the rational people on both sides of the argument need to start speaking out on solutions that aren’t achieved through judges overstepping their boundaries.
If the idea that’s being presented by the fringe activists is that “love and acceptance” will be legally bullied out of the religious, that can hardly ever be a winning argument.
#28 Buckeyenutlover makes this stunning claim:
Talk about hit and run!
I’m leafing back over the years, decades, centuries, millennia and I fail to locate the facts that support this statement that “marriage’s (sic) definition has changed over time.”
I just know that Perfesser Buckeyenutlover will return to layout his detailed evidence.
Let me help.
– There was a time when marriage was understood to be something that could only be valid between people of the same race.
– There was a time when marriage was understood to be something that could only be valid between people of the same socio-economic class.
– There was a time when marriage was understood to be (and in some parts, this still holds) ‘about’ family alliances and property arrangements, with personal / passionate love an actual impediment to a good marriage.
– There was a time when marriage was understood to be (and in some parts, this still holds) making the woman the man’s property, not his partner. She was just his brood sow and he could have more than one brood sow at the same time, if he wanted and could afford it.
Don’t try to tell us marriage hasn’t changed before. It has changed before, and it will change again.
NDT,
My problem with Kincaid is that the rules enforced on commenters at BTB (like myself) are not enforced on him.
I fear this is true, AE. The activists of the gay left want the state to sanction the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are entirely equivalent. Nothing less will satisfy them.
Ah yes, the “living, breathing institution” argument.
Sorry, in a nation of laws, the only place where definitional change matters is in the laws, as written by the duly elected representatives of the people.
And one of the most liberal states in the union just brought it to a vote of the people, and they agreed by a sizable majority, that the definition has NOT changed.
Get over it.
AE, marriage has changed greatly over time. Frankly, compared to the changes we’ve seen, allowing same sex couples to marry is not so big.
Personally, I got over the losses in California, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida already. But it’s obviously far from over. Same sex marriage is just a couple of years away in California and a some more states.
The activists of the gay left want the state to sanction the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are entirely equivalent. Nothing less will satisfy them.
I can’t speak for gay left activists Dave, but I won’t be satisfied until homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent in the eyes of the law, with respect to rights and privileges. Most people aren’t satisfied with inferior status. Sure, there are differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, just as there are differences of heterosexuality amongst heterosexuals. Some people do feel that their sexuality is superior over others’ sexualities. Fine, let them feel that way. But no special rights and privileges for one’s sexuality.
No, this doesn’t mean I’m going to play the victim role until full equality happens. Those days are over. Many of us are doing just fine. Some of us thrive despite the disadvantages (and no, it’s not just marriage, far from it). But many of us are not going to sit around saying that we’re okay, and tough noogies on the rest.
Well said Pat.
Ah yes, the “stick your head in the sand” argument. (See #32, which was caught in spamfilter, for some of the ways in which the definition of marriage has, in fact, changed over the decades / centuries)
For now. Yes. Very true. By a vote of 52-47. I love how this argument of yours logically implies that as soon as the vote is 52-47 the other way, the definition of marriage HAS changed… in a way where supporters of that change will get to tell you, “Get over it”.
And that will happen. Ten years ago in Hawaii, a comparable ballot issue against gay marriage won by 70-30. This month in California, it only won by 52-47, with people under 30 voting 66-34 in favor of gay marriage. Ten years from now, that will be people under *40* voting 66-34 in favor of gay marriage… unless gay marriage opponents find some great new way to reach the young, that I haven’t heard about or imagined.
That point, in its turn, underscores the utter stupidity of gay marriage advocates for their NOT trying patiently to win at the ballot box, with a campaign that reaches skeptics in the political center – as I keep saying they should do. If they just did that, and waited 5 more years, they would have won. Even as matters stand today, with them not doing that, they will probably win at the ballot box in 10 years. And when they do, *by the argument structure presented in #35*, AE would of course accept that as “definitional” and binding and final.
Pat, good comments.
Now, speaking more directly to GPW’s argument about gender difference being historically essential to marriage, and having no historical or cultural precedent for same-sex unions… That doesn’t ‘reach’ me, or sort of makes my eyes glaze over, for two reasons:
1) I’m not a traditionalist. I don’t mind society doing new things. (I’ve said many times before on this blog that I’m actually not a conservative.) It just doesn’t bother me, if there’s no historical/cultural precedent for something.
2) There *are* historical and cultural precedents for gay unions, unions understood at the time to not be marriage per se, which was between a man and a woman, but to to be the analogous equivalent of marriage, for a man and a man. And I’m OK with gay unions. I mean, I have reached the point where I don’t really care if society at large calls our unions marriage or not. My personal vote – as in this last election – will always be in favor of calling our unions “marriage”. That’s my vote. If I’m outvoted the other way, fine – so long as, legally and functionally, we do have an equivalent ‘union’ path for gay people, to privilege those lesbians and gays who do settle down into marriage-like couples.
Good comments Pat.
NDT, I’m beginning to formulate a view on the rational disagreement of marriage. Let me know if you see where I’m coming from.
1) Marriage is a state recognized and regulated institution in secular society.
2) The word is also used by various religious and cultural institutions with similar but different meanings. Just as country folk and the Columbus Ursine Brotherhood both use ‘Bear’ to describe large burley men, but with slightly different meanings.
3) As a government regulated institution, the Govenment can and does put restrictions on marrige. Such restrictions can and have included age, genetic relations, and reqiuring single oposite sex partners.
4) In relation to 2 above, there are several ‘marriages’ that do not fit the government’s definition in society. My mom and her partner, the polyamourous trio I work with a third of and the D/s ‘family consisting of the Master, his wife/slave, her slave. and his other slave, all quality.
5) As a Represenitive Democracy, the govenrment sanctioned definitiuon can, and has been changed. As a Republic, with the 10th ammendment, it is an issue to be resolved by the individual states. It becomes a federal issue when the states conflict under the ‘Full faith and credit’ clause.
Accepting the above, the core issue of Ammendments like 8 in California and their ilk, come down to how should the goverment change the criteria that must be met for a state sanctioned marriage.
In this issue, I do beleive that it needs to be resolved by the people, either by referrendum, or by legislation. It is in this believe that I voted for the Ohio DOMA, and would support, by ammendment, the supremacy of states rights on the issue.
Indeed, because marriage is not a civil right (if it was, all the partnerships listed in 4 above would be eligible for marriage) I believe the correct action of the courts is to stay out of it.
And, on behalf of the state of Ohio, let me apologize for buckeyenutlover’s tirades.
LiveWire, I am a gay marriage supporter who agrees with everything you just said.
Here’s my way of saying it. A State license for *anything* is a privilege not a right. Rights reside in the individual’s (or couple’s) inherent freedom of action. Rights should never be voted on. Priviliges are creations of the State. Privileges should always be voted on. If the vote goes against me, so be it. There can always be another vote, because petitioning the Legislature (or in CA, the People) for redress of grievances has been recognized as a right. And, whether we end up calling it ‘marriage’ or not, society should have some kind of defined, priviliged path for gay unions – roughly as it does for straight ones. If it doesn’t, that’s profoundly stupid – i.e., bad public policy.
Pajamas Media has an essay about men not marrying. “Emma” posted this wonderful comment:
Gay men don’t want marriage. They want status. The marriage issue is not about the desire to commit — it’s merely about the ability to commit. Judging from what I know of gay male culture, there is no reason to think gay men will value marriage vows any more than straight men and plenty of reasons and examples that demonstrate they would value them far less. So-called ‘victories’ — electoral, legal, and cultural — are worn like this season’s fashion: Flaunted for a time to mask an obvious insecurity and then thrown to the back of the closet (yes, the closet) only to be brought out when brown shirts are needed. There were never so many aggrieved homosexuals than when the suggestion they were being denied phantom ‘rights’ was repeatedly made.
And don’t come at me with your anecdotes of love and legal frustration. Laws should never be written to address only specific cases, but to benefit the larger society. The mirage of equality is one of the major ironies of the marriage issue and I would argue that the slavish aping of the majority as represented in large part by the issue itself is actually preventing the success its advocates seek. Perhaps if there were a satisfaction in the diversity that has been preached for so many years instead of a relatively recent attempt to erase the most obvious distinctions between types of relationships, there would be less resistance to the extension of the privelege. Far more serious than the proposed changes to the definition(s) of marriage are the implied changes to the definitions of sexuality itself: The pretense that biology is beside the point and subject to interpretation.
You don’t know that. The only way your statement is true, in fact, is if you prepend the word “some”, like this:
As for gay male culture: there’s the loud/visible yucky parts, which are a problem, and the quiet/invisible parts filled with good people. If you don’t know both, then you do not know gay male culture.
hey livewire…let me guess, you want to see the courts overturn Loving -vs- VA which decriminalized interracial marriage, eh? Thankfully the courts did the right thing back then, and thankfully they’re doing them again this go-round. Look for the CA supreme court to overturn the voters’ “will” again as it well should.
Your arguments are so poor it’s laughable.
it’s the 21st century…time for you to join it. the 1950s are long gone, much to you regressives’ chagrin.
Hey buckeyenutlover,
Loving v Virginia was about race. The law said one white person could not marry one black person of the opposite sex.
Where is there the slightest parallel between Loving v Virginia and gay marriage? As a gay you may shack up with any race you stumble across. You may marry a person of any race so long as that person is of the opposite sex.
Now tell me again why you and your pet goat should be married. And then tell me how race figures into your “logic.”
in a letter posted at positiveliberty.com, written by margaret loving:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person†for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
Mildred also talked of the judge:
The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.†He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.
chew on that for awhile, heliotrope
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/06/mildred-lovings-statement.html
the mildred loving letter
still doesn’t address his arguements Rusty.
Oh and buckeyenutlover, you apparently can’t read. Or maybe I wrote too many words for you to read at once. I’m trying to promote Bruce and Dan’s goal of coherent discussion of our differences. you’re not helping,
As for gay male culture: there’s the loud/visible yucky parts, which are a problem, and the quiet/invisible parts filled with good people. If you don’t know both, then you do not know gay male culture.
I would put it differently, ILC; the loud/visible yucky parts ARE gay male culture, and those who are not have rejected it in favor of normal behavior.
The problem is that the gay left has made sexual orientation synonymous with promiscuous and idiotic behavior, and has screamed anyone who would dare disagree with that into oblivion. Until that behavior is repudiated by the vast and overwhelming majority of gays, society need not, nor should it, treat gays as anything other than what the gay left represents them to be.
I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.
I’m sure she also supports her twelve-year-old granddaughter marrying the local pedophile who loves her, and when that didn’t work out, marrying her brother, who is already married to someone else.
After all, she wouldn’t want any interferences with her freedom, right? She supports everyone having the right to get married regardless of sexuality, right? After all, you should be able to marry whomever you love without conditions, right?
NDT, you’re such a sweet person, I am sure Mildred Loving is smiling down on you.
Rusty, you have no idea of my race nor the race of my wife. Putz! I resent in captal letters your equating your silly problems with racial discrimination.
I will presume you are a male. I will presume you want to play around sexually with another male. Having so presumed, you will have to explain to me in great big crayon written letters how that equates to a woman of one race and a man of another race being barred by law from being married.
I goaded you (I presume) with a reference to a man and his goat. The law completely protects you in every way to sexually engage with the opposite sex (of age and not too closely related) regardless of race. Loving v. Virginia made that so. However, if you choose to marry a man, more than one man, a goat or yourself, the law stands in your way.
Your presumption that racial discrimination gives you any footing whatsoever is flat out disgusting. If you can not see that you are trying to tie your presumed “victim” status to the true victim status of all negroid people, then you are brain damaged.
Loving v Virginia was an issue of marriage between a man and a woman who were of different “races.” There is still room for an issue between a brother marrying a sister or a little girl of five marrying an old man of 85. How you suck same sex marriage out of this is no different than my obnoxious point of drawing a man and his goat from it.
I will be waiting anxiously for your clear and profound logic.
I’m sure she is too, rusty; after all, she SAID she wants “freedom to marry” for everyone regardless of sexuality. After all, if she supported bans on pedophile marriage, or incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage, she’d be interfering with the “civil right” of people to marry whomever they “love”, which she said that no law or court should be able to deny.
It would only be an insult if she didn’t support pedophile marriage, or polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage; however, in that case, she’d be a hypocrite, since she wouldn’t allow the practitioners of those to exercise their “civil right”.
One more thing: after saying in Loving that marriage was a “civil right” that could not be denied to anyone, the same justices five years later, in Baker v. Nelson, affirmed the constitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriages.
It cannot be put in any clearer language than that that Loving did not, nor was it ever intended to apply to, anything other than laws involving marriage between people of different races — and that has underpinnings in not one, not two, but three separate amendments to the Federal constitution that state specifically that race is not a valid reason for legal discrimination.
And one more thing, rusty; how do you think Ms. Loving felt about what your fellow liberal gays were calling people of her skin color last week?
The fact that gay liberals attempt to invoke Loving or claim analogues to racial discrimination when they themselves are going around using racial epithets shows fully and starkly the hypocrisy, immaturity, and downright childish behavior that is at the core of the gay community.
Herein lies the big difference between bi-racial marriage and gay marrige. Children and grandchildren were expected and a natural outcome.
So far all I’ve heard from the ‘gay rights’ crowd is the rights of the couple – no mention of the natural children that are the outcome of these rights.
There are good reasons for gay marriage – Loving isn’t a good comparison or example.
#51 And Pete Labarbera spews again.
Perhaps you’d better reread what I said, adDave.
The problem is that the gay left has made sexual orientation synonymous with promiscuous and idiotic behavior, and has screamed anyone who would dare disagree with that into oblivion.
Right on cue.
Oh, and adDave, you know what? Peter Labarbera and I both agree that gays who molest children and take children to sex fairs are disgusting perverts.
Now I know, as a REAL gay, you’re not going to agree with us; you’re going to tell us how it’s all straight peoples’ fault when gays molest children and take them to sex fairs, and that the children did something to provoke the molestation, so it’s their fault anyway.
After all, you wouldn’t want to AGREE with Peter Labarbera on something, would you? That would make you…gasp…SELF-LOATHING and HOMOPHOBIC!
I’m sure she also supports her twelve-year-old granddaughter marrying the local pedophile who loves her, and when that didn’t work out, marrying her brother, who is already married to someone else.
No, NDT, I don’t think Mildred is mentally challenged and can’t tell the difference between the two situations.
Also, I agree that no one under 18 should, under any circumstances, get married. Are we in agreement there?
I would put it differently, ILC; the loud/visible yucky parts ARE gay male culture, and those who are not have rejected it in favor of normal behavior.
No, NDT. I’m not sure where you meet all the gay left from, but almost all of the gay people I know are to the left of me. We reject many of the things that you reject in the gay community.
Further, I don’t assume that all religious people are like the loud and yucky creeps like Dobson, LaBarbera, and Robertson, and assume that’s what religious culture is. I know plenty of religious people who are far from that. Oh, and they don’t spend all day rejecting these creeps, and I don’t infer from that that must mean that they support the immoral behavior of Dobson, et al.
After all, you wouldn’t want to AGREE with Peter Labarbera on something, would you? That would make you…gasp…SELF-LOATHING and HOMOPHOBIC!
No, it’s more like this. Most rational thinking people believe that LaBarbera is a vile person. The fact that most people agree with LaBarbera that 2+2=4 doesn’t change that.
“I would put it differently, ILC; the loud/visible yucky parts ARE gay male culture, and those who are not have rejected it in favor of normal behavior.”
“The problem is that the gay left has made sexual orientation synonymous with promiscuous and idiotic behavior,”
NDT your statements are a broad condemnation of millions of people who do not participate in the offensive behaviors you describe. That is wrong – period. You can rant and rave about what you think I support and believe (as usual totally wrong) but you can NEVER justify your pure hate lies. I have clearly stated my opposition to the things you claim I support but that’s not good enough for you. If you would be rational enough to clarify that it is ONLY a minority that lives at the extreme edge then you would have a valid point. LaBarbera AND you have nothing good to say about homosexuals – that is what makes you the same. He has an excuse, you don’t.
So Pat,
You accept that the Government can limit Marriage to certain groups of people. You just don’t feel that you should be one of those people that can’t have it the way you want it.
That’s why you have a right to redress and petition the government for change. You also have the right to move to where things are more to your liking.
You don’t have the right to force your viewpoints on the majority. You also don’t have a right to the government doing what you want.
And right now, that includes changing the privilege of marriage to include your definition.
“You also don’t have a right to the government doing what you want.
And right now, that includes changing the privilege of marriage to include your definition.”
The gov’t has no right or reason to define marriage. It’s purely a legal issue and should be free of religious constraints. The issue of marriage within the religious communities is a totally different thing and they should be left alone. I realize that some will never be happy until they force religious folk to accept us but this is still the USA and they need to shut up.
“…your statements are a broad condemnation of millions of people who do not participate in the offensive behaviors you describe.”
different Dave, communication requires generalizations. If we had to preface every statement by addressing every possible exception, every nuance then we would not be able to communicate at all. Of course people broadly condemn, but the important points are whether there is a satisfactory implication that exceptions to the condemnation exist and whether there is sufficient reason for the condemnation. Stereotypes don’t just miraculously appear out of nothingness. The fact that a well-known gay male stereotype of promiscuity exists should suffice to raise significant objections to the sincerity of any marital claims, whichever side of the issue you stand. Of course there are committed gay relationships. Don’t pretend you’re offended by the mention of the elephant in the middle of the room and give your blogmates a bit more credit.
What I am offended by is that NDT and some others here focus only on the negative and not once (that I have read) have admitted that they are speaking of a minority and that their are positive role models of ALL political belief systems. I fully acknowledge that the stereotype is based on reality and the gay communities need to grow out of that behavior. Claims that the “gay left” accepts it and advocates it are ridiculous and have nothing to do with reality. Repeated claims that I accept it and defend it are outright lies. I don’t believe that it an be claimed that because a minority live an extreme life that the rest of us are not “worthy” of the privilege of marriage. There are many on here who I find rational and interesting to read even when I don’t always agree. I give them plenty of credit for well thought out positions and their ability to communicate them without using a sledgehammer.
“if anyone can show just cause why this couple cannot be legally joined in marriage, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.”
Number 1: Two people seeking to get married apply for a license to get married, provide the appropriate documentation and take any required blood tests. . .if necessary.
Number 2: Wedding application is set for review, and then if approved, granted. Meeting the necessary legal requirements, the wedding party is now able to have a ceremony.
Number 3: The ceremony, whether large or small, must have two witnesses.
–bans on pedophile marriage, or incestuous marriage, or polygamous marriage– would be grounds for nullifying any marriage.
and just tidbit of information on Mildred Loving: Mildred passed away on May 2, 2008. I am sure those who like to disparage those who have departed, you will be given some forgiveness.
By all means. In adDave’s America, the right of redress and petition is for him and him alone. Free Association? Nah not if you disagree with adDave. “but this is still the USA and they need to shut up.”
And can anyone read this with a straight face? “The gov’t has no right or reason to define marriage. It’s purely a legal issue and should be free of religious constraints.”
So in the United States of adDave, apparently the goverment has no reason to be involved in legal issues.
Add adDave to the pro-polygamy/beastiality group.
68, so would bans on same sex marriage. Thank you.
68 Rusty curiously includes
Huh? Gays can bang away on one another until the cows come home and no pregnancy will result. So what’s up with incest? Is there something inherently yucky about cousins, mothers and daughters, or brothers being sexually involved with one another? Please explain. Also, I don’t get the pedophile stuff. If a seven year old girl gets satisfaction from sex with a 35 year old woman and upon the age of 14 decides she will go for a pimply faced male, what is the big deal? Why can’t a gay handle multiple mates? No family of children needs to be “protected.” It would seem that being a libertine should be made of looser stuff.
Sorry, but if it is s-o-o-o-o logical that gays should marry, it is equally logical that gays should enjoy close family lovers, multiple lovers and little boys and girls as lovers.
#69 Livewire it is baffling to me how you can warp what I said into the madness that you write. I’ll keep my response simple and short – whatEVER. now I’ll go back to watching Sarah Jane.
Rusty:
PS- Take your comparison of gay sex with Jim Crow laws, slavery and de facto and de jure segregation and shove it. Only a coward or an idiot tries to hitch a ride on the misery of other people. If I seem harsh, it is because I am trying mightily to hold back my real feelings.
Hmm, I guess I should feel blessed, heliotrope, that you have ignored my points 😉
C’mon, ILC, you are the original puddy tat.
You accept that the Government can limit Marriage to certain groups of people. You just don’t feel that you should be one of those people that can’t have it the way you want it.
Livewire, I accept that government can limit marriage to certain groups of people because that is reality. And, of course, I don’t feel that I should be one of those people that can’t have it, like most straight people.
So what’s the difference between same sex marriage, and the laundry list of other examples, such as marriage in which one or both is a child, one is a nonhuman being or object, close family members, or multiple members? Very simple. I view a monogamous relationship between two men or two women to be as valid and healthy as an opposite sex couple. As such, I believe it is a benefit, not just for the couple, but to society as a whole, to encourage such persons to get married, exactly as we would for a straight couple.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that relationships between family members, in which one is a child and the other is an adult, between a human and honhuman being or object, or multiple members are good for society, and should not be encouraged to be married. Relationships between teens of similar age are fine and should be encouraged, but not sex between them, and certainly not marriage until both are adults.
That’s why you have a right to redress and petition the government for change. You also have the right to move to where things are more to your liking.
Thanks. I’m well aware of those rights though. I do support petitioning the government for change. And it’s better that it’s done through the legislature than the courts and all that. Thankfully, I probably wouldn’t have to move to be married. At this point, I can have a civil union and call it marriage, and have the same rights as those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and even California.
You don’t have the right to force your viewpoints on the majority. You also don’t have a right to the government doing what you want.
And right now, that includes changing the privilege of marriage to include your definition.
I’m not sure what you mean by “force,” but I most certainly do have the right to express my opinion. And I realize that in most states, even in California, that most believe that marriage should, for now, remain as one man, one woman. And the majority has the right to say and vote as much. They have this right even if the basis of their view is arbitrary, flawed, out of irrationality, or selfishness.
Sorry, but if it is s-o-o-o-o logical that gays should marry, it is equally logical that gays should enjoy close family lovers, multiple lovers and little boys and girls as lovers.
Heliotrope, it would only be logical if you viewed pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality as valid as a relationship between two adult nonrelated men or women. If you find them all equally valid and good for society, then it would be logical for you to petition government and allow marriage for these individuals. If you view homosexuality as bad as pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality, I would disagree with you, but would understand your reasoning for opposing same sex marriage.
Pat.
It seems we agree on the ends (establisment of a legal recognition of monogamous partnership for same sex couples) Just not the means (I believe it -must- come from the Legislature/Referrendum process, you feel the courts can establish it). I think we also disagree in that you feel it should be a expansion of the state recognized definition of marriage, and I feel it should be a ‘seperate but equal’ institution. I’m calling it ‘Fred’ until someone can give me a better name.
Am I understanding you correctly?
#73
I was confused by your reply, then it hit me. “Twisting words into madness” = adDave for “Quoting what I said, you mean person.”
Aside, hope Sarah Jane is going well, I’m waiting for Sci-Fi to pick up Series 2
#78 Pat:
How can there be “incest” when there can be no biological result of the sex involved?
Your point is that the marriage door be opened to include one same sex person and one other same sex person who are of legal age and not closely related.
My point is that opening the marriage door for one same sex person and one other same sex person is THE huge cultural shift. Polygamy, child brides and incest can be found around the world today and throughout history. Those points pale by comparison.
The concept of accommodating gay marriage while maintaining as subset of regulations is what you are trying to pass off as “logical.”
Now, as a part of the 95%+ of society that is not gay, please tell me again what benefits to all of society will accrue from gay marriage.
Livewire, I would prefer that same sex marriage happens through the legislature. But, right or wrong, for better or for worse, the judiciary does have activist powers, if you will. And since people have a right to take such things to court, I’m not going to complain if they rule in favor of same sex marriage. Yes, they’re not supposed to make law, and all that. But they have the power to interpret law and the state constitution and see if banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. And I understand that every time they rule for same sex marriage, plenty of people, right or wrong, will insist that the judges are making the law. Anyway, my knowledge of judicial process is limited, so I apologize if my reasoning is not clear.
How can there be “incest†when there can be no biological result of the sex involved?
Heliotrope, I’m not sure what you mean here. In any case, my understanding of incest is sex between two closely related persons regardless of the ages, and regardless of whether a child can result or not.
My point is that opening the marriage door for one same sex person and one other same sex person is THE huge cultural shift. Polygamy, child brides and incest can be found around the world today and throughout history. Those points pale by comparison.
Actually, the huge cultural shift is the increased acceptance of homosexuality. Homosexuality, as well as polygamy, child brides, and incest can be found around the world today and throughout history, as you say. My belief is that the latter three are unacceptable behaviors, and as such, encourage marriage under those circumstances is not a good thing.
The concept of accommodating gay marriage while maintaining as subset of regulations is what you are trying to pass off as “logical.â€
I made the argument why I believe same sex marriage should be allowed and encouraged, while other “marriages” should not be allowed. IMO, my reasoning is sound and logical. If you disagree, that’s certainly your prerogative.
Now, as a part of the 95%+ of society that is not gay, please tell me again what benefits to all of society will accrue from gay marriage.
I am sure that you have a characteristic (ethnic group, race, religion, or something else that is morally neutral) in which only 5% or less of the population share. What benefit to society is there to not ban marriage for this characteristic? Chances are they are the same And if marriage was banned for persons with this characteristic, would you feel that is okay, and patiently wait for the legislature to approve it, like many of us are? Even if you would, I am sure that you would feel such a ban was completely unfair.