When it comes to gay issues, I don’t always agree with my friend David Benkof.W hile sometimes I think his ideas are off-the-wall, more often than not, even when I disagree with him, I think he raises an important point which, all too frequently, others have ignored. In his latest Op-ed, he puts forward some sensible ideas for ensuring that more states protect same-sex relationships:
A strong case can be made that more same-sex couples would be protected if the gay and lesbian community . . . would jettison the whole marriage campaign and focus on a new, national strategy of “mutual commitments” to protect same-sex couples not only in states like New Jersey and Massachusetts, but also in places less welcoming to gays such as Georgia, Nebraska and Texas.
The 30 constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, including Proposition 8 in California, are a direct result of the lawsuits-for-marriage strategy practiced by gays and lesbians since the mid-Nineties, including successful suits in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut. So achieving marriage in three gay-friendly states (two now that Proposition 8 has passed in California) came at the expense of barring marriage in 10 times as many states, many much less hospitable to same-sex couples.
In short, he believes, that if gay activists weren’t so hung up on the word, “marriage,” and focused instead on promoting state-recognition of same-sex unions, they might have great success in finding voters — and state legislators — more response to their pleas. This may not be ideal, particularly for those obsessed with “achieving full equality” (whatever that means), but it will improve upon the current situation.
I agree with David that litigation to force gay marriage through the courts has led to a backlash at the ballot box. And I’m not the the only one. Even Jonathan Rauch, the most thoughtful and articulate defender of same-sex marriage, has observed that gay marriage has lost in each of the thirty states where it has been on the ballot.
With social attitudes towards gays changing, we should focus on something that wasn’t achievable as recently as ten years ago, promoting civil unions, what David calls “mutual commitments,” through state legislatures.
You may not agree with David on this point, but at least he has put forward a different strategy than the failed policy of the gay organizations. So, just read the whole thing!
I like the idea of doing what they did in a European country. Pass a law that says, “Wherever you read ‘marriage’ in the civil code, it now reads ‘civil unions’.” That would get rid of the issue of “marriages” having rights that “civil unions” don’t in states that have managed to at least get those passed. It also nullifies any standing that the religious right has on arguing about the redefinition of marriage.
I can’t believe this is the first time you’ve ever considered this. I am 100% opposed to Gay “Marriage” but 100% supportive of Rights for Same-Sex Couples. The usage of the word Marriage is my problem.
“Marriage” is a Religous Rite, Not a Consitutional Right. Therefore the State can not dictate “Marriage” as a Right. For me this is a Separation of Church and State issue. Going further IF the state were to violate the consitution and interfere with matters of the Church, declaring Marriage a Right. The Church would be vunerable to lawsuits for refusing to grant a “marriage” to life long parishoners.
Call it ‘Mutual Committment” and I’m in….
I concur that the “M” word is being beaten to death, but add that it is suffering by actions pursued by BOTH sides. If more effort were placed on promoting the concept of stability that a “mutual commitment” offers, more people would be receptive to the idea.
A personal friend, who is a staunch Catholic (and Conservative) agrees on this point and concedes that his primary concern for our community is not so much its orientation as is its flagrant promiscuity. Promotion of stable relationships would bring many more to the discussion than are willing to concede the “M” word.
Why do ‘mutual commitments’ have to stop at just same-sex partnerships? Wouldn’t the path to legal recognition be easier, and more palatable to the wider community, if the term was inclusive of all primary interdependent relationships? Whether it’s two siblings or two kin, or just two close friends, etc, if they live together permanently and rely on each other for the same kind of emotional and financial support as a regular couple, then shouldn’t that relationship receive equality before the law, ie for purposes of tax, probate, pension and the like? Who says we have to “gay marriage” at all, and why?
I think that limiting the issue to same-sex partnerships is in itself quite discriminatory and exclusive.
As an active “Mormon” I would like to comment on this post. I have read and enjoyed this ‘blog’ from some time. I have also given a lot of thought to this issue.
I agree with the assertion that the tact and agenda of the LGBT community’s pursuit of ‘Gay Marriage’ has been far more damaging and counterproductive to the true goals it seeks.
Personally, I take no issue with the desire for two consenting adults, regardless of gender pairing, to enter into a civil partnership that would extend the same privileges to that companionship that I and my wife enjoy, as recognized by the state.
In fact, in light of recent months, I would safely say that I am opposed to the concept of State Recognized ‘Gay Marriage’ just as much as I am opposed to the current State Recognized ‘Straight Marriage’.
Let me explain . . . my feeling is that the State has no business defining the concept of marriage. This is a personal, religious, secular . . . anything but state related issue.
Regardless of gender pairing, the state should only be capable of extending privileges related to civil partnerships. The End.
Why? To start, when the state recognize and honor civil benefits of ‘Gay Marriage’ as they currently do ‘Straight Marriage’ then the state, by default, actually recognizes those benefits as being a function of ‘Marriage – Regardless of Gender Pairing’.
In that moment, if any group or organization, religious or otherwise, does not accommodate and/or offer services for same sex pairings as they currently do for heterosexual pairings IS guilty of discrimination. It’s the definition of discrimination!
What is to be done? One must protect the freedom of religion and at the same time allow equitable access to civilly extended privileges to all citizens.
The answer is quite simple. The state has NO authority to assign or extend it’s benefits by the proxy of ‘Marriage’ at all. The state should only be capable of assigning a certificate of civil partnership to a two person pair, regardless of gender, orientation, etc.
Brother/Mother, Sister/Cousin or Lover/Lover. A two person pair can apply for the state recognized partnership and file taxes, add one to health plans, whatever. If the partnership is dissolved, so to the benefits therein. One can only be associated with on such partnership and dissolution would be required prior to any new arrangement.
Marriage then can exist within the confines of freedom of religion or freedom of no religion. If the Catholics or Mormons won’t provide marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, then another organization is very much free to do so. Atheists, secularists, whomever, from all walks of life can establish and define marriage as they see fit and as they feel the need to organize.
Many falsely assume that as a Mormon, I oppose ‘Gay Marriage’ based on religious ideology. If my faith is true, then that faith is completely unaffected by the desires or wishes of a same sex couple. They have no bearing on that faith.
Ironically, at the heart of the Mormon faith is a core belief that all of us are bound in a familial relationship with our Creator and retain a God given right of free choice. Regardless of arguments of right or wrong or ideology of one faith to another, free agency is the part of the inherited bond that connect us all.
In that belief of agency and free choice, if there be two individuals who choose to enter into a living partnership, regardless of gender, etc., then I support the idea that they should have equal access to the same civil benefits that the State has extended to my companionship.
I am opposed to the concept of ‘Gay Marriage’, as recognized and defined by the State, because I foresee that there will certainly be those who will continue to legislate beyond the good faith of the LBGT community such that my religion, and other similarly minded organizations, will be held out as discriminatory for failing to provide services that would proxy for the new State recognized unions of same sex couples.
Render that which is Caesar’s unto Caesar. Caesar gets Civil Partnerships and the Citizenry get the rest . . . as we see fit.
Major word. I’ve been saying this to everyone I know when they flock to moi — token gay extraordinaire — to ask how I feel on Prop 8 or “gay marriage v. civil unions” or what-have-you.
I don’t care if the government gives me a card that says “Official Fudgepackers Anonymous Member” if it guarantees the same civic rights under State and Federal law. A word is a word, and gay rights activists need to learn to see the forest through the trees.
In the Midwest, NO state offers ANYTHING similar to the CA DP registry, or civil unions. The name of the license doesn’t matter — the rights afforded by the license do.
What we really don’t need is more semantics- we got enough of that out of the Obama campaign. Gay couples ought to be every right and benefit afforded to heterosexual couples, no matter what you call it.
-AOP
ageofpericles.blogspot.com
Just listened to Hugh Hewitt debate this issue with a Prof. Darmer, it became very quickly to me that the Prof. (and the powers that be in the gay leadership) are unwilling to accept any kind of compromise.
Whereas religious people like G. Gold and other conservatives are desperately looking for a workable solution for gays – without destroying the traditional definition of marriage.
Those of us who are pragmatic would love to see a compromise, because we want to benefit actual human beings. The other side really proves Charles Shultz’s famous saying: I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand.
Wouldn’t the path to legal recognition be easier, and more palatable to the wider community, if the term was inclusive of all primary interdependent relationships? Whether it’s two siblings or two kin, or just two close friends, etc, if they live together permanently and rely on each other for the same kind of emotional and financial support as a regular couple, then shouldn’t that relationship receive equality before the law, ie for purposes of tax, probate, pension and the like?
On some things yes, on some things no.
The question you are asking is a good one, and there really is no reason that these prepackaged healthcare/welfare/financial proxies, which is basically what they are, could not be offered to a wider range of people.
However, what needs to be kept paramount is that marriage, as it is designed, is built around the idea of an opposite-sex couple producing and raising their own children. As long as it can be realized that these other relationships are not that, have different needs, and thus would have different proxy packages, THEN you are absolutely correct. The problem with the gay left is that they cannot recognize their relationships and their demands are inherently different than that of procreative heterosexual couples.
I agree, have states recognize unions, and allow churches to have exclusive property over marriage.
“”Marriage†is a Religous Rite, Not a Consitutional Right.”
It always amazes when people say this. Since the state recognizes “marriages,” they are a civil matter as much as a religious matter. A marriage, by law, does not require any church to endorse it. Only by having states recognize ‘unions’ can you leave marriage as the exclusive property of the church.
This idea has been floating around for quite some time, and it amazes me that it hasn’t gained support of both sides. It really is a way to resolve the situation with minimal hostility.
“The problem with the gay left is that they cannot recognize their relationships and their demands are inherently different than that of procreative heterosexual couples.”
What about the demands of non-procreative heterosexual couples? No one asks them to step into an alternate relationship format because they decide to forgo on procreation or on raising children.
Civil unions are fine with me as long as they have all the rights of marriage, including inter-state portability. The strike of a pen saying, “where you see marriage it now reads civil unions” works fine for me. I have yet to see a conservative propose that.
Go for it, Kenneth Starr! Whatever happened to decency in America? Prop 8 rules. Majority rules, as well – that is democracy, which is exactly what the USA is about.
What about the demands of non-procreative heterosexual couples? No one asks them to step into an alternate relationship format because they decide to forgo on procreation or on raising children.
If you were given the names of a heterosexual couple — just the names and genders — you would be unable to predict with any accuracy whether or not they would be unable to produce a child that is biologically both of theirs. However, you can be given the names of a homosexual couple — just the names and genders — and be able to predict with 100% accuracy that they would be unable to produce a child that is biologically both of theirs.
THAT is the difference. THAT is why homosexual and heterosexual couples are not the same.
They need a new logo too!.
Seriously, whose brilliant idea was it to represent gay marriage with a big gay rainbow fist??? Did Sully design it himself? Brings whole new meaning to the phrase, “I take your hand”
Mr Moderate,
1. You are trying to compare apples to oranges unfortunately. A straight couple that does not want or even cant have children today is by no means guaranteed not to want children or be able to later. My sister was adamantly opposed to having kids for years, decades actually, until her biological clock finally caught up with her last year. She is now a mother. And we all have heard of straight couples who “cant” have children, who suddenly get pregnant to everyones surprise. NO gay couple, anywhere, can ever, under any circumstances ever procreate, because it takes a man and a woman to procreate (I cant believe this has to be explained to full grown adults). And for that reason marriage requires 1 adult man and 1 adult woman who are not related to eachother, and no other pairing of any kind is allowed to marry.
You have the same civic rights to enter into the marriage institution. Many love to say how there is no fertility test to get married, but there is a basic biological compatibility test, you have to be a couple that includes one member from each sex necessary to procreate. Yet those same people think the institution is about “love” and therefore they should be able to marry the person they love. But there truly is NO love test in order to marry — precisely because the state interest has nothing to do with romantic love between adults.
The problem with the gay left is that they cannot recognize their relationships and their demands are inherently different than that of procreative heterosexual couples.
NDT, a couple of things here. There are a couple of people on the gay right on this site that support same sex marriage, and have countered your rationale for opposing same sex marriage as well.
Also, what most people recognize is that just about every couple is different. Sure, a good percentage of heterosexual couples can and do procreate. But there is also a significant percentage that don’t. But yet, we still encourage marriages for such couples. No one says, “Gee, I don’t want to change the laws, and sure we can’t tell by genders alone that this couple was infertile or didn’t want to procreate, but dang, what are they getting married for?” Far from it.
THAT is the difference. THAT is why homosexual and heterosexual couples are not the same.
We can all make up arbitrary differences here, NDT. We know with 100% accuracy that a couple in which the woman is over 60 has a 0% chance in having children, yet we still encourage such couples to marry.
A straight couple that does not want or even cant have children today is by no means guaranteed not to want children or be able to later.
That’s true, AmericanElephant. So couples such as these can have domestic partnerships or civil unions until they decide that they are able to have children. Further, it doesn’t change the fact that a woman past menopause can no longer have children the natural way. So such couples can also have domestic partnerships or civil unions too.
Many love to say how there is no fertility test to get married, but there is a basic biological compatibility test, you have to be a couple that includes one member from each sex necessary to procreate.
Again, that is false. As we saw, not all heterosexual couple can or want to procreate. Yet the state still allows them to get married.
Yet those same people think the institution is about “love†and therefore they should be able to marry the person they love.
It may not have begun that way, but that’s the institution that most are familiar with. Yes, the obvious tradition of marriage is one man and one woman, and it may have begun with the notion that children will follow in most cases. But, in time, marriage became less about property rights and ownership, and more about love between the two people. Since it was tradition that this love was between members of the opposite sex, marriage was granted even if the couples were infertile and/or had no interest in having children.
One area we’re we somewhat agree is that it is up to the people to decide who gets to marry. We’re we disagree is the rationale that people use to deny same sex couples marriage rights. These include religious beliefs and/or an ick factor. Sure, people will state the familiar “a man and a woman can procreate, and a same sex couple can’t.” But yet, still encourage infertile couples marry. So I don’t buy that rationale.
G. Gold #5, even though we disagree, you’ve made good points. First of all, I wouldn’t want the state to enforce churches to marry couples whom they wouldn’t want to recognize as a couple. And I get your point about having state recognition of civil unions vs. marriage for religious institutions. The problem is that Prop. 8 banned marriage for only same sex unions and not opposite sex unions. The Mormon and other churches did not oppose state recognition of marriage for opposite sex couples, and I haven’t heard money being spent to eliminate all state recognition of marriage. There are opposite sex couples who don’t subscribe to the Mormon (or other) belief of what marriage is, yet again, such churches don’t oppose the state recognition of these marriages.
Dan, what’s interesting about David Benkof is that he is, or even more so, hung up on the term marriage. However, I agree that under the circumstances, his suggestion on where we should focus may be right on. Marriage will work out fine in the near future in a handful of states, including California, but not so for many others. I think the ones that do hold out for the term marriage see that countries like Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and even Spain, with same sex marriage, and would like to see the U.S. at the forefront as well. But that isn’t happening any time soon, as Jonathan Rauch suggested.
NDT and American Elephant,
The only time people equate marriage solely with procreation is when the whole gay topic comes up. Our modern society has not treated marriage as a, “well let’s try to procreate so we should get married.” That threshold is relatively new. An old man and a post-menopausal woman have no ability to bring a child into the world beyond which a gay couple would, but they both could adopt if they wanted to. The threshold you have setup for gay couples doesn’t apply to them, but why?
I’m not one of those people that is wrapped around the “m” word argument as long as the civil unions statutes that are put in place truly present the same rights as marriages. However this procreation rationalization for not using the “m” word just doesn’t hold up.
“But there truly is NO love test in order to marry — precisely because the state interest has nothing to do with romantic love between adults.”
There is no test period. Their isn’t a procreative test either, as you point out. The only test, does one have a penis and does one have a vagina. Whether those two organs alone or together have the potential to create a child (perhaps the man is sterile and/or the woman had a hysterectomy) is irrelevant to the issuing of a marriage certificate. I’m not arguing that it should, but your notion that marriage is solely a function of the hopeful biological conclusion of producing a child doesn’t hold up in modern times.
Pat (and a couple of other commenters), I think the definition of marriage is larger than about procreative heterosexual coupling on its own. Above that, it’s a cornerstone institution of society, one of the foundations on which the rest is built – and which is why it’s important to maintain it. If the definition is changed to cover other situations, it’s no longer what it was, and the precedent is set for further changes. It becomes no longer ‘Marriage’, with all that means and sustains, but an ideological contrivance. Over the last few decades, we’ve seen how many progressive policies begin with the best of intentions but often have unforeseen ramifications (such as the welfare state, political correctness or human rights bills.)
Bear in mind, we lose nothing by having gay unions instead of gay marriage.
We can all make up arbitrary differences here, NDT. We know with 100% accuracy that a couple in which the woman is over 60 has a 0% chance in having children, yet we still encourage such couples to marry.
Of course you can, Pat. But the difference is that you must manipulate age, individual fertility status, choice, and whatnot to “prove” that heterosexuals cannot procreate, while I can simply demonstrate that homosexuals, regardless of age, individual fertility status, and choice cannot procreate under ANY circumstances.
Furthermore, in order to make your definition of “marriage” work, you must completely ignore children and societal benefits and make marriage completely about the sexual gratification of adults. That is indicative of the gay community’s attitude, which cares nothing about society or children and is only concerned with narcissistic self interest — an attitude which is neither healthy or useful to society.
There is no test period.
Correction. There are blood tests, age tests, and existing-relationship tests, all of which interfere with what you argue is an “inalienable right” to marry whatever or whomever to which you are sexually attracted/”love”.
In order to be consistent, you must abolish these bans or admit that sexual gratification/”love” is not sufficient grounds to grant marriage — and if you admit that sexual gratification/”love” is not sufficient grounds to grant marriage, you have no argument.
Ross, I would say we lose very little, but gain a lot if gay unions were recognized federally. But keep in mind that marriage has changed a lot of the past 2000 years or so. And now we’re debating whether another change will be beneficial. I believe it will, not just to gay persons who wish to marry, but society as a whole. At this point a majority do not believe as such, in most states, hence no same sex marriage, or even civil unions.
Pat #17 – I will confess that initially, Prop 8 did not settle well with me, despite my beliefs and faith. While, as I understand it, Prop 8 did not ‘ban’ gay marriage, but instead sought to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman, the end result is the same and the rest is just semantics. This issue is being polluted by semantics.
My real question is this. Why must the State define what marriage is when they simply are recognizing civil privileges via the institution of marriage, plus a state form currently called a marriage license. Cut out the middleman I say.
If we are to be equitable on this issue, then the act of marriage should not allow ANYONE to receive State related benefits. The state should instead require ALL OF US to request, sign and honor a separate contract. Enter the Certificate of Civil Union. For EVERY partnered companionship.
This allows us all to then create and define for ourselves what marriage is . . . or isn’t for that matter. We don’t need the state defining marriage . . . that is for us, under our freedoms to assemble or to establish our own religion. Mormons won’t marry gays? No problem, gay Mormons have the same rights to freedom of religion and assembly. They can do so, as they see fit. The state shouldn’t care because it has it’s own mechanism for assigning state benefits, completely independent of marriage. I certainly shouldn’t care either, because we all share the very same freedom to define marriage as we see it.
As for my faith, I certainly believe in the concept of marriage being between Man and Woman, however, as long as we all have to engage the State for the same Cert. of Civil Partnership, then what I call marriage doesn’t have to agree with another consenting adult’s opinion on that matter.
I would never be put out if a same sex couple referred to each other as Husband, Wife or whatever. Because that would be defined by them . . not me, not my religion and most importantly, not the state.
So, back to Prop 8. I don’t pretend to understand why each person would support it. Some reasons are obvious, however, for me, it came down to what I posted earlier. If the State uses the act of marriage to assign State benefits, regardless of gender pairing, then every religion, organization or group that currently accommodates heterosexual couples with even the most basic of marriage services that are recognized as valid by the State could be found guilty of discrimination if they do not provide similar accommodations for same sex couples.
How that would play out is an adventure in conjecture, certainly, but I don’t see it going so well. I foresee the flood gates will be opened to lawsuits a plenty. And as much as I am open about the same civil benefits for all adult partnerships, I absolutely draw the line when I feel that a potential sequence of events will threaten my . . . our freedoms of religion.
This goes back to my initial post about the counter productive results of the litigation efforts of some in the LGBT community. The question that could be asked is . . . Would Prop 8 have even existed if not for the ‘Judicial Legislation’ that has occurred?
I don’t presume to know, however, I’ve asked myself, if I were a member of the LGBT community how would I what the issue pursued?. So far, I would not be happy with the direction of that effort or its results. There is a better way.
I have discussed this with even the more ‘strict’ of my Mormon friends and while they would never compromise on the belief that marriage is between a Man and Woman, they’ve not taken issue with two things . . . Equal civil benefits for same sex couples and the freedom to define marriage and it’s corresponding ceremonies, etc as each consenting adult sees fit.
The LGBT community does need new leadership if it’s goals are to be realized. At least as I see it.
I can simply demonstrate that homosexuals, regardless of age, individual fertility status, and choice cannot procreate under ANY circumstances.
NDT, I can simply demonstrate that persons over 60, regardless of gender, cannot procreate under ANY circumstances.
Furthermore, in order to make your definition of “marriage†work, you must completely ignore children and societal benefits and make marriage completely about the sexual gratification of adults.
Not really. First of all, any couple who chooses to marry can decide whether they want to have children, be it by procreation, adoption, or other means. Heterosexual couples also have chosen the latter two over procreation, and were not denied marriage benefits for doing so. As for couples who choose to and/or are not able to procreate, we don’t deny marriage, unless they are of the same gender.
If you, or anyone else, supports marriage only for opposite sex couples because of the potential of procreation, I can understand that. But if that’s the basis, you should encourage all couples who cannot or choose not to procreate to not marry, and settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships. In fact, we have one Republican legislator who basically believes that, but realistic that it’s not going to happen. I disagree with his position, but at least he’s being consistent, and not being arbitrary. As far as I know, you believe it is okay for infertile opposite sex couples or couples who do not want to have children to marry. Because these people, as you would say and according to your view, are completely ignoring children and societal benefits.
G. Gold, thanks for your response. Again, you’ve made excellent points, and I agree with most of them. Including
The LGBT community does need new leadership if it’s goals are to be realized. At least as I see it.
Where I disagree with you is the following:
I absolutely draw the line when I feel that a potential sequence of events will threaten my . . . our freedoms of religion.
I guess we each have our own freedoms that we’re concerned about. First of all, you’ve mentioned semantics. It goes both ways. As for the slippery slope, I don’t believe that would change the Mormon (or any other) church’s rights to decide who they believe is fit for marriage. In fact, I figure that the Mormon church will themselves agree to marry their gay members long before a government coerces the church to do so, because it will come from within the congregation. No, it won’t be in my lifetime, I’m guessing, but I believe it will happen. And even if I’m wrong about the coercion, simply calling it marriage or not marriage will not affect whether the government decides that the Mormon church to perform same sex civil union or marriage ceremonies.
Majority rules, as well – that is democracy, which is exactly what the USA is about.
You’ve GOT to be kidding me. The USA is anything but a democracy. It is a representative Republic with government divided into legislative, judicial, and executive branches which exist for a reason: to check abuses by the other and to protect the minority and the majority from oppression by the other.
Pat,
No you cant.
But even if no elderly couples were having children in any way (and I would encourage them not to) Allowing all men and women to marry does not change the definition of the institution. Many gays appear to be very bitter (not saying you are) that there is a general formula to which they do not qualify and so are demanding that since THEY dont qualify, the formula must be more specific to exclude more people. That is faulty logic.
Moreover, even straight couples who cannot reproduce have something that gay couples do not, a member of each sex, which enables even infertile couples to become the closest facsimile to the ideal of a biological mother and a biological father possible.
Every argument by the proponents of gay marriage is predicated on the idea that society doesn’t have the right to hold up an ideal and must engage in moral relativism. Unfortunately for gays, this is not only false, but they lose the moral relativism argument as well.
Pat,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. You are confusing the reasons people WANT to get married with society’s interest in marriage. They are not the same.
There are millions of different reasons people get married, most get married for love, some get married because all their friends are married, some for money, some get married for security, others get married because their families arranged it. But society’s interest in marriage is the same in ALL cases: procreation and the welfare of the next generation.
And here’s the fallacy of your argument laid bare: adults are adults, they can manage their love lives and decide what is best for themselves on their own. The state has no business, and no interest whatsoever in trying to keep couples who dont want to remain together together UNLESS children are involved or the institution set up to ensure the welfare of children is involved.
Creating a new human life is not an “arbitrary” difference! Notice how the entire gay marriage argument requires negating the importance of children and child rearing! And that is exactly why allowing gay marriage is harmful to society. In order for a type of relationship that cannot by definition procreate to be included in marriage, the institution must be one thats purpose is centered on adults and cannot by definition be an institution thats purpose centers on the welfare of the next generation. It is a logical requirement.
Thats because you are guilty of what I described in the response to Pat. You dont like that there is a general formula for which you do not qualify, so you demand that the formula must become more specific and must exclude more people. It is a logical fallacy.
The benefit marriage provides to society is that it promotes a situation where children are born INTO a legally binding relationship between their biological mother and father.
If we could get every man and woman in America to marry a person of the opposite sex, EVERY child would be born into this ideal, protective, legally binding relationship. Allowing EVERY American to marry a person of the opposite sex strengthens that formula and that institution — saying OTHER alternative arrangements not consistent with that formula to be treated as though they are just as preferably as that formula weakens the formula, indeed, it NEGATES the formula because the alternative arrangements are inconsistent with the purpose.
I’m fine with civil unions for now as long as all the same rights, responsibilities and protections are afforded to them as marriage – and as long as they are available in ALL 50 states. Chris Crain has talked about a proposal from Obama on that – though I don’t believe The One for a second. For me Prop 8 was about this patchwork quilt we have in the USA where some states are virulently anti-gay, some are lukewarm, etc. I’m tired of that.
“Marriage†is a Religous Rite, Not a Consitutional Right. Therefore the State can not dictate “Marriage†as a Right. For me this is a Separation of Church and State issue.
This argument really, REALLY bugs me. The fact that you would refer to the First Amendment while allowing it to be violated at the same time is stunning. If this truly is about “Separation of Church and State” to you, then why is the government recognizing marriage at all for anyone? If the government has no business saying that CIVIL marriage is a “right” then why aren’t Prop 8 supporters clamoring for the repeal of Loving v. Virginia which categorically states that marriage is a right? No, this is about gays getting married and that’s it. At least be upfront and honest about what bothers you about this instead of trying to sugarcoat it.
Going further IF the state were to violate the consitution and interfere with matters of the Church, declaring Marriage a Right.
By that logic the State already does this by declaring divorced persons who tie the knot married, persons of various blood relations married (this depends upon what State the marriage occurs in), and even by prohibiting polygamous marriages.
The Church would be vunerable to lawsuits for refusing to grant a “marriage†to life long parishoners.
Has SCOTUS found the Catholic Church liable because it refuses to perform marriages for divorced persons? No. This is a specious argument.
The other side really proves Charles Shultz’s famous saying: I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand.
Frankly Leah, I see this applicable to both sides in this. The Yes on 8 Campaign flat-out lied when it said that the 18,000 marriages performed before the vote wouldn’t be affected, yet now are seeking to have them annulled. The religious right have pulled every sneaky, lying, underhanded trick in this to make me utterly despise their leadership. Does this exonerate the shenaningans from gay activists? Absolutely not. Yet I fail to see much difference between them.
No, there is are several tests actually, ALL of which have to do with procreation and prove the institution is meant to center around procreation.
1. There must be one member of each sex necessary to procreate.
2. The two parties cannot be directly related to one another precisely because that kind of procreation causes birth defects.
On another note, this is why the slippery slope argument IS correct. As you and others are proving, in order for gay marriage to be included, the institution cannot be an institution about procreation.
If the institution cannot be about procreation, then the other restrictions having to do with procreation must necessarily fall as well.
If the institution cannot be about procreation, then the other restrictions having to do with procreation must necessarily fall as well.
When infertility or at the refusal to have children was removed as a barrier to marriage, the institution was changed.
Hey guys I just wanted to disagree with a reaction to my piece that is common above: that what we really need are civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, or that we need to do away with all civil marriage and have civil unions for everyone. The problem with those plans, as appealing as they are, is they are pie-in-the-sky in terms of passage *today* in places like Texas and Nebraska. Traditionalist conservatives (and I admit it, I’m one) are uninterested in any plan that treats same-sex couples as the moral or legal equivalent of opposite-sex couples. I know I am. But through the Salt Lake City Plan all the non-symbolic distress of same-sex couples (insurance, inheritance, Social Security, custody, taxes, hospital visitation) can be relieved, and it can be relieved today.
The fact that most gays and lesbians are uninterested just demonstrates something I said repeatedly on my blog last summer – LGBT folks aren’t interested in benefits, they’re interested in a self-esteem boost. They might get it in already pro-gay places like Connecticut, but by insisting on it in places like Georgia and Virginia, same-sex couples in those places get absolutely nothing, and nobody seems to shed a tear for them (except me).
Yet I fail to see much difference between them.
I see one major difference: We’re the good guys. They’re the bad guys. We are on the side of positive social change. They are the forces of reaction. They hate gays more than they love America. They hide behind their churches and mosques to spew hate and bile. All claims that this is anything other than hate and bile ring hollow.
AmericanElephant, I responded to your posts, but it was caught in the filter. It should be at or around post 35.
So instead, you seek an “ego boost” for “traditionalists”? Yeah, okay. Your supposed tears for gay couples in Virginia are crocodile ones as even this arrangement you propose is banned by constitutional amendment. Social cons have made it quite clear that any arrangement at all is unacceptable and in those states where they legally put this view into law they have, while lying through their teeth about doing this in states that are more gay friendly. If they could the exact same amendment in 19 states, of which Virginia is one, that banned all arrangements would be enacted in California, Connecticutt, Massachusetts, etc. Yet they knew it wouldn’t pass so lied, just like Yes on 8 did when it came to the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before Prop 8. Before they claimed they wouldn’t be effected, now they seek to have them annulled. I don’t trust your “traditionalist” leaders because they are two-faced and break their own principles.
I can accept civil unions for now and leave marriage to the next generation to figure out, but only if all the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage are part of the deal. Add portability to all 50 states to this as well.
I see one major difference: We’re the good guys. They’re the bad guys.
Perhaps. Yet there are “bad guys” among us as well and our so-called leaders are inept, arrogant and bumbling fools. I give social cons props for at least having better leaders and some no doubt truly believe that they are the good guys in this along with what they are doing as being right. It’s frustrating but let’s not be blind to the facts as they exist.
Since traditional marriage is to be shredded to encompass same sex marriage, I thought I would drop by with my man and goat theme. In the spirit of Dr. Seuss questioning who speaks for the Truffula Trees, I will speak for polygamy, clan house marriage and a man and his goat.
1) When is a minority too small or too out of line to consider having its itch scratched?
2) When does a behavior that is largely shunned by the majority become a protected right?
3) Adding to #2, when does a behavior that is largely shunned by the majority and has become a protected right also take on the mantle of being equivalent to the majority behavior?
Obviously, I am subjecting same sex marriage to the approval of the society as a whole. Ergo, in the minds of some, I am “clearly” saying that same sex marriage is inferior. Actually, I am saying that same sex marriage is unacceptable.
Same sex couples can shack up to their heart’s content. They can even have multiple partners. Society has largely been “educated” to look the other way.
The man and his goat theme is valuable because it is true. The Islamists have rules about what one must do with the goat after sex. They are very analytical and largely practical about the whole “affair.” Which only proves that grown men can rise to any occasion for making laws and dispensing “justice.” (Islamic law “screws” the goat, however, and she has no rights whatsoever.)
Why shouldn’t we seriously consider a man marrying a woman and another man? The “B” in GBLT should be served up a full plate of gratification.
Some here have decided that Rick Warren is a bigot because he holds to the belief that GBLT folks are sinners. I think that bigotry should be made of meaner stuff. When a person will reach out to others, but still hold back in the eyes of the others, that is a lot different from targeting the other with hate and derision.
If gays were to be promoting civil unions, they would still have an uphill battle in some states, but nothing compared to the battle of same sex marriage.
Meanwhile, many gays pretend that same sex marriage is the last frontier for perfect harmony with society as a whole. And then a man and his goat show up at the mall and he objects to the looks he and his mate are getting.
Same sex couples can shack up to their heart’s content. They can even have multiple partners. Society has largely been “educated†to look the other way.
Heliotrope, let me understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying that you personally don’t approve of same sex relationships, even monogamous ones, but are willing to look the other way? If so, then I understand your opposition to same sex marriage.
That’s pretty much Warren’s argument. He basically equates even gay monogamy with straight promiscuity. So I can understand why he opposes same sex marriage.
Some here have decided that Rick Warren is a bigot because he holds to the belief that GBLT folks are sinners. I think that bigotry should be made of meaner stuff. When a person will reach out to others, but still hold back in the eyes of the others, that is a lot different from targeting the other with hate and derision.
Indeed. Yet this isn’t so much about Warren’s religious beliefs concerning same-sex couples but his seeking to impose them on others through force of law. If we did this in every situation where one religious group saw something others did or believed as being sinful, then ALL of us would be in danger. Add to this the fact that when religion and politics are enmeshed so closely, BOTH suffer because of it. Why do you think this brings out such visceral reactions from all sides? This is not the same as my saying that liberal policies on government spending, for example, are wrong because they do not work. No, when you bring God into politics to this degree, declare a “Culture War” which the social cons happily do, that ratchets up the rhetoric to such a degree that the compromise our nation is built upon become near-impossible to reach.
If gays were to be promoting civil unions, they would still have an uphill battle in some states, but nothing compared to the battle of same sex marriage.
This very statement here is exactly why I consider the social cons to be nothing more than disigenuous liars. Why would it be an “uphill battle”? Is this about supposedly protecting the sanctity of marriage or about gays in general? If the social cons have shown us anything, it is the latter and it is all about their views on God which they want to impose on the rest of us. You’ll continue having victories in the short-term with this but in the long-run social cons are going to seriously regret having waged a fight like this.
John-
You’re simply wrong that “all arrangements” would be banned in states with constitutional amendments that ban domestic partnerships along with marriage. The Salt Lake City plan is working in Utah; that’s exactly the point. I do not believe the government should reward or celebrate any couple because they’re having gay sex; I believe gay sex is immoral. However, I believe lots of same-sex romantic couples along with other couples of the same- or opposite sex have distress (such as no hospital visitation rights) that can be relieved by policies that are utterly neutral as to whether the couple are gay lovers or not.
I’m sure you think gay sex is moral and deserves celebration by the government. Well, whoop-dee-doo. We disagree. That’s not the issue. The issue is what can pass, and right now, the Salt Lake City plan is the only plan that relieves the distress of same-sex (and other) couples that could pass nationwide.
That’s the point.
You’re simply wrong that “all arrangements†would be banned in states with constitutional amendments that ban domestic partnerships along with marriage.
No, I’m right. That’s exactly what happened in Virginia. This is also what happened in other states like Michigan and Ohio where the lying bastards from the religious right immediately went after the very things you claim to want to allow gay couples to have. Simply put, your side has shown it’s true colors and I do not trust you. You lie and have broken every principle you claim to uphold.
I’m sure you think gay sex is moral and deserves celebration by the government. Well, whoop-dee-doo. We disagree.
That’s the problem with folks like you: it’s always about sex. Uh…no. This is about legal protections and benefits for same-sex couples, the same thing heterosexuals take for granted. I could care less what you or the government think about same-sex relations. Feel free to make of it whatever you wish.
42.
John, I’m going to be unusually vulgar. You’re full of shit. That has -not- happened in Ohio, as I’m well aware of, since I LIVE HERE.
Try actually getting some facts before you argue with people who have a clue.
The Religious Wrong is nothing but a group of bigoted slime. I will never listen to your arguments. I’ve heard it all before. Lies, damned lies, and made-up statistics.
As a gay man I believe heterosexual sex is viscerally disgusting, but I cannot in good conscience use that visceral disgust as basis for public policy. Hetero supremacists have no such qualms, that’s why they are hetero supremacists.
You will not take away our rights any more. Get out of our way.
John-
You’re really, really missing the point. Of course, you don’t care what I think about gay sex, and you think it should be irrelevant. But I think it’s relevant, and millions of Americans – probably a majority, certainly enough of a segment to prevent nationwide gay-unions-recognition – also think it’s relevant.
So let’s do something – now – to help those individuals who choose someone other than a spouse to be the person to receive social security, inheritance, custody, and other benefits.
But nooo…. the gay community is so caught up on the ego boost of being told their relationships are equal (which they’re not), that they refuse any arrangement to help gay and other couples in the 1/3 of the country where even domestic partnerships are barred (barred due to the gay rush to litigate in the first place).
Or you’ll go to your room and pout Attmay? Feh, I read V the K’s posts, and then yours. It doesn’t take a genius to find the hate filled bigot.
Oh and forgot, Attmay’s hatred and wish to deny anyone marriage if he doesn’t get it, is on display in the linked blog post.
Oh, here’s what your “friend” David Benkof believes, GPW:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/david-benkof-behind-the-mask
With friends like this who needs enemies?
So let’s do something – now – to help those individuals who choose someone other than a spouse to be the person to receive social security, inheritance, custody, and other benefits.
Great. Let’s take the proposal from Obama and pass Federal Civil Unions. Oh lemme guess: The One has proposed this so it must be bad. Eh, skeptic that I am of Obama I can actually understand such reasoning but then again even a broken clock…yadda, yadda. The simple fact remains, David, that I don’t believe you so whatever “deal” you think you may strike with me is one I find to be as baseless and as much of a lie as the rest your side has been spreading.
John, I’m going to be unusually vulgar. You’re full of shit. That has -not- happened in Ohio, as I’m well aware of, since I LIVE HERE.
Try actually getting some facts before you argue with people who have a clue.
I’m irked that I have to quote Rosie, but Google it, Livewire. Why just a cursory search brought this choice tidbit from ADF:
http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/ohio/index.html
Next add “domestic violence laws” to your search…
The religious right uses every deception and lie it can in imposing its agenda. Rather like the extreme Left they criticize, making them nothing more than two sides of the same coin.
This is also what happened in other states like Michigan and Ohio where the lying bastards from the religious right immediately went after the very things you claim to want to allow gay couples to have.
You are aware, John, that the case you cited, Brinkman v. Miami University, found that Miami University offering domestic partner benefits did NOT violate Ohio’s constitutional amendment? Furthermore, perhaps had you read the Michigan case brief, you would have realized that the reason the University of Michigan’s doing so was illegal was because it required registering with a governmental entity, rather than simply an affadavit; indeed, the court specifically stated that, if it were not for that requirement of a registered domestic partnership from a governmental entity, the program would have been perfectly legal.
Furthermore, John, if filing lawsuits is a problem to you, why have you not condemned gays who file lawsuits against churches and religious organizations? According to your logic, that would prove gays are lying when they say that they will not try to force churches to do their bidding.
You are aware, John, that the case you cited, Brinkman v. Miami University, found that Miami University offering domestic partner benefits did NOT violate Ohio’s constitutional amendment?
Yes. Miss the forest but for the trees as per your usual, NDT? Why was this raised in the first place? Scroll up back bud I’m tired of doing your homework.
Awww, poor Johny got shot down by his own siting *laugh*
Again, I live here, I read the DOMA before I voted FOR it, and I’ve followed its aftermath. *yawn* And you claim we’re missing the forrest for the trees?
Livewire, I refuse to believe you are that obtuse. I give you credit for greater intuity, have I erred? I was aware of the resolution of the Miami U case prior to posting a link to ADF’s site but the outcome wasn’t the point. If you’ll recall, you objected to my saying that the religious right groups lied and took action after successfully getting amendments passed in states that they told the press beforehand they wouldn’t do or that the amendment supposedly didn’t effect. I mentioned this happening in Michigan and Ohio, the latter of which you challenged me on. I gave you what you asked for and even gave you points on how to find more via Google when it came to Ohio’s amendment & their domestic violence laws. What you do with that from this point is up to you but acting like a whiney little bitch hardly validates your erroneous challenge. The religious right lied. QED.
#39 Pat asks me:
I do not disapprove of same sex relationships. My religion says they are sinful. I believe they are sinful. But, as a sinner, I am more worried about me than jumping on “them.” A gay is welcome in my religion as a person seeking God, but not as a gay and his partner.
You will never catch me tossing Bible references because they are not the authority to reason that a non religious person cares a whit over. I associate my thoughts with Rick Warren because he will love, care for, lift up, respect, and admire a person who is gay. Not because he is gay, but because he is one of God’s children.
As long as gays “out” other gays, I do not see how society in general is ever going to look upon gays without the asterisk. The asterisk being: oh, he’s gay. That is a differentiating statement that is not the same as being black or Muslim or retarded. It is how one goes about sex.
I have close friends who are monogamous gays and celibate. They confuse me greatly. I do not understand celibacy in terms other than a commitment for a higher purpose. I understand and respect that they love one another and that they are attracted to men. But without the sex, in my view, they are not really gay.
We have plenty of gays working in our hospital. But being gay is totally incidental to what they do. A favorite gay nurse tells me that when he runs into a patient who is uncomfortable with him, he gets someone else to take the room. As he explains it, he is more committed to the patient’s well being than he is in any biases floating around.
He is my role model. He puts his job and people first and keeps his thoughts to himself. P.S. If he were to have a gay wedding and I was invited, I would go and wish them the best. I would mean it with all my heart and soul. But they would still be sinners. (Thus spake Heliotrope, the homophobe.)
I do not disapprove of same sex relationships. My religion says they are sinful. I believe they are sinful.
Okay. Heliotrope, now my question is did you decide for yourself that same sex relationships are sinful, or do you believe that same sex relationships are sinful because your religion says so?
As long as gays “out†other gays, I do not see how society in general is ever going to look upon gays without the asterisk. The asterisk being: oh, he’s gay. That is a differentiating statement that is not the same as being black or Muslim or retarded. It is how one goes about sex.
I’m against outing in all cases, but you may have meant something else here. As for the asterisk, I’m not so sure I agree with you. And it depends on how you define gay. For me, it’s the orientation. So in that sense, it is similar to being Black or retarded in the sense that t’s not a choice. If you are talking about acting on being gay (forming same sex relationships), then that is choice, just like being Muslim or Christian is a choice.
have close friends who are monogamous gays and celibate. They confuse me greatly. I do not understand celibacy in terms other than a commitment for a higher purpose. I understand and respect that they love one another and that they are attracted to men. But without the sex, in my view, they are not really gay.
Is it just the persons who are celibate that confuse you? In what sense. Some straight people choose to be celibate as well, even if they don’t become a priest. But it seems like you’re defining gay as having to do with sex. Sure, that’s part of it, but it’s more about the orientation and sexual attraction. Would you regard a man with an attraction to women as not straight if he didn’t have sex with women?
Getting back to the first sentence, are you saying that you have gay friends that are a couple (romantic?), but they do not have sex with each other? If that’s what you meant, I’m not too surprised, because there is more to being gay than the sex. Just like there’s more to a marriage than the husband and wife having sex. Further, the reason why a gay person may choose to be celibate is because, like you, they regard sex between two of the same gender as a sin, and choose not to commit that sin.
I have a feeling I totally misinterpreted what you are saying here, so please clear it up if I’m offbase. You brought up some interesting points and merits further discussion.
He is my role model. He puts his job and people first and keeps his thoughts to himself. P.S. If he were to have a gay wedding and I was invited, I would go and wish them the best. I would mean it with all my heart and soul. But they would still be sinners.
I appreciate that, but I’m just wondering that since you really wish them the best, that you would honor his commitment, etc., that perhaps you may rethink that homosexuality is a sin. If you don’t think that you could ever change your mind about that, why would that be?
Ugh, filtered again, Heliotrope.
Oh Johnny boy
Reality is calling…
STRSO Domestic partners benefits survived and continue, despite the fears of the opponents of DOMA.
My friend’s custody of her and her ex-partner’s son continues, despite the threats of the opponents of DOMA.
The City of Columbus’ domestic partner benefits for employees continues, etc.
Columbus Public Schools domestic partner benefits continues, etc.
Ohio’s domestic violence laws have lots of probems, especially for consentual adults.
Please check who was lying, and try again.
Actually, Livewire, John’s “logic”, in this case, is that if anyone files a lawsuit, no matter who it is and REGARDLESS of the outcome, that means the religious right is “lying”.
However, John flip-flops and spins when asked to hold his fellow liberal gays to the same standard; that is, John can say that gays will not try to attack religious organizations and churches, but if even one lawsuit was filed, regardless of the outcome, then John was lying.
I haven’t been to alot of weddings, gay or straight, but I have heard most of the wedding vows and never remember anything about the promise to procreate, number of children expected or even anything about parenting.
from wikipedia “To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.”
I thought this is what marriage is about
However, John flip-flops and spins when asked to hold his fellow liberal gays to the same standard
You have really crossed the line, accusing John of liberalism. You probably think I’m a Communist. You, sir, are a bully, a traitor, a liar, and a hetero supremacist. You allowed yourself to become a tool of those who are your ENEMIES. They won’t stop at manipulating the voters into taking away gay marriage. They will not rest until we’re back in the closets and getting arrested just for being gay. They are not conservatives. They are American in name only. The only difference between them and Muslim terrorists are their tactics; they use ballots instead of bombs. They share a common goal of wanting to enforce their respective (perverse) religious beliefs on everyone.
The 7 judges on the California court are heroes. Those peacefully protesting the hate groups that hide behind the first amendment and call themselves “churches” to justify their bigotry are heroes. You, on the other hand, are a sickening coward.
In your attempt to channel Priya Lynn, Attmay, you missed a charge; don’t forget the usual “they’re building concentration camps”.
Furthermore, when you use the word “will”, as in “will not”, you are invoking future tense. Since the future is purely theoretical, you are demanding that we attack people in the here and now based on what you think they will do in the future — which is a dead giveaway that what is happening in the here and now is not nearly of the level of apocalypse that would warrant your vitriol.
Ah, it’s so refreshing to see the mask slip off Attmay and he show us teh raw hatred that bubbles there.
Oh wait, that would require the mask to be -on- at some point.
rusty,
Ironically, what made me sad about my mom and her partner’s ceremony was the vows they wrote read more of a group counciling session, and less of classic marriage vows.
That and the lack of any invocation of the Divine. As someone who was raised in a religious household, that was sad to see how far my mom had drifted that she didn’t even invite the Divine, in any aspect, to her ‘wedding’. (She calls it wedding, I call it commitment ceremony)
Oh, and Merry Christmas.
Ugh, filtered again, Heliotrope.
Got it. Email me when this happens I’ll try and bring them back when I have time.
Reality is calling…
Perhaps in the bizzaro world you choose to live in, but if the word reality is to have any meaning when somebody says they are not targetting a certain person/program/benefit/whathaveyou and then after getting what they want actually goes ahead and does exactly that, this constitutes a lie. Whether they are successful or not in all cases is immaterial to the fact that they still lied.
Actually, Livewire, John’s “logicâ€, in this case, is that if anyone files a lawsuit, no matter who it is and REGARDLESS of the outcome, that means the religious right is “lyingâ€.
I see that you have a very tenuous grasp of the concept of honesty. I’m not surprised.
However, John flip-flops and spins when asked to hold his fellow liberal gays to the same standard; that is, John can say that gays will not try to attack religious organizations and churches, but if even one lawsuit was filed, regardless of the outcome, then John was lying.
You really are a piece of work, NDT. Not only are you a faux conservative but your lies know no bounds. I challenge you to produce even ONE post or comment from me stating this. Not once have I approved of violence against churches or persons, nor did I refrain from stating such in at least 2 threads. Now, if I’ve ever said that I wouldn’t sue and then went and did it you’d have a point but since I know for a fact I never did, that makes you a clueless idiot.
You have really crossed the line, accusing John of liberalism.
Thanks, but NDT is free to call me whatever he wishes. I consider him to be a lying gasbag who isn’t really a conservative so why not? Fair’s fair in hyperbole or ad hominem I suppose.
#62 “don’t forget the usual “they’re building concentration campsâ€.”
And because Michael Rogers said that in 2004 that means that all of us who see the religious fanatics as a threat to freedom believe it?
*goes and checks http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/12/17/politically-correct-hatred-of-gays-in-canada/*
What do you mean “all of us who see the religious fanatics as a threat to freedom”?
I don’t see any comments from you in that thread.
Now, if I’ve ever said that I wouldn’t sue and then went and did it you’d have a point
Wrong, John.
You held David Benkof personally liable for lawsuits, even though you have no proof that he himself has filed one, because of the “side” to which he belongs.
Simply put, your side has shown it’s true colors and I do not trust you. You lie and have broken every principle you claim to uphold.
Therefore, you can be held personally liable for any lawsuit filed by gay marriage supporters and be called a liar because you claimed to not be interested in suing, but “your side” did.
And because Michael Rogers said that in 2004 that means that all of us who see the religious fanatics as a threat to freedom believe it?
Of course, adDave; after all, given your stated devotion to “truth” and “fairness” to all sides, it seems impossible that you and your fellow gay liberals would allow a statement like that to stand without challenging it, especially given how you DEMAND that everyone else repudiate false statements from “their side”, if you did not believe it was truthful.
You can either attack Mike Rogers’s statements or be exposed as a hypocrite who supports “your side” telling lies. Your choice.
What he said in 2004 is meaningless to me and I’m sure most of the gay communities you despise so much but because I live to please you – Michael Rogers, to my knowledge, produced no evidence of his claims so that puts them in the realm of paranoid fantasy. Had I read it in 2004 I perhaps would have responded to the article (though maybe not) but I haven’t read GayCity news since I moved from NYC and can count on one hand the number of times I have been to Roger’s blog.. I doubt that this will qualify as an “attack” in your mind but it’s what you’re getting.
#68 I am rectifying that right now.
#68 as I’ve said multiple times before “religious fanatics” covers all religions (at least the ones that have fanatics bent on world domination)
Therefore, you can be held personally liable for any lawsuit filed by gay marriage supporters and be called a liar because you claimed to not be interested in suing, but “your side†did.
You have got to be kidding. OMG this is such a stretch that I can only laugh at your stupidity NDT. If you want to build a case to level the charge of dishonesty, by all means go right ahead. Yet this would entail you actually building one out of substantiated facts instead of fabricating it out of thin air. Try again. For starters, I never said that I wasn’t interested in suing nor have you defined what exactly you mean by this. I can surmise your meaning but you are so wrapped in confusion at the moment that perhaps a lil’ clarity is necessary.
John knows very little about me if he thinks there is such a thing as “my side.” Lots of the people on “my side” generally look quite askance at me, particularly since I withdrew my support for Prop. 8 and accused the campaign supporting it of antisemitism and homophobia.
So the idea that there’s a “side” I am on is just not true.
Simple, John; you accused David Benkof of lying because “his side” allegedly had made claims and then acted contrary to those claims.
Simply put, your side has shown it’s true colors and I do not trust you. You lie and have broken every principle you claim to uphold.
You claim to be opposed to antireligious bigotry, violence against churches and religious individuals, and lawsuits to force religious people to do as you command — but “your side” has committed all of the above. Therefore, with perfect right and by your own logic, it can be said of you that “You lie and have broken every principle you claim to uphold.“
What he said in 2004 is meaningless to me and I’m sure most of the gay communities you despise so much but
Yup, you chose hypocrisy. Not a surprise.
I totally agree that the strong push for same-sex marriage, in the courts and by other means, prompted a backlash of constitutional amendments. I had always hoped that while same-sex marriage might be the ultimate goal, the first step would be to promote civil unions. That would give people friendly to gay rights but uncomfortable with “marriage” a few years to realize the sky was not falling in because of civil unions.
But I think it’s an error to include Nebraska among the states passing an amendment as a backlash to lawsuits. Nebraska’s 2000 amendment pretty much predates controversial lawsuits like the one in Massachusetts.
While the majority of Nebraskans who voted “yes” on the amendment didn’t “hate” gays, the little group that got it on the ballot was clearly motivated by hate and intolerance.
Nebraska’s amendment doesn’t just ban same-sex marriages. That’s the first paragraph. The second paragraph bans civil unions, domestic partnerships and all other same-sex relationships. State courts and government agencies cannot recognize same-sex relationships of any kind. And gays have pretty much been denied any standing to seek legislation in the Legislature to ban discrimination in housing and employment, for example.
Several religious denominations, inside and outside of Nebraska, spent a fortune on a campaign that kept voters’ attention away from that second paragraph.
#77 I should have known that anything beyond one sentence would be too difficult for you to digest.
#78 Can’t be true, people on here say that has never happened, that we are loved and wrong to be critical of the right in anyway.
NDT, no doubt I’ll regret asking this but can you please explain how what I said fails to appease your need for me to “attack” Rogers? Was I supposed to condemn him to hell? or question his paternity? or call him a *gasp* evil liberal? or would you have been happier if I has sneered in my best pseudo-conservative voice about what an idiot he is or perhaps that he’s retarded? Please share your wisdom with me 🙂
Jack-
The first lawsuits, and they were high-profile, were in Hawaii (Baehr v. Miike) and Alaska in the mid-1990s. The idea that the Nebraska activists just pulled gay marriage out of thin air (when there were no such amendments in the 1960s or 1970s or 1980s) seems far-fetched to me.
Please note that the Salt Lake City Plan would work in Nebraska even with that second paragraph, because it would give no special rights to same-sex couples and would be available to any individual and a second individual who can show mutual commitment. It really is the magic solution to the whole gay marriage morass, because it could pass tomorrow and bring benefits and protections to same-sex and other couples in every state, not just a few liberal states.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
#66: You’re welcome, and if all is fair than maybe I should say what I REALLY feel about the hetero supremacist pseudogays on this board.
In your attempt to channel Priya Lynn
You are pure evil.
You’re welcome, and if all is fair than maybe I should say what I REALLY feel about the hetero supremacist pseudogays on this board.
Go for it. As Livewire puts it, things are most entertaining when the mask finally falls off.
NDT, no doubt I’ll regret asking this but
And you did it again.
Had you simply stated, “Michael Rogers, to my knowledge, produced no evidence of his claims so that puts them in the realm of paranoid fantasy”, that would have been quite sufficient. But instead, you had to preface that with a “but” that demonstrated convincingly that you weren’t actually condemning Rogers’s behavior, but were attacking me instead for calling it out.
No dear my “but” demonstrates only that I find your repeated requests that I condemn this person or that because of what they said or did humorous. In this case it’s particularly ridiculous because it was said 4 years ago. I don’t mean that his words became any less stupid over time, actually more so because if there were indeed camps they hardly could have been kept secret this long. I was not “attacking” you, I just can’t fathom why it matters who I condemn or don’t. You are correct that if I am going to speak against foolish/dangerous statements and actions from the right then I need do the same for the left. Problem is, the list is so long on both sides where do I start? I prefer to focus on things happening now, not when I had less wrinkles. 🙂
Got it. Email me when this happens I’ll try and bring them back when I have time.
Thanks, John.
No dear my “but†demonstrates only that I find your repeated requests that I condemn this person or that because of what they said or did humorous……I was not “attacking†you
Well, let’s look at what you actually said.
NDT, no doubt I’ll regret asking this but
What he said in 2004 is meaningless to me and I’m sure most of the gay communities you despise so much but
No humor, but plenty of vitriol.
And of course you “can’t fathom why”, adDave; in your mind, the only thing that a gay person can do that is wrong is to criticize another gay person’s behavior. Since Mike Rogers is gay and is criticizing people other than gays, and the people who are taking chidlren to sex fairs are gay and criticizing people who aren’t gay who think they shouldn’t take children to sex fairs, their behavior is beyond reproach and there’s no need for you to criticize them.
NDT I guess the spam filter agrees with you it swallowed my response 🙂
Therefore, with perfect right and by your own logic, it can be said of you that “You lie and have broken every principle you claim to uphold.“
Interesting but pedantic attempt. Try again.
John knows very little about me if he thinks there is such a thing as “my side.†Lots of the people on “my side†generally look quite askance at me, particularly since I withdrew my support for Prop. 8 and accused the campaign supporting it of antisemitism and homophobia.
Ah yes, I do recall this now that you mention it. Ok then, noted. The charge remains for Yes on 8.
You are pure evil.
An annoying, egotistical, self-centered, dishonest prick? Yes, NDT is all of those things. “Pure evil”? Not even close. That’s abuse of a word that waters down what/who really is evil, let alon “pure evil”.