The Personal Validation Argument
for State Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
for State Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Should the California Supreme Court uphold Proposition 8, as I believe it should, and before the citizens of the Golden State vote to overturn it, as I believe we will, I find a man who wishes to marry me, then the state constitution notwithstanding, I will do so. The state may not recognize our relationship as a marriage (but it will as a domestic partnership), but it won’t punish us for defining it as we see fit.
We won’t need the state to call my relationship a marriage for us to be married. All I need do is find the right guy and commit with him to a monogamous relationship of mutual affection and support.
For others, however, that “need,” to paraphrase Michael Barone, to achieve validation through government drives the argument of so many who opposed Proposition 8 at the ballot box and who now seek to overturn the popular initiative at the courthouse. They would be better served, as I have long said, to make a better case for state recognition of gay marriage, one akin to that Jonathan Rauch makes in his book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.
There are many good reasons for the state to recognize monogamous same-sex unions as marriage, but making people feel validated is not one of them. It is not the government’s role to make us feel good about ourselves. And some who have opined in favor of gay marriage should know better, particularly when they flaunt a media-bestowed mantle of conservatism.
32 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
So well said that it shuts me up. (I can’t think of anything to add.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - March 4, 2009
Thank goodness ILoveCapitalism will shut up on this one.
Comment by arturo fernandez — March 4, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - March 4, 2009
Thank goodness arturo is here to tell us Gryph’s opinions. Oh, how I cannot survive without that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - March 4, 2009
Damn. I provoked ILoveCapitalism to open his mouth again. Sorry people.
Comment by arturo fernandez — March 4, 2009 @ 4:19 pm - March 4, 2009
#4 – I’d rather hear ILC’s well-thought-out comments than your hysterical bleats anyday, pinche.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 4, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - March 4, 2009
ILC, Peter,
I was just thinking that some people post just to ‘hear’ themsevles.
The Gryph comes along and proves me right.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 4, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - March 4, 2009
Thanks, PH! (and TL)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - March 4, 2009
this is a total straw man. marriage for validation’s sake is not a strong argument for same-sex marriage, but i have not ever heard anyone claim that it is. you are assuming you know peoples’ motives, when you clearly do not.
and btw, the first paragraph is pretty poorly written.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 6:55 pm - March 4, 2009
#8 – “and btw, the first paragraph is pretty poorly written.”
Pot, meet kettle. You make absolutely no sense in your first paragraph, either.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 4, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - March 4, 2009
bob, did you read GPW’s post? I guess not. He linked – that means, he referenced – his own earlier post on Andrew Sullivan, which said:
Think that might have been what GPW was talking about? Golly. Now, would you like to argue with GPW’s characterization of Sullivan’s 2008 piece? Then go:
1) Read Sullivan’s 2008 piece;
2) Offer quotes from it to back up your disagreement with GPW’s interpretation of it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - March 4, 2009
Just his first paragraph?
I understodd Dan’s point right off. Though right now I place better odds on him getting attached than me.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 4, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - March 4, 2009
Very well said, Dan. Agree with every word.
Comment by American Elephant — March 4, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - March 4, 2009
I’ve not seen/heard any evidence to the contrary. And surely folks who support it should have NO problem convincing others why they should too.
But I guess screaming “NIGGER” in WeHo takes less time and energy.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 4, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - March 4, 2009
actually, peter, my point is perfectly clear and coherent. you’re apparently too dumb to understand it.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - March 4, 2009
my point (for the denser among us) is that GPW acts as though there are tons of people out there fighting for marriage solely because they want some sort of vindication from the gov’t. my point is that these people don’t exist — at least not in large numbers.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - March 4, 2009
and if thinks they do exist, that means he is assuming he knows the motives of other people.
newsflash: he doesn’t.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - March 4, 2009
and if *he thinks…
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 9:58 pm - March 4, 2009
and if bob thinks…
but then bob’s one of those who can’t make an arguement for it, just demonising those who disagree w/him
Comment by The_Livewire — March 4, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - March 4, 2009
i think “argument” is the word you’re looking for, livewire.
and i think i’m allowed to give my opinion as to why i disagree with a particular opinion on gay marriage without being obligated to then give a ten-point plan for gay marriage.
if do a little research on this blog, you’ll see that i’ve articulated plenty of reasons for gay marriage, FYI.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 10:57 pm - March 4, 2009
if *you
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 4, 2009 @ 10:57 pm - March 4, 2009
So Michael Barone doesn’t believe in “validation through government”? He doesn’t believe government should validate “the heterosexual ideal” by keeping marriage between a man and a woman? He doesn’t believe government should validate a child’s need to be raised “by his mother and father”? Conservatives are such liars.
Comment by arturo fernandez — March 5, 2009 @ 1:55 am - March 5, 2009
Thank goodness arturo is here to tell us Gryph’s opinions. Oh, how I cannot survive without that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 5, 2009 @ 2:54 am - March 5, 2009
As if we didn’t know you were an arrogant bastard as it is.
And lazy to boot.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 5, 2009 @ 5:02 am - March 5, 2009
funny how you all accuse me of being stupid about eight times a day, but then if i correct someone else’s evidence of stupidity, i’m accused of arrogance.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 5, 2009 @ 6:45 am - March 5, 2009
See bob, it’s called a typo. I have to use IE at work, no spell check like safari.
But you intentionally don’t use capitalization and correct English. And make a typo of your own in your juvenile attempt to prove yourself surperior to everyone else, making you look more the fool.
And the classic canard of “I’ve made pleanty of arguments, look them up.” *yawn*
Comment by The Livewire — March 5, 2009 @ 7:03 am - March 5, 2009
“Thank goodness arturo is here to tell us Gryph’s opinions. Oh, how I cannot survive without that.”
GPW is either lying about Michael Barone not believing in “validation through government.” Or Michael Barone is only interestested in the government validating his kind. So conservatives are liars. And you ILC obviously have nothing useful to add, like you said at the beginning, so keep your promise and shut up.
Comment by arturo fernandez — March 5, 2009 @ 10:44 am - March 5, 2009
#14 – “actually, peter, my point is perfectly clear and coherent. you’re apparently too dumb to understand it.”
So in other words, it’s my fault that you are too ignorant to actually put together a clear thought process?
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 5, 2009 @ 11:05 am - March 5, 2009
no, peter, it’s your fault that you’re so dense.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 5, 2009 @ 6:35 pm - March 5, 2009
oh, and livewire: not knowing how to spell “argument” is not a typo. htis is a typo.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 5, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - March 5, 2009
And again, bob is reduced to insults and playing schoolmarm.
Which coming from him would be funny, were it not so pathetic.
Comment by The Livewire — March 6, 2009 @ 7:21 am - March 6, 2009
#30 – LW, it is proof positive that when libtards can’t engage in a battle of wits, they have to resort to infantile prattle.
Of course, it’s partially my fault that I chose to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed boob.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 6, 2009 @ 11:36 am - March 6, 2009
if you knew how to read, you would see that i made actual arguments and didn’t simply resort to insults and “playing schoolmarm.”
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - March 17, 2009