Sometimes when, on this blog, I fault the leading advocates of gay marriage for failing to make a case for the social change they’re trying to effect, a critic will wonder if I think same-sex couples seeking state recognition of their unions are similarly clueless about the meaning of their relationships.
And yet, more often than not, it is those very couples who understand what the more vocal proponents of state recognition of same-sex unions neglect or refuse to point out. Indeed, it is largely because of such couples that I voted against Proposition 8 even as I couldn’t stand the mean-spirited rhetoric of many opponents of the proposition.
To be sure, there are notable exceptions to this practice, men and women like Jonathan Rauch who are able to articulate what marriage is for.
But, I’ve said this before.
So, let me wonder yet again at the refusal of all too many advocates of gay marriage to articulate the social benefits of extending the privilege of state recognition of marriage to same-sex couples, explaining why (to borrow from the subtitle to Jonathan’s book, gay marriage is “Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.“Â I do believe that refusal is linked to their preference for turning to appointed judges rather than elected legislators (or those who elect them) to effect the change they seek.
In courts, they only need make a legal argument and not a social one. Why then do they wish to reduce marriage to a “civil rights’ issue and downplay its social aspects?
At the very time they downplay these aspects, many of those who seek the privileges the state offers by recognizing their unions understand them very well. And maybe, just maybe if the leading advocates of gay marriage could articulate in the public square what these individuals understand in their private lives, they might not need to push their agenda through the courts, but would find a more receptive audience among those elected to make our laws.
Here’s why–gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition–they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression. Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition. It’s that simple. Now you know why.
it’s not that we don’t want to make that case, GPW; it’s that we don’t think that is the best vehicle for realizing our goal. we SHOULD continue to make that case, but we should not be afraid to use all parts of our government to get marriage rights. frankly, i think when straight people see gay marriage get legalized, and then see that the earth does, in fact, remain spinning on its axis, they might get past this issue and stop caring.
and thanks, ashpenaz, for setting gays back about 30 years with that statement. you’re a class act.
Please find me one gay activist who says that marriage is meant to be a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. Just one. Thanks in advance. (And don’t use the old “straights are all adulterers” line.)
What is your issue with having to convince 51% of Americans that gay marriage is acceptable before anyone should have those rights? What is the source of your contempt for using the courts?
I would much rather see this settled thru the courts, since I consider them more reasonable and capable of working thru logical points. What would you rather be deciding your freedoms? An institution that is free from political influence (arguably more than elected officials) and gives both sides equal time to argue their case? Or our current political system which relies heavily on lobbyists, interest groups, ad hominem attacks, scare tactics, ominous campaign commercials and politicians who will vote however they believe will keep them in office longest?
Like it or not, social change will only come thru gay people living their lives openly and proudly. I would prefer gay people have the choice of their level of participation and still have the same rights whether they choose to exercise them or not. Your precondition that we convince everyone we should have the rights before we get them seems at the least, silly, and at the most, impossible.
Should blacks have convinced 51% of the white, property owning men they should have equal rights before we freed them? Should women have gotten a majority consensus before gaining suffrage? If given the choice, I’d rather have freedom and liberties now, and do the convincing later.
how about this guy:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
How about him? I found myself agreeing with most of the statements he has in bold. He said something about gay promiscuity being a “small minority” !?!?! (That piece of punctuation is called an interrobang, BTW.) I didn’t find where he talked about lifelong sexual exclusivity except that as gays age they tend to be more monogamous than they were when they were younger–that is, until they found out about ExTenze. It’s the same old Rainbow propaganda. Nobody gay activist talks about lifelong sexual exclusivity as a moral absolute.
dude, gay people have lifelong sexually exclusive relationships now even when they can’t marry. the only difference is they can’t get the same legal rights for those relationships. people who want to have multiple parters all through life — whether gay or straight — probably will chose not to get married.
Tim, I take note of your contempt for democracy and preference for a judicial oligarchy.
Once again, wonder if you considered the point of the post to which you attach your comment. In it, i wondered at the reduction of marriage to a civil right. And wonder at your failure my point about the failure of the most vocal advocates for same-sex marriage.
Trying to figure out why so many, including apparently yourself, refuse to take seriously the social issues surrounding same-sex marriage.
i agree with tim 100 percent.
Guys,
I don’t mean to bore you here. I think I have quoted Russell Kirk before but this is a relevant statement:
“Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions.”
Regards,
Roy
Its because they dont give a crap about the social case, hell, they dont give a crap about marriage, they want validation! Even the Iowa opinion recognized as much. They want the government to tell them they are officially just as good as heterosexuals. And if and when the government grants them marriage, they will — I promise — use that to try and overturn any laws that favor mothers and fathers, and to silence anyone who still dares to say they are not the same as heterosexuals.
Its not about marriage for them, you see, its about making the lambs stop screaming.
Good quote Roy.
The problem is, Tim, there is nothing logical whatsoever about the legal case of the left. Your case is predicated on the idea that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. A blatant falsehood that your very existence belies. Case closed.
Because, being mostly liberal, they KNOW they can’t win at the ballot box. Therefore, they have to use any means necessary to force their will on the people.
Still waiting for boob to tell us what, exactly, all these “rights” are.
Now I was only edumacated in Mississippi publik skrewls, but the last I checked our freedoms were not set forth by a court.
Or am I wrong?
My two word rebuttal to Tim:
Dred Scott.
One more word:
Kelo.
Live by the arbitrary decision handed down by the corrupt black-robed tyrant; die by the arbitrary decision handed down by the corrupt black-robed tyrant. The only true safety and stability lies in convincing the majority of citizens.
Bot, I take note of your contempt for democracy and preference for judicial oligarchy.
bob’s preference for judicial supremacy doesn’t surprise me, given his confessed penchant for fascism
I suggest a state issued yellow star that each married gay be forced to wear on his clothing each time he goes out in public. The star will bear the words: “Respect Me” and signify that the gay is married. The gay may call the “gay marriage star chamber” to take anyone who does not respect him off to reeducation camp. You could also work a little man made global warming into this.
I suggest a state issued yellow star that each married gay be forced to wear on his clothing each time he goes out in public.
Heliotrope, you mean something like what straight married couples do that clearly identify themselves as married? As long as its not compelled, then whatever people want to do.
#20 Pat:
No, no, no. Gays seek state sanctioned marriage as a way to become normalized into a society which votes overwhelmingly to prohibit gay marriage.
The State should intervene and jam gay marriage down the collective throats of society. In order to enforce respect, the state puts my plan outlined in #19 into effect.
Image the gay power of being able to turn homophobes over to the state for mandatory diversity training.
This has nothing to do with hetero married couples. (Unless a hetero couple shows disrespect toward a gay married couple.)
Actually, they’ve made the social case over and over again. The real question is what exactly is the social case against gay marriage. Why exactly, and show your work, is gay marriage a threat to marriage itself?
And for bitters like heliotrope, why exactly shouldn’t gay people, like our esteemed host, be “normalized” into society, whatever that means?
And for bitters like heliotrope, why exactly shouldn’t gay people, like our esteemed host, be “normalized†into society, whatever that means?
Beats us. I honestly have no idea why gay people like yourself need to dress up children as sex slaves and take them to sex fairs, but I can tell you that you’ll need to overcome it to be in any way normalized into society.
NDT, that is so delightfully insane I’m surprised they haven’t made you RNC chairman.
And who’s this “us” paleface?
Unfortunately, Little Boots, the gays in question in the article mentioned made it clear that opposing their doing that was homophobic, just as the gays in this article made it clear that raising the age of consent was homophobic because it was “common” for gays to have sex with underage teens.
If you care to differ, go right ahead, but you need to attack your fellow liberal gays who are saying it, not me. You can do that, right? Or are you the typical gay-sex liberal who whines about how gays are portrayed, but can spin all sorts of excuses for the behavior that makes it obvious?
So, NDT, do you agree with helotrope that gays are inherently abnormal and have no place in normal society?
As to the weird little group in that article, they are as irrelevant to me as some het cult that thinks men should own women and girls is to the average American Christian.
Not sure why Gay Patriot considers you such a delicate flower that will crumple at the first sign of disagreement. I don’t, so I will try again:
The people in that article are irrelevant to me. As irrelevant as some crazed Christianist who thinks women should be slave are, I assume, to you and all defenders of Victorian marriage. I don’t have to argue with them. I am arguing with you, or actually just asking:
Do you agree with heliotrope that gay people are so abnormal that it is ridiculous to think of them being integrated into normal society?
Ultimately, though I agree up to a point on making my case to society, I feel that I have made the social case over and over again, banging my head against the brick wall of disgust. You won’t change those people’s minds no matter what you do. What it comes down to is I’m a tax paying American and feel that the rights that straight society gets should come to me, too. I’ve been with the same guy for 27 years and do not feel that I’m asking for too much. To be labeled as a second class citizen and having to pay a lawyer to set up our power of attorney and other legal forms that can be ignored in VA and FL is frustrating. Why should I support a government, country or political party that actively wants to put me down? I’m unhappy with both parties and the system.
As irrelevant as some crazed Christianist who thinks women should be slave are, I assume, to you and all defenders of Victorian marriage.
LOL…..if you consider marriage “Victorian” and worthless, Little Boot, why the heck do you want to be a part of it?
Short answer: you don’t. You’re just shrieking and crying for it, like the toddler who doesn’t want a toy until the other kids are playing with it. You have nothing but contempt for the basic values and responsibility of marriage, and thus should be kept away from it lest you dilute and destroy it completely. The reason gay-sex liberals like yourself are bad for marriage is because you have absolutely no intention of living by its rules; you merely want the benefits, and refuse every bit of the responsibility.
Do you agree with heliotrope that gay people are so abnormal that it is ridiculous to think of them being integrated into normal society?
Actually, I think heliotrope would affirm that I am quite nicely integrated into society. I have religious faith of my own, I do my job well and without affirmative action, I have a relationship that’s quite satisfying, and I understand the importance of affirming and encouraging heterosexual marriage ahead of every other type of relationship.
Given that most other gay people think I’m abnormal and need “therapy” for having such beliefs and carrying out such behavior, it should be quite obvious that gay people are not capable of functioning in normal society. We simply can’t have people like yourself, Little Boot, who aren’t able to criticize or condemn child molestation and exploitation because the individuals involved are gay. There has to be a commitment to a set of principles other than sexual orientation in order for society to function normally, and you and yours have not demonstrated any ability to operate in that fashion.
No, NDT, the few gay people aware of you think you need therapy because you see yourself and your relationships as innately inferior to heterosexual people and their relationships. That is sad, but it becomes truly dangerous when you equate any dissent from your own inferiority complex as equivalent to a refusal to condemn child molestation or exploitation. Not dangerous to us, dangerous to yourself. That is the real reason why any sane gay person, or straight person for that matter, who comes across you tends to think you need some kind of professional help.
MichaelK,
First, let me congratulate you on being together and monogamous for 27 years. That’s impressive and should be cheered.
Now as to abnormal… Yes, you are. As am I, with my living with a woman whom I care for but have no plans to marry. As is the polyamourous trio I know of, and the staff of the House of Shadowfind. None of us, whether by qualification or by choice, can take advantage of the institution of ‘marriage’.
It is a statement of the tolerant nature of western civilization that there are legal frameworks in place for us to gain some of the benefits and privileges. It is a testimony to the strength of Federalism that it varies on how the people vote, from basic benefits for non-standard couples in AL to the full civil unions in CA.
No, NDT, the few gay people aware of you think you need therapy because you see yourself and your relationships as innately inferior to heterosexual people and their relationships.
I do so love when gay-sex liberals like yourself try to insist that homosexual sex produces children just like heterosexual sex does, then insist that other people need “therapy” because they refuse to buy into that.
Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different. Your problem is that, as a gay-sex liberal, your self-worth is so tied up in your sexual orientation that admitting that difference is saying that you are inferior.
The primary goal and reason for marriage in society is to build a stable and successful platform for childrearing, because a) normal heterosexual coupling produces children, b) those children have to be cared for, and c) society benefits and is perpetuated by both a) and b).
In that context, homosexual relationships are clearly inferior. Indeed, for you to have a homosexual relationship in the first place is completely dependent on heterosexuality, since it’s what produced both you and your sexual partners. Your childish attempt to insist that the two are “the same” is a demonstration of the degree of delusion that rules the minds of the gay left.
That is sad, but it becomes truly dangerous when you equate any dissent from your own inferiority complex as equivalent to a refusal to condemn child molestation or exploitation.
Actually, it’s a refusal to condemn child molestation or exploitation that is truly dangerous. For some reason, gay-sex leftists like yourself are incapable of admitting that gay people are doing such things and even less capable of stating that those gay people are wrong.
One would think that, if you truly believed gays weren’t inferior and abnormal, that you would be condemning these gays and their behavior. Instead, you’ve done everything but, and now are attacking me as wrong for insisting that you state publicly that this behavior is wrong. What that makes patently obvious is that your identity is so tied up in your sexual orientation that you aren’t capable of admitting that other gays are doing something wrong because that would mean that YOU are doing something wrong.
seriously, ndt, whatever you’re smoking, you really need to share it w/ the rest of the class.
bob-to-english filter “I can’t refute what you’re saying, so I’ll prove my intellect by making insults and calling you a poopyhead”
As a straight person, I am interested to see how the “other” side thinks 🙂
Personally, I think that NDT has it in a nutshell. I see nothing in his comments that shows a sense of inferiority. On the contrary I see a person who is not afraid of his relationships with others, and who has his priorities right. I also think that he has raised issues that do need to be addressed, but the left-liberals of society refuse to acknowledge certain facts.
Thinking about the lack of coherent reasons for allowing gay marriage, or even for not allowing gay marriage, there is one thing that has not been raised:
“common law marriage”
The common law “wife or husband” are usually not married. They have not taken wedding vows. The other name for a common law marriage is “de-facto”. Usually this means that the person has few if any rights, especially in relation to property, and including the right to parent any children from the relationship.
If the left-liberal gays were seeking the same status as the common law couple, because their status in common law was being denied, then there might be a good reason to mount a challenge. However, I suspect that this is not the issue for them – the real issue is to “undermine the institution of marriage” which has been practised for thousands of years. This is how most straight people see the issue.
Well, maybe I am missing out on a lot of “left” vs “right”, etc but to me the issue has always been one of equality. I simply want the same legal and statutory rights as str8 couples. Equality under the law as defined by the equal protection clause of state constitutions. Its that elementary to me. “Marriage” has evolved over the centuries and in the United States it has (from women and children being treated as property to slaves not being able to marry) etc.
There are approximately 1400 federal statutory rights associated with marriage. Those rights due not accrue to any same sex couples that marry in states that permit marriage. Of course this is due to DOMA. Therefore, I do not have problems with state Supreme Courts rendering decisions on the issue of marriage (they do all the time as to str8 couples) Until Loving v. VA, interracial marriage was banned in most states. Courts have consistently ruled on the issue from everything from child support to alimony to custody to everything in between.
I don’t have a problem with individual states deciding differently. California to me was a weirder situation since the Governator talked out of both sides of his mouth (he said the Legislature and not the courts should decide the issue…well, lo and behold the Legislature voted two times to allow same sex marriages and he vetoed that twice…so much for “the will of the people” and then when the Court decided the issue he suddenly supported that decision and said constitutional rights shouldn’t be left up to the Legislature or put up for a vote by the people or some other illogical arguments that he came up with that left one wondering how many ways can a politician lie to us)
Quite frankly, if the federal government by the Legislature repealed the parts of DOMA that denied federal statutory rights (those 1400 or so mentioned above) to me the whole issue would go away and if the legislation were created that if a state had same sex marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships then you get those 1400 federal statutory rights, it would make more sense and the issue would be closer to being resolved. Of course, if a state didn’t have same sex marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships, then the federal legislation could be well you get the federal rights but not the state statutory rights in your states. My guess is at least this way rights like Social Security benefits, joint federal tax benefits could be solved easier that way.
Of course, I have always believed DOMA is unconstitutional due to the full faith and credit clause and we know why Clinton pushed it in 1996 so he help get re elected….but that’s another story.
In time, and in its own way, I do believe more and more states will
have marriage equality as each state decides it. Some will, some won’t. But as long as its left to the states and the mess of DOMA is corrected, I think it would end up being ok.
Of course, its just my opinion….Marriage is a civil law issue and I don’t discuss it based on religion and if a church wants to not marry a same sex couple….well that is their right..the civil marriage license is a license granted by a state/locality and not by a church…so there is always the Justice of the Peace or Magistrate to perform the ceremony.
The primary goal and reason for marriage in society is to build a stable and successful platform for childrearing, because a) normal heterosexual coupling produces children, b) those children have to be cared for, and c) society benefits and is perpetuated by both a) and b)
Really? I think that’s kind of sad then. I always believed that marriage, now in this day and time, is based on love and committment. I know het couples that do not want children and 2 couples that can’t have children; are they inferior as well? And, I find it kind of sad that you label a relationship as inferior based solely on the capability of having children.
Livewire….”abnormal?” I understand how you’re using it in this sentence. Not according to the norm, but you HAVE the choice of marrying but you don’t. I don’t have that choice, and I never had that choice and never will. “Tolerant nature of western civilization?” Ultimately, I don’t want to be tolerated and actually find that phrase a little condescending. I want to know that my partner can make decisions about my life if I’m incapable…I want him next to me in the hospital when my time comes….I want to make sure he gets the house without any taxes etc because we’re not married. I’m not asking for anything special.
I know het couples that do not want children and 2 couples that can’t have children; are they inferior as well?
No, because the former are still capable of producing children and the latter are biologically damaged, presumably through no fault of their own.
And, I find it kind of sad that you label a relationship as inferior based solely on the capability of having children.
It amuses me how gay-sex marriage liberals always try to downplay, denigrate, and ignore the importance of procreation and childrearing to society, and the vital role marriage plays in that — especially when you consider that these gay-sex liberals wouldn’t exist without it.
I want to know that my partner can make decisions about my life if I’m incapable…I want him next to me in the hospital when my time comes….I want to make sure he gets the house without any taxes etc because we’re not married.
Lovely; another example of a gay who’s too lazy to find a lawyer, but who can whine all day about how he would actually be responsible if he had marriage.
Livewire….â€abnormal?†I understand how you’re using it in this sentence. Not according to the norm, but you HAVE the choice of marrying but you don’t. I don’t have that choice, and I never had that choice and never will.
Neither will the other groups I’ve mentioned. They’re abnormal (and thank you for understanding that I’m not using it in a negative way) and cannot take advantage of it. I can’t either with my roommate, but that’s a moral and religious decision I make. My faith is as much a part of my identity as, well, your choice of bedmates is yours.
“Tolerant nature of western civilization?†Ultimately, I don’t want to be tolerated and actually find that phrase a little condescending. I want to know that my partner can make decisions about my life if I’m incapable…I want him next to me in the hospital when my time comes….I want to make sure he gets the house without any taxes etc because we’re not married.
And yes, it is the ‘tolerant nature of Western Civilization’ that has set up the processes you can take advantage of to help insure those things. You can’t legislate acceptance, no matter how hard you wish it to be true. Tolerance is allowing you to live your life w/o government crushing you. Tolerance is allowing you to succeed, without government taking your success (Venezuela). Tolerance allowing you to live your life, without being seen as mentally ill (Cuba, China, other socialist countries) or having a wall dropped on you (Iran, Afganistan).
I’m not asking for anything special.
Except a set of privileges extended to two people eligible for marriage, as defined by the laws of the state.
NDT, can you set the vitrol to stun for this once? I don’t think Michael has earned it yet.
Excuse me NDT….
1) I’m not a liberal.
2) I have a child
3) I’ve already gotten a lawyer and it pissed me off to have to pay for something that the couple next door get for free.
4) I might have been conceived in a petri dish or with a turkey baster and raised by lesbian mothers for all you know. Though technically that would still, I guess, be considered heterosex…or at least sexual reproduction.
I love how you point fingers and name call immediately without actually asking. And, if I lived in some states in this country those legal documents are null and void. Unless VA changed its laws and let’s not forget the FL case just within the past year. So, I suggest asking, learning, and then state….intelligenly if possible.
NDT…Considering the rate of divorce in this country, the number of dead beat dads and moms, the number of children being raised by caregivers and not their parents, the number of children floating in the system, and the damage caused by these situations…shouldn’t divorce be made illegal too? I would actually support this, but I’m certain all those “marriage is a sacred act between man, woman and God” would change their tune if this was brought up. I was kinda joking on this, but looking at it now…I’m not too sure.
Livewire …I can’t either with my roommate, but that’s a moral and religious decision I make.
There is still a difference there….you legally could, I cannot. You may consider it a minor difference, but it’s still a difference.
NDT, I tend towards conservatism on most issues except this one. I look around me at many of my friends and family counting the number of times they have all been married and remarried (I have one Aunt on her 5th husband…the neighbors I mentioned he’s on his 3rd she’s on her 2nd) and then look at the two of us, quietly living our lives together for, well, it’s 26 years on May 8th and we met 27 years ago Oct. 8th, and I shake my head. I’m not actually asking for marriage; I just think that as a tax paying citizen of this country we should have many of the same rights as married couples. We’ve already done as many of the things we can, but keep in mind that they can easily be overturned in some courts. Shoot, in GA, Oxendine actually had rules for insurance saying only family members could be listed on your insurance as a beneficiary. He’s even denied insurance companies (even before the ban on same sex marriage) from offering insurance to DP’s or discounts on car insurance saying that it would treat gay and lesbian couples better than married couples with children though how I’m not too sure…I’ll check this out.
Maggie, as of January 1st…there are no common law marriages in GA.