I’d been kicking around an idea for a gay marriage proposal that I’d send out to voices on both sides of the gay marriage debate to see how they would react. The proposal would be three-pronged:
- A given state would recognize gay marriage provided the partners agree to the same terms and conditions associated with traditional marriage (e.g., monogamy, joint property ownership, inheritance & etc).
- Said state would make clear that various religious denominations would remain free to define marriage according to the strictures and customs of their faith.
- Said state would eliminate “no-fault” divorce and make it more difficult to dissolve marriages.
This would challenge those opposed to gay marriage to consider state recognition of same-sex marriage as part of a strengthening of the institution in the eyes of the law. It would see whether gay marriage advocates recognized marriage as a social institution (as opposed to a political “right”.)
Given this idea that had been kicking around in my head, I found another thing to celebrate in the Vermont law recognizing same-sex marriage. That legislation meets the second prong of my proposal through, in the world of gay marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher, “imperfect, yet substantive, religious-liberty protections.” There really is a benefit to going through the legislature.
My friend David Benkof, no fan of gay marriage her, calls this provision “a hidden victory for religious freedom“:
The Green Mountain State’s new law says in its “Public Accommodations” section that religious groups “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.” It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.
In other words, private religious groups are free not to recognize same-sex marriage and free not to offer goods or services to same-sex couples getting married.
The state recognizes gay marriages, but individuals and institutions who, for whatever reason, oppose this expansion of the institution, need not accommodate such unions. That seems a reasonable compromise. Indeed, this solution is true to a slogan which I’ve often read on bumper stickers and heard (albeit in different words) on the lips of gay marriage advocates: “Opposed to Gay Marriage, Don’t Have One.”
Like me, David prefers the legislative approach:
It’s not a coincidence that the first real protections for religious organizations in a gay marriage state came in the first place to implement same-sex marriage by legislative action rather than judicial fiat. The legislative process usually involves compromise, and the need to get a majority often leads to amendments that incorporate each side’s concerns.
Yet another reason to cheer the Green Mountain State’s path to recognition of gay marriage.
Religious organizations always *had* protections, though: the First Amendment ensured that. I know we want to be excited about the legislative enactment of SSM, but it didn’t do anything that judicially-enacted SSM didn’t, and judicially-enacted SSM hasn’t threatened religious groups’ freedom of religion.
It’s important to remember the anti-gay groups are not agitating for protection for just “religious groups”; they want protection for individual businesses to discriminate as well: the religiously-minded photographer, the printer, the club owner. Those with anti-gay opinions can’t receive permission from the state to discriminate, or else we’ll have enshrined religious bigotry as a protected class in American law with an exception to anti-discrimination law. They also want the ability to proselytize at work to their co-workers, ie, against their employees, including subordinates. No one should have to put up with this just because it’s someone’s religion.
Who’s “They“, TP?
In other words, private religious groups are free not to recognize same-sex marriage and free not to offer goods or services to same-sex couples getting married.
This compromise is okay. If a particular religion does not want to recognize a same sex marriage, fine by me. I haven’t seen the wording of the legislation, but why not have something like this: Private groups (religious or not) are free not to recognize any marriage and free not to offer goods or services to any couple getting married.
the gay marriage debate is about the CIVIL rights bestowed upon married couples. we don’t care what anyone’s religious organization does or does not recognize.
the separation of church and state goes both ways, folks.
The problem is, Dan, that the Bill of Rights already prohibits the state from writing law that restricts the free exercise of religious belief, but that hasn’t stopped courts from forcing the Catholic Church out of the adoption business in MA, forcing a religious organization in NJ to rent its facilities out for a gay wedding etc….
You see, the courts have already decided, wrongly, that the equal protection clause overrides the religious expression clause (not to mention the assembly clause, from whence comes the freedom of association — which no longer seems to exist in this country, but that’s a whole other post ).
The Vermont compromise, and any other such laws will eventually be thrown out as unconstitutional, citing the establishment, redress, AND equal protection clauses . I’d bet on it.
Once the government declares that homosexual relationships (please, liberals, note that I’m talking about relationships, not individuals) are the same as heterosexual relationships, the law must treat them the same, and religion cannot be exempted.
But more than that, such laws Balkanize the religious. They shouldn’t even be considered.
Either we still recognize the inherent differences between men and women as a society, and that they are not interchangeable — either we believe in mothers and fathers, or we don’t.
It is a very sad day for marriage, and children when, in order to placate the insecurities of an activist group with phony grievances, we demand that the law become blind to biological facts.
Seems Eugene Volokh agrees:
“It seems to me plausible that judicial decisions banning opposite-sex-only marriage rules would likewise come to be extended — by legislatures or by courts — to go beyond their literal boundaries (a decision about government discrimination) and instead to justify bans on private discrimination,†Volokh wrote. “It seems quite likely that they will spill over into diminishing any constitutional (or RFRA-statutory) claims to engage in such discrimination by private entities, including Boy-Scout-like organizations, churches, religious universities, and other institutions.â€
American Elephant wrote:
“forcing a religious organization in NJ to rent its facilities out for a gay wedding etc….”
This never happened, BTW. No matter how much people would like to spin what DID happen, it wasn’t this.
A religious group in NJ owned some property. They were given a tax break on the property (which included a pavilion) in exchange for making it a place of public accommodation. They regularly rented out the pavilion to people for events, including weddings. When a gay couple wanted to rent the pavilion for their wedding, the group said no.
They lost their tax break.
That’s it. They were never forced to rent out their property, they were never forced to perform a wedding, they were never forced to approve or promote something against their beliefs. They lost a tax break because they decided they didn’t want to have their property be a place of public accommodation if it meant going against their religous beliefs.
This is *absolutely and in every way* their right. As a NJ citizen, I don’t want my tax dollars supporting discrimination in public accommodation, and if they chose to discriminate, then they don’t get to have the tax breaks. That incident has been so blown out of proportion and exaggerated.
I hope this helps set the record straight (heh) and people stop spreading this lie and misinforming others. We have enough problems as it is, let’s make sure we keep getting the truth out there.
One more thing…
The problem here is that there is no legal requirement for monogamy in heterosexual marriage. Yes, infidelity is grounds for divorce, but heterosexual couples are free to be just as promiscuous as they want to.
That straight couples aren’t anywhere near as promiscuous as gay couples is due to differences between straight and gay culture, not the law — specifically women’s “civilizing” influence over men.
In other words, straight men are far less promiscuous because of women. Gay men are far more promiscuous, because there are no women involved to civilize them, or, because “men are pigs”, if you will.
Any attempt to mandate such conditions would mean writing it into law that covers all marriage, not just gay marriage, or the re-criminalization of adultery.
Does anyone really think that’s going to happen?
So what you end up with is that acceptance of gay marriage MEANS acceptance of an entirely different attitude towards fidelity into the norm of marriage, NOT the acceptance of traditional values by gays.
Acceptance of gay marriage means, in practical terms, the acceptance of CURRENT gay attitudes towards marriage into the whole. Gays are not about to change their attitudes, they are not offering to — they are demanding marriage include them, and their values, as is.
I think you are absolutely right Dan, to TRY to get gays to agree to traditional marriage values, but I think it stands a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting anywhere precisely because this has never been about marriage for the vast majority of gays, this has always been about getting the government to declare that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality… and that means homosexuality, AND the gay culture as it exists.
It boils down to this: the gay marriage debate has been framed such that it has become a watershed moment for the institution. We have been presented with a stark choice. Either we reaffirm that marriage is an institution that we support because it has fundamental consequences for society OR it becomes just another entitlement program to benefit adults and all norms are deemed quaint, old fashioned and irrelevant and are thrown out the window.
That is where we are.
No offense, American Elephant, but I think you have a skewed vision of promiscuity. I know married couples that are more promiscuous than many of my gay friends. Some of us have been in monogomous relationships for *decades*, where my straight friends have “swinger” parties, or are “hot wives” etc. I don’t think the promiscuity is any more prevalent, it’s just more *obvious*. Big difference.
I think it all depends on the crowd you know. We all know “that couple” – the guys who seem to have a different “friend” staying with them every weekend, who obviously hit on every man in the room, available or not, and who have no qualms about hooking up. But those people exist in the straight world, too. I think the difference is that straights are more circumspect about it. It’s not that it’s not as common, it’s just not as noticed.
And I agree – there’s no way to demand “traditional” marriage values for one couple, if you’re not going to demand it for all of them. If monogamy is a problem that must be addressed (via legal means) in the gay world, then it must also be applicable to straights. And for some reason, the straights don’t seem to want to accept that.
Gay marriage is going to destroy the fabric of society and render their marriages ‘meaningless’. But quickie marriages in Vegas and quickie divorces in Mexico, and no-fault divorces in just about every state, are somehow not a threat to the sanctity of their unions.
I’ll believe that they’re actually concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage when they move to make divorce illegal except with *cause* – like, violence or adultery or infertility. Until then? It’s the same “icky” factor it’s always been. They don’t like imagining what goes on in my bedroom. (Though, to be fair, I have it easier as a girl. Seems like a LOT of straight men love imagining what goes on in my bedroom. Of course, the reality is, most times we come home from work exhausted and go to sleep. Very exciting. 😀 )
AE, your posts are disheartening, but seem right to me.
On a macro level, I wonder if we are in any position to even offer compromise with the "SSM-by-any-means-necessary" crowd? They seem to be winning without engaging our arguments at any point.
What can we do? No one wants the whole country to turn into P-Town. The backlash would be horrible…
The backlash will be horrible, MFS. Nature does not long abide foolishness. It may take a while, but the whirlwind will come.
That’s rather the point!
And the Church didnt have to stop adopting children out, it chose to because otherwise the state would have forced them to adopt to gay couples or lose their license.
And the boy scouts lose the ability to use facilities they BUILT because they wont allow gay scout leaders.
And churches will lose their tax exempt status if they dont allow gay weddings in their facities, etc, etc, etc
lol. No offense taken. But I must ask what color the sky is in your world, because the statistics are rock solid on this.
Churches will only lose tax exempt status if they don’t allow equality in *public accommodation*. Just like the Boy Scouts. Just like adoption agancies.
If you’re open to the public, you have to serve ALL of the public – you can’t pick and choose which members of the public you will serve based on some discriminatory practice.
Christian churches can choose not to allow gay marriage in their primary buildings of worship. They also don’t marry Jewish people there. Or Hindus. Or Muslims. Jewish synagogues don’t have to perform Christian marriage ceremonies, either. That’s never, ever going to be an issue (and if it is, I’ll fight against that, too.)
But if a Christian church owns a pavilion on a boardwalk that they allow members of the general public to rent out – guess what. They have to allow anyone to rent it out, they can’t say ‘oh, you’re black, so you can’t rent our pavilion, but that white couple can’. That’s discrimination and it’s illegal. If they choose to do that, they give up their tax breaks. Which is *exactly* how it’s supposed to go. Just like a store owner can’t refuse to serve a customer because they are Jewish. Or Catholic. Or a woman. Or black. Or asian. Or hispanic.
Public means public.
Stating that a church was forced to allow a gay couple to use their property for a marriage ceremony is a lie. My mommy taught me those were wrong. 🙂 They lost their tax break because to them, discriminating was more important than the tax break. They weren’t criminally charged. There was no legal repercussions. They simply lost a tax advantage that they had been given when they agreed to open the property up to the public. When they removed that property from public use, they lost the advantage that went with it.
I don’t see how this is a problem. That’s the system working *exactly* how it should be. They’re not forced to do anything against their beliefs, and I’m not forced to pay for it. Win-win.
WRT promiscuity…sky is gray and rainy in NJ today.
You know what they say about statistics.
Says who?
Where do you get this silly idea that your tax dollars cant go to anything you oppose? Was protesters tax dollars go to the war, my tax dollars are going to fund an entire litany of asinine liberal programs that not only dont work, but are making the world worse and will cause countless millions to suffer both short and long term.
That is the consequence of politics. But one thing trumps policy, and that is the constitution wherein peoples God-given, unalienable right to exercise their religious beliefs and associate with whom they wish are protected from government interference.
It is an odd sensation, isn’t it, to be actually witnessing the beginning of civilization’s collapse? And no, I don’t think gay marriage is a cause of societal collapse, I think it’s a symptom of the abandonment of common sense and proven values. The more serious manifestations of this syndrome are the pending national bankruptcy; the vacuity of our media; the idiocy, corruption and greed of our political class; the choice to weaken ourselves while our enemies speed toward the acquisition of devastating weapons. Gay marriage is largely a sideshow, and the fact that people obsess over it while Rome begins to burn… well…
Further proof, as if any were needed, Democrat Sleaze-unit Eliot Spitzer wants to run for Attorney General again. Further proof of decline, as if any were needed.
#17 – Well, V, there’s no limit to stupidity on the part of the electorate. That’s how we end up with John Murtha, Robert Byrd and anyone from the Northeast named “Kennedy.”
Regards,
Peter H.
American Elephant – agree with you on the constitution.
Jenna, your dead wrong on promiscuity. Gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men. This is shown by STD rates, which are much higher among gay men. This is why there is no self-sustaining AIDS pandemnic among straights in the USA – outside of some inner city groups – they simply have many fewer sexual partners over the course of a lifetime. And STD’s don’t discriminate; they don’t care whether your staight or gay, liberal or conservative.
Most gay men I know want gay marriage as a confirmation of their lifestyle. I know few even long term gay male relationships which are completely monogomous. I can understand if hetrosexuals don’t want to introduce the promiscuity of us gay men into marriage.
Nick, gay marriage has never really been about commitment or “equality,” it’s always been about winning an “in yer face” to the religious right.
Mythbusters–the Gay Marriage edition!
Myth: Men are pigs. Men are only pigs if they are raised to be pigs. There is no “natural instinct” which requires men to be promiscuous. There is nothing, not one iota of evidence, that human beings were ever, in the history of their evolution, promiscuous. It does not promote any evolutionary benefit. There are many species which are monogamous–most higher mammals. This view that men are pigs is part of the mythology of atheistic Darwinism.
Myth: Straight couples are just as promiscuous as gay couples. All of the straight couples I know are far too tired at the end of the day for any kind of “swinger” party. Having a job and raising a family really takes the swinger out of you.
Myth: Women have a civilizing influence on men. Wow, if that isn’t the most sexist thing I’ve ever heard. Men have a much more civilizing effect on other men. Looking at the history of male couples–Achilles and Patroclus, et. al.–men’s relationships are marked by fierce loyalty and devotion. It is only since Stonewall that multiple partners have become the norm. Really. Look it up.
I would amend that, Ashpenaz. Men aren’t pigs. Males can be pigs. And maybe teenage boys can’t help being pigs. But becoming a man, a real man, requires maturity, the ability to delay gratification, to hold out for some greater reward than the gratification of one’s immediate needs.
Since when are straight marriages bound by monogamy? Half of them fail., and cheating is rampant.
Which is, of course, the standard Obama Party excuse for gay and liberal promiscuity and cheating in marriage.
Remember that the ideal marriage in the Obama Party is Jim McGreevey, who lied to his wife, cheated on her, and then dumped her for his rich gay-sex liberal boyfriend, and was lauded as a “hero” by HRC and the gay community for doing it. They think everyone has relationships like that.
It seems that gays are not using gay marriage as a way to solidify their already lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, but as an issue which allows them to point out the perceived hypocrisy of straight couples. Gay people want to believe the myth that straights and gays are equally promiscuous–and instead of using marriage as a way to help everybody find more faithful relationships, gays are using it as a “Gotcha!” and “Aha!” so they can reinforce this “straights are all adulters” myth.
It’s never about the actual marriage for gays–it’s always about trying to prove to the world that they are victims of a hypocritical patriarchal power structure. Ho, hum.
speak for yourself, ashpenaz.
Ash,
No the idea that “men are pigs” , or to use another term, sinful, is a central tenant of Christianity, not atheism.
You seem to have taken offense.
I didnt mean that all men are necessarily pigs, I mean that men, in general are more sexually driven, and thus more inclined to promiscuity than women. Science has shown it is in our nature. I guess that’s where you get the Darwinian atheism thing, but I assure you I am no atheist.
And while I will admit that I know very little about the civilizing influence of the sexes upon each other in ancient Greece, I was speaking more about civilizations that actually exist on earth today…namely ours.
I’m actually flabbergasted that anyone would challenge the notion that women have a civilizing effect on men. All the statistics back this up. Men are far more promiscuous than women, and it is marriage (to a woman) that gets men to “settle down” as the saying goes. Men marry for sex, women for security, is another. Make an honest man out of him, is another. Studies show men think about sex far more. And I could go on and on… But your comments really do floor me. But yes, men, compared to women are far more likely to be pigs.
filtered 🙁
speak for yourself, ashpenaz.
No, boob, we can quote that gay-sex liberals like yourself and the leaders of your movement view marriage with disdain as a “patriarchal” and oppressive institution.
But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:
“Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.'”
Why are you insulting marriage, boob? Why aren’t you speaking up against your bigoted and hateful leaders who slander marriage? Why should gay-sex liberals like yourself who want to namecall and destroy marriage, and have that as your avowed goal and practice, be allowed to participate in it?
#19:
BZZT! A classic post hoc ergo propter hoc AND a fallacy of exclusion. The reason STI rates among men that have sex with men (N.B. I’m NOT talking about gay men specifically, but of non-gay identified homosexual and bisexual males on the down low as well) are higher than heterosexuals and *ahem* relatively more than homosexual females that are more likely to enter a same-sex marriage than males, is primarily due to the mechanics of STI transmission; anal sex is more likely than vaginal sex to transmit STIs, so indirectly, they do discriminate. Then you have to consider the differences in m2m relationships, such as those in the down low taking a heavier role in the statistics, yet common sense states it’s the least likely group to be interested in same-sex marriage (even to the point of some opposing it).