Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Marriage Activists Who Prefer Intimidation to Education

Once again, gay marriage activists show they’d rather intimidate their opponents than address their arguments.  Just as in Maine, gay groups plan to “out” citizens in Washington State who sign a petition to put a referendum on the ballot in order to overturn the recent expansion of the state’s same-sex partnerships. (In the Evergreen State, the legislation in question merely expands the states domestic partner law to “give partners the same state rights as married couples,” but does not call them marriages as did the legislature in the Pine Tree State.)

Instead of publishing the names with an eye to intimidate, why don’t they just prepare to debate the issue in public fora should this referendum make the ballot?  Given the demographics of Washington State, I think those who favor such a referendum going to have a tough time overturning the law.  Bear in mind, this is recognition of same-sex unions as domestic partnerships, not as marriages.  The Evergreen State is far to the left of Arizona whose voters in 2006 rejected a referendum barring state recognition of same-sex marriages, largely because it was too expansive and would have banned civil unions as well.

And defeat of such a referendum could provide a real boost to efforts to enact civil unions in other states.

That said, for the same reasons I opposed a referendum in Maine, I also oppose one in Washington State.  Elected representatives who decided the issue.  If citizens don’t like the way their representative voted, they can vote them out of office.

Still, the state constitution allows them to put such a referendum on the ballot.  But, all too many gay marriage activists just get really upset if people express opposition to their agenda and dare do something about it.  So, I joined Michelle Malkin in wondering how they would they react if social conservatives attempted to intimidate those supporting state recognition of same-sex marriage?

. . . imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed and anti-gay marriage activists were publicizing the names of petitioners supporting same-sex partnership expansion laws.

But when they do it, they’re not creating a “climate of hate.” They’re just exercising their free speech.

Their very tactics suggest a reluctance to debate an issue supposedly near and dear to their hearts.  They’d rather make it personal.

If they eschewed such politics of intimidation and focused on making a careful and considered case of state recognition of same-sex partnerships, we may well see more states doing as Washington State has done.

Share

63 Comments

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhKa-NVWEg8

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 2, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - June 2, 2009

  2. Good gods,

    bob’s been reduced to using the Onion as a source of rebuttal? He’s more pathetic than I thought.

    I still disagree with you on the need for the referrundum. It’s there for just this kind of thing. That said, I hope the one in Wahsington fails.

    I think the problem is, like NJ bigot here, the majority of the extorters can’t win the arguement on the merits. Whether you agree with Ashpenaz or not, he does have an arguement with his desire to create a seperate institution. Same goes (I feel) for my belief that ‘Fred’ is needed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 2, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - June 2, 2009

  3. hmm, not sure where in my post i claimed to be rebutting anything…

    and bitch, please…you know you laughed.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 2, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - June 2, 2009

  4. Thank you for chiming in on this issue. I am all for people sticking up for what they believe in but it should be at their discretion OR in the natural order of communication. A vengeful hit list does nothing but undermine democracy and true tolerance for opposing viewpoint.

    Comment by Randy — June 2, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - June 2, 2009

  5. I resent the title of this post. Supporters of traditional marriage aren’t knuckle dragging Neanderthals who need to be “educated”. We’re quite intelligent, thank you very much. We oppose gay marriage for valid moral, religious, cultural, and/or philosophical reasons. We’re not stupid, narrow-minded haters. If you have rational arguments for gay marriage state them but don’t try to “educate” us, please.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - June 2, 2009

  6. Seanne-Anna, point well taken.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 2, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - June 2, 2009

  7. I agree with Seane Anna. I am not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal either. I do however believe in God and God made Marriage as between a man and a woman. I am glad that you are against Obama, but I am having troubles with the same sex marriage thing. As a Conservative that goes totally against what I have always been taught is right.

    Comment by Robert — June 2, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - June 2, 2009

  8. Thank you, GayPatriotWest.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - June 2, 2009

  9. Anytime you want to persuade someone of anything, you are “educating” the person in the broad sense of the word:

    ed·u·cate (j-kt)…
    3. b. To bring [someone] to an understanding or acceptance…

    I think that’s all GPW meant. Too many gay marriage supporters would rather hate and intimidate, than educate (in the broad sense). It rhymes 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 2, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - June 2, 2009

  10. I see your point, ILoveCapitalism. And yes, it rhymes. Hee, hee.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - June 2, 2009

  11. #5
    intelligent people can still be wrong. GPW is simply saying that intelligent people such as yourself need to know all the facts and the benefits that gay marriage would bring to the institution you obviously hold dear. He hopes its possible to convince you otherwise. However, I think that you probably will never be convinced otherwise. Hopefully eventually the courts will force it, so you can be convinced by the loving examples of gay spouses.

    Comment by gillie — June 2, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - June 2, 2009

  12. Seane-Anna,

    you’re correct. Even the definition above implies you don’t understand the arguments of gay marriage supporters. while acceptance implies correctness. I think you and most supporters of traditional marriage understand the arguments, you just reject them as false. I reject most of them as false. The better word is persuade.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 2, 2009 @ 10:40 pm - June 2, 2009

  13. Gillie, why don’t YOU “educate” me on the benefits allowing gay marriage will supposedly bring to an institution that has successfully existed for millenia without it. That’s not a rhetorical question. I want to know.

    I don’t believe, though, that gay marriage supporters give a you-know-what about benefitting marriage. Indeed, that argument contradicts another one I often hear from gays, namely, that gay marriage should be allowed because it WON’T effect heterosexual marriage. So which is it? How can gay marriage benefit marriage AND have no effect on heterosexual marriage at the same time? Sounds a little Orwellian to me. And no, seeing “loving gay spouses” won’t change my mind on gay marriage any more than seeing a “loving” incestuous couple, like that Australian father-daughter duo was supposed to be, would change my mind about incest. Nice try, though.

    Please, can’t we just be honest about what legalizing gay marriage is really all about? It’s NOT about equality. It’s about destroying the Biblical moral worldview on which America, as a part of Western civilization, was based. Liberals have been maliciously undermining that value system for at least a generation. Getting an official stamp of approval on homosexuality will be a decisive victory for the Left in its war on Judeo-Christian morality. That’s what legalizing gay marriage is really about. Why don’t you gay marriage supporters just admit it?!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - June 2, 2009

  14. Hopefully eventually the courts will force it, so you can be convinced by the loving examples of gay spouses

    Translation: Up with tyranny! Liberalism uber alles! And if you are not convinced after it is forced on you, then off to the re-education camps you go! How dare you claim heterosexuality is different than homosexuality!

    Comment by American Elephant — June 2, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - June 2, 2009

  15. “Liberalism uber alles!” is pretty much what this issue is coming down to, American Elephant. You nailed it.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 2, 2009 @ 10:57 pm - June 2, 2009

  16. Seane-Anna, I wish my recent marriage had become possible through legislative action rather than judicial fiat. But the change in the law means my husband and I can now unquestionably visit and make decisions for each other at the hospital, have automatic access to a variety of state services if we choose to use them, we can consolidate our health insurance wiwithout undue burden, we gain inheritance rights that some of my disapproving relatives won’t be able to interfere with, we know that words we share can never be used against us in a court of law and countless other legal benefits bestowed on couples in the civil contract named after the religious tradition called marriage.

    None of that undercuts my faith in God. I can’t see how it threatens anyone else’s ability to exercise their faith, much less the underpinnings of our culture and society.

    Comment by Brezhnev — June 2, 2009 @ 11:29 pm - June 2, 2009

  17. hmm, not sure where in my post i claimed to be rebutting anything…

    You still haven’t explained, boob, how Republicans can block any repeal of DADT even though they’re “irrelevant”. Still waiting on that one.

    Too many gay marriage supporters would rather hate and intimidate, than educate (in the broad sense). It rhymes

    Yeah in a Up with hope, down with dope Jesse Jackson sorta way.

    intelligent people can still be wrong.

    Unless they support liberal premises, such as global warmism, then the BS that gushes forth is the current truth.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 3, 2009 @ 12:52 am - June 3, 2009

  18. Brezhnev, to put it bluntly, you don’t have faith in God. If you did you’d commit yourself to HIS definition of marriage which can be found in the Book of Genesis and is reiterated by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mattew, chapter 19 verses 3-6 (I’m working on the assumption that you consider yourself to be a Christian or a Jew). In that Gospel Jesus, in answering a question about divorce, defined marriage by quoting that famous passage in Genesis which says that God made Man male and female and for that reason a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus closed by saying that what God had joined man couldn’t put asunder. What did God join? Male and female. I’m sorry, Brezhnev, but there’s no same-sex partnership there. So what you have now is NOT a marriage in God’s eyes.

    And gay marriage undermines society and culture by destroying THE bulwark against anything goes sexuality,namely, the Judeo-Christian moral edifice. Once that’s gone there will be NOTHING to stop any sex group in the country from demanding and getting their “rights”. Brezhnev, think about that while you’re waking up from the delusion that you have a “husband” with the blessings of God.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 3, 2009 @ 1:04 am - June 3, 2009

  19. seane anna you want to protect marriage, lets ban divorce, if youre going to deny me the right to get married i dont want your thugs filing for divorce, gods marriage vows are not supposed to be broken period, but with 50% of heterosexual marriages in the thank & remarrying more than once, dont blame it on me & my boyfriend

    Comment by equalmarriagerights — June 3, 2009 @ 1:41 am - June 3, 2009

  20. I can’t see how it threatens anyone else’s ability to exercise their faith

    Brezhnev,
    I am glad you brought this up. I am happy to tell you how.

    On of the many ways Catholics exercise their faith is by adopting needy orphaned children out to married couples who will give the children a good home and a better life. This charitable work is good for childen and good for society.

    Not only do they believe that homosexuality is sinful, but their religion, and biology, also instructs them that a mother and a father is ideal.

    The state of Massachusetts told the Catholic church that if they wanted to continue their adoption services they must also adopt children to same sex couples, in violation of their religious beliefs. So Catholics in Massachusetts no longer provide any adoption service for anyone. This obviously harms both their freedom of religious expression, their freedom of association but it harms society and the children who will not be adopted out as a result.

    Keep in mind there are other adoption agencies in MA that already adopt to same sex couples.

    Many other court cases have forced religious people and organizations to associate themselves with same sex “marriages” in a number of ways.

    It astonishes me that in a country where religious expression is the primary freedom protected by the constitution, and where same sex marriage is only recognized by statute or judicial fiat in a handful of places, that statutory protections are allowed to trump constitutional protections. Nevertheless that is what is happening. And people who object to same sex marriage on religious grounds are being forced by the government to recognize and associate with them against their will.

    And once established, gay activists will use gay marriage to continue their attack on the freedoms of religious exercise, speech and association as they have already done everywhere gay marriage is recognized.

    You see, you may be fine with other peoples religious freedom, but a large activist segment of the “gay community” is not. They want to use government to stop people who believe homosexuality is sinful from preaching it, teaching it, saying it or exercising that belief in any way shape or form. And there are liberal activists on the bench and liberals in office who are more than happy to help.

    much less the underpinnings of our culture and society.

    Aside from the further destruction of the freedoms of religious exercise, speech and association, what threatens the underpinnings of our culture and society is the further erosion of the connection between marriage and the nuclear family. It is not the fault of gay marriage, but gay marriage is only able to even be considered because a large number of Americans either forgot, or never knew that the importance of marriage to society is in the structure it establishes for reproduction and child rearing.

    But you cannot have an institution that is about encouraging reproduction and rearing of children by their biological parents when you say the institution must recognize no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

    indeed, marriage cant be about kids at all if same sex couples are allowed to marry, because homosexuality cannot create children, only heterosexuality can.

    So it must become just another entitlement for adults.

    Anyone who thinks that separating having children from marriage is not devastating to society, need look no further than those communities where they already have. Where the out of wedlock birth rate is over 70%. Where children are FAR more likely to drop out of school, commit crime, do drugs, be illiterate, be poor, have health problems, die earlier and any other social ill you want to name.

    Mothers and fathers matter. Children matter. And marriage matters to the well being of society AND kids.

    Gay marriage is just a symptom of the liberalization of marriage that has turned it from an institution that serves an important purpose, to an institution that is a meaningless entitlement. Doing so harms society.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 3, 2009 @ 2:49 am - June 3, 2009

  21. you want to protect marriage, lets ban divorce

    Funny thing you should mention that, no-fault divorce is another liberal idea that drastically harmed marriage and children. I agree, lets get rid of no fault divorce. But your argument that the liberalization of marriage has already f*cked marriage and society up, so lets f*ck them up some more is a very weak argument indeed.

    if youre going to deny me the right to get married

    Your right to marry someone of the opposite sex has never been denied. But what you want is not a right. You want to marry a person of the same sex and make society say its the same as heterosexual marriage. It isnt.

    i dont want your thugs filing for divorce

    I think she is a conservative. All the thugs are liberals.

    but with 50% of heterosexual marriages in the thank & remarrying more than once, don’t blame it on me & my boyfriend

    Its a very good thing that nowhere near 50% of marriages are “in the tank”. Approximately 2/3rds of all first marriages last. Its not your fault or your boyfriends fault. It is due to increasingly liberal attitudes about marriage, which have made many in society forget what the institution is for to begin with. But that is no excuse to further damage it.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 3, 2009 @ 3:01 am - June 3, 2009

  22. Truthfully i believe all of you are missing the point. The government shouldn’t be endorsing any religious concept – such as marriage. As, such, it should get out of the business entirely. If marriage is considered so sacred by conservative christians – let them have it. They can make their committments in their churches and have their relationships sanctioned by their God. Meanwhile, the government can provide access to a civil partnership that provides the legal protections now only enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Let the churches and religions have their marriages, let the government provide equal access to all to a civil partnership.

    Comment by akminority report — June 3, 2009 @ 3:41 am - June 3, 2009

  23. for the same reasons I opposed a referendum in Maine, I also oppose one in Washington State. Elected representatives who decided the issue. If citizens don’t like the way their representative voted, they can vote them out of office.

    That’s no reason for opposing a referendum at all.

    So because you don’t like direct democracy, none should exist? That’s about the sum of your (non)argument.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — June 3, 2009 @ 4:39 am - June 3, 2009

  24. Brezhnev, to put it bluntly, you don’t have faith in God. If you did you’d commit yourself to HIS definition of marriage which can be found in the Book of Genesis and is reiterated by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mattew, chapter 19 verses 3-6 (I’m working on the assumption that you consider yourself to be a Christian or a Jew).

    With all respect Seane-Anna, unless you are God, I don’t think you are qualified to determine if someone else has faith in God. In the meantime, Bible quoting does not prove your point. In only proves that you believe in a literal (or conveniently selective) interpretation of the Bible. There are many faithful who do not believe the Bible literally and/or have other books or tenets of faith other than the Bible.

    Dan, there is nothing wrong with the term “education” here. Those who oppose same sex marriage are also free to educate us why same sex marriage should not be allowed. Some on this thread are attempting to do just that.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2009 @ 7:18 am - June 3, 2009

  25. akaminority report,

    I think you are missing the point. Marriage has non-religious consequences for society. It is very beneficial to society to have men and women in legally binding relationships so that when children are born they are born into that legally binding relationship and get raised by their biological mothers and fathers.

    gays cant fulfill that purpose, so treating same sex couples the same as married couples changes that purpose. the connection between marriage and children is destroyed and marriage becomes nothing but an entitlement program for adults.

    separating marriage from child rearing harms society.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 3, 2009 @ 7:48 am - June 3, 2009

  26. It is very beneficial to society to have men and women in legally binding relationships

    You’re being silly, AE. Gay marriage is not about benefiting society, that’s the last thing its proponents care about. This is about narcissism, *feelings,* and demanding that society validate their lifestyle and winning an “in yer face” against religious folk.

    Comment by V the K — June 3, 2009 @ 8:47 am - June 3, 2009

  27. Separating kids from marriage worked so well in the black community! Democrats can’t wait to do it everywhere!

    Comment by American Elephant — June 3, 2009 @ 8:56 am - June 3, 2009

  28. #22 akminority report send a little “basic truth” our way:

    Truthfully i believe all of you are missing the point. The government shouldn’t be endorsing any religious concept – such as marriage. As, such, it should get out of the business entirely.

    By the time we seriously discuss same sex “marriage” it is well past time to question whether there is a compelling state interest in the institution of “marriage” and how it serves the state and the society.

    No fault divorce, single parent “families,” abortion as birth control, children having children, grandparents raising grandchildren because they are only responsible people around ……. these issues are each and every one related to how the state views its compelling state interest in regulating “marriage.”

    We are darn near the point where a man and his goat have a good case for the “right” to “marry.” No wonder so many gays look at this whole thing as being kept away from the party.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 3, 2009 @ 10:34 am - June 3, 2009

  29. Gay marriage is not about benefiting society, that’s the last thing its proponents care about.

    Sorry V, but that’s rather over-generalizing.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 11:11 am - June 3, 2009

  30. it is well past time to question whether there is a compelling state interest in the institution of “marriage” and how it serves the state and the society.

    Society benefits from having people voluntarily pair off in these little, stable mutual-welfare societies. Especially if the pair is then going to have kids. Society benefits so much from it, in fact, that qualifying gay couples – i.e., gay couples who meet the other / remaining qualifications that the State has set for its marriage licenses – should be included. Especially gay couples who do, in fact, have kids.

    If you disagree with me, that’s fine – I accept your right to think what you think – and I accept the People’s right to vote and decide the question.

    We are darn near the point where a man and his goat have a good case for the “right” to “marry.”

    heliotrope, see my comments above. Couples involve people. Marriage licenses involve qualifications set by the State, so that the institution or the issuance of the license will, in fact, benefit society.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 11:22 am - June 3, 2009

  31. (hit button too soon – directly continuing) – And I’m not questioning that or proposing to change that. Some people are (nod to V). But I’m not, and Pat isn’t, and several other proponents that I know, are not (nod to my slight rebuke of V).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 11:25 am - June 3, 2009

  32. your argument that the liberalization of marriage has already f*cked marriage and society up, so lets f*ck them up some more is a very weak argument indeed.

    That may have been a fitting riposte to equalmarriagerights at #19, but I want to make something clear for the record: That would not be my argument. Not at all. I do think that heterosexuals weakened marriage when they passed no-fault divorce, and I will point out to heterosexuals that they should reverse course on that. But society should pass gay marriage, or at least gay civil unions, even after that. Gay marriage / unions is something, again, that will benefit and strengthen society, and my support for it is based on that.

    Truthfully i believe all of you are missing the point. The government shouldn’t be endorsing any religious concept – such as marriage

    Truthfully I believe you’re missing the point, ar: Marriage isn’t necessarily a religious concept… it is something that benefits society.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 11:31 am - June 3, 2009

  33. Sorry V, but that’s rather over-generalizing.

    I don’t hear proponents talking about wanting to better society very often. Most of what I hear is “I want equality! I want benefits! I want the state to recognize that my relationship is as good as anyone else’s! Me! Me! Me!”

    Frankly, it’s off-putting. SSM is a pretty minor issue for me, but I can’t stand obnoxious people.

    Comment by V the K — June 3, 2009 @ 11:44 am - June 3, 2009

  34. I don’t hear proponents talking about wanting to better society very often.

    I do it all the time. To a lesser extent perhaps, so may Pat and GPW.

    (Sidebar: I class GPW as a crypto-proponent of gay marriage because, if you’ve noticed, he criticizes the gay marriage proponents, as I do, for *not doing a good enough job* – such as for their not reaching out to opponents and trying to persuade opponents constructively. And, by GPW’s own admission, he did in the end vote to keep gay marriage in CA, last November.)

    Look V, I know you have a point. The loudest, shriekiest proponents of gay marriage talk about “rights” (when in fact a State license for fishing, driving, marriage or anything is never a right – for anybody). There are some who engage in ugly tactics – which is the subject of GPW’s post. As I put it, as a riff on GPW’s title, some would rather “hate and intimidate than educate”. We’re almost on the same page there. I’m just saying, please don’t present the loudest, shriekiest ones trying to make themselves ultra-visible as the whole story.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 11:54 am - June 3, 2009

  35. I appreciate everyone’s comments. However, most of the arguments i hear against gay “marriage” have very little to do with the benefit of marriage to society. Most are arguments that i hear are little more than fear mongering.

    That said – the institution of marriage existed long before the government got involved in regulating it and using it as a tool for social betterment. If people need a law to enforce their committments to God and to each other, that is a truly sorry state of affairs. So I believe that the argument of using government regulated marriages as a tool for betterment of society truly falls into government intruding into the lives of its citizens and a violation of privacy and basic American freedoms.

    Even with the government involved in shoring up the family unit, fifty percent of marriages fall apart. My question is, with 90 percent of Americans proclaiming faith in God, why is their committment to their marriages and their children so poor? This cannot be laid at the feet of gay couples – who really only want to ensure that their partners can have access to them in hospitals and nursing homes, have instant power attorney in cases of emergency, and not have to fight to keep what they have built together after on of the couple dies.

    Comment by akminority report — June 3, 2009 @ 12:51 pm - June 3, 2009

  36. Even with the government involved in shoring up the family unit, fifty percent of marriages fall apart.

    False statistic because it includes serial marriages. The actual number of first time marriages that succeed is more like 70%. And, as AE has pointed out, many of us would also like to see an end to no-fault divorce.

    I often think that if liberal heterosexuals had not already degraded the institution of marriage, gays wouldn’t even be interested in it. Now, marriage is seen as a kind of trophy for the gay left to snatch away from the religious right and display on their tastefully appointed fireplace.

    At the end of the day, homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are two completely separate animals; psychodynamically speaking. They are separate and unequal by their very nature, and the impetus for equating them is yet another political charade.

    Comment by V the K — June 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm - June 3, 2009

  37. If people need a law to enforce their committments to God and to each other…

    No, it’s more that government, seeing the benefit of a society well-ordering by these exclusive pairings (as the foundation for families), decided to facilitate and privilege marriage. For example, give couples the benefit of automatic inheritance, exemption from having to testify against each other, etc.

    So the State marriage license is not about “enforcement” of marriages, it’s about privileging them as, in fact, they do benefit society – whether or not a particular couple involves religion, or even has religion.

    why is [some hetersexuals’] committment to their marriages and their children so poor? This cannot be laid at the feet of gay couples

    Agreed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - June 3, 2009

  38. I agree with ILC and GPW not only in their support of same sex marriage, but that we should do a better job with explaining why same sex marriage would benefit society as a whole.

    At the risk of the “well they do it to argument” (which I agree is not a good argument), I think it’s fair to point out that when most straight people get married, they don’t deeply analyze their choice as doing something that will benefit society. They just get married. That’s the way I see most gay people who want same sex marriage.

    Sure, with many, perhaps too many, it’s more about “they have it, and I want it too. Wah!” But the same could be the same for opponents of same sex marriage “I got it, and I’m not going to let them have it. Wah!” Of course, most of the time it will be dressed up with things phrases like “equal rights,” “separate but equal,” “traditional,” “this is what (I think) God wants,” etc.

    Comment by Pat — June 3, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - June 3, 2009

  39. so, after doing some chatter withsomeone about HIV rates and men on the down low, there was the thouht of the Big B. Bisexuality. Now where does that B thing fit into the picture. There is GP and GPW. GP has a parnter, and Matt- Michigan and even Peter H refers to his partner as hubby. GPW is dating, or has at least blogged about it. ILC ??

    So, I thought about Bisexual Patriots. Bisexual Conservatives. Bisexual Republicans. Is it better to say that Larry Craig is a bisexual. Most bisexuals, if challenged on sexual identity, well how do they reply, or should they even have to make any declaration.

    But that just leads me to also question how bisexuals respond to the whole SSM debate. What does a bisexual say about GAY marriage?

    Are the efforts of some to out (oh say) legislators, public figures or celebs, actually calling out ‘Gay’ Folk or are some of these people just Bisexuals?

    Comment by rusty — June 3, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - June 3, 2009

  40. There is one question that SSM advocates have never answered. That is this: “Where exactly does it say that marriage is a ‘right’ “?

    Is it an inalienable right?

    Is it a Constitutional right?

    Where is the Office of Marriage Protection within the Department of Justice?

    These are fundamental questions that I think should be asked of all SSM advocates as well as SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 3, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - June 3, 2009

  41. There is one question that SSM advocates have never answered. That is this: “Where exactly does it say that marriage is a ‘right’ “?

    Sorry Bruce, but I consider myself something of a same-sex marriage advocate, and I have answered that question over and over and over, as follows:

    A State marriage license is NOT a right. Not for anyone – not even heterosexuals. It is a privilege that the People choose to extend to those who meet qualifications that the People set. Those qualifications have been changed before, can be changed today, and doubtless will be changed in the future. It’s not a question of rights, it is a public-policy question.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - June 3, 2009

  42. actually, according to the united states supreme court, marriage is a right. in loving v virginia, the majority found that:

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - June 3, 2009

  43. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer, bob.

    Look at your own quotation. Note that the Court, when speaking in its own voice (rather than quoting someone else), carefully never referred to a State marriage license as a right. They said that the qualifications set by the People could not be race-based (per the 14th amendment). They said nothing to restrict gender-based qualfiications – say, like a State only having opposite-sex couples marry, or for that matter, only having male (gay) couples marry, or only female couples. They were totally silent on such matters.

    I happen to think that all gender restrictions in State marriage policy are stupid, i.e., bad policy. On that basis, I support same-sex marriage. I think other marriage restrictions like age (don’t marry kids), no incest, no bigamy, etc. are good policy. A State marriage license is a right for *no one*. Loving simply (and rightly) says that States can’t use race as one of the qualifications for the license.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 6:22 pm - June 3, 2009

  44. P.S. And if you don’t believe me, bob, then write to your favorite legally knowledgeable gay marriage advocates and ask them why the signs that they have supporters carry always and only talk about the freedom to marry, NOT the *right*. (Hint: It’s because they’re trying to co-opt the language that Loving did use.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 6:26 pm - June 3, 2009

  45. (what I’m pointing out in the link is the very first picture – the signs from the EQ campaign that carefully say, “I do support the freedom to marry”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - June 3, 2009

  46. “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…”

    Not exactly a great line to lead off with in an argument for same sex marriage.

    Comment by a different Dave — June 3, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - June 3, 2009

  47. Seane-Anna, you should comment more often. You just might open some eyes.

    Comment by a different Dave — June 3, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - June 3, 2009

  48. and since bob likes to cling to the courts as arbitrators of all that’s good, he must accept that Baker v. Nelson confirmed that marriage is not automatically assumed to be a right available to everyone.

    ILC, I think Bruce meant the SSM advocates who say it’s a right never say where it comes from.

    You and I differ on the means of achieving recognition of SSM, IIRC. The seperate relationships need to be recognized through legislation, not created whole cloth out of courts.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - June 3, 2009

  49. Thanks, Dave. I will comment as often as I can and I do hope to open some eyes. And American Elephant, thanks for your supportive words, too.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 3, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - June 3, 2009

  50. No, TL. I’m all for the legislative route / against the “judicial fiat” route. And I would be willing to accept Fred (i.e., civil unions / marriage under another name).

    My thing is (1) get a marriage-like path going for gays; (2) get it democratically, even if that will take awhile or involve some compromises. So I advocate for same-sex marriage – marriage being the substance of what I want, or the best available word – but on the other hand, I slap down the bogus “rights” language that we see from bob and other more left-wing advocates.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 3, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - June 3, 2009

  51. Pat and AE, actually I’m Roman Catholic, though I’m aware some people consider that to be an apostate creed. I understand the Church doesn’t recognize my marriage. Nor does it recognize my sister’s marriage to a man who was divorced but never got an annulment. But every State in the Union recognizes her marriage, even though they’ve never had children. The catholic church (intentional little “c”) has always misunderstood a great variety of God’s laws — see 1,980 years of slavery and counting, for one glaring example. That’s inherent in the human condition. Fortunately, we occasionally break through the barriers of our ignorant minds and grow a little closer to bringing about God’s Kingdom. God’s love is about honoring and fulfilling human dignity. The Golden Rule. It’s that simple – and that difficult.

    As to Massachusetts trying to dictate to Catholic Social Services, that’s a result of government getting its tentacles into too many places, and of too many places welcoming government’s stifling embrace. Government money inevitably brings government regulation. The biggest danger of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was that it entangled perfectly good private charities with government money and regulations. Even the tax-exempt status of churches comes at the price of restrictions on overt political speech from some of the most important institutions in our society.

    Keep stirring the pot, Pat. It keeps things lively.

    Comment by Brezhnev — June 4, 2009 @ 12:08 am - June 4, 2009

  52. thanks to every one for a very illuminating and thoughtful discussion

    Comment by akminority report — June 4, 2009 @ 4:24 am - June 4, 2009

  53. Society benefits from having people voluntarily pair off in these little, stable mutual-welfare societies. Especially if the pair is then going to have kids.

    I’m not sure that society DOES benefit if there are no children.

    Remember we are subsidizing these couples. So we are in essence paying them to take care of one another. One dies before the other, and the state often times ends up paying for the surviving spouse through inherited Social Security benefits, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

    I’m not sure that without kids, married couples do save the state money. With as much as we subsidize marriage its entirely possible that they are economically neutral or even a drag.

    But if they have kids, that’s another story all together.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 4, 2009 @ 5:26 am - June 4, 2009

  54. And what if they divorce? Where is the benefit to the state in subsidizing a couple that doesn’t end up taking care of one another at all?

    What about poor couples that still need state help?

    Society really has no interest in the relationships between adults if its not about promoting whats best for kids.

    Comment by American Elephant — June 4, 2009 @ 5:30 am - June 4, 2009

  55. Remember we are subsidizing these couples. So we are in essence paying them to take care of one another. One dies before the other, and the state often times ends up paying for the surviving spouse through inherited Social Security benefits, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

    That’s fine, American Elephant. But that’s true whether or not the couple has children. And if they did, the children are grown up by then.

    I’m not sure that society DOES benefit if there are no children.

    One of the things that separates us from other animals is that we are a lot more than just procreating. We value many more things than that. We value every person, whether they can or choose to procreate. In fact, we, in many cases discourage procreation (see octomom amongst many such examples).

    Adults in stable relationships, whether or not they have children, benefit society. We should have as many positive models for our children while growing up. Continuation of our species will take care of itself, and in a more positive way.

    If it’s only about procreating, then why bother recognizing any marriage that does not lead to children. And for those that do, why not automatically dissolve the marriage when the children grow up? Heck, why don’t we just behave like dogs and unload the children when they are weaned. Just sustain them enough until they are old enough to procreate themselves?

    Brezhnev, thanks. Although I try not to stir the pot too much. I’m not sure what to say about the Massachusetts Catholic charities. You bring up a good point about the marriages that the RC Church recognizes. I’m wondering how selective they were allowed to be even before same sex marriage. For example, they do not recognize the marriage of a couple where one (or both) have been divorced without an annulment. Do they recognize marriages performed by non-RC clergy, or civil marriages? So, for example, would these charities be able to deny adoption to your sister and brother-in-law solely because they don’t recognize their marriage?

    I think the state has an interest in adoption of children. As such, organizations that provide adoption services are required to follow the law. For this reason alone, it makes more sense to have same sex marriage or civil unions go through the legislative or referendum process.

    Comment by Pat — June 4, 2009 @ 7:24 am - June 4, 2009

  56. I think the state does have a compelling interest in regulating marriage. But, in saying this, I see the “state” as “we the people.” Others apparently see the “state” as unelected judges who set policy from the bench.

    If “we the people” can be moved to ask our legislators to include same sex couples in the “marriage” tradition, then individual states will comply. However, no source I have read has explained how the other states are not bound by the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.

    Same sex marriage is neither an equality issue or a civil rights issue. It is a redefinition of the concept of marriage. No gay is kept from marrying. No gay is denied next of kin and inheritance rights. I don’t know about conjugal visitor rights for the imprisoned.

    I fully understand a gay seeking the “benefits” of the law where same sex partnerships are involved. That is why I support civil unions. But I find something really disingenuous when gays insist on the marriage tradition being opened to accept same sex couples. That is a major breach of the tradition. I see no general benefit to society accruing. I have seen no compelling argument displaying the benefits of same sex marriage to the society as a whole.

    When a breach in traditional marriage occurs, I think same sex marriage is far more radical than polygamy (for which there is a long tradition in history and is accepted in Islam) or even child marriage.

    Many gays claim that opening traditional marriage to same sex couples has nothing to do with polygamy. I can not understand how one can assume that a titanic redefinition of marriage to accept same sex couples is not a major opening for other adjustments of traditional marriage.

    I doubt that married gays under a new “marriage” construct would have very much clout when sharia comes calling. Furthermore, I think the general society would have less standing to hold against sharia after accepting same sex couples in the marriage definition.

    I am opposed to polygamy, child marriage, a man and his goat marriage and gay marriage for the simple reason that there is nothing wrong or wanting in the marriage tradition as it stands.

    I also wonder why gays don’t target “civil unions” instead of marriage. By the way, I have been married to the same woman for 46 years and I have never had to produce my marriage certificate a single time. I doubt I could even find it. There is no magic in the certificate. It is all in the heart.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 4, 2009 @ 8:51 am - June 4, 2009

  57. I’m not sure that society DOES benefit if there are no children.

    I am sure that it does.

    One dies before the other, and the state often times ends up paying for the surviving spouse through inherited Social Security benefits, medicare, medicaid, and other welfare programs.

    Mixing issues. Those programs have bigger things wrong with them than their treatment of spouses. The problems with Social Security, for example, include the fact that it exists (Leviathan won); the fact that it is welfare-Ponzi scheme (not a savings scheme); the fact that it pays-or-has-promised unaffordably large benefits to (not just spousal survivors); etc.

    I’m not sure that without kids, married couples do save the state money.

    The couple are each other’s top incentive to live productively and each other’s first line of assistance in illness or other things that go wrong. But to the extent your point may be valid, then think about this: that situation would be how the Left wants it. The Left wants the State to be everyone’s marriage partner – and mommy and daddy – making traditional marriage obsolete.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 4, 2009 @ 10:00 am - June 4, 2009

  58. …I support civil unions. But I find something really disingenuous when gays insist on the marriage tradition being opened to accept same sex couples. That is a major breach of the tradition.
    …wonder why gays don’t target “civil unions” instead of marriage.

    But legally, or from the point of view of the State, civil unions are the substance of marriage. The name is different. I’m OK with having the name be different if that makes it easier for you, but I call it “gay marriage” myself because I focus on the substantive reality. I don’t agree that gay marriage is “a major breach of the tradition”, but if it is, then so are civil unions and I should think you would want to oppose them as well.

    Long story short, I don’t understand why it is so important (for some people) to not call gay marriage “marriage” – but, since I believe in doing it democratically, I’m personally willing to go along.

    I think same sex marriage is far more radical than polygamy

    I gave rebuttal points in another thread: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/01/when-are-gay-groups-going-to-thank-mary-cheney/comment-page-1/#comment-435103

    I can not understand how one can assume that a titanic redefinition of marriage to accept same sex couples is not a major opening for other adjustments of traditional marriage.

    And I gave a response here: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/01/when-are-gay-groups-going-to-thank-mary-cheney/comment-page-1/#comment-435694

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 4, 2009 @ 10:18 am - June 4, 2009

  59. (The comment-specific links seem flaky. I meant comments #22 and #42, respectively, in this thread: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/06/01/when-are-gay-groups-going-to-thank-mary-cheney/ )

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 4, 2009 @ 10:21 am - June 4, 2009

  60. Seane-Anna, I really should have been clearer. My hope is that you would open some eyes to the very real hatred cloaked in destorted, the irrational belief that gays are able to destroy society and the paranoia that comes close to paralyzing the sado-christian right that you so perfectly model. If even one person realizes that there is NOTHING short of celibacy, conversion or suicide that will please you. AE is one of your strongest allies, but you know as well as I do that if he is gay then in your eyes he is an abomination and a threat to civilization just like the rest of us. So please, let loose you might actually save someone from the lie of trusting right wing christians. Yes, little c, because there are real Christians and real conservative Christians, sadly they aren’t as loud as your kind.

    Comment by a different Dave — June 4, 2009 @ 10:22 am - June 4, 2009

  61. oops, should have been “distorted religious nonsense”

    Comment by a different Dave — June 4, 2009 @ 10:23 am - June 4, 2009

  62. ILC, thanks for your response to my comments.

    I oppose “open marriage” and long term co-habitation among heteros. But, I am content to save my activism for bigger issues. I have neighbors who have co-habited for more than twenty years. She keeps her maiden name and is quite militant about it. If someone calls her Mrs. (…..) she sets the record straight. Fine, but if they are comfortable with playing house for so long, what is the hang up with the assumption they are married?

    Gay unions are just fine with me, but I think gays need to work out their own terminology. Long ago, I learned what “my partner” meant. But every time a man tells me the other man is his husband, I admit to experiencing an involuntary gulp. I have hosted parties at which I have introduced a guest and his partner to others. I can not bring myself to introduce a guest and his husband to others. I really don’t care to stir up the chatter that would result.

    Hopefully, you will understand this as a form of provincialism and not an example of bigotry.

    In all good faith, I think civil unions would be largely accepted by those who do not bring a strong religious ethic to the debate. But going for marriage “equality” is way too much for many more than just those with a strong religious objection.

    For the most part, I think people have a sympathy for the issues of next of kin and inheritance. They just do not want the fundamentals of marriage upended.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 4, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - June 4, 2009

  63. She keeps her maiden name and is quite militant about it. If someone calls her Mrs. (…..) she sets the record straight. Fine, but if they are comfortable with playing house for so long, what is the hang up with the assumption they are married?

    Heliotrope, married or not, plenty of women keep their maiden name. What’s wrong with that? So do 99.99% of men when they get married. How would you feel if someone called you Mr. (your wife’s maiden name)? Maybe you’re a better man than me, but I would not like to be called Mr. (my partner’s last name).

    Fine, but if they are comfortable with playing house for so long, what is the hang up with the assumption they are married?

    Good question. But for whatever reason, they choose to not marry. Of course, we have the other situation where a gay couple would like the assumption that they are married. And there’s plenty of opposition to that.

    I also wonder why gays don’t target “civil unions” instead of marriage. By the way, I have been married to the same woman for 46 years and I have never had to produce my marriage certificate a single time. I doubt I could even find it. There is no magic in the certificate. It is all in the heart.

    It’s great that your marriage is in your heart, as it should be. But if your marriage certificate wasn’t on file somewhere, you wouldn’t have all the rights and benefits that come with marriage, unless you had your attorney draw up all the legal papers to do so. So there is plenty of magic in that piece of paper.

    I have hosted parties at which I have introduced a guest and his partner to others. I can not bring myself to introduce a guest and his husband to others. I really don’t care to stir up the chatter that would result.

    Unless you have rude guests, I don’t think that would be an issue. In any case, I personally would not insist on having someone refer to my partner as my husband.

    Comment by Pat — June 5, 2009 @ 7:23 am - June 5, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.