Why do some gay marriage activists prefer tactics of intimidation?
Today in the Wall Street Journal‘s online Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund addresses a specific manifestation of an issue we have long addressed on this blog, the preference of some gay marriage advocates (many, it seems sometimes) to prefer the tactics of intimidation to persuasion.
At issue is their attempts to gain access to, in Fund’s words, “the names of 138,000 people who signed a petition to put forward a November ballot measure to protect traditional marriage”:
The gay groups want to put the names online, which could lead to signers being harassed along the lines of what happened to donors to Proposition 8 in California last year. Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the landmark decision overturning state anti-gay laws, nonetheless blocked a federal appeals court ruling that would have allowed release of the names.
Given how busy I am at present with various projects related to my dissertation, I don’t have much time to explore this issue in depth. So, I’ll conclude this post by building on the question posed in the title: Why do some gay activists prefer the tactics of intimidation to those of persuasion? Why are they so loath to make the case for gay marriage?
Why are they, like the President, so regularly so ready to demonize their adversaries?
65 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m tempted to say it’s because some people are just *ssh*les but I’ll try and be more thoughtful. I can think of two reasons.
1) Many gay people put up with a lot of intimidation and harrassment growing up (at least they did in my day). People deal with that in different ways. Some of us retreat into books or art or something else that takes us away from the pain. Another way is to become just as aggressive and bullying as one’s tormentors. I suspect those who responded to bullies by becoming bullies are more likely to become activists than those of us who refused to come out of our rooms.
2) Whether the topic is gay marriage or anti-globalization, there seem to be a lot of folks on the left who are angry and willing to resort to intimidation or violence to get their way. Look at Chavez. Look at the vandalism in Seattle a few years ago–or any time the G7 (G8, G20, whatever they’re calling it now) get together. Look at ELF and the developments and car dealerships they’ve burned. It’s not a phenomenon specific to gay marriage. (And, to be fair, it’s not unique to the left it just seems to be more common in those circles.)
Comment by Fescue — October 20, 2009 @ 3:07 pm - October 20, 2009
Liberals know they can’t win with their ideas at the ballot box, so they have to push them by any means necessary.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - October 20, 2009
People on the left are thugs, plain and simple. And gay marriage is a left-wing cause.
Comment by V the K — October 20, 2009 @ 3:15 pm - October 20, 2009
It’s fueled by pure narcissism, as usual. They are right and anyone who disagrees is categorically, unacceptably, and unequivocally wrong. In fact, it’s not about “right” and “wrong” with them–it’s about “correct” and “incorrect.” They refuse to tolerate differences of opinion because they believe that differing opinions are not legitimately held. Thus, they see nothing wrong with trying to pressure their opponents into going along with the “correct” viewpoint through the use of intimidation and blackmail because it’s ultimately good for them and good for society for everyone to agree on what they believe there can be no legitimate disagreement on. If you don’t have the “correct” belief, then you deserve what you get until you are no longer “incorrect.”
Comment by Sean A — October 20, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - October 20, 2009
Phillip from Maine would disagree with you, V. But those crazy Republican war veteran hippies have all sorts of crazy ideas, you know? Fighting for freedom from governmental interference *is* a loony left idea, apparently.
So a public and transparent democratic process, which applies to all such ballot and proposition processes within the state, could lead to intimidation and nasty phone calls. And therefore, it definitely will, and those who make such calls are necessarily gay activists. This shielding of an open political process should only apply to anti-gay voters. Q.E.D.D.
(which has been demonstrated if you’re right wing)
BDB, I don’t know why some faceless and anonymous phone-callers do mean things. As long as we’re comparing tactics, why do the organizers and public face of the anti-gay marriage campaigns continue to traffic in lies and fear (“Gay marriage will lead to gay sex indoctrination in public schools,” “Gay marriage will lead to lawsuits against ministers who refuse to perform SSM ceremonies”) as they did in CA and are now repeating in Maine? These tropes are explicitly disproven by the text in the bills (not to mention the First Amendment). As long as you’re painting with such a broad brush (nasty phone callers are gay activists/”Why do some gay activists prefer the tactics of intimidation to those of persuasion? “), why do some right-wing anti-gay equality organizations openly prefer the tactics of fear and lies over persuasion?
Comment by torrentprime — October 20, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - October 20, 2009
A way to ask the question is this: Why do gays who think that marriage is an oppressive, patriarchal institution invented by the evil homophobic church to dominate women in their imperialistic quest for power and which should be abandoned for the more natural sexuality of promiscuity and unclear age limits–why do these gays use intimidation tactics? Exactly why do they care whether gays have marriage or not since they hate it so much?
It’s not a lie–it’s a fact that these gays would like to use gay marriage as a wedge to indoctrinate kids into homosexuality in schools–not the happy penguin type, but actually working on kids in their early years to abandon tradition and head for a life of satisfying multiple partners. It’s not fear–it’s a fact that strident gays will sue churches for not marrying them. Most gays are working for the sexual liberation which began with Stonewall. Most gays want kids to read the picture-book version of John Rechy’s Numbers so kids don’t grow up oppressed by outdated sexual rules.
We Stonewall-hating gays, that is, those of us gays who think that gay covenants are created by God and meant to be lived out in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships (whether these are called marriage or not) are content to quietly witness to our church community in hope of winning people over with our example.
I don’t need to intimidate anyone to my point of view. The Holy Spirit changes people’s hearts, not me.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 20, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - October 20, 2009
Washington Attorney General’s office spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie announced in an email, “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today granted an immediate stay and reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking the release of Referendum 71 petitions containing the names and addresses of those who signed the measure . . . .”
The three-judge panel said [District Court] Judge Benjamin Settle relied on a faulty legal standard in issuing a ban on the state releasing R-71 petition sheets — apparently a reference to foes’ theory that petitions are constitutionally-protect “anonymous free speech.” Secretary of State Sam Reed, relying on advice from the Attorney General, treats the petitions as a releasable public record, not as a private act by a citizen. He and Attorney General McKenna say taking part in the initiative and referendum process amounts to taking part in the public act of citizen legislating, and that disclosure of the names is appropriate in the same way that people demand to know the sponsorship of legislation in Olympia.
http://www.akawilliam.com/identities-of-washingtons-referendum-71-petition-signers-to-be-released-after-all/
Comment by rusty — October 20, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - October 20, 2009
Tell me, TP, since WHEN do liberals give a flying fuck about a “transparent democratic process”????
We STILL don’t have the transparency Granny Botox promissed nigh on 3 years ago. We’ve yet to have the transparency of Chairman Obama’s spending. The liberals are hiding behind closed doors and conducting back room deals on ObamaCareless.
For the definition of transparency, my dictionary doesn’t include the qualifier “as long as it suits liberals”. How about yours?
If you’re not too busy blowing a blood vessel trying to come up with even more bullshit, would you mind answering? Thanks.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - October 20, 2009
In the interest in fairness & transparency, can we get the name, address, phone numbers and place of business for each and every person who views the list?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - October 20, 2009
As I understand this issue, it’s regarding checking the names of the people signing and financially supporting the movement against gay marriage.
I don’t think verifying that the process is open and people are contributing in a legal and open manner is “intimidation.” I think anyone who contributes politically should know it would be a public record.
Turning this into “intimidation”??? Seems like a bit of a stretch.
Comment by Tim — October 20, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - October 20, 2009
I disagree with an assertion idea that this post seems to imply: that wanting public access to the list of petition signers is intimidation. Fund rightly says that it could lead to harrassment, which is an unfortunate and likely possibility. But releasing the names of those who sign a petition to get a measure on the ballot is not the same as harassing those people. Public access to the petitions should be an encouraged requirement if we like open government. Those who use the power of the direct ballot for anything should be accountable by placing all of that information in the public realm. But the use of such information to harass signers of petitions should be rightly condemned, and punished if it crosses a legal line.
Of course, none of this really answers your question, Dan. I think the answer is two-fold. First, those people think they have a right to marriage (which most readers here understandably disagree with) and second, they’re afraid they can’t make the case and convince their neighbors. They have no faith in people.
Comment by Neptune — October 20, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - October 20, 2009
Fighting for freedom from governmental interference *is* a loony left idea, apparently.
Yes, torrentprime, it is extremely loony to claim you are asking for “freedom from government interference” when in fact what you are demanding is legalized interference, regulation, and subsidization of your relationship by the government.
You already have freedom from government interference. The government right now does not care if you marry your multiple same-sex partners, nor will it interfere with your kicking them out on a regular basis and replacing them with others. It has no interest in, nor does it seek to regulate, your relationship in any way.
In contrast, marriage is a highly-regulated situation with numerous examples of government interference. You may not abuse your spouse. You may not disinherit your spouse. You must have your spouse’s permission to do several things. You cannot dissolve the relationship without following specific government protocols. The government WILL intervene if you go outside the lines on this.
If the point was freedom, you have it already. What you want is validation by the government and the right to force your beliefs on others because you’re an antireligious bigot. You’re little more than a screaming spoiled brat who is demanding a toy only because others are playing with it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - October 20, 2009
I don’t think verifying that the process is open and people are contributing in a legal and open manner is “intimidation.”
Well, this is entertaining.
Remember mere days ago, when Tim was all up in arms about protecting the “privacy” of his fellow pedophile supporters?
NDK, as a person with a law enforcement background, I do know that people involved in such sensitive subjects don’t need every minute detail of their life broadcast to the world just because you need some sick curiousity of yours fulfilled concerning something you have nothing to do with. Showing ANY evidence of this man’s age is honorable considering there was no crime comitted. In MANY cases only small amounts of evidence are needed, and the rest of the details are withheld to protect the privacy and well being of the man in question.
In other words, Tim refuses to reveal names, addresses, and the like because “there was no crime committed”.
But now, Tim insists that names and addresses have to be blasted to the world to ensure “openness and transparency”.
Or more precisely, so that Tim and his fellow gay liberals can do this.
El Coyote’s red neon sign flickered above the angry crowd of nearly 100 demonstrators last night as their shouts of “Hate on plate! Hate on plate! What do we want? Civil rights!” filled the night…..
But the anger was apparent as the few customers of the evening walked in, including a lesbian couple. They were met with angry chanting of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you!”
Notice what these gay hatemongers are doing. They are blockading businesses. They are attacking the customers of people whose donations they don’t like. The intent here is clear — to harass and intimidate people who don’t vote or contribute in the way the gay community orders.
Meanwhile, there is outright proof of exactly what the gay community is doing and intends to do with these lists.
That is not “verification”. That is intent to harass, clearly laid out, and that is the reason why Kennedy wisely chose to seal these lists.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - October 20, 2009
Tim, in the spirit of your earlier comment, please put your money where your mouth is by publishing here your full true name, full address, phone number, and SSN.
I PROMISE that no-one will misuse this information, harass you because of your opinion, or turn a profit by selling your data to selemarketers.
Really.
Comment by DaveP. — October 20, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - October 20, 2009
Dan — good post.
My take: The American Gay Community has, for the most part, been all about tearing down — not lifting up. So there is no great surprise to their peddling of hate for the past two decades as a fundraising strategy.
Comment by GayPatriot — October 20, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - October 20, 2009
Torrentprime,
Civil Marriage IS government interference you ignorant douchenozzle. That’s what gay leftists are begging for, is for the government to interfere in their relationships! Begging for the government to give them goodies, begging for the government to require others to treat their relationship as something it is not — equivalent to the only kind of relationship that is responsible for every human life on the face of the Earth throughout all of history. save one. Begging, for government to validate their dearest delusions rather than coming to terms with the truth, which is that homosexuality is different than heterosexuality.
Here is a very simple test for you in the future…if liberal groups are fighting for it, whatever “it” is, it’s NOT freedom.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - October 20, 2009
On May 18, Governor Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5688, a law ensuring that all Washington families are treated the same, with the same protections, the same rights and the same obligations as their neighbors. Under this law, registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite sex couples with at least one partner over age 62), and married couples, are treated equally under the law in all parts of the state.
Key protections and obligations in the law include death benefits for the partners of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty; pension benefits for the partners of teachers, librarians and other public employees; the right to use sick leave to care for a gravely ill partner, and the right to adopt a partner’s child without paying for a home study.
These rights and obligations for domestic partners were passed following those adopted in 2007, when the Legislature established a domestic partnership registry and granted registered couples rights to make health care decisions for a sick partner, to visit a partner in the hospital, the right to consent to an autopsy, and some property rights; and those adopted in 2008, including community property rights, probate rights, joint responsibility for debts, and other protections.
http://approvereferendum71.org/about-wafst
AE that’s a big leap . . .equivalent to the only kind of relationship that is responsible for every human life on the face of the Earth throughout all of history.
Comment by rusty — October 20, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - October 20, 2009
Rusty,
Its only a big leap for people who dont believe in biology. You see, every human in the history of the world is the product of an egg, which ONLY come from women, and a sperm, which ONLY come from men.
It truly is frightening state of affairs having to defend basic biology.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - October 20, 2009
so only those capable and on top of that only those who actually produce offspring are worthy of marriage. . .
and all children have productive parents full of love, caring and compassion?
YIKES.
Comment by rusty — October 20, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - October 20, 2009
but SB 5688 isn’t all about children
Comment by rusty — October 20, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - October 20, 2009
And the bill that Referendum 71 would either approve or reject is another dishonest Democrat Trojan Horse. Just as Obamacare is specifically designed to lead to socialized, single-payer healthcare by sabotaging the private market, the bill Democrats passed in WA is designed to lead to gay-marriage, in a state where over 60% of the people do not want gay marriage, by undermining this states Defense of Marriage Act and subsequent court rulings.
This Democrat Trojan Horse, SB 5688, includes the phrase “marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships” 180 times precisely for that purpose.
It is a deeply dishonest and immoral bill, using the people’s good will and general sense of fairness against them. Liberals dishonestly pretend this bill is just about letting gay people see their dying partners in the hospital (which they already have the right to do) when the actual bill goes much further than that, and is intentionally written to undermine Supreme Court rulings upholding the WA Defense of Marriage Act.
But the gay left long ago committed itself to any means to achieve its end, no matter how deceitful and immoral.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - October 20, 2009
No Rusty, one does not follow from the other.
I can encourage you to drive a Prius by giving you a tax cut for buying one, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to sit in the passenger seat holding a gun to your head and FORCE you to drive it. Nor does it mean you get the same tax cut for buying a Hummer.
We want children to be raised in legally binding relationships between both their biological parents. And we encourage people to do just that by encouraging ALL men and ALL women to get married to a person of hte opposite sex,
It is the difference between incentive and force. Do you not understand that DRASTIC difference?
Can we please not repeat the same old TIRED arguments???? All of which have been refuted many, many times before.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 9:37 pm - October 20, 2009
Except that it’s already been done in CA.
Except that it wasn’t in CA.
Again, can we get the names, addresses, phone numbers, place of business, criminal sheet etc. on EACH and every person who views the list, you know, for “openness and transparency”?
Would you support that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - October 20, 2009
OFF TOPIC: (looks around) Hey wait a mintue! Whatever happened to Vera Charles?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - October 20, 2009
#23: As usual, she’s upstairs, passed out in one of the guest bedrooms in that dog of a dress.
Comment by Sean A — October 20, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - October 20, 2009
Dan, in answer to your question, I have to agree with what Fescue said. A lot of gay people grew up with some form of oppression, bullying, or aggression against them, and presumably they didn’t like it. You would think they wouldn’t, later on, act the same way onto others. What also happens, in many cases, is that gay people, even the ones who were oppressed, etc., oppress other gay persons for not being popular enough, thin enough, pretty enough, liberal enough, conservative enough, etc. Of course, this is not unique to gay people. I remember examples of kids who weren’t in the in-crowds, and were teased or bullied. And then, when they somehow become popular, instead of using it to petition others to cut the crap, join in on the oppression.
I think the other reason is that some are very passionate about what they believe is an injustice. And that this behavior is either about getting even for that injustice (that intimidation is a just penalty and not any worse than someone who supports that injustice) and/or believes the strategy would help their cause. I don’t believe that either is the case. I don’t think that intimidation helps you get the needed support from others who are ambivalent about the cause. And I don’t believe that bad behavior is right, even when bad behavior is inflicted on one.
And as Fescue suggested, it’s not just the gay left. On a smaller scale, I’ve seen plenty of name-calling, berating, and lying to others for having different political views. And it’s usually under the guise that somehow their behavior is justified, but their opponents’ is not.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 6:49 am - October 21, 2009
Can we please not repeat the same old TIRED arguments???? All of which have been refuted many, many times before.
It’s a matter of perspective, AmericanElephant. There are many of us, not just gay or lefties, who see that you are the one with the same old TIRED arguments that have been refuted many times over. And yes, I get that you think that your argument is impeccable while ours is far from it.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 6:55 am - October 21, 2009
Why do gays who think that marriage is an oppressive, patriarchal institution invented by the evil homophobic church to dominate women in their imperialistic quest for power and which should be abandoned for the more natural sexuality of promiscuity and unclear age limits–why do these gays use intimidation tactics? Exactly why do they care whether gays have marriage or not since they hate it so much?
Ashpenaz, a few things. First, not all gays have disdain for marriage, far from it. Sure, some do. But I would say that most that do simply won’t get married and/or enter long term monogamous relationships. In fact, some may be even actively opposing same sex marriage, and want to keep marriage just for straight persons.
Also, it’s not an either/or thing. I do believe that, in the past, marriage was patriarchal, and many times oppressive to women. Thankfully, that “tradition” is pretty much gone, and viewed as an equal partnership. On the other hand, this does not mean that I believe that marriages should be open with multiple partners, etc.
I’m with you on unclear age limits. I believe that 18 should be the minimum age for marriage. period. Since I believe that persons under 18 shouldn’t be having sex, I don’t believe we should sanction sex by allowing children to marry, even with (or especially because of) permission of the child’s parents. It’s mindboggling that many people have the belief that while a 16-year-old having sex with a 25-year-old is horrible, but somehow not as bad, if they are married, or promise to be married. In fact, I think it’s worse.
And I am happy to have allies of persons, straight or gay, who have no intentions of marrying, but believe that others should have the privilege of marriage. I have no intention of joining the military, but I believe that qualified gay persons should be able to serve honestly and openly as straight persons.
It’s not a lie–it’s a fact that these gays would like to use gay marriage as a wedge to indoctrinate kids into homosexuality in schools–not the happy penguin type, but actually working on kids in their early years to abandon tradition and head for a life of satisfying multiple partners. It’s not fear–it’s a fact that strident gays will sue churches for not marrying them.
As for the former, I’d be curious to see the proof of that “fact.” I don’t see proof for your second “fact,” but will not be surprised if there are suits that occur. Some people are sue-happy. However, any such suits would fail, just as any divorced person who sues the Catholic Church for not marrying them.
We Stonewall-hating gays, that is, those of us gays who think that gay covenants are created by God and meant to be lived out in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships (whether these are called marriage or not) are content to quietly witness to our church community in hope of winning people over with our example.
Hate Stonewall all you want. But if it wasn’t for this type of gay activism, your church would not even consider same sex covenants. I mean, what was your church’s position on same sex relationships before 1969?
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 7:31 am - October 21, 2009
#19 rusty
So can I marry my two sisters now? They are past menopause and one is a widow and the other one might as well be. Her husband has gone senile. My wife says she doesn’t care. My cats will be happier with the extra company and I am anxious to get the family back under one roof. (But not my brother. He is a jerk.)
Comment by heliotrope — October 21, 2009 @ 7:45 am - October 21, 2009
So can I marry my two sisters now? They are past menopause and one is a widow and the other one might as well be. Her husband has gone senile. My wife says she doesn’t care. My cats will be happier with the extra company and I am anxious to get the family back under one roof. (But not my brother. He is a jerk.)
Heliotrope, I would say that the same reasons why we wouldn’t allow opposite sex siblings to marry applies to same sex siblings. It isn’t just about the fact that offspring are more likely to inherit bad genes. In fact, it is against the law for siblings to marry even if one or both are adopted and do not share the same genetics. However, if you want to make a case for incest marriage and polygamy, go for it. On the other hand, if you were single, and you wanted to marry a man (unrelated), who wants to marry you, you have my support and best wishes.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 8:04 am - October 21, 2009
Thanks, Pat. Glad to see that parochialism is not a lost art.
Since marriage has had a firm definition in our western culture for 2,000 years, I wonder why gays are comfortable saying “only us, but no more.” Can you not imagine a perfectly viable and loving marital threesome?
Comment by heliotrope — October 21, 2009 @ 8:13 am - October 21, 2009
heliotrope, I’d add to your last post that I know of at least two polyamorous relationships (one’s a threesome, one was up to 4 last I heard).
Both examples have outlasted my marriage, BTW.
Strangely enough, they function just fine w/o government recognition of their status.
Pat, as I’m sure you know, I’ve become a champion of ‘Fred’, the creation through the legislative process of a government recognized same sex partnership. One of my pro-fred arguements is that by setting down such a process it prevents the ‘slippery slope’ arguements presented by both the pro and anti polygamy/beastiality/marrying cartoon characters arguements.
Do you feel creating a seperate ‘path to government legitimacy’ is a valid idea?
Comment by The_Livewire — October 21, 2009 @ 8:35 am - October 21, 2009
Tom Lang from Know Thy Neighbor started all this. He used to be a Republican, but now he’s just a self hating Liberal
Comment by Me — October 21, 2009 @ 8:49 am - October 21, 2009
31.Thanks, Pat. Glad to see that parochialism is not a lost art.
Funny, Heliotrope, that’s how I saw your post in 29.
Since marriage has had a firm definition in our western culture for 2,000 years,
I’ll agree with you that the one man one woman has been part of the definition for 2000 years. The male dominance aspect of marriage has been around for almost as long. A good change, wouldn’t you agree? Yes, I’m fully aware that is not an argument for same sex marriage. Just as saying something that has been around for 2000 years shouldn’t be changed, only because it’s been around for 2000 years. Anti-sodomy laws have been around almost as long. We can agree that that’s a good change, right?
I wonder why gays are comfortable saying “only us, but no more.”
Maybe for the same reason why you are comfortable in saying, “only us, but no more.” Maybe, because like many straight people, they believe same sex marriage would be a good thing.
Can you not imagine a perfectly viable and loving marital threesome?
Can you?
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 9:16 am - October 21, 2009
If you consider marriage a human invention, you will never be able to draw a line. If you believe, as I do, that marriage is a covenant designed by God, then you build your laws around what God has revealed (not by talking in people’s ears, but through Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience). God has revealed that sex is meant for a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship, either gay or straight. If you try to base laws on something other than God’s revelation, all you end up with is a bunch of humans shouting at each other.
Which is why it might be a good idea to post the 10 Commandments in courtrooms. As a reminder of the source of all laws.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 21, 2009 @ 9:21 am - October 21, 2009
Livewire, the way I look at it is this. I see nothing wrong, sinful, immoral about being homosexual. And just as we encourage sraight persons to form monogamous, committed relationships, we should do the same for gay persons. Does it have to be marriage? Maybe not. But I was encouraged, as a kid, either directly or indirectly, to get married when I got older. I was not encouraged to have an exclusive, committed, publically accountable relationship. The word was definitely marriage. Can it be Fred, civil unions, or something else? Maybe. If it has the same level of encouragement that it does for straight kids, then maybe that is fine.
On the other hand, I don’t think we should encourage polyamory, although it doesn’t make sense to outlaw it either. And I don’t think we should encourage incest, bestiality, and sex involving persons under 18. As such, I don’t think we should have marriage or Fred for those situations.
I understand that relationships can flourish without government recognition. Yet, most people still choose to marry. So there is some benefit to do so. And if nothing else, we definitely should not encourage gay persons to marry persons of the opposite sex.
Do you feel creating a seperate ‘path to government legitimacy’ is a valid idea?
It may be. My position is that this is something that shouldn’t be separate, doesn’t need to be separate, and not something that we should go half-a$$ed on. On the other hand, I fully recognize that this is something that would have to get the consensus, one way or another, of a majority of people. And while we have abandoned many 2000+ years of tradition in recent history, the tradition of keeping marriage one man one woman is not going away any time soon in this country. Fred could be a stepping stone, as some traditions that change are done incrementally.
I’m not sure I buy the slippery slope argument. Perhaps, in the future, a majority of people will believe that polyamory is okay, and should be encouraged. I don’t see how having same sex marriage will expedite this to happen. In fact, we’ve had polygamy in the past, and some cultures still have it and encourage it today, all without same sex marriage. I’m not sure that calling it Fred or marriage will make a difference. But if polyamory does become more acceptable and believe it should be encouraged, maybe we can have government sanctioned George.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 9:46 am - October 21, 2009
34.If you consider marriage a human invention, you will never be able to draw a line. If you believe, as I do, that marriage is a covenant designed by God, then you build your laws around what God has revealed (not by talking in people’s ears, but through Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience).
Ashpenaz, I disagree on a couple of counts here. First of all, like it or not, marriage is an institution constructed by humans. But whether you believe that or not, the inability to draw the line on marriage is no worse than if marriage was designed by God. Despite a Judeo-Christian traditon of marriage for over 5000 years, the line has changed several times. And different sects have drawn different lines. And even if God has designed marriage a specific way, it’s been lost on us for thousands of years. All this Bible study, reason, experience, etc. and we’re nowhere closer to a clear interpretation of what the Bible says and means, and what God has designed for us. There are still way too many competing interpretations of the Bible.
God has revealed that sex is meant for a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship, either gay or straight.
Maybe God has revealed that to you, and that’s great. But if what you say is true, it hasn’t reached a lot of people yet. Especially the gay part.
If you try to base laws on something other than God’s revelation, all you end up with is a bunch of humans shouting at each other.
Um, you realize that humans shout at each other (and have wars) is because there are different opinions as to what God’s revelation is. No, I’m blaming God for that, as humans would still find another excuse to shout at each other and make war.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 10:01 am - October 21, 2009
They’re a pathetic bunch, if I do say so myself. I’m a lesbian, but sheesh. Someone should crush them with a bulldozer already.
Comment by Michelle Rosalyn Matthews — October 21, 2009 @ 10:14 am - October 21, 2009
Absolutely! Why not? (Although I’m not sure what the criminal sheet has to do with it – did I miss something above, TGC?)
Practically speaking, I’m not sure you could get the name of everyone who views the list (since it would be so easy to publish once you have access), but certainly the names of those who request the information from the agency should be made available as well.
Comment by Neptune — October 21, 2009 @ 10:19 am - October 21, 2009
Philip. . .a patriot, a veteran, a Republican and the father of 4 boys – one them gay. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEbJBFWIPk
Comment by rusty — October 21, 2009 @ 10:56 am - October 21, 2009
How do you know marriage was constructed by humans? Exactly where do you find in the fossil record two humans making up the idea of marriage? You don’t know how marriage got started anymore than anyone else.
Though the Genesis story is clearly a divinely-inspired fable, as a fable it tells us that marriage is God’s solution to man’s loneliness. God created us to live in relationship.
God also formed covenants between Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, etc., so we know that God intends relationships for gays as well. While the Church has struggled with finding God’s will on this issue for thousands of years, as it did with slavery and the role of women, the Holy Spirit is now leading God’s people to a clear understanding of gay relationships.
Now that we have a better understanding of God’s will, we can form better laws. Or, we can just keep digging through those fossils trying to find which one of them can tell us which humans made marriage up out of thin air for no reason.
Comment by Ashpenaz — October 21, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - October 21, 2009
As for this particular case, yes, I think something like this should be made public. If we allow petitions like this to become private, it will be bad for our country, and an assault on our principles of open government.
Comment by DRH — October 21, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - October 21, 2009
As for this particular case, yes, I think something like this should be made public. If we allow petitions like this to become private, it will be bad for our country, and an assault on our principles of open government.
Not really.
The problem here is the same as with the “card check” bills; unions, like gay activists, invariably lose when they have to face secret ballot elections. They much prefer “open” situations, where they can identify and then “encourage” people to do their bidding.
Nondisclosure of petition names does create the possibility for fraud. However, petitions do not become law until ratified by a secret-ballot voter referendum, which means there is a check on fraudulent petitions becoming law. In contrast, intimidating people who would otherwise have signed a petition abrogates one of our fundamental constitutional rights by preventing people from actively participating in our government via the fear of reprisal.
In short, the demand for “openness” is nothing more than a transparent effort by the hatemongering gay community to block people from exercising their right to petition their own government.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 21, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - October 21, 2009
40.How do you know marriage was constructed by humans? Exactly where do you find in the fossil record two humans making up the idea of marriage? You don’t know how marriage got started anymore than anyone else.
Ashpenaz, like you I don’t have proof, or smoking gun evidence. I used common sense for my conclusion. I imagine you used common sense as well, and came up with a different conclusion. Whether it was God or humans, the fossil evidence is going to be the same. We don’t have fossil evidence for a lot of institutions created by humans.
Though the Genesis story is clearly a divinely-inspired fable, as a fable it tells us that marriage is God’s solution to man’s loneliness. God created us to live in relationship.
I don’t know if I would put the Genesis story that way, but since you did, I don’t see how one can deduce from this, that God created marriage as a solution to man’s loneliness.
God also formed covenants between Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, etc., so we know that God intends relationships for gays as well.
Heck, I think God is okay with gay relationships as well. I just don’t think the evidence here is convincing. Solomon had 2 gazillion wives and concubines, but most cultures outlaw polygamy. As for Jonathan and David, weren’t they each married to a woman? I don’t think God approves of cheating on one’s spouse.
the Holy Spirit is now leading God’s people to a clear understanding of gay relationships.
Yes, how about that. We, as humans, have come to decide that the religious bans of homosexuality are outdated, wrong, perhaps even immoral, and like magic, the Holy Spirit has given us the message. What a coinkadink!
Now that we have a better understanding of God’s will, we can form better laws.
Honestly, I don’t we’re any better now in understanding God’s will than we were 5000 years ago. I predict that Bible study will continue on for another 5000 years, with each era proclaiming that they now have the correct understanding of God, even though each era will have hundreds of different such understandings.
Or, we can just keep digging through those fossils trying to find which one of them can tell us which humans made marriage up out of thin air for no reason.
Humans will keep on digging, because we have a thirst of wanting to know how things happened. Sure, we can always say “God did it.” But even if one believes that, we are still curious as to how. For example, keep on finding fossils that bridge the gap of the evolution of humans (separation from chimpanzees, and whatnot). Sacred documents also continue to be unearthed. It’s all good stuff.
And while we are digging for fossils determining who created marriage (as if that’s possible), perhaps we can also determine which humans first used counting numbers, began formalizing education, invented communication via writing, began herding, use of fire, etc.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - October 21, 2009
NDT:
No, sorry, no hatemongering here. This petition really should be open. Voting on it should be secret. There is no pretense that petition signing is done in secret or will remain so.
Also, the openness of union votes is another matter entirely. Why confuse the matter of union voting with the matter of petitions? Voting is not the same as signing a petition.
Can you possibly argue for making petitions secret from conservative, Republican point of view?
Comment by DRH — October 21, 2009 @ 4:48 pm - October 21, 2009
NDT, I agree with you regarding secret ballot voting vs. open voting. I’m also with you regarding petitions. As long as integrity of the process is maintained, persons’ privacy should be respected, and without fear of intimidation.
I would suggest that if this is really a concern, then perhaps the next petition should be this exact issue. That person’s signing petitions have their privacy maintained. Then, at least, it will be the last time petitioners would be subject to intimidation. And if it doesn’t happen, well, add that to the list of injustices in the law books.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - October 21, 2009
42.As for this particular case, yes, I think something like this should be made public. If we allow petitions like this to become private, it will be bad for our country, and an assault on our principles of open government.
DRH, why would this be a bad thing? or an assault on our principles of open government? I’ll agree with you that the record of our representatives’ voting should be public. But for private citizens, as long as there is integrity in the process, it’s just the numbers that matters.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - October 21, 2009
Please Pat, PLEASE show me where the argument that every child in the history of the world has come from the heterosexual union of an egg and sperm has been refuted.
You see, unfortunately for you, my arguments have been upheld and yours have been refuted by science, logic, the courts, the legislatures, the constitution and jurisprudence.
You have “refuted” mine with nothing but hysterical emotion and demands that you have a right to force people to pretend your relationship is something it is not — even theoretically capable of producing one single child.
Please get real.
Comment by American Elephant — October 21, 2009 @ 6:08 pm - October 21, 2009
Please Pat, PLEASE show me where the argument that every child in the history of the world has come from the heterosexual union of an egg and sperm has been refuted.
AmericanElephant, I have never stated that there was ever a child that came from anything other than the union of an egg and a sperm. I’m not sure what you mean by “heterosexual” here, but whatever. And I understand that this is the basis of your argument. This basis for your argument (not the heterosexual egg and sperm thing) has been refuted by many here.
You see, unfortunately for you, my arguments have been upheld and yours have been refuted by science, logic, the courts, the legislatures, the constitution and jurisprudence.
Doubtful, since you have made up arguments supposedly stated by others and me. As for the courts, legislatures, etc., allowing for same sex marriage, we’ll see if we go much further than five states or not in the near or not so near future.
You have “refuted” mine with nothing but hysterical emotion and demands that you have a right to force people to pretend your relationship is something it is not — even theoretically capable of producing one single child.
Um, you are the one that has exhibited hysterical emotion. I have a ways to go to catch up. And no, I have never demanded that I have a right to force people to view my relationship in any manner, including the false one you alluded to. People can view my relationship any way they wish, just like I view any other relationship anyway I wish. As far as I know, we all have that freedom. In any case, I have, for example, never stated that my relationship can produce a child in the same way many men and women can produce a child through procreation. And I assure you that I have never pretended such a thing.
What I have stated is that not only do we tolerate men and women who marry when it is impossible for them to have children, or they have no intention to have children, but we encourage it, and for (in my opinion) good reason. I simply believe that this extension should include same sex couples. You disagree. That’s fine. But don’t make up arguments of mine that I have never stated.
If you can find any post of mine where I stated that there exists or existed a child in history that was be produced by two sperm or two eggs, or in any manner other than an egg or sperm,* please let me know. I will retract such statement(s), and apologize for the egregious error.
And if anyone else made such an argument (not simply that you wrongly thought that someone made such an argument), then I obviously disagree with them.
* One possible exception is the conception of Jesus Christ. I don’t intend to get into a debate involving a matter of faith here.
Comment by Pat — October 21, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - October 21, 2009
To verify a criminal and/or violent background.
It’s not different when the results are the same. You can’t hide intimidation behind “transparency”. Go down this road and one day when YOU want to petition for some sort of redress, you’ll get NO signatures because nobody wants to be harassed.
As it is now, I won’t sign any petition for any subject because I don’t trust that my information won’t be sold or I won’t wind up on some enemies list. Just as I don’t advertise who I’m voting for. Especially given the liberal’s propensity to vandalize private property for not having the “correct” yard sign or bumper sticker. If they shot up or rushed campaign offices, what’s to stop them from doing the same to private residences?
Consider also how ACORN & SEIU thugs have been dispatched by the WH to assault US citizens (blacks and seniors especially) or to harass AIG employees? Where’s the line that they or the Black Panthers won’t come to the homes of regular voters?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 21, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - October 21, 2009
Also, the openness of union votes is another matter entirely. Why confuse the matter of union voting with the matter of petitions?
Because the process for unionization is very similar to that of a voter-raised petition. In order to unionize, 30% of the workers in a bargaining unit must sign a petition (technically, authorization cards) to be submitted to the National Labor Relations Board for review. The NLRB will then order a secret-ballot election, the outcome of which determines whether or not the union is recognized as the representative of the workers.
Unions oppose this process primarily because, for some reason, they have no problem “persuading” workers to sign authorization cards, which are open and public, but they have a horrible time when it comes to secret ballots, where they have no means of knowing who to “persuade”.
Can you possibly argue for making petitions secret from conservative, Republican point of view?
Yes. The right to petition the government and to change the law by direct voter petition is fundamentally embedded in the Constitution and more explicitly spelled out in individual state constitutions as being conduct that is protected by law and shall not be abridged.
The Constitution does NOT state that these petitions have to be open. Indeed, there is a considerable amount of jurisprudence and standing law that holds the government responsible for ensuring that every means should be taken to protect from retaliation an individual or group of individuals that is seeking to exercise this right.
Furthermore, since the right in question is the right to raise a petition, the discriminatory aspect that is raised in the names not being open is offset by the fact that the gay liberals demanding the release of information have the right to raise their OWN petition in response and have the identities of its signers similarly protected.
If petitions became valid law upon receiving the requisite number of signatures, it would be a valid complaint that these should be open and reviewable by others. But the simple fact of the matter is that they do not, and even a fraudulent petition can be defeated when it is brought to an election of the plebiscite.
Hence, the conservative and Republican argument is that the right to raise a petition is one that must be jealously protected, and the fact that an election is required is sufficient safeguard against fraudulent petitioning.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 21, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - October 21, 2009
Reminds of the numerous posts I saw here about about the non-release of donors to the Clinton presidential library. (Which I actually agree with by the way) Y’all certainly got your knickers in a twist over that one. what’s the difference here? Aren’t these groups organized as non-profit organizations and therefore subject to having their records open?
And once again, that whole marriage/church/ argument is a red herring: Governments have taken to the practice of creating laws providing benefits to people who are married. Therefore, the government has to extend those rights to all people, regardless of their religious implications. If it’s such a wrong thing, then government (at all levels) needs to stop involving itself in marriages.
Comment by Kevin — October 22, 2009 @ 4:22 am - October 22, 2009
Pat, perhaps you should consider learning to read. That is EXACTLY the point I had just made when you butted in and announced that my “tired” arguments had been refuted many times.
And so does the vast majority of the population. And since you just stated that you dont want to force them to view your relationship in a way the do not wish, then we can all agree that your relationship should not be recognized as equivalent to, or as important to society as marriage.
I’m glad we settled that.
Comment by American Elephant — October 22, 2009 @ 4:29 am - October 22, 2009
No, they are individuals signing a petition to get a referendum put on the ballot, as is their right.
Government DOES extend them to all people. It does not, however, extend them to all types of relationships. Government really only has an interest in relationships between men and women, since they are the only kind of relationship that can reproduce. Gay relationships are just one of MANY types of relationships that are not eligible to be considered marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — October 22, 2009 @ 4:44 am - October 22, 2009
Pat, perhaps you should consider learning to read. That is EXACTLY the point I had just made when you butted in and announced that my “tired” arguments had been refuted many times.
AmericanElephant, I’m pretty sure I can read as well as the next person. But like most people, I will sometimes misread something. I admit to not being perfect. However, I’m not sure what I misread. I saw someone else make an argument, and you turned it around basically saying that children only come from a heterosexual[sic] union of an egg and a sperm, and getting superior about your knowledge of biology. In other words, no one has made this claim, and you insist that they have.
As for my butting in, you referred to arguments by another poster as “TIRED” arguments. These are similar to arguments that I have made. So I decided to butt in and counter your claim.
I’m glad we settled that.
Not quite.
And so does the vast majority of the population.
I’ll agree with majority. I’m not sure it’s vast, but I’ll agree to not quibble over that term. Anyway, we’ll see if it continues to be a majority ten or so years from now.
And since you just stated that you dont want to force them to view your relationship in a way the do not wish, then we can all agree that your relationship should not be recognized as equivalent to, or as important to society as marriage.
No. It should be as important to society as marriage. But I’ll agree that if you or others don’t want to view it that way, it is your right. Further, what I also stated is that we can individually pick and choose which relationships (including marriage) are important to society. For example, I believe that a couple in their 70s that get married is important to society as any other marriage, even though they will not procreate children.
Yes, it my opinion, and realize that a majority believe otherwise. Suppose, for sake of argument, that in ten or twenty years, a majority, or even a vast majority support same sex marriage. I assume your opinion will still be “marriage should not be extended to same sex couples,” even though your opinion would be in the minority.
Comment by Pat — October 22, 2009 @ 7:27 am - October 22, 2009
but then again AE Log Cabin Republicans of Washington are listed as part of the coalition partners who support Referendum 71
LCR of Washington mission Log Cabin Republicans of Washington is the home for mainstream gays and lesbians who want to make a difference in their state and country. We care deeply about equality, and we hold Republican views on crime, fiscal responsibility and foreign policy. We believe in individual rights rather than group rights. We believe in limited government rather than big government. We believe that free markets lead to free people, and that all Americans should be able to participate fully in the political process.
http://approvereferendum71.org/coalition-partners/
looks like LCR is somewhat in disagreement with your stand.
and there is even #23 Mainstream Republicans of Washington
http://approvereferendum71.org/08/organizations-endorsing-washington-families-standing-together/
Comment by rusty — October 22, 2009 @ 10:26 am - October 22, 2009
yes, because we all know just how positive people respond to threats, bullying and intimidation! You want something from me, those tactics not only won’t do it but it will only solidify fence sitters against gays.
Comment by Edrez — October 22, 2009 @ 10:45 am - October 22, 2009
#55: “I’ll agree with majority. I’m not sure it’s vast, but I’ll agree to not quibble over that term. Anyway, we’ll see if it continues to be a majority ten or so years from now.”
Well, Pat, if you’re right, then same-sex marriage should have no trouble becoming the law via the ballot box, either through the initiative process or the election of representatives supportive of same-sex marriage legislation. But until then, a handful of liberal attorneys in black robes have neither the authority, nor the legal precedent to force it on our society.
Comment by Sean A — October 22, 2009 @ 11:04 am - October 22, 2009
Sean, I guess my comment was clear. I was agreeing with American Elephant that (for now, at least) the majority of persons do not support same sex marriage. So, I don’t see most states adopting same sex marriage today, even if it went up for a vote now.
As for judges, liberal or otherwise, they shouldn’t have the authority or legal precedent to force it on society. But if enough do vote otherwise, including on the Supreme Court, then it will happen, and then you’ll need about 75% to turn it over via an amendment.
Comment by Pat — October 22, 2009 @ 11:16 am - October 22, 2009
Sean, I misread your comment. Yes, I do agree with what you said.
Comment by Pat — October 22, 2009 @ 11:17 am - October 22, 2009
Yes, you did. Glad we settled that.
Good! Then I assume you will cease all support for activist court decisions and legislatures that approve gay marriage even though the majority of voters dont want it, since civil marriage is nothing more than the codification of societal views towards the importance of relationships.
Sounds like we’re done here, and I was correct all along.
Comment by American Elephant — October 22, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - October 22, 2009
Yes, you did. Glad we settled that.
If you are referring to the part where you twisted someone else’s argument, we’re in agreement there. Settled.
Good! Then I assume you will cease all support for activist court decisions and legislatures that approve gay marriage even though the majority of voters dont want it, since civil marriage is nothing more than the codification of societal views towards the importance of relationships.
I don’t have to cease support for activist court decisions, because I never supported such decisions. But activist court decisions do happen. As for legislatures, I’m sure they sometimes vote for things the majority doesn’t want. The people can remedy that if they so wish.
Sounds like we’re done here, and I was correct all along.
Well, as of now, you’re correct on the former point, but not even close on the latter point. So we disagree there. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
Comment by Pat — October 22, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - October 22, 2009
HA! Please. Says them! Meanwhile their membership is almost non-existent.
Moreover, what does Log Cabin’s position have to do with the price of tea in China? Most gays want gay marriage! wow, what a newsflash. And people in Hell want icewater! Most liberals support Obamacare!
IT doesn’t mean most gays are RIGHT.
What is FAR more relevant is that…
Source.
Wrong! Every individual in America already has the right to marry, gays want a different “right” based on the group they belong to!
Ah yes, the “mainstream” wing of the Republican party. On their website they also refer to themselves as moderate Republicans — the very same wing of the party that is responsible for our current minority status. Again. Their support means squat.
What is meaningful is what marriage DOES for society. And what it does is evident by looking at those parts of society, like the black community, where people overwhelmingly choose NOT to marry. It establishes an ideal that is demonstrably best for society, and rewards people for entering into it.
You want to tear that ideal from marriage in order to make gays feel better about being different, which would be incredibly destructive to society.
Comment by American Elephant — October 22, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - October 22, 2009
Nice source for the support of gay marriage. It is a tad bit old. . .nov 2004
do you sweep most of your dust bunnies under the rug in your house.
I recommend swiffer products.
Comment by rusty — October 23, 2009 @ 7:20 am - October 23, 2009
Yes, a whopping 5 years ago. Sooooo ANCIENT!
Comment by American Elephant — October 24, 2009 @ 3:00 am - October 24, 2009