The Lindsay Wagner Approach to Gay Marriage
To understand the decline in quality of the debate on gay marriage from its early potential to its current name-calling, you can start by reading two pieces by Andrew Sullivan 19 years apart. In the first, “Here Comes the Groom,” he outlines a solid argument on the merits of extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples. In the second, “My Big Fat Straight (sic) Wedding,” he rhapsodizes about how wonderful state recognition of gay marriage makes him feel. With said recognition, his “wedding”* “shifted a sense of our own identity within our psyches and even our souls.”
That later form of “argument” is currently on display in a San Francisco court room where lawyers are making a 1970s case for gay marriage, it’s all about feelings, nothing more than feelings. These lawyers have, in the words of my friend Charles Winecoff, turned gay marriage advocates’ “fetish for state-sanctioned self-esteem into a federal case.”
In the trial, Perry v. v. Schwarzenegger, a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank, seek to overturn California’s Proposition 8. And in so doing, Charles reports, they’re trying to make federal law out of a saccharine ’70s song:
[Attorney Ted Olson] Olson opened the show by declaring that “domestic partnership has nothing to do with love” – essentially admitting that the two couples are seeking legal recognition of their feelings. Then the complainants took to the stand to deliver a string of what even theLos Angeles Times called “emotional accounts,” proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-celebrities no longer need Oprah (or Jerry Springer) to validate their existence.
First, Jeffrey Zarrillo testified that ”the word marriage” would give him the ability “to partake in family gatherings, friends and work functions as a married individual standing beside my parents and my brother and his wife. The pride that one feels when that happens.” Does he mean that, like Michelle Obama and her country, he never before felt pride being with his partner? In their nine years as a couple, did they never attend any of those events together?
If “the word” means so much, why not just call yourself married?
Similarly, when Olson asked Berkeley lesbian Kristen Perry why she was a plaintiff in the case, she replied, ”Because I want to marry Sandy [her partner, also of nine years]… I want the discrimination to end and a more joyful part of our life to begin… The state isn’t letting me feel happy. The state isn’t allowing me to feel my whole potential.” Yet “the state” never prevented Perry and Stier from making a home together, or from raising four boys in that home.
And on the show goes, with testimony continuing about how bad some gay people feel because the government won’t give them a cookie, er, call them married. Yet, they fail to mention that the state does nothing to prevent them from calling themselves married or from asking a priest, rabbi, shaman or other holy man person to sanctify their union in the eyes of whatever faith they follow.
Now, there are very solid arguments to make for state recognition of gay marriage. You can find many of them in Andrew Sullivan’s writings in the last decade of the previous century and in Jonathan Rauch‘s in the first decade of this one.
But, repeatedly we’ve seen a failure of other gay marriage advocates to advance such arguments. It seems sometimes they turn to the courts because there they’re spared of making the case of gay marriage based on the merits of the ancient institution. And here in court, where rational argument is supposed to define the proceedings, the judge is allowing a bipartisan team of lawyers to reduce their case to an emotional case.
The popular press notwithstanding, marriage is about much more than feelings. It is an institution central to the civilization of our society and to taming the males of our species. If it were just about feelings, then, well, we’d be countenancing the man who has feelings for his buxom secretary to take her on regular weekend trysts while his wife takes of the kids. We men need restraining. We men need marriage (most of us at least) need marriage to help us realize our potential as human beings.
This argument, however, doesn’t belong in a court of law, but in one of public opinion. Elected legislators across the land have long seen fit to sanction different-sex unions as marriage, but only in five states (in one state, the Governor vetoed their bill, in another, the people did), have they seen fit to accord the same recognition to same-sex unions.
There is a strong case to be made for the state to so recognize gay marriage. Andrew Sullivan once made it. It is not an argument about feelings, but one about men’s nature and our responsibilities. It would be nice if those so dedicated to marriage could articulate its origins, its purpose and its benefits. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s wonderful to celebrate our feelings. Let’s remember though that this institution seeks to restrain them and channel them to a socially — and personally — more fulfilling end.
Said same-sex marriage advocates would do well to familiarize themselves with Jonathan Rauch’s arguments. But, I’ve said this before. On numerous occasions.
——
*Please note these quotation marks are due to Sullivan’s more recent writings on gay marriage.
NB: I tweaked the title.
UPDATE: Gabriel Malor of Ace of Spades begs to differ:
I could not disagree more about the trial strategy taken by plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case. They’re doing much, much more than making the case about “feelings, nothing more than feelings,” as anyone who has been keeping track of the extensive trial coverage would know.
Plaintiffs did testify that marriage brought them stability and validation and, more importantly, how and why that stability and validation is good for them, children, and society at large. They also put on witnesses and evidence related to the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, their relative political powerlessness, and that the discrimination is based on an immutible trait. The purpose of this evidence is to demonstrate that laws which target gays and lesbians should receive what is called “heightened scrutiny” from the courts. Heightened scrutiny is reserved for certain historically disadvantaged groups, for example, racial minorities and women. This is the first prong of the plaintiff’s strategy. It’s a long shot, sure, but not foreclosed by any existing cases.
Last Tuesday I was in the Prop 8 courtroom livetweeting testimony related to these issues and also the question of what motivated Prop 8 supporters. That latter issue is important for the second prong of the plaintiff’s strategy. Assuming they cannot get heightened scrutiny, they’re seeking to show that even under the much more permissive “rational basis review” Prop 8 was motivated by animus toward gay and lesbian people. This strategy has a somewhat better pedigree as it arose in a notable Supreme Court case a few years ago.
In any case, the trial strategy described by Charles on Big Hollywood is nothing like what is actually going on in the courtroom. For your readers interested in following along, they can look at any of the many twitter lists devoted to the trial. I’ve been following (and briefly provided live tweets for) this one.
35 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I support gay marriage and even I agree: this trial is a joke.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 25, 2010 @ 6:29 pm - January 25, 2010
How about a new insitution for gay people that recognizes what being gay is about and doesn’t turn the concept of marriage into mush? The main person in my life who is gay would not fit into a marriage as I know it because she does not submit to the male-female polarity role. She is fierce and independent, and I would hope if she finds someone to love all her life, it wouldn’t be locked up in a box as I feel sometimes. These are new times. I want new words for things! I want something that will maximize her potential in life. Give her emotional security but don’t take away her liberty.
Comment by Lisa Colorado — January 25, 2010 @ 7:40 pm - January 25, 2010
yes this trial is HIGH Drama. . .but I think that was one of the intentions of the folk who brought Bois and Olson to the team. Media coverage, exposure of antics and ongoing watercooler chat and fodder for bloggers.
but with this: According to the Courage Campaign, internal documents and emails revealed this morning at Perry vs. Schwarzenegger reveal how Protect Marriage attempted to link same-sex marriage rights to pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy. From the Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs, via press release:
“Ron Prentice, Andrew Pugno and their Prop 8 team — with the highly capable and apparently deeply cynical leadership of Frank Schubert — created a permanent campaign to scare voters into believing that same-sex marriage would threaten children, undermine America and lead to every form of illicit behavior imaginable. This evidence is not just a smoking gun. It was an arsenal of incendiary devices directed at the LGBT community and voters. This is how the Prop 8 side won -– through fear and lies.”
“Finally, this morning we saw indisputable, documented evidence in the form of emails and videos that Ron Prentice and Protect Marriage coordinated closely and relied upon the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, the Family Research Council, Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and the National Organization for Marriage to get Prop. 8 on the ballot and to win through a campaign of lies.” compliments of JMG
something to chew on
Comment by rusty — January 25, 2010 @ 8:13 pm - January 25, 2010
Dan, great post. I know you’ve tried to get on board with Gay Inc. Unfortunately they don’t seem to want you or your message on board.
I too am very very sorry to see the direction this trial is taking. I also agree that changing hearts and minds will happen slowly out in society. Trials like this one don’t help.
Comment by Leah — January 25, 2010 @ 8:52 pm - January 25, 2010
If people can make up a category which doesn’t exist and call themselves “transsexual,” why can’t they call themselves married?
Comment by Ashpenaz — January 25, 2010 @ 8:57 pm - January 25, 2010
rusty, quoting the thugs-in-spirit who are mounting the trial as they push their one-sided version of events outside the courtroom, does not cut it.
I’m sure the Yes On 8 campaign did try to link gay marriage to pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy. So freaking what? These people were afraid. That is their right. They put their fears out there. That is also their right. It’s called, political campaigning. Some of their worries were even justified (as we discussed on this blog at the time, at length). And some were exaggerated or florid. It’s called, the marketplace of ideas. Do you really want a world where people are in effect put on trial for campaigning vigorously on their beliefs? I don’t. I want a world where both sides of an issue campaign vigorously on their beliefs, then the People vote. And the People’s vote stands.
The fact that a given side in some campaign was vigorous, and even motivated by fear, and had even stated/promoted its fears in the campaign should, in a civilized country, mean absolutely nothing. It should not be used to have a court overturn the result of an election. That is horribly wrong.
It is all the more ridiculous, because:
(1) Both sides inherently do it. The No On 8 campaign had some silly, exaggerated fears that they pushed as well – and some real fears. The No On 8 campaign showed real animus toward all who think differently from them, calling them homophobes if not fascists. Shall we put the No On 8 campaign on trial?
(2) In fact, the whole Prop 8 campaign revealed a significant shift in the CA electorate in favor of gay marriage. The gay marriage ban only won by four points. Exit polls showed that a majority of CA moderates / independents rejected it. That’s huge. In 2000, the equivalent Prop 22 had won by eighteen points. We’ll win the next one, say in 2016. If, that is, we (as gay marriage supporters) aren’t first convicted by our own behavior of being anti-democratic thugs.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 25, 2010 @ 10:09 pm - January 25, 2010
Why don’t the gays in California and every other state where gay marriage is/has been rejected just accept that as “settled law” and move on? Isn’t that what the writers here at Gay Patriot applauded Scott Brown for doing on this issue in Massachusetts? Oh, wait. In Massachusetts the “settled law” allows gay marriage. It’s time to move on only when gays get their way. Figures.
Comment by Seane-Anna — January 25, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - January 25, 2010
And of course legalizing gay marriage is all about feelings. That’s what it’s been about all along. It’s never been about fairness, justice, or equality. It’s been about a tiny minority of people with an aberrant sexual impulse getting official approval of that impulse. It’s been about “state sanctioned self-esteem”, as the post put it. It’s just one part of gay activists’ campaign to force every institution in and segment of, society to engage in celebratory approval of same-sex desire. And heaven help you if you don’t, you homophobic, hate-filled, fascist pig!!
Comment by Seane-Anna — January 25, 2010 @ 10:41 pm - January 25, 2010
Okay, why you be hatin’ on the Bionic Woman?
Is this just because of the time that she tried the “feelings” approach in order to dissuade
HALthe prissy homicidal self-aware supercomputer (who was not named HAL) from blowing up the world? Cut the bitch some slack, Jack — her bionic leg was busted and she was fresh out of options!(Luckily, she noticed the sprinkler system just in time and was able to short out the computer by getting it wet, since the appeal to emotions of course proved to be utterly useless.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — January 25, 2010 @ 11:23 pm - January 25, 2010
See! They are asking society to perform an experiment, further liberalizing an institution that has already suffered too much from liberalization, all for the sake of making them “feel” better about a very very important difference.
What about a bill that simultaneously allowed gay marriage, and got rid of no-fault divorce?
I think very few gays would be interested in that kind of marriage, and unfortunately, it would probably scare off many straights as well. But the thing is, gays dont get accidentally pregnant outside wedlock, straights do. And children and society are the ones who suffer. Not adults.
Comment by American Elephant — January 25, 2010 @ 11:23 pm - January 25, 2010
What about a bill that simultaneously allowed gay marriage, and got rid of no-fault divorce?
An Evangelical Christian friend of mine suggested a variation on this idea: civil unions (with no-fault divorce) available for homos and heteros alike, and opt-in “covenant marriages” for hetero couples only. (Note that this would effectively take the word “marriage” away from heterosexuals who weren’t willing to waive the convenience of a no-fault divorce option.)
Comment by Throbert McGee — January 25, 2010 @ 11:48 pm - January 25, 2010
The feelings angle was the wrong one to take in my opinion here. It’s not about feelings. It’s about the fact that civil law should not be determined based on the religious beliefs of the populace. The majority of people in this country may identify as Christians but our system of government was set up as a secular entity, for the express purpose of allowing religious dogma to influence the rule of law as it had done for countless centuries in Europe.
The way I look at it, if some churches (like mine) want to perform marriages for same-sex couples, that’s great and if some churches (like the Catholic church and many other protestant denonimations) choose not to that’s ok too. Every church/minister should have the right to determine who they will agree to marry.
But, civil marriage is something altogether different. The state shouldn’t have the right to deny some citizens the ability to enter into a legal marriage contract with the partner of their choice simply because the couple are the same sex. There is no compelling reason why the state should deny them the opportunity. Legal, civil marriage and church sanctioned, religious marriage are two different things. Our laws should not be applied to one group of citizens based on the religious beliefs of others.
Comment by Kristie — January 26, 2010 @ 12:00 am - January 26, 2010
Throbert, I think your friend’s idea is an even worse idea than mine. It’s not about a word. It’s not about giving heterosexual religious conservatives some air of superiority. It’s about getting men to marry women and STAY married because kids need mothers and fathers. I think your friend’s idea would just result in less marriage and more straight civil unions, which are less binding and thus worse for kids and society.
Likewise, getting rid of no-fault divorce, as I said, would also probably result in less marriage. I suspect its like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Once no-fault divorce became the norm, I dont know how you go back without increasing the number of straights who reject marriage outright.
One thing I am certain of is that it is the liberalization of attitudes towards marriage that is responsible for no fault divorce, responsible for the increased acceptance of single mothers, and unmarried parents, ALL of which is bad for kids. And when liberalization of attitudes is the problem, MORE liberalization is not the answer! It will just make things worse. Which it has everywhere that gay-marriage has been accepted.
What we need to get back to is the idea, and the societal expectation, that you just dont HAVE kids outside of marriage. Period. That if you want to have kids, you get married first, because that is what is best for THEM. That it is a responsibility and an expectation. These are the reasons we used to look down on single mothers, and used to look down on men who got women pregnant but didn’t marry them, and used to look down on couples who had kids outside of wedlock.
And the more we start to look at marriage as an entitlement for adults, and less as a responsibility towards society and children, the worse things will get.
I dont know HOW you introduce gay marriage without harming the institution without first changing the hearts and minds of the entire gay community and everyone who supports them.
As Ann Coulter might say, JOKINGLY, the only answer I can think of is to invade the gay community, and convert them to conservatism and responsibility.
But how do you make the most libertine group in the country embrace conservative institutions and responsibility?
You dont. Which is why we should oppose gay marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — January 26, 2010 @ 2:51 am - January 26, 2010
Kristie,
You should READ the court decisions. Neither they nor the statutes are being decided based on religious belief. They are being decided based on what works.
Comment by American Elephant — January 26, 2010 @ 2:55 am - January 26, 2010
Ashpenaz – are you saying that Transsexuals don’t exist?
Sorry, I don’t understand.
Your words seem to be the eqyivalent of
“If people can turn into punpkins several light years wide, why can’t they call themselves married?”
Comment by Zoe Brain — January 26, 2010 @ 6:20 am - January 26, 2010
5.If people can make up a category which doesn’t exist and call themselves “transsexual,” why can’t they call themselves married?
Ashpenaz, the comment about “transsexual” aside, the majority of couples that call themselves married, actually got married. Apparently, it wasn’t enough to simply call themselves married.
7.Why don’t the gays in California and every other state where gay marriage is/has been rejected just accept that as “settled law” and move on?
Because sometimes “settled law” isn’t so settled.
8.And of course legalizing gay marriage is all about feelings. That’s what it’s been about all along. It’s never been about fairness, justice, or equality.
Seane-Anna, I’ll agree that many people have dubious reasons for marriage. But there are a whole host of reasons why many gay persons do want same sex marriage legalized. Yes, feelings are a part of it. In fact, just about every wedding I attended, the couple got married because, in great part, they love (a feeling) each other.
Suppose there was a “settled law” that stated that everyone, except Seane-Anna, can only marry an adult of the gender that you are sexually attracted to, but Seane-Anna can only marry a women. I think you would have a whole host of reasons, including feelings, why you would believe that is unjust. Most, if not all, of these reasons are shared by gay persons who want same sex marriage legalized.
It’s been about a tiny minority of people with an aberrant sexual impulse getting official approval of that impulse.
Um, you do realize that most of the posters here, including the blogmasters, not only have this “aberrant” sexual impulse, but act on it.
Comment by Pat — January 26, 2010 @ 8:35 am - January 26, 2010
throbert, it was the Alex 7000
Comment by rusty — January 26, 2010 @ 8:50 am - January 26, 2010
Pat, good points. Just to expand on one:
Seane-Ana: My sexuality, which I don’t show off and which is tame anyway, would seem nonetheless to deviate from your personal expectations and notions of propriety. I’m so sorry about that, not in the least. I’ll shut up now because discussing such a matter any further with such as you would be unbelievably dumb.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 26, 2010 @ 9:34 am - January 26, 2010
There was a day in the recent past, where this was a general description for all openly gay people. Then, gay people became much more a part of general society. Then some gay people decided to highlight what general society was in the habit of first shunning and then ignoring.
So, there is a large gay population that parades their “differences” and they have taught society in general that “enough is enough.”
I am certain that on any given day there are a multitude of GLBT people at Disney World going about unnoticed by each other or the rest of humanity. When Disney World has a special day for gays, I can only wonder how that would benefit me and my grand children. I would expect that a day that is reserved for gays means that it is likely a day which “deviates from the proper or expected course” for a day at Disney World.
Straights have aberrant behaviors in marriage that are sickening. Multiple divorces, children shuffled around, addiction, infidelity, fetishes, abuse, and the rest are all too easily found among straight marriages. They do not, however define “the proper or expected course.”
When general society (the public square) is asked to consider gay marriage, most of us straights know couples we wish the best for and would gladly see comforted by whatever peace of mind marriage might bring them. But then we are overcome with the realization that society can not pick and choose who among the gays fits the ideals of marriage. Nor should society be put in that position.
To justify gay marriage on the basis of how rotten a job some straights have made of the institution is to open the flood gates and let every combination of possibilities to pour in.
As for “feelings” …….. God save us from the Bureau of Feelings where some panel of peers judges the authenticity, depth and strengths of one’s feelings. That is a perfect job for Brownshirts.
Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2010 @ 10:26 am - January 26, 2010
heliotrope, if you want to be in a conversation sometime where the starting premise is that your otherwise tame, legal and non-exploitative sexual preference is improper and represents your failure to live up to your conversation partner’s expectations, be my guest. I don’t think you’ll find such a discussion here. I believe your sexuality is heterosexual and includes a lifestyle choice of monogamy, and most folks around here are fine with that. So you might have to search the Internet for a radical polyandry group or something. But have the discussion sometime and see if the resulting flow of words makes any sense. Or was worth the effort.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 26, 2010 @ 11:09 am - January 26, 2010
ILC,
I am not tracking what you are saying. Maybe you could “lay it on me” in a more direct fashion. My statement you highlighted come from my experience with students over four decades and how they interacted with gay students or handled being gay. I meant to say that I think, by and large, that the day of people looking down on gays as being aberrant by definition has largely passed.
Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2010 @ 11:32 am - January 26, 2010
Then don’t worry about it. No big deal. (If you really want to trace my steps: Since I had brought in the definition of ‘aberrant’ at #18, I took your opening sentence at #19 as a form of subtle riposte, so I expanded on what I had meant at #18. Possibly a needless complication.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 26, 2010 @ 11:50 am - January 26, 2010
When Disney World has a special day for gays, I can only wonder how that would benefit me and my grand children.
Heliotrope, without getting into a debate as to whether or not there should be a gay day at Disney World, I think we can agree that not everything that is and/or should be done has to always benefit any specific person or group.
But then we are overcome with the realization that society can not pick and choose who among the gays fits the ideals of marriage. Nor should society be put in that position.
Agreed. We don’t do this with straight couples. I don’t think it would be a good idea to do this for gay couples either.
To justify gay marriage on the basis of how rotten a job some straights have made of the institution is to open the flood gates and let every combination of possibilities to pour in.
I would agree with that, if that’s what is happening. One of the justifications for not having same sex marriage is on the basis of how rotten a job some gay persons would do to the institution. Some simply argue that we don’t ban marriage for all straight persons based on the bad apples, and worrying about floodgates.
Straights have aberrant behaviors in marriage that are sickening. Multiple divorces, children shuffled around, addiction, infidelity, fetishes, abuse, and the rest are all too easily found among straight marriages. They do not, however define “the proper or expected course.”
I usually associate aberrant with things that are not just of “the proper or expected course,” but also of a disgust or sickening nature that you describe. And for me, being a homosexual to be put in a category with those that you describe, is a tad insulting. No, I didn’t say you made such a connection, but another poster has.
I meant to say that I think, by and large, that the day of people looking down on gays as being aberrant by definition has largely passed.
It’s much better than it was in the past. But it’s still there.
Comment by Pat — January 26, 2010 @ 12:00 pm - January 26, 2010
Thanks, a bucketload, Pat. In no way do I mean to imply that people in general have gotten over demeaning gays, but my experience is that gay acceptance has come a very long way from my days as a kid in the 40′s and 50′s and I think that is entirely as it should be.
I do not care if Disney World has a gay day. I do not think that the person who stays away because it is Gay Day is therefore a homophobe and gay h8er. I would not frequent a singles bar or go to the geriatrics on scooters night at the restaurant. If anything, this is a measure of my narrowness.
ILC says he read my statement as a riposte, but I think my reply to him has cleared up any confusion about my attitudes.
Both you and ILC favor gay marriage. I have no quarrel with your opinions as it relates to you. Truly, society at large can benefit from marriage role models be they gay or straight. But, the issue does not and can not be so individual couple specific.
I honestly wrestle with myself over this whole issue. I am still philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but in the grand scheme of things, it is very low on the battles I care to fight. Perhaps that is demeaning to you because it is so important to you, but our personal priorities probably unite in some areas and vary greatly in others.
Having said this, one may ask why I constantly comment about gay marriage. In short, I comment because I have yet to see a well reasoned argument for it.
Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2010 @ 12:31 pm - January 26, 2010
heliotrope
do you have a well reasoned argument for gay marriage?
Comment by rusty — January 26, 2010 @ 3:49 pm - January 26, 2010
I do not care if Disney World has a gay day. I do not think that the person who stays away because it is Gay Day is therefore a homophobe and gay h8er.
Me neither, Heliotrope.
Truly, society at large can benefit from marriage role models be they gay or straight. But, the issue does not and can not be so individual couple specific.
I agree here as well.
I honestly wrestle with myself over this whole issue. I am still philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but in the grand scheme of things, it is very low on the battles I care to fight. Perhaps that is demeaning to you because it is so important to you, but our personal priorities probably unite in some areas and vary greatly in others.
I appreciate your thinking about this issue, and challenging your own beliefs. And I don’t find that the issue being a lower priority to you demeaning to me. I’m sure there are other things are more important to you that I have a lower priority on.
In short, I comment because I have yet to see a well reasoned argument for it.
Here we obviously disagree.
Comment by Pat — January 26, 2010 @ 4:16 pm - January 26, 2010
Just a thought. I suggest we separate legal marriage and religious marriage. ALL couples would have the right (and the requirement) to be married by the state in a civil ceremony, and receive all state benefits derived from the state of marriage. Then, they are free to marry in whatever religion they choose. If the religion refuses to accept gay couples, well too bad. You’re still married in the eyes of the state. And straight couples can still be married in their church weddings, but the will be REQUIRED to marry civilly too in order to be recognized as married by the state. Now, personally, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be married, but that’s what works for me.
Comment by bethesdabrat — January 26, 2010 @ 5:22 pm - January 26, 2010
Rusty, #25:
No, I do not. If I did, I would use it and promote gay marriage.
Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2010 @ 6:24 pm - January 26, 2010
thanks
Comment by rusty — January 26, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - January 26, 2010
Heliotrope, I struggle too… My feeling is that it’d be great if marriage-inclined gay people had as easy a time getting married as my husband and I did. I also believe that more good marriage role models, straight and gay==societal good. But I stop short of advocating immediate, across-the-board legalization of gay marriage because of the cruelty of the law of unintended consequences. (And the willingness of a small minority of gay people to make a public spectacle of their sexuality doesn’t give me confidence. Perhaps the same percentage of straight people do the same public shenanigans, but they’re not reported on as widely, so I’m not as aware of them – I dunno. BTW, kissing in public is not what I’m talking about; I don’t care who kisses whom, as long as everybody keeps their tongues off display. Ew.)
I’m content to allow state-by-state “sociology experiments” in gay marriage as the general run of Americans become increasingly comfortable with the idea… whereupon it may well become an idea whose time has come. But in the meantime, I remind myself that Pandora’s box, once opened, can never be closed… and that fact makes me perhaps overly cautious.
But of course it’s easy for me to be content with a gradualist approach; the issue affects me only indirectly, if at all. So I struggle.
Comment by Jamie — January 26, 2010 @ 6:54 pm - January 26, 2010
Jamie, we are in agreement. However, I fear that the “full faith and credit” clause in the Constitution is being contorted by marriage in one state not being recognized in another.
Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2010 @ 9:50 pm - January 26, 2010
rusty:
Thanks, Rusty!
For some reason, I’m wishing that we had the Alex 7000 sitting on the California supreme court for this Prop 8 trial…
~ ♪ ♫~ ~ harp arpeggio to dream sequence ~ ♪ ♫ ~
Kristen Perry: “Okay, like, the reason there should be gay marriage is because I want the discrimination to end and a more joyful part of our life to begin, per se. The state isn’t letting me feel happy. The state isn’t allowing me to feel my whole potential.”
Alex 7000:
PLAINTIFF IDENTIFIED AS "PERRY, KRISTEN"! YOUR APPEAL TO EMOTION **DOES NOT COMPUTE**.**DOES NOT COMPUTE**.
**DOES NOT COMPUTE**.
**DOES NOT COMPUTE**.
I REGRET THAT I MUST NOW FLOOD THE LEGAL CHAMBERS WITH OXYGEN-DEPLETING FOAM FROM MY AUTOMATED FIRE-SUPPRESSION SYSTEM. DO NOT BE ALARMED, THINK OF IT AS A SOOTHING BUBBLE BATH THAT MAKES YOUR SKIN BABY-SOFT EVEN AS YOUR LUNGS GASP FOR AIR."
Comment by Throbert McGee — January 26, 2010 @ 10:35 pm - January 26, 2010
27.Just a thought. I suggest we separate legal marriage and religious marriage. ALL couples would have the right (and the requirement) to be married by the state in a civil ceremony, and receive all state benefits derived from the state of marriage. Then, they are free to marry in whatever religion they choose. If the religion refuses to accept gay couples, well too bad.
Bethesdabrat, that would also be fine with me. The problem is, it’s unrealistic. The link between civil and religious marriage is not going away any time soon, if ever. However, I agree that churches should retain the right who they choose to marry. In fact, the Catholic Church does that with straight couples. They have the right not to marry a person who has been divorced (and not annulled), while the ex-spouse is still living. Heck, I think they even have the right to refuse marriage to a couple who don’t promise they won’t use birth control. So no, we should never compel any church to marry any couple they don’t want to. However, in time, my belief is that most mainstream churches will marry (or use another term) same sex couples.
Comment by Pat — January 27, 2010 @ 6:56 am - January 27, 2010
This religious marriage theme has me perplexed. Where is the “Gay Liberation Theology” and the Church of What’s Happenin’ Now? Just start up your own Jeremiah Wright type sect and hook it on to the Unitarians or some other pliable social-justice-without-sin-or-blame operation. You wouldn’t even have to believe in a god. You could channel “The Force.” If Scientology can make it, surely clever gays can make the Emerald City into their valhalla.
Comment by heliotrope — January 27, 2010 @ 9:07 am - January 27, 2010
[...] in a political campaign, not a court of law. That Judge Walker allowed his testimony as well as other personal stories suggests poor judging. But, many straight judges would also allow in such [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Should it Matter that Judge Presiding Over Prop 8 Trial is Gay? — February 7, 2010 @ 7:44 pm - February 7, 2010