GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/02/11/new-benefits-but-with-a-creepy-requirement/trackback/

  1. I’ve had to sign a couple of affidavits attesting to my relationship in order to sign up for group health insurance and other (private sector) company benefits. So this doesn’t seem all that strange.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 11, 2013 @ 7:15 pm - February 11, 2013

  2. Robert:
    My partner informed me that it’d be the same thing with his company to put me on his insurance (for example) if I weren’t in the military and needed it.

    Guess it just struck me as weird to have to do such a thing (seemed kind of invasive). But I guess if you’re asking someone else–in the case of health insurance–to pay for your personal things, that’s their right.

    On the other hand, this is just shopping at the PX.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — February 11, 2013 @ 7:49 pm - February 11, 2013

  3. Hmm….

    Were it heterosexuals averring their unmarried cohabitation, they’d be guilty of fraternization and a couple of other UCMJ violations/crimes.

    This tippy-toeing, halfway nonsense would be ridiculous were it not so dishonest.

    The military, and by extension, the Federal government–and society at large–need to pick one. Either same-sex marriage is “allowed,” or fraternization is.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — February 11, 2013 @ 10:57 pm - February 11, 2013

  4. I know things have changed quite a bit since I retired from the Navy, nearly 20 years ago. But, I don’t believe fraternization will ever go away. Even being married is protection against an article 134. One of my collateral duties was conducting Navy Rights & Responsibilites workshops. We had many case studies on article 134. As long as ther was a perception of favoritism or wrong doing, a couple could be brought up on fraternization charges, even if they were in seperate units or even different services, in some cases.
    I’m curious how commissary and exchange privileges at overseas assignments will hold up under the scrutiny of status of forces agreements.

    Comment by MurcanDownunder — February 12, 2013 @ 2:12 am - February 12, 2013

  5. Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused on a “technical” point. Can a heterosexual have an opposite sex “partner” and get all the same “benefits” being offered to the gay couple?

    I totally understand the conundrum. The military is attempting to provide the benefits extended to spouses, but in the case of gays, the law does not permit the “spouses” to be married. Therefore, the military has …… what? Accepted the “status quo” of the gay couple as “fact” based on the testimony of said couple?

    Why not polygamy? The military is bending over backward to play nice with Muslims.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 12, 2013 @ 9:22 am - February 12, 2013

  6. Guess you didn’t have the chance to ponder this. . .

    Why is it so plain simple to change the gender requirement and so improbable to even consider the number of spouses?

    Because the legal structure is an exclusive, mutual dyad: Two people, each putting the other first. The legal complications of making it a triad or multi-ad would be huge; neither would the structure last long, as members come and go.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 6, 2013 @ 1:40 pm – February 6, 2013

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 9:43 am - February 12, 2013

  7. Yeah, Rusty, I pondered it. In fact, I pondered it for a very long time before I ever discovered GayPatriot.

    One man and one woman” is a combination of two general variables: 1) the number of individuals is set at one and one, and 2) the combination of one and one is set at a man and a woman.

    My question is first, last and always: If you can change one variable, why can you not change the other variable?

    This is simple logic. Gay marriage involves expanding the marriage partners to: man and woman, man and man, and woman and woman.

    So, why can’t the bi-sexual be accommodated by one of each or the polygamist be accommodated by several?

    Who sets the “rule” that only the “type” of partner is flexible, but the number of partners is not flexible?

    The answer lies in tradition. The upending of either variable seems to lie in the state. That is to say that the state decrees.

    Which brings me back to the question I always start with: What is the compelling state interest in regulating marriage? I have my own views, but when I read what progressive gays put forth I am always left slack-jawed disappointed in what passes for “reason.”

    My comment @ #4 is an “equal rights” probe. Can a heterosexual soldier get the same accommodations for his girl friend that the military is going to offer to gay “partners?” I understand that I am being “cheeky” by equating a heterosexual soldier shacking up with the conundrum of what constitutes a gay “partner.” But, wouldn’t all this subtle “distinction” stuff just end up muddying the water for everyone?

    Sweden, England, France, Germany, The Netherlands have all “tolerated” the Muslims to the point of ignoring their counter-cultural structures. Now they are having to “accommodate/tolerate” aspects of Sharia and de facto polygamy. Many of these Muslims are deep into the social welfare programs of the state. Each of these countries is having to deal with the entanglement of their laws and Sharia and “tolerance” and actual threats and violence.

    Which leads me to Major Hasan and his workplace violence incident when he Allahu Akbar acted out. If he had one wife and a couple of substitutes, shouldn’t the military let all of them shop at the PX?

    Why do Progressives insist on ignoring the core problem?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 12, 2013 @ 12:33 pm - February 12, 2013

  8. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/31/154064922/would-gay-marriage-lead-to-legal-polygamy

    RAUCH

    : Well, of course, it’s very important to gay people. It’s very important to the kids of gay people. A lot of us are raising kids. It’s not going to break up anybody’s traditional marriage. It’s supplemental, not substitutional.

    Most important, though, from my point of view – America’s problem is not that we have too many marriages. It’s that we have too few marriages. It’s not that gay people want to get married. It’s that straight people are not getting married or not staying married.

    And I think same-sex marriage helped set the cultural example that marriage remains the gold standard for committed relationships in America, something everyone can and should aspire to. Polygamy, of course, points in the exact opposite direction. It withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it, and that’s why I’m not worried that ultimately, as people start to think about it, they’ll see polygamy and gay marriage are opposites, not equivalents.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 2:38 pm - February 12, 2013

  9. Don’t Do Unto Others
    The difference between gay marriage and polygamy.
    By William Saletan|Updated Thursday, March 23, 2006, at 12:45 AM ET
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/dont_do_unto_others.single.html

    My friend Charles Krauthammer makes the argument succinctly in the Washington Post. “Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender,” he observes. “If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices,” then “on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?”

    Here’s the answer. The number isn’t two. It’s one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn’t arbitrary. It’s based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.

    Krauthammer finds the gay/poly divergence perplexing. “Polygamy was sanctioned, indeed common” for ages, he observes. “What is historically odd is that as gay marriage is gaining acceptance, the resistance to polygamy is much more powerful.” But when you factor in jealousy, the oddity disappears. Women shared husbands because they had to. The alternative was poverty. As women gained power, they began to choose what they really wanted. And what they really wanted was the same fidelity that men expected from them.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 2:49 pm - February 12, 2013

  10. @#6
    Yes, I agree that you are being cheeky. In other words, and less culturally funny… boldly rude, and disrespectful. A straight soldier gets the same benefits, and more, by signing a document attesting to his “committed relationship,” by signing a marriage certificate. He would then have to do whatever the military requires of him, whether that is to show the military his signed marriage certificate, or sign documents attesting that he is married.

    Comment by Jason M — February 12, 2013 @ 2:58 pm - February 12, 2013

  11. Shorter Rusty. “Because I said it would never happen.”

    Strangely enough, it would never happen turns out to be wrong.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 12, 2013 @ 3:24 pm - February 12, 2013

  12. Because the legal structure is an exclusive, mutual dyad: Two people, each putting the other first. The legal complications of making it a triad or multi-ad would be huge; neither would the structure last long, as members come and go.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 6, 2013 @ 1:40 pm – February 6, 2013

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 3:27 pm - February 12, 2013

  13. On the other hand, this is just shopping at the PX.

    What is the rationale for giving a military spouse PX/commissary privileges? The answer (or part of it) is that the servicemember and the spouse are financially intertwined and share the burden and expense of day-to-day household management, while the woman who used to watch your dogs is not part of your household. So it makes sense to me that the procedure for obtaining PX privileges would be separate from the procedure for designating the beneficiary for a one-time life insurance beneficiary.

    Also, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I would assume that if the spouse/spousal equivalent of a servicemember abuses the PX privileges (for example, by shoplifting), then the servicemember would bear some sort of responsibility for the spouse’s deed. Whereas if the servicemember brings a non-household “guest” into the PX and the guest shoplifts without the servicemember’s knowledge, then the servicemember is not presumed to bear the same degree of responsibility as in the case of an officially recognized dependent.

    I’m probably getting the details fuzzy, but it’s my understanding that servicemembers are the presumed “legal sponsors” of their dependents (including spouses) when certain privileges are extended to dependents.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2013 @ 3:57 pm - February 12, 2013

  14. designating the beneficiary for a one-time life insurance beneficiary.

    Argh. PIMF.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - February 12, 2013

  15. Were it heterosexuals averring their unmarried cohabitation, they’d be guilty of fraternization and a couple of other UCMJ violations/crimes.

    “Fraternization” is not a synonym for “unmarried cohabitation,” period. The term refers to certain types of improper relationships (not necessarily sexual ones) among members of the military. Generally speaking, servicemembers are “allowed” to shack up with a civilian boyfriend or girlfriend.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2013 @ 4:18 pm - February 12, 2013

  16. Rusty,

    ILC and I have a difference of opinion concerning gay marriage. We have zero problems with one another over that issue. Are you posting his words “at” me in order to get one us riled up? I assure you that we have agreed to disagree and neither of us is going to rise to the bait.

    Meanwhile, if you are able to understand his words and you would like to come at me with your own words, please feel free to do so. You already have my answer @ #6.

    Your comments @ #7 and #8 merely serve as other ways of avoiding the core problem. Someone says “jealousy” is the “fact” that upsets the equation. But why jealousy? Why not resentment? Why not envy? Why not contentment? Why not satisfaction? Why not pleasure? Why not unity? Why not trusting? Why not jacking up the population by keeping the herd pregnant? Good gosh, man, how many stud male animals service a harem in the world of nature?

    And then we learn that “two become one” as if three, four, six or a score can’t become one. Does a mother have to choose the one child out of six that she treasures most?

    Malarky. Pap. Synthetic, sympathetic and sentimental congruity. A tsunami of psychobabble.

    Look a system of civil unions is, in fact, a form of caste system. It says you may reap the benefits of marriage without meeting the criteria of marriage. I fully understand the “slap” of being allowed through the door by special permission.

    What is the military doing but just that: making a specific exception to the rules.

    You should understand how and why I oppose gay marriage by now. But perhaps this will help: you want to open the barn door, but you insist that only one of a specific gender may come out. How is that determined? You opened the damned door, didn’t you? How come no one else gets a say?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 12, 2013 @ 4:23 pm - February 12, 2013

  17. Like polygamists? Why is it so plain simple to change the gender requirement and so improbable to even consider the number of spouses?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 5, 2013 @ 9:22 pm – February 5, 2013

    Why is it so plain simple to change the gender requirement and so improbable to even consider the number of spouses?

    Because the legal structure is an exclusive, mutual dyad: Two people, each putting the other first. The legal complications of making it a triad or multi-ad would be huge; neither would the structure last long, as members come and go.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 6, 2013 @ 1:40 pm – February 6, 2013

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=57979

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 4:29 pm - February 12, 2013

  18. heliotrope, you can have your say. You can have your objections.

    But it appears the polygamy issue is your primary concern.

    The door was opened a long time ago. I am here to find out more about why folk have such standings, and to learn how folk come about their conclusions.

    If gay marriage was solely being pushed by one side. . .then my time here would not be very productive

    But over the past five years reading GP, gleaning insights from folk here, I have seen quite a shift. And one of those shifts is in Gay Marriage and the support growing from conservative and libertarians. Quite fascinating

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 4:37 pm - February 12, 2013

  19. As I sit here wondering if my comment will post, (copied here for posterity):


    @#6
    Yes, I agree that you are being cheeky. In other words, and less culturally funny… boldly rude, and disrespectful. A straight soldier gets the same benefits, and more, by signing a document attesting to his “committed relationship,” by signing a marriage certificate. He would then have to do whatever the military requires of him, whether that is to show the military his signed marriage certificate, or sign documents attesting that he is married.”

    I can’t help but think of the influence sci-fi has had on me. For example, I love the show Babylon 5. The traditionalists see themselves as the Vorlons, standing for ‘order’ above all else. They see the opposition as the Shadows, standing for ‘chaos.’ The rest of us are left to make a choice, a choice between the ‘order’ or ‘chaos’ that either side offers. But, that is the catch, choose one, only one — of the choices they offer.

    Choose “tradition” (order,) or polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia (chaos.) You can have no other choice. That is what they tell you.

    #6 says cheeky. But which came first? The thought, or the thought behind the word? #6 says he knows he is being “cheeky” which makes me assume he knows the thought (meaning) being the word. As Delenn (Babylon 5 again, an alien) tried to understand the word ‘cranky’ I looked up cheeky, and it said ‘insolent’, look up insolent, and it means “boldly rude, and disrespectful.”

    I, as John Sheridan in Babylon 5, reject your choices. I reject the choices you give. I have the right to make my own decisions. And if they are mistakes, they are mine to make!

    #16…
    Opening the barn door = chaos. Again, we have no other choice, but the ones you give us. I again reject your premise. You talk as if the ‘State’ is a headless body with no control. That is false. “We the people” means nothing to you. The same way a constitutional amendment can be made to limit a ‘marriage as between one man and one woman’ can be worded in any way the electorate chooses. The same way it could be worded to allow polyamory, or pedophilia, or bestiality, etc… That is not what we are talking about though. That is your attempt to instill the fear of ‘chaos.’
    It is your attempt to choose for everyone else, by limiting the choices to begin with.

    Comment by Jason M — February 12, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - February 12, 2013

  20. The polyamorists have the same right as gay people. They can form their organizations, raise money, and appeal to the electorate, as gays have. When they do, I am sure heliotrope will revel in the chance to compare them to animal lovers, and pedophiles.

    There is a difference though. As has been said, a marriage is a commitment to become one. Does that apply to the polyamorists? Does a non-genetic parent get the same rights as all the “parents?” Does every decision have to be made in conference call?

    Comment by Jason M — February 12, 2013 @ 4:46 pm - February 12, 2013

  21. As I sit here wondering if my comment will post

    The comment filter is most likely to put your comment on hold, (1) if you are new, (2) if you put a lot of links in a particular comment. GP administrators approve virtually all held comments (no viewpoint bias) that are not clearly spam or abuse. As the comment filter gets used to you, it should automatically hold fewer and fewer of your comments.

    ILC and I have a difference of opinion concerning gay marriage. We have zero problems with one another over that issue.

    Agree on both counts.

    Comment by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) — February 12, 2013 @ 4:51 pm - February 12, 2013

  22. @#2,

    When I was a child, a military (or military dependent) ID was needed to enter athletic facilities like the swimming pool as well. Has that changed, or are you just not interested in those facilities, and discount those that do wish to use them?

    Comment by Jason M — February 12, 2013 @ 4:51 pm - February 12, 2013

  23. @ Jason,

    You are right that they have the same rights of redress as anyone. What Heliotrope and I both point out though is that saying “We just want to change the definition here but it’s fundamentally different to change it there is a false flag.”

    To people like me (who supports Fred) changing marriage away from ‘man and wife’ is a fundamental change. Just as much as changing it to ‘man and wives’.

    All the handwaving in the world won’t change that, fundamental or no.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 12, 2013 @ 5:27 pm - February 12, 2013

  24. Rusty:

    But it appears the polygamy issue is your primary concern.

    I am sorry it appears that way.

    Gay marriage advocates want to redefine traditional marriage. They only see the gender issue in the traditional marriage issue. They must open their minds enough to understand that there is the “one and one” part of traditional marriage.

    Your avowed enemies, the radical Islamists who would screw you and then cut your wind-pipe do not see the gender in the traditional marriage issue. They do see the “one and one” issue, however, as being anti-sharia and a “slap” at their “true religion.”

    Meanwhile, panty-waist gays run around getting all huffy with Phelps because he is “required” to turn the other cheek and therefore just a windbag bully. But you run away and hide from the realities of radical Islam. Nick Berg and Danny Pearl were not gay. I don’t know if radical Islamists use an even duller knife when cutting the heard off of gays, but if I were gay, I would damn sure have a greater concern over radical Islamists than blowhard Phelps.

    There are two aspects to traditional marriage: 1.) man and woman. 2.) one of each. You are all wrapped up in #1 and you choose to ignore #2. That is anti-intellectual. A radical Islamist would chose to ignore #1. and concentrate on #2. That is also anti-intellectual.

    Now, the way Jason M reads things, I just compared gays to radical Islamists.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 12, 2013 @ 5:46 pm - February 12, 2013

  25. ILC,

    Thanks for the heads up on “too many links.”

    I see the cops have the rat trapped up at Big Bear. I hope you all can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Stay well.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 12, 2013 @ 5:49 pm - February 12, 2013

  26. heliotrope, you can twist and warp this argument as being exclusively created by moi.

    Yes, 12 even 13 years ago I never thought SSM would even have a third leg to stand on. But the fact that SSM continues to be supported by the Gheys, but also by clergy, and faith communities across the spectrum, business leaders and corporate boards, policy wonks and leaders

    Gay marriage advocates include folk with very strong ties to the Big Conservatives and to little conservatives, to folk raising monies for the prop8 event in the Supreme Court all the way over to Jimmy, Chris (and his hubby) and Bruce Carroll at GOProud.

    If you want to continue to view it as some liberal event that will end in chaos. . .that be your choice.

    But trying to state that I reposted ILC response to your earlier position of ‘ oh dear G-d, then we will have to deal with polygamy ‘ drama,

    You may want to review your approach to being truly absurd, and your attempts to rile up folk.

    Not saying I have been an angel here, but I am working on it

    It is fun to put your hands on your hips though once in awhile. :)

    And, say heliotrope did you ever get the chance to catch Christopher Plummer in The Beginners, he did get an Oscar.

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 6:01 pm - February 12, 2013

  27. Generally speaking, servicemembers are “allowed” to shack up with a civilian boyfriend or girlfriend.

    Actually, they’re not–this is a violation of the UCMJ, also. It’s just winked at unless things get especially egregious.

    The fraternization also gets hazy in the area of common-law marriages. Once established, these are recognized (though with difficulty in the military, due in part to the paperwork drill); however, ordinary cohabitation for a period of time is required to establish the relationship as a common-law marriage.

    Eric Hines

    Comment by E Hines — February 12, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - February 12, 2013

  28. Generally speaking, servicemembers are “allowed” to shack up with a civilian boyfriend or girlfriend.

    Actually, they’re not–this is a violation of the UCMJ, also. It’s just winked at unless things get especially egregious.

    I think this would depend on exactly how one defines “shack up”. As far as I can tell, a non-marital sexual relationship does not automatically constitute “wrongful cohabitation,” and only the latter violates the UCMJ. In other words, acknowledging that a certain behavior does not meet the defined minimum threshold of a violation is not the same as “winking at” this behavior.

    However, I’m not a military lawyer.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2013 @ 6:38 pm - February 12, 2013

  29. To people like me (who supports Fred) changing marriage away from ‘man and wife’ is a fundamental change.

    Thank you for your reminder about supporting “Fred.” Arguing against the non-existence of domestic partnership laws is not the same as arguing for a change to the one-man, one-woman definition of “marriage.”

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2013 @ 6:55 pm - February 12, 2013

  30. Regarding polygamous marriages (or, shall we say, polygamous “domestic partnerships”), I think that the biggest argument against any legal recognition for them is the problem of asymmetry. If we imagine a “group civil union” of persons A, B, C, and D, would B and D be able to mutually divorce each other and only each other, while each remains married to A and C? And would A and C be able to unilaterally regard B and D as “married to each other,” even though B and D no longer recognize a marital bond between themselves?

    In practice, polygamy has nearly always been a highly asymmetric form of polygyny, in which a man has several wives, and each of the wives has a husband, but the wives do not “have” each other. So in the event of divorce (or the death of one individual in the group marriage), there would be ramifications for property rights and inheritance that do not come into play when you’re talking about two persons of the same sex.

    And I just want to re-emphasize the point that even “polygamous domestic partnerships” would be inherently more complicated than “same-sex domestic partnerships,” even if one entirely accepts that the traditional one-man, one-woman definition of marriage should remain unchanged.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 12, 2013 @ 7:09 pm - February 12, 2013

  31. I found time for my two cents:

    “These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners…once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.” – Does that make you feel a little bit creepy?

    No, Nick, it doesn’t. Sorry, but I think that is as it should be. Straight couples do much the same thing; it’s called a marriage license.

    Recognizing that gay couples still can’t be married in most states, your employer wants to extend benefits to married-like gay couples. I am so OK with that, I don’t have enough words for it.

    Why not polygamy? The military is bending over backward to play nice with Muslims.

    Hey, that reminds me :-) When I talked about polygamy being legally complicated, what I had in mind was, gender-neutral / gender-equal polygamy. But you just reminded me of the other kind: one man, plus many wives. What would be the problem with that kind?

    Well, legally, it would not be complicated; it has a long legal history. But it would destroy our cherished ‘equality of the sexes’ (subordinating women to men), as well as increasing the competition among men, for wives. It would be the kind of nasty cultural change that only the really death-wishing, self-hating kind of liberal woman could get behind.

    What is the compelling state interest in regulating marriage?

    Getting people to settle down in pairs, where they look after each other’s welfare, that is, serve as each other’s first line of defense against the vicissitudes of life. And as well, for any kids they raise. Secondarily, getting kids to be brought up in two-parent families; but clearly, the latter can’t always happen.

    Here’s the answer. The number isn’t two. It’s one. You commit to one person, and that person commits wholly to you. Second, the number isn’t arbitrary. It’s based on human nature. Specifically, on jealousy.

    Well put.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 12, 2013 @ 7:26 pm - February 12, 2013

  32. Wait a second here

    This post has nothing to do with marriage. The military is simply extending the same rights to gay folks that straight folks have long had.

    Obama has removed another barrier and is trying to ensure the gay folks who fight and die for our county have the same rights as the straight folks.

    How can this site not do anything but cheer this decision?

    Comment by mike — February 12, 2013 @ 9:08 pm - February 12, 2013

  33. Rusty,

    Really, I need help here. I am fully aware of all the strides that have been made in bringing the possibility of gay marriage to the public square. I totally agree with you that not many decades ago, the idea of gay marriage would have been nearly unthinkable and the subject of sneering scorn by Letterman and Stewart.

    I don’t do well with setting odds, but I believe the odds for seeing nationwide gay marriage in what is left of my life are fairly good. (I am 71, so that could range from tomorrow to maybe 20 years.)

    All that said, my argument remains the same. Changing the traditional definition of marriage can not be made sealed off from unintended consequences.

    Either you, Rusty, need to open your mind to redefining traditional marriage in terms of the number of partners or you bury your head in the sand. Neither you, Rusty, nor I, Heliotrope, can keep the clear logic of challenging the second “restriction” (one and one) bottled up after the precedent of breaking down the first “restriction” (man and woman.)

    I am keenly aware of how fervently so many of my gay friends wish they could erase the remaining miasma attached to being gay from their existence within the public square. Whether I believe this miasma has been greatly eased is hardly the point; I don’t have to deal with it.

    I encourage you to read this; it may just be a window into a world you might not have visited before.

    I suspect, for many gays, the view of gay marriage is “damn the numbers argument, full-steam ahead.” That is understandable. But, legal precedent doesn’t work that way. Others are watching the struggle and taking note of trails blazed and how they can let the vanguards do the hard work so that they can waltz on through the door without the initial struggle.

    Really, it does not matter if gays join with us old fogies after the door is open. Your minuscule weight as part of the total public square tonnage is meaningless when push comes to shove in keeping the redefinition of traditional marriage closed to changing the number of partners permissible.

    In Luke 23:34, among the last words of the Christ were: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” These words may fall on deaf ears among the disaffected, but they are prophetic nonetheless when considering that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” If all this religiosity if off-putting, may I suggest that you “look before you leap.”

    So, should determined gays be required to take the cautious route to their disadvantage? No! That is a “bridge too far” for anyone to demand.

    Is my sense of caution assuaged by my empathy for my gay associates and friends? Not in the least. I can not, in all good faith, let down my guard which would lead to the further dissolution of the meaning of our legal and cultural meanings of traditional marriage.

    That is why I wish for an honest national debate on the role of the “compelling state interest” in the institution of marriage.

    I cannot help but note that gays, in general, would rather have this “debate” settled by a friendly court system than the ballot box.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 12, 2013 @ 10:50 pm - February 12, 2013

  34. heliotrope, many of my educator friends find the prom thing quite disturbing.
    And yes I follow such stories

    No back to the Gheys, the Moes, the lesbians. . .

    Yes there were folk in the lgbt ranks calling for marriage even against the calls from the same group to shun the heteronormative experiment.

    But with that mere 3% certainly isn’t the majority in the SSM movement

    It’s the parent’s, friends, colleagues, employers, politicians that are supporting SSM.

    You should really take some time to read Blankenhorn. His goal is to improve marriage and family life

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 11:39 pm - February 12, 2013

  35. but that 3%

    Comment by rusty — February 12, 2013 @ 11:40 pm - February 12, 2013

  36. I cannot help but note that gays, in general, would rather have this “debate” settled by a friendly court system than the ballot box.

    I want a party with roomfuls of laughter!
    Ten thousand tons of ice cream!
    And if I don’t get the things I am after,
    I’m! Going! To! SCREAM!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 13, 2013 @ 4:02 am - February 13, 2013

  37. This post has nothing to do with marriage. The military is simply extending the same rights to gay folks that straight folks have long had.

    I think mike needs to undertand what ‘rights’ actually are.

    And, I’ll point out, from a literal PoV, the gay servicemen are having a privilege extended, that hetero (or poly) service members don’t have. Namely, non-recognized relationships given a quasi legal status.

    Sci-fi geek aside: There was a subplot with the Galen and Athena “Boomer” having a relationship even though it was an enlisted man and an officer. At one point Colonel Tigh points out that everyone knew, but as long as it was peace time they turned a blind eye. They were ordered to end it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 13, 2013 @ 7:49 am - February 13, 2013

  38. Rusty,

    My link to the “prom thing” was for you to read the words of the conservative chicks who were excoriating the dumb prom girl, while holding their own on opposing gay marriage.

    They were doing what is seldom seen on the left. They were not closing ranks and ignoring a violation of the Christian value of loving our fellow man.

    It is possible to be opposed to gay marriage while being the farthest thing from also being a homophobe.

    I have made my point on this thread and on many threads prior to this one. I am neither right nor wrong. I am telling you that there is another looming consequence to redefining marriage if gay marriage succeeds. Either you acknowledge that or you ignore it. Either way —

    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
    To the last syllable of recorded time;
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    Que Sera Sera: Whatever will be, will be. We can take tomorrow as it comes or we can be enlightened and try to shape tomorrow to be a better day. One way to shape tomorrow is by massive government social engineering. Tomorrow can also be shaped by reigniting the culture of community and interpersonal interactions; the web is a marvelous tool in making interpersonal contacts.

    Community organizers and counter-culture radicals merely substitute power for reason. I suppose that if it is a cause that cannot be made by reason, power politics is an obvious alternative.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 13, 2013 @ 10:56 am - February 13, 2013

  39. How can this site not do anything but cheer this decision?

    In other words, you are not allowed to have your own opinion (or you are a traitor, or something).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 13, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - February 13, 2013

  40. First, my comments #10, and #19, should refer to #7, not #6.

    Second, @ #24, you should be ashamed of yourself for insulting the military families by calling them “panty-waist.” I’m sure you will say that you did not do that. But you did. You should open your mind to the reality that not only gays are offended by the Phelps family. Both gays (1) and military families (2) get “huffy” over what they say. Choosing to ignore the implied #2, and focusing only on #1 is also a farce.

    Third, I have not ignored anything. Nor am I ignoring those who wish to have me killed. What do you expect me to do exactly? Should I preface every comment with a disclaimer that I don’t support Sharia? Should I also include a disclaimer that I know there are two variables that can be changed with regard to marriage? That is rubbish.

    I already acknowledged that those wishing multiple spouses have their right, the same as you, or I. They can advocate the position they want, as can you, and I. I never said it was not a fundamental change. You however do keep saying “traditional” as if things have not already been changed.

    Furthermore, there are arguments here which you do wish to ignore, such as the complexities of a multiple spousal marriage. If you really wish a debate, as you say in #33, then by all means, engage us on those complexities. Your choice, debate, or continue threatening the “chaos” you fear.

    Lastly, Don’t ever put words in my mouth, or assume you know how I “read things.” You have in the past, on multiple occasions, compared gay marriage to pedophilia, and bestiality. I have already conceded there is a point with polyamory. The other two rude comparisons require more than either of the two variables be changed. Either you have realized that, and have stopped using them (which seems to be the case,) or you still believe it…..But I won’t call you panty-waisted for running from those remarks.

    Comment by Jason M — February 13, 2013 @ 7:12 pm - February 13, 2013

  41. In other words, you are not allowed to have your own opinion (or you are a traitor, or something).

    I took #32 to mean “Why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?” — which is quite different from saying “Anyone who disagrees with me is a housefaggotquislingkapo.”

    (Maybe mike in #32 actually did intend the latter meaning, but that’s not how I interpreted it — although I haven’t posted here in quite a while, so perhaps mike has a track record that I’m not aware of.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 13, 2013 @ 7:21 pm - February 13, 2013

  42. Jason M,

    You have suffered a great deal by my words. I apologize. I did not intend to cause you any sort of pain or suffering.

    What would you like me to do to better address your sensibilities?

    Comment by heliotrope — February 13, 2013 @ 7:49 pm - February 13, 2013

  43. @37

    Signing the document and receiving the benefits is a form of recognition. Aside from that, some gay couples are legally recognized, and the original privelege is not being extended to them. So, both sets of priveleges are equally unequal.

    Comment by Jason M — February 13, 2013 @ 7:58 pm - February 13, 2013

  44. Yes, mike has a track record (as a concern troll). Maybe I misunderstood his comment, but it seems pretty clear to me what he was saying.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 14, 2013 @ 12:25 am - February 14, 2013

  45. Rattlesnake — hmmm, you could be right. Reading #32 again, I notice (a) the Dearleaderish phrase “Obama has removed a barrier” (i.e., instead of “this new policy removes a barrier”), and (b) the repeated use of the word “folks.”

    (I don’t mean to say that “folk(s)” is an inherently bad word; I just mean to say that in a Venn diagram, “People who use the word folk a lot” would overlap quite a bit with “People who are ostentatiously proud of their populist sentiments.”)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — February 14, 2013 @ 4:34 am - February 14, 2013

  46. I have already conceded there is a point with polyamory. The other two rude comparisons require more than either of the two variables be changed.

    Um, one variable. Changing age of consent laws. (Which the 9th Circus may have done, ironically).

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 14, 2013 @ 7:36 am - February 14, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.606 Powered by Wordpress