Now, I certainly agree with him that it’s not for courts to define marriage and that while intimacy is a major part of a serious marriage, it is not its defining aspect.  So, now, we’ve got him saying that if state courts deciding marriage, it could lead to people marrying their horses:

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”

“Now how dangerous is that?” asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary.

“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,” he continued. “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”

Yeah, I know what he’s getting at.  Trying to show the slippery slop onto which such court decisions put us.  So, why not simply remove marriage from the jurisdiction of courts and make it instead (as it should be) the province of legislatures?  Instead, he wants the constitution to define marriage via a federal marriage amendment.

This pompous man’s pontificating shows he’s more interesting in getting attention than making a serious argument on a serious issue.  If he were serious about the slippery slope, he would favor a less draconian solution than the federal marriage amendment he backs.

I think my own credentials as a defender of traditional marriage are in order. They can be reviewed in detail here and here. I do not hold these beliefs out of animosity toward gay people, or disrespect for committed homosexual relationships. I believe in the positive value of the marriage tradition, and I reserve the right to celebrate that value without denigrating those who don’t participate in it.

The gay-marriage movement is necessarily aggressive, because they seek a substantial change in society. I appreciate the strength of their conviction, and as long as they respect mine, we can have a civil discussion. The temptation to detonate conviction into anger is strong, and counter-productive. I’m no more impressed by Ryan Sorba’s act than I was by Perez Hilton’s.

Well said, very well said.  If people are serious about promoting this significant social change, that is, state recognition of same-sex marriage, then they’ll recognize that some people can oppose same-sex marriage without hating gay people.  After all, as long as cultures have recognized marriage, they’ve defined the institution as a union between individuals of different sexes.

So, respect their arguments and find a way to counter them (and explain why this social change is a good thing).  Yeah, I know I’ve said this before.  Countless times.

And he’s right to link Sorba to that other guy.  Blowhards are blowhards, no matter what their ideology.

There’s a lot more in his post I’d like to address, but I’m tired and need to wake up early to figure out a way to make a rhetorically smooth transition, in keeping with the theme and style of my dissertation, between Athena’s relationship to Persephone and her involvement in the creation of Pandora, the woman not the planet.

Marriage is the social regulation and placement of sexual energies, which for [English poet Edmund] Spenser otherwise fall back into the anarchy of nature, rule by the will-to-power and survival of the fittest.  Marriage is the sanctified link between nature and society.  Sex in Spenser must always have a social goal.

Save perhaps for Jonathan Rauch, gay marriage advocates have yet to defend marriage in such terms.  Perhaps, they might get a better response from the American people if they did.

Now, I know very little about the judge, certainly not enough to call his overall impartiality into question–though the way he has conducted this trial certainly sets off some alarm bells.  It strikes me as odd that he has allowed the plaintiffs to bring in certain witnesses whose commentary on gay marriage would certainly be relevant were the issue debated in the legislature or presented to the people, but is entirely irrelevant to a court considering whether a popular provision in the state constitution violates the federal constitution.

All reports (at least those I have read), for example, show that Jerry Sanders is a fine Mayor of San Diego, but he is no legal scholar.  His remarks on gay marriage belong 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 “witnesses.”

As a gay man who believes the Judge should have dismissed the case before it even came to trial, I know it’s not his sexuality that’s the issue, but his jurisprudence.*  All that said, should this one man rule to overturn the will of seven million, you can bet the proponent of the Proposition will make an issue of his sexuality.  Indeed, some already are.  Ed Whelan, offering some sound criticism of the judge’s questionable judgments, point outs:

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. . . .

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Another conservative blogger is mocking him.  And frankly, I don’t blame him.  Touchy-feely is not the way to run a courtroom.

It’s too bad Judge Walker has shown such poor judgment in letting a parade of witnesses to make a case more appropriate to the public square and in his federal courtroom.  Had he exercised better judgment, no one would be making an issue of his sexuality.

Perhaps, he might consider the backlash that will ensue should he rule to overturn Prop 8.  Not only will that motivate opponents of gay marriage, but it will also raise the hopes of its advocates.  And they will likely experience the same disappointment they felt when voters overturned the California Supreme Court decision mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage when appellate courts overturn his decision on appeal.  (And the same disappointment when the state Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8.)

Instead of returning to the courthouse time after time after time, gay marriage advocates need focus on convincing the people of California (an other jurisdictions) of the merits of same-sex marriage so they can enact laws sure to survive constitutional and popular scrutiny.  But, as we’ve seen before that they’ve long been loath to do that.

——–

*Many judges holding a similarly liberal interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause would have done exactly the same thing he has done–even if they weren’t gay.

The body of the e-mail, however, had nothing to do with Proposition 8. You see, Geoff Kors, Executive Director of EqCA is upset that Meg Whitman, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of this great state has, in his words,

. . . launched a multi-million dollar media blitz. She is trying to buy the governor’s office with ads that fail to tell the true story about who she really is – an anti-equality candidate who has fought to eliminate the rights of LGBT people in an attempt to drum up conservative support to win an election.

In other words, this accomplished CEO has started running ads promoting her candidacy and she’s not talking about gay marriage.  And while that may get Mr. Kors panties in a bundle, well, I think it’s a good thing.  I don’t think candidates for Governor should make opposition to gay marriage the focus of their campaigns.  Instead, she’s talking about the state’s problems and putting forward her ideas on how to make California golden once again.

Yeah, Meg Whitman supported Prop 8.  And while I like much of what she’s been saying, I’m not ready to endorse her, remaining undecided in the gubernatorial contest.  Before I make up my mind, I want to hear her stand on the state’s landmark domestic partnership program.  I’d be more likely to support her if she addressed that program as Scott Brown addressed gay marriage in his state:  calling it “settled law.”That said, Mr. Kors sure is upset that Meg Whitman’s not bringing up Prop 8 in the election.  You’d think a gay leader would be pleased that a Republican candidate is steering clear of gay issues, particularly when that candidate supported said popular initiative.

It is a strange obsession indeed.  And this is not the first time Mr. Kors has brought up Miss Whitman in his e-mail diatribes.

Methinks ol’ Geoff is so obsessed with this accomplished CEO because he knows that should she win election to the Golden State Governor’s mansion, his influence in the state capital would wane. He has spent so much time bashing Republicans and coddling Democrats, that he surely would not find welcome within a GOP gubernatorial Administration.

Perhaps, he might be better able to reach out to a resurgent Republican Party if he took the time to understand Republican ideas and so learned how to reach across the aisle.  In so doing, he might also be better able to reach out to GOP voters in a campaign to repeal Prop. 8.

In fact, during the campaign, they didn’t seem much interested in soliciting our opinions on how to appeal to “movable” conservatives.  At a West Hollywood meeting for gay Republicans, the “No on 8″ folks seemed more interested in enlisting us in their campaign than in hearing our ideas on how to improve it.  The were decidedly cool to my suggestion that they ask Ward Connerly, well regarded by California conservatives, to cut a TV commercial against the initiative.

They thought he might offend people on the left–not realizing of course that (most of) the people he might “offend” were already dead-set against 8.

Despite the coolness of the gay organizations to conservative input, I’m going to put forward my ideas on how best to overturn Prop 8.

I agree with those gay organizations who want to wait until 2012 to repeal the measure at the ballot box, but we need the proper ballot language.  With the intention of working toward that goal, I put forward here my draft initiative. While I believe this measure could pass muster with Golden State voters, I want to hear your opinions before I send it out to the various gay organizations.  I particularly want to hear from those with legal backgrounds on how I can improve language:

This replaces Article 1, §7.5* of the California Constitution with the following:

(a) the legislature shall determine the qualifications for recognizing marriages in California;

(b) Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own religious doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within their faith.

(c) The state may not require any such organization, association or society to perform or accommodate a marriage at odds with its religious doctrine, policy, teachings, and beliefs

I adopted subsections (b) and (c) from the New Hampshire law recognizing same-sex marriages.  I debated also including section 2 of the Granite State legislation, but don’t believe the constitution is the appropriate place for such lengthy provisions.

Now, I grant giving the legislature the power to set the qualifications for marriage does not guarantee that the state will recognize same-sex marriages, but this provision makes it easier to appeal to conservatives (like myself) who believe legislatures and not the courts should resolve the issue.

As to provisions (b) and (c), I’m not really sure they’re necessary, believing that the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment to the federal constitution protects the rights of religious organizations, associations, and societies to set their own marital standards.  That said, inclusion of this provision undercuts one of the strongest argument that opponents of state-recognized same-sex marriage have made, that it’s a back door to undermining the doctrines of various faiths.

I believe it would be very hard to run against this proposed initiative.

So now, I put it out there for your comments.  I’ll consider any sincere suggestions you may have, revising my proposal accordingly before sending it out to the various gay organizations.

Given their record and given my politics, I doubt they’ll pay it much heed, but still I’ll try.

———-

*This is where the language of Prop 8 was incorporated into the charter.

In his post, he excerpts Bay Area Reporter Cynthia Laird’s editorial broadside against Freedom (sic) to Marry’s Evan Wolfson for closing a “marriage institute session” at the Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s annual Creating Change conference to the media:

Anyone who was following the federal Proposition 8 trial via Twitter or on numerous blogs knows full well what the community is up against regarding opposition to marriage equality. And for goodness’ sake, if progressive activists and others can’t articulate their views in a public forum, how are they ever going to accomplish the hard, on-the-ground work of talking to people – in public and private settings?

(Well, technically, it wasn’t closed to the media, just off the record which Laird finds is a distinction without a difference.)

Now, while I quibble with the term, “marriage equality,” I think Ms. Laird is on the money.  We need open discussions, not just among progressive activists, but also with moderates and even sympathetic conservatives.  Petrelis and Laird fault “Gay, Inc” for an absence of, to borrow the leftist blogger’s expression, “unfiltered community engagement,” we fault them for not excluding conservatives, even gay conservatives.

Such open conversations might not only expose “Gay, Inc” to the diversity of views in our community, but also provide insight into the diversity of views in American society at large on same-sex marriage and relationships.

At times, it seems, gay activists are like the movie Avatar, where characters are caricatures, cardboard cutouts, with one side “good” and the other “bad.”  In this case, either you’re for “marriage equality” or you’re a “H8er.”  There is no middle ground.Indeed, among those who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, there is a vast spectrum of opinion, including those who really do hate gay people as well as those favoring same-sex civil unions, but opposing gay marriage because they believe the institution is defined by gender difference.

To effect change, it would help to understand the views of those whose minds you want to change.

In such open fora, Petrelis and I would surely offer different perspectives. He would likely call for more energetic activism.  I would fault the gay organizations for not defending marriage as an institution, defending its ideals and responsibilities–and the ability of gay people to fulfill them.  And for not reaching out to conservative organizations and for failing to develop plans to appeal to conservative individuals.

Yet, Petrelis and I both agree that more open discussions are needed.  Yet, it seems that the heads of the various gay organizations would rather protect themselves from the public, even the gay public.  Perhaps, that stems from their extended tenure in their current positions.  Their organizations likely would benefit from new leadership, more responsive to the community and more willing to change course.

She thus acknowledges that fidelity is key to a happy marriage.  And that once that fidelity is compromised, it takes a lot of work to restore trust, requiring both husband and wife to “work through the problem together, with professional help if” necessary.

In case you miss my point, let me repeat, fidelity is essential to marriage and gay people are capable of monogamy.

It’s just too bad the leaders of gay organizations refuse to say as much.

When, however, a blogger, well, in this case, a blogress whom I generally respect gets my views wrong, I do take notice.  Last night, just before bed, I chanced on an incoming link from the normally sensible and sharp, Cynthia Yockey (AKA a Conservative Lesbian).  In her broadside attacking me for my alleged views on gay marriage, she misrepresents my recent critique of Joy Behar:

His latest assault on gays and lesbians who are seeking equality in every aspect of their lives, especially marriage equality, is founded on siding with Joy Behar, of “The View,” who recently opined that homosexuals do not deserve marriage equality because she says we are not monogamous. Or somehow, straight people who marry are monogamous, but gay people, who cannot marry, are not monogamous and therefore never deserve to have marriage equality.

I did not side with Joy Behar.  I believe gay people are capable of monogamy.  In my post, I faulted gay leaders for their silence in the wake of Miss Behar’s recent comments on gays and monogamy.  I did so to show my skepticism of their “understanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage.”  I did not challenge the fitness of same-sex couples to fulfill the obligations of matrimony.

Just as I don’t take seriously the marital intentions of straight groom-to-be who gets the phone number of a female stripper at his bachelor party, I don’t take seriously a man or a woman about to marry his (or her) same-sex partner, knowing that their upcoming union will not be monogamous.  I do not seek to hold same-sex couples to a higher standard than different-sex couples, but to the same standard (I mean, isn’t that what equality is all about?).

Yes, straight people do violate their marital vows, but the fact their cheating counts as a violation shows that the vows promise fidelity.*  Straight marriage is premised on monogamy, so too should gay marriage be, if it’s to be marriage.

To be sure, I quibble with the term, “marriage equality,” but that’s more because I recognize the reality of gender difference and, as the recent New York Times article reveals, believe some people will use that notion to contend nonmonogamous unions deserve the same protections as monogamous ones.

Just before bed last night, I wrote Cynthia requesting a retraction of and apology for her post misrepresenting my views.  In her response, she refused to do so.  As her post stands, I write this post to set the record straight.  I chose the title I did to make clear that I take issue with Miss Behar.

——-

*As a side not, I should point out that I wish Elizabeth Edwards could take her unfaithful husband to the cleaners in divorce proceedings, leaving him only with enough money to live in a trailer and forced to go to the barbershop to get his hair cut.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Jax Dancer offers, “Once one starts to celebrate the joys of fidelity, one makes a valid argument FOR gay marriage.”  My point, succinctly stated.

Now, I’ll grant that that good man probably doesn’t support every item on HRC’s wish list, the standard measurement for determining one’s support of “LGBT rights,” but then again, I don’t support most items on that list, as I dare say would a fair number of gay Americans, at least the majority of those of us on the right side of the political spectrum.   So, technically, Amanda Terkel, who penned the post, was right.

That said, his absence of support for HRC’s agenda does not make Brown “anti-gay” (as some gay activists have suggested).  Indeed, in his interview with Barbara Walters, not only did he show a great deal of flexibility on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell*, he has also repeated recently a position he made clear in the campaign.  He believes that gay marriage is settled law in the Bay State:

And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

California and other gay leaders may denounce Scott Brown and he may not be the HRC ideal (well, to do that, he’d have to change his party affiliation), but he has not criticized gay people and has shown an openness on gay issues (consistent with conservative principles)  that I wish we would see in all Republicans.

———–

*If people know ways I can lobby him to support repeal, I would be delighted to do so.

We see this again this week when none of the national gay organizations took issue with those in the media who contend that gay people are incapable of meeting one of the primary obligations of matrimony:  monogamy.  Last Tuesday, January 26, on The View, Joy Behar said that gays, “don’t take monogamy and infidelity the same way that the straight community does.”  Two days later in the New York Times, Scott James reported approvingly on the number of gay couples trying “to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony.”  Many are omitting monogamy:

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area.  The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Now, I don’t know what percentage of those couples consider themselves married.  And to be sure, while it wouldn’t be my choice to be part of an open relationship, I do believe individuals should be free to design their relationships as they see fit.  Open relationships may well be fulfilling to the individuals involved, but they’re not marriages.

Given that marriage is based on sexual exclusivity, to call a nonmonogamous union “marriage” is indeed to subvert the meaning of the institution.

By refusing to criticize those who see gay people as incapable of monogamy, gay organizations lend credence to social conservative arguments that gay marriage advocates seek to subvert the institution they’re ostensibly trying to promote.  I could find nothing denouncing Ms. Behar on the web-sites of the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights or even Freedom (sic) to Marry.  Even my various google searches turned up no commentary from the head of these organizations taking Ms. Behar to task for her prejudice against gay people.  I could find none addressing the New York Times article.

As can be expected, it was only on blogs where gay people defended the ability of their fellows to meet the same conditions of marriage expected of our straight peers. The folks at Queerty responded that conversations about gay monogamy are best left in hands other than The View gals. Over at Good As You, Jeremy Hooper was astounded that Behar “could have such an uninformed opinion about gay relationships as a whole“:

Regardless of one’s personal views on monogamy, it’s downright weird to hear gay couples put in this “other” category that is monolithically one thing. . . .  [Her] comments (which she qualified as being just her own understanding) don’t at all change that. They simply highlight our continued need to bust down old stereotypes which paint “gay” as one certain thing. She seemed more than open to the possibility that she was off, and said that she sought corrections — so this is an opportunity to inform, not chastise. To push back with a different view.

Bold (but not italics) added.  Well said, Jeremy, very well said.  If we want marriage, we need bust down those old stereotypes.

It’s too bad that our paid advocates aren’t up to that.  And their failure to do so leads me to question their understanding of the responsibilities and purposes of marriage.

UPDATE:  It should be clear from the post that I believe Ms. Behar is wrong to believe that gay people are incapable of monogamy.  I believe we are capable of monogamy.  One reader thought I was siding with the View hostess; I most definitely am not.

It was in talking to women who had abortions that I began to understand the complexity of the issue.

And so it was with gay marriage, at least as it relates to my vote on popular initiatives in the Golden State.  As I have expressed frequently on this blog, I’m pretty ambivalent on the issue, content with domestic partnerships, not beholden to having the state call our unions “marriage.”

Ever since the proposition which would come to be numbered as 8 qualified for the California ballot, I expected I would vote against it.  While opposed to the state Supreme Court’s decision mandating state recognition of same-sex unions, I also did not think it appropriate for a state constitution to define marriage.  In large part because of my ambivalence on the issue and the mean-spirited attacks of gay marriage advocates on the Proposition’s proponents, I did waver in the last few weeks before the election.

My resolve to defeat the proposition strengthened when I saw two friends of mine together, lesbians who gotten married in the window between the court’s decision and Election Day.  I knew from following their example (and that of another lesbian couple) that they understood what marriage meant.  I voted, “No.”

In many ways, the attacks of the gay marriage advocates on their adversaries resemble those of the pro-choice zealots.  Each side bristles at any expression of opposition to their cause  Via Mark Tapscott, we learn of another example of pro-choice zealotry.  The National Organization for Women (NOW) is “mounting a campaign to force . . . off the air” a TV spot slated for the Super Bowl telecast where University of Florida football star Tim Tebow and his mother talk “about the fact he might have been aborted had she listened to a doctor who encouraged her to have an abortion due to complications in her pregnancy.“

They are, says Tapscott, paraphrasing CBS News legal reporter Jan Crawford, “trying to stifle debate on an important issue“.

Sounds a lot like gay marriage zealots who have “hounded, threatened,blacklisted, beaten, and forced to resign from their jobs” their adversaries for the mere crime of ”exercising their political free speech.“

On social issues, some on the left betray an incredible intolerance of open debate.   And that’s unfortunate.  Had pro-abortion zealots been more tolerant of their ideological adversaries, they might have seen me shift my views long before I actually did.  How many others stand where I once stood, open to persuasion if respect is shown for ideological adversaries and the right argument is made?

And how many people might flip on gay marriage in similar circumstances.

To be sure, there’s more to this scene that those telling three seconds.  A few moments earlier, the meek tailor had earned the admiration of his beloved when he stood up for himself.  How much is said with Tzeitel’s astonished expression as she witnesses the gentle boy she loved becoming a man.  Motel has moved from talking about his feelings for Tevye’s daughter to talking about what he’s going to do to take care of her.

Only when he promises to make sure Tevye’s daughter has enough to eat (at a time when starvation was a daily concern) does the father realize that his eldest’s intended is “beginning to talk like a man.”

Now, I don’t mean to suggest by this post that gay marriage advocates ignore this aspect of marriage, of one spouse taking care of another.  But, in the current debate, this point takes a back seat to personal validation, equality and “rights” arguments, yet is more central to the notion of marriage than most arguments put forward in defense of extending the institution’s government benefits to same-sex couples.

That said, I would dare say that the better part of gay couples who seek to have their unions recognized as marriage get that aspect of the institution, at least the ones I know do.  There is a dichotomy between gay marriage as promoted and same-sex unions as practiced.

The issue is making that argument to gay marriage skeptics and opponents.  And maybe some of the couples are making that case in that San Francisco courtroom, but that’s not the place they should be making it.  Had they instead made that case to the people of California in 2008, they wouldn’t be pleading their cause to a sympathetic judge today.

*Interestingly, Jonathan Rauch begins, what is perhaps the best book on gay marriage, by recounting a different scene from that movie.

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.

As if someone somewhere is preventing her from speaking out on gay marriage. Yet, this very image is the inversion of reality. If someone speaks out in favor of gay marriage, they instantly earn the accolades of the PC powers that be and are often heralded for their courage. But, if they dare challenge the politically correct view on this controversial topic, they are frequently branded as haters and their livelihoods threatened.

Larry O’Connor reminds us of “Scott Eckern, the Artistic Director of Sacramento Music Theatre [who] was forced to resign after the public revelation that he donated $1,000 to the Prop. 8 campaign.”  It is the gay marriage activists who wish to silence those opposed to state recognition of same-sex marriage.

Shouldn’t they want to hear their arguments so they can better challenge them in the court of public opinion?  But instead, they seek to ostracize them, punishing them for their point of view.  Via Glenn, we learn further details of this “new blacklist,” no, not against advocates of same-ex marriage, but against those of traditional marriage:

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland’s historic Paramount Theatre.

Now, if this Mormon used his position on said board to advocate traditional marriage, the City Elders of Oakland would have a point, but if he happens to hold the view he does, while attending, without prejudice, to his duties on the board, then there is no problem.  Instead of punishing such an individual for his position on gay marriage, they should learn to counter, in a civil manner, his argument.

One reason, I believe, we’ve been losing these battles in popular referendum after popular referendum, in initiative battle after initiative battle, is the failure of those advocating this social change to argue their case.  Instead, it often appears they spend the better part of their time demonizing those who hold a politically incorrect opinion.

And while they accuse their adversaries of hatred, they’re manifesting an even more bitter form of animus in their attitude toward their adversaries.  The real haters are not those they accuse, but those leveling the accusation.

They need to let go of their hate and open their hearts to their opponents so they can, in a responsible manner, counter their arguments.

And then, there were the just plain decent ones.  And they didn’t divide themselves along partisan lines.  Phil Crane may have been haughty (would later lose his seat), but Eleanor Holmes Norton was amicable, often chatting with staffers in the elevator and thanking those who waited for her to exit before doing so themselves.

Two members, however, stood out for their decency, then-Reps. Joe Scarborough (now of MSNBC) and Harold Ford, Jr., the former a Republican, the latter a Democrat.  I believe their offices were right next to each other.  Each had a great smile and a pleasant manner.  Perhaps, it’s because of Ford’s friendly manner that I’ve been cheering him on as he contemplates challenging New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in their state’s Democratic primary.

But, alas, as I learned in a post linked by Glenn Reynolds, that good man has attracted the animus of New York’s “Angry Gays.”  And we know they’re not easily placated.  ”Their beef seems to knows no bounds: Ford’s dismal anti-gay voting record back in Tennessee.”  Yet, the post provides no details of said voting record.  Still, gay activists in the Empire State have been quick to condemn this young man, with their “rapid-fire” response to his talk of challenging Gilibrand confirming “the potency of their furor — and newfound commitment to taking on politicians deemed enemies of the gay state.”

Enemies of the gay state?  Huh?  Sounds like the attitude of defenders of Communist regimes.

Guess it’s not enough for the gay thought police if someone changes his mind on gay marriage (as Ford has done, now supporting it).  There is no placating some gay activists who demand complete subservience to a set ideology, including adherence to the social justice code of the “progressive” elites.

Yesterday, in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts voters elected a right-wing, anti-equality candidate to the U.S. Senate seat held by Edward Kennedy since 1962. And the group behind Prop. 8, the National Organization for Marriage, played a major role.  The volatile electorate, coupled with fierce opposition determined to deny us equality, makes 2010 a critical year to preserve and expand our right to legal equality.

With the leading gay group in the Golden State helmed by a man who spews this kind of rhetoric, you have an idea why Prop 8 passed.  He really does seem to hate conservative Republicans.

Please, Geoff, please, tell me where the constitution guarantees us a “right to legal equality” (whatever that means).  I’m more concerned about our rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you know, the inalienable ones.  As were the voters in Massachusetts.

If you want to overturn Prop 8, you’re going to have to stop demonizing guys like Scott Brown who called the Bay State’s law recognizing sex marriage as “settled” even as said recognition was mandated by a court, not enacted by an elected legislature.  And you’re going to need to figure out how to reach out to folks who responded to his message of smaller and more transparent government.  (And may well have shared his concern that the people of Massachusetts didn’t have a chance to weigh in on said law)

In a few days, I’ll be outlining my strategy to overturn Prop 8, complete with a draft initiative for the Golden State ballot.  But, given my political affiliation and his prejudices, I don’t think Mr. Kors will listen.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  John (AKA AverageGayJoe) nails it:

Who cares what NOM thinks of Brown? SSM wasn’t a part of Brown’s campaign and he will have minimal impact on the issue as US Senator. This is the same BS that special interest groups on both sides try to tar political opponents. If Geoff wants to know why Brown was elected, NOM had squat to do with it but an adage from over a decade ago most certainly did: “It’s the economy, stupid”.

Gay rights advocates were confident of a legislative win and they pushed for passage while defeated Gov. Corzine was still holding his bill-signing pen.

So WTF? What has happened to the gay marriage movement? If you lose in CA and NJ, where do you go now?

I think it is a dead issue. Dead.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Michael Kirk, the lawyer for Prop 8 proponents “argued that allowing the proceedings to be viewed outside the courthouse would violate their right to a fair trial by intimidating their witnesses.” Citing former federal district judge Paul Cassell, who finds it “highly unusual for a judge to authorize televised proceedings for this particular case as part of some new ‘pilot’ project to see how televised proceedings work“, Michelle contends:

This isn’t a sincere educational effort to provide transparency to the public. It’s a flagrant attempt at making Prop. 8 a show trial — and intimidating Prop. 8 backers who will be called to testify.

Just based on the antics of those Michelle dubs the “anti-Prop. 8 mob,” there is much merit to her argument. Members of this “mob” seem more interested in political theater than in rational argument. Among the advocates of gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch stands out, largely because he prefers level-headed persuasion to self-righteous chest-thumping.

Just yesterday, “Equality California” sent out an e-mail blast encouraging people to rally at a San Diego hotel owned by a man who made a generous contribution to the campaign to put Prop 8 on the ballot. They’ve even chartered vehicles to bus people from West Hollywood to the rally. Yeah, that’ll help.

Instead of engaging in political theater, they could better use their resources by taking the time to understand the arguments of gay marriage opponents and developing counter-arguments.  There’s no need to televise this trial nor to boycott a hotel, but there is a need to argue effectively. As the gay leadership has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to do just that.

Yesterday, Human Events declared Dick Cheney to be the “Conservative of the Year.” (read the whole thing!)

In Washingtonian “inside the Beltway” terms, the most amazing aspect of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s new clout is that he is achieving it the old-fashioned way: talking about public policy. He is not running for President or any other office. He has not formed a PAC or a D.C. lobbying firm. He is not dishing on former colleagues, not spreading gossip, not settling scores. He is, instead, writing a memoir about his extensive career in public service, and giving occasional speeches and interviews, mostly on national and homeland security policy, long his central focus.

How is it, therefore, that someone who has no political ambitions can cause so much angst at the White House and in the mainstream news media? The irrefutable answer is that what Cheney is saying, primarily on foreign policy, defense and anti-terrorism, makes sense to more and more American citizens growing increasingly worried by the Obama Administration’s insouciance when U.S. national interests are threatened, both at home and abroad.

I’ll go one further. Cheney is without doubt The Conservative of The Decade and perhaps the most important and influential true American Conservative since Ronald Reagan.

Cheney proves again and again that he has core values and principles that are TRULY conservative and mirror the Founding Principles of this nation.

His devotion to individual American freedom and liberty is so pure that he becomes a progressive on the issue of gay marriage.

History will judge Cheney well. He helped make decisions that needed to be made to save the Republic. And I am confident that by 2012, a majority of Americans will only wish that Dick Cheney was our President or Vice President.

- Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan):  The former Vice President is not only, as Bruce noted above, devoted to his country, but also to his family, including his lesbian daughter.  He has treated Mary as we wish all parents to treat their gay children, loving her for who she is, welcoming Heather, her partner, into the family as he has her elder sister’s husband, including that same-sex couple in official events, including three inaugurations.

It is unfortunate that more gay Americans, including the heads of various gay organizations, don’t give this good man his due.  They may not share his politics, but they should at least appreciate his example.