Pajamas Media

100 Comments

1. RE:

Gay marriage is more about tearing down traditional values and institutions more than anything else. It is an attack on the culture. Were it otherwise, they would be satisfied with the ‘civil unions’ designation.

I find the entire gay argument dishonest and malicious.

Nov 8, 2008 - 1:49 am 2. edk:

I find it amazing, that the demonstrators in Cali, is now turning on the black and hispanic people, who helped them elect Barack Obama, but also voted against gay marriage.
We live in a strange, strange world.

Nov 8, 2008 - 3:00 am 3. wpb:

The constant focus on redefining marriage is where this goes wrong. Countless surveys have shown that the public is not ready to do that (although they are considerably less opposed than 10 years ago), and yet they are also supportive of a stronger civil unions designation and generally oppose ballot initiatives designed to “ban” gay marriage from future consideration.

The opposition from John Q Public comes from the activists strident approach and their increasing desire to use the courts to jam this down everyone’s throats. Were they to take your approach Dan, the change might come about in another 10-20 years, but apparently that’s not soon enough for the militant faction.

Nov 8, 2008 - 3:12 am 4. David:

I am not a fan of Ginsburg ,but she is making sense.
She is wrong comparing gay marriage and abortion rights,that is like comparing apples and oranges.
They are both morally wrong though.
I do not have a problem with the gay lifestyle of anyone, I do have a problem with the gay establishment trying to shove it down our throats and trying to make gay lifestyle normal,it is not and never will be.
I have had gay friends most of my life and known many more for as long,but in the last twenty years the very radical liberal gays are forcing their lifestyle on everyone.
Just my $.02

Nov 8, 2008 - 3:47 am 5. Kirk Petersen:

I’m of two minds about this. The conservative in me believes that justices should not legislate from the bench, should not be empowered to find rights that emanate from the penumbra of the Constitution. I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-equality on marriage rights for same-sex couples, but I would rather see the laws made by the elected legislatures.

And yet. Surely the Justices were legislating from the bench when they ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” was inherently unequal. Parts of the country were not “ready” for racial integration, just like many people are not “ready” for same-sex marriage now. Would we have a black president-elect today if the courts had not taken a strong role in advancing the cause of racial equality?

Nov 8, 2008 - 4:04 am 6. states rights:

The United States- does not mean we have to accept what ever court ruling is allowed somewhere else. This decision is a moral issue and the Great Liberal Supreme Court of California set it back one hundred years. .. . GREAT…. Some states will never accept, ‘GAY,’ marriages.
It all boils down to children. If you have a marriage license you are allowed to adopt children and convert their young minds to your perverted ways. If this law passes, why not let known child molesters have adoptive children?
Men could have as many husbands as they wanted.
Bruce married to Adam, Sam and Tom.
Linda married to Rebbecca, Doris and Brenda.
And they dare call Mormons Polygamists, it is illegal, but at least they have wives, bear children, and raise family’s.
But thank God these perverts lost. If they ever win our great state of California will be destroyed worse than it already has.

“FOR GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED!”

Nov 8, 2008 - 4:24 am 7. Beth:

States rights, you’re a bigot. I, for one, think that we should have a ballot question that bans marriage by Mormons. That way they’ll eventually all disappear into the hateful hole that they sprang from.

Nov 8, 2008 - 5:03 am 8. GodBoy:

If the GhAys get to have the word marriage. Straight people who get together to have a family should just define a new word that means “Straight People Together to have a Family” SPHFRIGE.

There problem solved.

This is not a argument about anything other than semantics and who gets to define our language.

Nov 8, 2008 - 5:52 am 9. misanthropicus:

The Disappearing Male
Studies show rise in birth defects, infertility among men/ Sonja Puzic, Windsor Star/Thursday, November 06, 2008

“Are males becoming an endangered species?
That’s the question scientists and researchers have been pondering since alarming trends in male fertility rates, birth defects and disorders began emerging around the world.
More and more boys are being born with genital defects and are suffering from learning disabilities, autism and Tourette’s syndrome, among other disorders.
Male infertility rates are on the rise and the quality of an average man’s sperm is declining, according to some studies.
But perhaps the most disconcerting of all trends is the growing gender imbalance in many parts of heavily industrialized nations, where the births of baby boys have been declining for many years.
What many scientists are calling the most important — and least publicized — issue surrounding the future of the human race will be highlighted in a CBC documentary that features two Windsor researchers who’ve studied the phenomenon.
Titled The Disappearing Male and premiering tonight at 9 on CBC-TV, the documentary includes interviews with Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith, adjunct sociology professors at the University of Windsor.
They have been studying the decline in the birth of male children in the Aamjiwnaang First Nation community located next to the infamous Chemical Valley, Canada’s largest concentration of petrochemical plants, near Sarnia.
A paper co-authored by Keith and published three years ago in the U.S. journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggests that exposure to various chemicals produced by industrial plants surrounding the Aamjiwnaang reserve land may be skewing the community’s sex ratio.
The researchers looked at the community’s birth records since 1984 and saw “a dramatic drop in the number of boys being born in the last 10 years, particularly in the five-year period between 1998 and 2003,” Brophy said.
Of 132 Aamjiwnaang babies born between 1999 and 2003, only 46 were boys. Typically, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls in Canada.
High miscarriage rates and a unusually high number of children suffering from asthma were also noted by researchers.
Although the link between pollutants and human reproduction has not been firmly established, there is growing evidence that the birth sex ratio can be altered by exposure to certain chemicals, such as dioxin, PCBs and pesticides. Brophy said studies done in the United States, Japan and Europe seem to support the theory that the so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals have a particular effect on males.
Some of these chemicals are found in commonly used products such as baby bottles and cosmetics. They can also cause miscarriages and a “whole host” of disorders in a male child, Brophy said.
Brophy said soil and water contamination in and around the Aamjiwnaang reserve had been documented before, including in a University of Windsor study that found high levels of PCBs, lead, mercury and various chemicals in the area in the late 1990s. Accidental chemical spills in the area have not been uncommon.

But it wasn’t until the Aamjiwnaang birth ratio study was published that the global science community really took notice.
“It triggered … calls from scientists and researchers from around the world who had been looking at this issue in Europe and the United States,” Brophy said. “Aamjiwnaang became almost the poster child.”
While Brophy has not seen The Disappearing Male documentary yet, he believes the story of the Aamjiwnaang community will be “the focal point.”
He said the documentary also includes interviews with “some of the foremost experts in the world” on environmental effects on reproductive health.
Brophy and Keith have also studied other occupational and environmental exposures to pollutants, including the link between breast cancer and certain types of jobs in the Windsor-Essex region.”
*

Would any of those who are yelling and wringing their hands over the humans/industry-caused global warming be willing to see a connection between the growth of homosexuality and exterior, objective factors?
The fact that homosexuality has always been around is a fact – however, historically, the ratio homo/heterosexual never passed over a 0.7% of a population. Even adjusting the numbers invoked by Kinsey’s incubi, the fact is that homosexuality has grown in the recent historical past (since the fifties) and it is becoming a major DEMOGRAPHIC problem – accomodating with special civil rights an objective condition’s bearers and not addressing/ solving its root causes, is both morally wrong, and suicidal as species.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:11 am 10. AnninCA:

Interesting article, and it reflects the moderate viewpoint forged initially by Sandra Day O’Conner that is still very evident in some Supreme Court decisions. The viewpoint is, as you suggest, that decisions from the bench are not and should not be made outside of the realm of practicality whenever possible. That leads to backlash.

I suppose that is what we saw in this reversal. The vote was very, very close. I think your point about directing attention to the public rather than the courts is a very good one.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:16 am 11. Boris:

In ten years, the voters of California will undo this mistake. Young people know gay people and will refuse to discriminate against them.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:16 am 12. qwfwq:

Redefining the word ‘marriage’ is a step to making a sacrament of the church either unconstitutional or illegal, or both. A civil union in the interests of legal equality would be fine. Most Americans are on board with equal rights under the law.

Gay activists shoot themselves in the foot by insisting on the word ‘marriage’.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:29 am 13. WJ:

To Beth:

You are absolutely right that an initiative should be put out there to ban marriage between Mormons cause of their vote against gay marriage.

Also since blacks and hispanics voted against gay marriage, I assume (to be consistent) that you would also want this same initiative to prohibit marriage for blacks and hispanics.

Or better yet, do you think we could get a judge to block all marriages among the groups that Beth does not agree with?

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:49 am 14. R a Z o R:

As a Methodist living in N. Carolina I’m glad

the Mormons lead the fight for Proposition # 8 .

MITT ROMNEY * BOBBY JINDAL are my pick for 2012

and all centrist and conservative need to unite

now on a game plan to fight the far left’s

agenda . We need to decide now . It is easy to

tear down and criticize .

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:50 am 15. Self-hating boomer:

This entire issue could be easily avoided, and other problems solved as well, by simply getting the government out of the marriage business altogether. Make it a private contractual agreement. Several alternative boilerplate contracts would emerge, dealing with with the issues important to the specific couple. And of course, family law would still exist to protect the interests of children, irrespective of the status of the parents, just as it is now.

One more example of how the government ruins everything it touches.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:55 am 16. Dan Irving:

I recently had a co-worker pass away. His partner was unable to execute any of the duties normally performed by a spouse. Hell, even in the obituary he was listed last as ‘a good friend’.

As an American and libertarian (small L), I found the situation atrocious. Regardless of how I felt personally about their union, the fact is that The State controlled a private aspect of a citizens life. The State has created a lesser form of citizenship. This is injustice. Just like Jim Crowe Laws. Just like Segregation.

I also think pro-gay rights activists have misdirected their effort by trying to redefine ‘marriage’.

Perhaps a middle ground needs to be found. One side should stop trying to redefine marriage while the State should change the licenses to read ‘union’ instead of ‘marriage’. If the State is going to have law it should be applied equally or not at all.

Besides, I’m tired of hetero couples bearing the burden of the ‘marriage-tax’. It’s time for gay citizens to step up to the plate.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:13 am 17. Dan Irving:

Then again, Self-hating Boomers suggestion is preferable.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:15 am 18. Jeff:

#5, I share your conundrum. However, I would point you to Thomas Sowell’s article. In it he makes a logical case why being gay is not like being black. This is not racism. It is a fair point.

Gays have always been with us. They are a very small percentage of the population, around 3%. Allowing them the rights of civil unions would not hurt America.

There are arguments that marriage is good for society. It stabilizes society. Why is it not good for gay society? If we had gay civil unions, I don’t necessarily think it would lead to more people being gay. I believe that they are just born that way, and there is nothing that they can do about it. No amount of behavior modification or anything will change them.

If you don’t want your church to recognize, or marry gays, that is okay with me. I don’t see a contractual relationship as a religious thing. I have the opportunity for both, since I am straight.
Churches are perfectly competitive, if your church decides to allow or recognize gay marriage, then you can easily find another one.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:27 am 19. Ivonov:

The definition of marriage will probably never change for most of the people who voted for Prop 8 and that is the fact most people overlook. You can legislate whatever you like. Put out your own ballot measure. Whatever you do, do not assume that everyone will follow your lead or approve of it. That is reality.
People are different and believe differently.
That will never change.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:38 am 20. Leigh Thelmadatter:

There are two problems with banning gay “marriage” – the first is that the argument against it is essentially religious. If you do not have a religious prohibition against homosexuality (as I do not, I am Wiccan) then the impetus to ban it really is not there. There is no proof that gay unions harm anyone, and that includes children. Gay does not equal child molestor.

The second is a problem of separation of church and state. The religious and legal definition of marriage in this country was always one and the same and until now that was not a problem. Religions are not going to change their definition of marriage and honestly I dont think they should. Gay unions should simply be a question of law, not religion. However, if we keep religious leaders as agents of the state when it comes to marriage, we cannot separate the two. The notion of a civil union is less problematic to conservatives because it separates the religious aspect from the legal one. However, the gays that protest this claim that it makes their unions somehow second-class… a valid argument.

I proprose this… that ALL legal unions be civil unions and the religious ceremony is not legal for anyone. This is done in other countries, including, believe it or not, Mexico. Religious ceremonies in church are not prohibited but they are not legal either. To be legally married or “union”, a civil ceremony must be held. If this is done for all couples, then the notion of second-class disappears.

There is also one benefit for social conservatives with this solution. I am waiting for a case to be brought up in the courts in a state where gay marriage (as we currently define it) is legal, where a gay couple sues a pastor, minister, priest, whatever for refusing to marry them. As an agent of the State, the case could be made against such for discrimination. No one, not even me, who this would not affect, would like to see that.

Separation of church and state in matters of marriage/civil unions would protect both the state and religion.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:40 am 21. GayPatriot » Making the Case for Gay Marriage:

[...] here to read the [...]

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:42 am 22. Colin:

This is a freedom position on gay marriage and marriage licenses: Government Should not be Licensing Religious Sacraments

First some history. The first marriage license law in the United States was passed in 1867 in Massachusetts. This law came about because a black man wanted to marry a white woman. Before 1867 no one in America had needed or even thought to need them marriage license. They would consider the idea that they would have to get the government’s permission to get married and and to pay a fee for the right of getting married would be completely alien to their thinking. George and Martha Washington, Abraham and Mary Lincoln and every other couple in America who wanted to get married before 1867 only needed the permission of their families and their churches. As far as I am concerned marriage licenses violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
So marriage licenses started as a Jim Crow law.
Now to get a marriage license, you have to pay a fee. This FEE can be considered a tax. It is interesting to note that when you buy a marriage license, they are only good for six months. If your plans change and your marriage is postponed past the date of the license, you have to buy a second license.
So this Jim Crow law was soon found to be an excellent tax revenue source.
With the rise of the Welfare State many benefits and subsidies were distributed in ways that made your marriage status important in deciding if you would be receiving these benefits. I have heard that there are 1100 specific government benefits and subsidies dependent upon your marriage status. This is particularly true in the assignment of health benefits, especially employee provided health benefits.
So this racist law, and tax cash cow, became an important prop for the welfare state.
Some more history. I was in college in the late 1970’s, this with a time of great intellectual and social change. Gay rights became an important issue in America. The gay activists that I knew wanted nothing to do with marriage or any of the other traditional social arrangements. They wanted their right to be free to enjoy a promiscuous homosexual sex without social stigma. I for one am willing to give them this. However something happened during the party. They started getting sick. They’re getting herpes simplex, hepatitis A B and C, and the big one; AIDS.
Sick people will do what they can to get well. It is their right under the pursuit of happiness clause in the Constitution. Many decided to take advantage of the health insurance benefit provided by the employers of their friends to pay for the costs of their health care. Employer provided health insurance is the unintended consequence of the wage freeze of 1945 during the Truman administration. Price freezes never work and health insurance benefits were invented as a non-cash payment for services rendered by employees. To access these benefits the idea of gay marriage was promoted
I am not saying that the partners don’t love each other. I am saying that we have backed ourselves into a corner by continually looking to the government to solve problems they aren’t competent to solve.
So here are the Conservatives, the traditionalists fighting to “save marriage “. They aren’t saving marriage. They’re fighting to preserve: a racist law, the tax on a religious sacrament, and the welfare state.
The true liberty and freedom answer to this dilemma is less government.
Repeal all marriage licensing laws. This will be a tax cut. Let’s put the employer employee relationship back on a cash basis. A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work in the worker can spend his money however he likes. Those who call for the separation of church and state cannot even look at this issue, I detect political bias. The Sacrament of marriage belongs to the Church not the State. Churches should decide who they marry not the government. An honest government should treat you as an individual and should not consider your marital status or anything else but your individuality in dealing with you. If gay people want to get married and can’t find a church that will marry them, they are free to start their own churches.

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:03 am 23. Self-hating boomer:

And btw -

If anyone is wondering why Blacks are homophobic, it’s not because they’re knuckle-draggers. This isn’t hard to understand, if you can just put yourself in their skin for a minute.

Back in the 1950s, before civil rights was a household term, a motivated and disciplined group of people, suffering indignities daily, rolled up their sleeves so to speak, and crafted a strategy to bring the issues of racism and discrimination to a head. People like King and Parks chose their battles carefully, and carried out a very methodical and difficult plan to bring this issue to resolution in the political, judicial, and public opinion arenas.

King paid with his life.

No sooner were they having success with this that a number of “me too” grievance groups; Hispanics, Feminists, and eventually Gays wanted to ride their coattails. It’s not hard to understand why Blacks would resent this, because 1) they did the hard work, and 2) I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but Hispanics, women, and Gays were never kidnapped from their continent, made to work for centuries as slaves, and then let loose without any education into a world where if some white guy felt like hanging you, he could for no reason.

On top of this, you can’t hide your skin. You’re marked, and that’s that. And then when all of the “me too” grievance groups pile on, your problems get lost in the shuffle.

It’s not hard to understand why so many Blacks jumped ship from Hillary to 0bama, when you consider how they’d been taken for granted for decades by the Democrat party. And this being taken for granted, rightly or wrongly, is blamed on all of the “me too” groups. So they’re not only homophobic, but there’s a touch of misogyny in their culture, and Hispanics aren’t particularly popular among them, either. If you simply can imagine how they have been used throughout their history, this is not at all hard to understand.

What to do about it at this point? I don’t have a clue. But running around West Hollywood shouting the “N” word isn’t going to help.

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:13 am 24. wGraves:

The practice of dual ceremonies is the law in France as well. You get hitched at the Marie (Mayor’s Office), then, if you wish, have a religious ceremony. It gets the State out of the marriage business. Legally, the State doesn’t care about the second ceremony. It’s a good compromise, but I’m not sure that anyone is interested in compromise any longer, which is the problem.

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:32 am 25. FLMom:

20. Leigh Thelmadatter:

“I proprose this… that ALL legal unions be civil unions and the religious ceremony is not legal for anyone. This is done in other countries, including, believe it or not, Mexico. Religious ceremonies in church are not prohibited but they are not legal either. To be legally married or “union”, a civil ceremony must be held. If this is done for all couples, then the notion of second-class disappears.”

I won’t bother to detail the reasons, but this is exactly what my husband and I did. It’s great! We get to celebrate two anniversaries each year.

Actually, I am leaning toward your solution. The religious ceremony should be a time for the couple to pledge their fidelity before God, and to seek His guidance. Since marriage impacts legal and tax issues, and potentially citizenship status, perhaps it would to better to keep this a civil ceremony.

I sometimes attend an MCC church with a gay relative and have met many devoutly Christian gay couples. Marriage isn’t an option for them in Florida, and is unlikely to be anytime soon. Yet within a church where they are accepted, they can choose to stand before the church and ask God to bless their relationship.

Separating the religious aspect from the legal might not be a bad thing. Perhaps more couples would take their vows seriously if the church ceremony was focused on their vows before God.

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:45 am 26. Scott:

Self-Hating Boomer…well said…homosexuals could always hide their “identity”…..could a person with dark skin do that?

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:06 am 27. Blogs For Victory » The Way to Win Gay Marriage:

[...] I disagree with the concept of gay marriage, B. Daniel Blatt over at Pajamas Media explains what gay activists will have to do to have a chance of actually winning the political fight over it: …proponents of Proposition [...]

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:08 am 28. David W. Lincoln:

When the quality of life of people worsen because
they behave out of bounds, regardless of the identity of the authority, rare is the time when
they blame themselves.

Clarence Russel, who was President of Inland Steel, said that a leader must know, must know he
knows, and he has to make it abundantly clear to those around him that he knows.

Henry Kissinger, in his book, “Diplomacy” defined
leadership as the courage of one’s convictions and a sense of direction.

Both are examples of leadership that depend on people.

Now, when there is authority that is not attributable to the activity of people, guess who
primarily gets the blame?

Men and women are different, and homosexuality is
a poor way to communicate that reality, or those
differences. So, what is wrong with a change of perspective by the homosexual. Instead of holding things against people, forgive.

But, that is too much to expect when a person only relies on their own efforts, or with the help of other people. A willingness to meet the supernatural is imperative.

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:13 am 29. The Historian:

IMPORTANT ELECTION REFLECTIONS

These are the results of this election that need to be noted and remembered:

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/interesting-election-reflections.html

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:18 am 30. Spindok:

I have also been in favor of the ‘civil union only’ approach but it will never happen. The fundies will not give up the power they have to enforce their own morality on everyone else. What they really want is for gays to carry a permanent badge of shame, like yellow stars on Jews. They have no problem with the obvious church/state issue. Why worry about that when you are clearly in the majority?

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:27 am 31. AnninCA:

I don’t see what this article has to do with discussing the morality of gay marriage.

It’s about the Courts versus voter referendums, and the wisdom of some of the moderate/liberal court justices in knowing how to guage that line.

I really don’t care a lot about what posters feel on a personal level about homosexuality. You’re entitled to your opinions.

But that has little or nothing to do with the issue at hand.

And, frankly, it has little to do with true politics. Why you think your own opinions should prevail in something that affects other people’s personal and private lives has been the bane of the Republican party. That is why Palin’s own religious choice was the lightening rod for the liberals.

She isn’t one to insist that her private views should be public policy.

I’m not even sure she would go along with searching out ONLY anti-Gay, anti-abortion justices for the Supreme Court.

I’m sure that’s why she lost the Independents, and from the looks of these posts, probably a good thing, too.

This moral majority thinking killed the Republican Party.

THAT, in my opinion, is what the party must come to terms with and leave behind if it ever hopes to build a bigger tent.

The moderates, such as me, who like the fiscal conservativism and the commonsense about government benefits, will not go with you down that road.

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:27 am 32. Dark Eden:

#20 Leigh Thelmadatter,

I was pondering that very idea this morning as I was thinking about Prop 8’s fallout. Really what business does the state have getting involved in a religious ceremony at all? Frankly none. But there are various legal issues such as being executor of an estate when your loved one passes away, etc. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with this. Imagine a gay couple. One of them is sick in the hospital and for whatever reason he can’t make decisions for himself. Who do you go to, his gay partner he’s lived with for fifteen years, or his parents, who hate him and haven’t spoken to him in twenty years? Its obvious but legally its a big problem.

Whatever you think about homosexuality, gay couples should have these basic problems resolved and having a sharper distinction between ‘civil unions’ that are recognized by the state and ‘marriage’ which is recognized by the church, would help this. What do people think of this idea? Is this crazy?

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:32 am 33. Dark Eden:

Spindok said: I have also been in favor of the ‘civil union only’ approach but it will never happen. The fundies will not give up the power they have to enforce their own morality on everyone else. What they really want is for gays to carry a permanent badge of shame, like yellow stars on Jews. They have no problem with the obvious church/state issue. Why worry about that when you are clearly in the majority?

You seem a lot more interested in hating Christians than in helping gay couples.

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:34 am 34. Irish Alex:

There was a case in England of two elderly sisters who wanted the right to have a civil union. The reason being they had jointly inherited the family home and when one of them died the death taxes would have forced the survivor to sell everthing to pay. A civil union would have prevented that. The government refused.
Then take no. 16 Dan Irving’s point. Now imagine that the bereaved was excluded because they were the second spouse, and only the first was recognised.
If the government is to redefine marriage as a civil union so as to be non-discriminatory then what right does it have to discriminate against non-sexual or polygamous relationships?

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:41 am 35. attorneygirl:

I am against gay marriage on so many levels.

First and foremost is morally. Ts that it is evidence of the moral corruption of our society: it demonstrates that our society approves of the unnatural union of two persons of the same gender in holy matrimony. Yes, I said holy matrimony. If two people of the same gender want to fornicate together, I cannot stop them, but I can uphold the sanctity of marriage, the institution of marriage as a holy union that is the foundation of our society.

Second, is the confusion that having our society “bless” gay marriage would have on our children. It is hard growing up and going through puberty and learning about sex and reproduction, and male and female relationships, and in coming to terms with your sexuality. Homosexual acts are, I believe, unnatural, and are deviant behavior exhibited to a small proportion of any society. I do not want our children being educated or having to accept that this kind of behavior is “normal” or “acceptable.” It is not.

Third, we already have civil unions for gays.

Fourth, I’m not even getting into an equal protection argument, because it does not exist. There is no equal protection for gays to be married. Period.

Nov 8, 2008 - 10:28 am 36. Self-hating boomer:

Here’s the rub: I can’t legally marry my sister. I can’t legally marry several of my sisters. But there’s not a thing the law can do to prevent me from shacking up with all of my sisters and having babies by all of them.

The law is impotent to prevent relations of whatever type they chose to regulate. But they regulate this thing called marriage, so that we think that they can. They can prevent me from having sex with my goat in the name of animal rights, but they can’t prevent me from living with 100 women and having babies by all of them.

Once we realize how useless it is to regulate these arrangements, we realize that the institution itself, as a government-sanctioned phenomenon, is pointless. It’s ironic that the same people who are insisting that the government doesn’t belong in their bedrooms, now are demanding that the government come into their bedrooms and furnish their seal of approval.

Which do you want? Is it nobody’s business, or is it everybody’s business?

Nov 8, 2008 - 11:00 am 37. Ms Attitude:

#20 Leigh Thelmadatter and #32 Dark Eden:

I am a heterosexual female and I agree with both of you. What a great idea. With a legal document they would be able to take better care of another on a legal level and it would in no way harm me or my children.

#34 Irish Alex:

I currently pay for family insurance through my employer. I am a single mom so the only ones covered are me and my daughter but I pay the same price as someone who is married with 6 kids. My aunt recently divorced and is now uninsured, she works but her employer does not offer health insurance and private companies cost too much. Would it be so bad if we were able to have some sort of civil-union so she can be insured? She’s my family!

Nov 8, 2008 - 11:24 am 38. njcommuter:

Surely the Justices were legislating from the bench when they ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” was inherently unequal. Parts of the country were not “ready” for racial integration, just like many people are not “ready” for same-sex marriage now.

You are assuming that Brown .vs. Board of Education was in every way a good ruling. Clearly it was a necessary ruling, with all nine justices on board and none writing a separate opinion. And yet … wouldn’t it have been better had two or three of them written a concurring opinion stating that this was a very special case, one with deep roots in American history and in the compromises necessary to our Constitution, one that should not be extrapolated?

As far as the State having no interest in marriage: that is only true if we say (as we might) that the State has no interest in the upbringing of the next generation, since marriage is the recognized means to that end. This has been debated, but we are seeing new arguments to that debate, including something approaching real science that says that children need both a father and a mother, not just any two parents. (Traditionalists will say that this was obvious all along, to “those that have eyes to see.”)

The position that the State has no such interest is tenable. The position that the community has no such interest is not, as far as I can see, tenable. So this argument revolves around the degree to which the State may and should act for the community.

Nov 8, 2008 - 11:38 am 39. cedarford:

Beth:
States rights, you’re a bigot. I, for one, think that we should have a ballot question that bans marriage by Mormons. That way they’ll eventually all disappear into the hateful hole that they sprang from.

Beth, you are a bigot.

And wouldn’t we be much better off as a nation if we had more clean-living, law-abiding productive Mormon citizens and less ignorant, parasitic, crime-loving NOLA scum?

Nov 8, 2008 - 11:44 am 40. Войска ПВО:

Irish Alex writes:

“If the government is to redefine marriage as a civil union so as to be non-discriminatory then what right does it have to discriminate against non-sexual or polygamous relationships?”

I believe proposition 8, and, indeed, this subject, is about the concept of marriage not civil unions. The propositon stated that marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman.

However, your point is taken and, if marriage is not strictly defined, where would it stop? Someone who wants to marry their German Shepard..or their TV set?

Nov 8, 2008 - 12:05 pm 41. AnninCA:

AttyGirl…..that is your moral opinion. Why do you think that applies to all?

Nov 8, 2008 - 12:55 pm 42. Nate:

#38:
The state has made it its business. The position that the state has no interest in the upbringing of future generations is tenable only if the state does not rely on those future generations. A state with neither entitlements not debt can claim to have no interest in future generations. A state with either is either making promises that will be paid for by today’s children, or directly using the taxes they will one day pay to apply for credit.

Now if you want to dismantle social security, medicair, repudiate the entire national debt, and make it unconstitutional to ever go into debt again then and only then can you claim the state has no stake in its children.

Nov 8, 2008 - 12:56 pm 43. robotech master:

Theirs a whole host of problems with this issue… first and form most is the fact that gays are purposely not trying to get any form of rights they are trying to create a government mandated church. Marriage is not a right and anyone who says it is needs to be slapped… repeatably. Marriage is a religious sacrament period… O and 22… your Fing retarded its not racist and it can’t be. Its poorly educated ppl like you take fill the masses of the KKK and other hate groups.

We in the US have this thing called the First Amendment and it is quiet clearly that the government shouldn’t be regulating the church nor should the church be regulating the government… this is the basis for gays current rights… Its makes it so even though the church thinks gays are “evil” the government can’t view them as such. Now as the same token the government has no right to order the church to stop thinking of gays as “evil”. This is the Untied States of American… you have the RIGHT to be free from persecution for your beliefs and i hate to break it to you BUT HATING GAYS IS PROTECTED BY LAW AND IS A RIGHT.(unlike marriage)

Now being said gays do have real rights that the government can’t and shouldn’t deny them. They have the RIGHT to have a contract that makes them EQUAL under the law to marriage. The problem is gays don’t want that, they in a classic leftist culture view want a government mandated church saying “god approves of you”. You don’t have the RIGHT to demand that… their are no US laws that says you can demand “god’s approval” and force him to accept you. Being that they are insane leftist those they don’t seem to understand that fact… and they think they by passing laws and government government somehow that going to fix it….

I also find it insanely funny the whines both on this board and in the news about others forcing “their” religion on them when in fact its the gays that are trying to force their religion on everyone else… and as a atheist I find the gay “marriage” movement that most dangerous and evil of all the current religious fundy movement clearly running around… the fact that they are actively trying to created a government mandated church… F*** YOU I refuse to go back to the dark age to make you f***ers happy. Hasn’t history shown enough times when retarded nutjobs like the gay marriage movement gain power and swing that power in the name of religion that sh*t always goes bad.

When gays start a movement that demands equal RIGHTs and TREATMENT under the LAW I will be their to support them… but as long as they run this campaign of terror through the most fundy religious movement currently active, trying to created a mandated government church, revoke the First Amendment and general removal of freedom and rights ppl like me will oppose them.

Nov 8, 2008 - 1:08 pm 44. Paul from Florida:

Nate,
I’m with you. No debts on future children and the state can have the noun, ‘marriage’.

But, that’s not going to happen.

So, a man and a women, get together. If they formalize it, it’s called ‘marriage’.

Men and men, women and women, are not men and women. And yet they, gays, want the same word for a different physical state?

Gays love each other? Great. Want to bind themselves to each other. Great.

Sorry gays, two out of three, isn’t three.

And, I don’t care what you smear on wood pulp and bind in leather and put up on a oak shelf.

You are different. You are not the same. You are not equal. You don’t get the word ‘marriage’. We get it. We were there first. It’s our word, our state, our physical reality.

Get your own.

Nov 8, 2008 - 1:17 pm 45. BMoon:

There should be untouchables in a non-decadent, society. Whether by popular vote or judicial imposition, nobody should be able to redefine what a human life is.

The other, is no one should be able to redefine marriage. It is the cornerstone of civilization. Even as they voted in a President whose corrosive and dangerous relativism and statism clashes with the very foundation of western civilization, my kudos goes to the slim majority in California who some how sensed that perhaps they did not want to “erase the horizon” (Nietzsche, Zarathustra) completely…yet.

Nov 8, 2008 - 1:23 pm 46. JJ Joseph:

“There are arguments that marriage is good for society. It stabilizes society. Why is it not good for gay society?”

This depends on what you understand “stabilizes society” to mean. To most people it means the community protects a man and a woman while they bear and raise children. This being a immense benefit to society.

There is little, or nothing, that a gay people’s “relationship” does to stabilize society in this manner. It’s an entirely self-centered relationship that produces little or nothing of lasting consequence. Gay marriage proponents talk of “taking car of each other”. This does nothing for the community. Zero. There is no community benefit to pretending that gay relationships are otherwise.

Nov 8, 2008 - 1:36 pm 47. RV:

The state has no business recognizing marriage to begin with.

Also, for a State to allow its citezens to vote for the rights of a particular group is deplorable. What rights are given to one group of people must be given to all people. Its freakin called equality. Holy crap I cannot believe this vote was allowed.

Nov 8, 2008 - 2:15 pm 48. Larsen E Whipsnade:

47. RV said:
“What rights are given to one group of people must be given to all people. Its freakin called equality”

So . . . we’ve all got the right to collect Social Security?

Nov 8, 2008 - 2:51 pm 49. DCGamer:

43. robotech master:

I hope that you are in therapy. You sound as if you have anger issues.

I believe that the biggest hangup that people have with the whole same-sex marriage issue is the word “marriage.” People are confusing the religious term “marriage” which connotes a sacremental union of a man and woman before God with the civil term “marriage” which connotes a contract granting certain rights and responsibilities.

Gays are not trying to force churches to recognize their unions. They are trying to get the state to grant them the same rights that are granted to heterosexual couples.

I agree with an earlier poster that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let all couples, gay and straight, get their civil union license (contract) from the state. This would grant them the rights and responsibilities associated with the institution of marriage. Then, should they choose, they can “marry” in a church. Churches would then define “marriage” and offer it to whomever they wish.

Nov 8, 2008 - 3:37 pm 50. Someone75:

R a Z o R:

Okay, so now you WANT the centrists? Funny. Just a week ago you were calling people like me scum and saying we should be tarred and feathered. But, I can understand your position because you are so very very desperate.

On gay marriage? I’m not a supporter. Looks like we can agree on something.

Nov 8, 2008 - 4:42 pm 51. Cheesehead:

“The practice of dual ceremonies is the law in France as well. You get hitched at the Marie (Mayor’s Office), then, if you wish, have a religious ceremony. It gets the State out of the marriage business. Legally, the State doesn’t care about the second ceremony. It’s a good compromise, but I’m not sure that anyone is interested in compromise any longer, which is the problem.”

I’m good with that set up.

BTW heterosexual divorce rate is over 50% If we’re really serious about “defending” marriage, how about we ban divorces and second, third, fourth etc… marriages.

Nov 8, 2008 - 5:19 pm 52. myth buster:

One more thing, we need to make it much harder to get divorces in this country. Divorce ought only be permitted in cases of infidelity or confirmed abuse of the spouse or children, or if the marriage is annulled because it was never valid in the first place (below age of consent, married under duress or influence of intoxicant, not witnessed, not performed by a recognized justice of the peace, or the marriage violates the law). No-fault divorce has made this generation and the next selfish and adulterous (and I’m including remarriage in this category, since dissolving a legitimate marriage without cause and taking another spouse is simply adultery by another name).

Nov 8, 2008 - 5:22 pm 53. Gozer the Carpathian:

I agree that the government shouldn’t use the term marriage at all. Marriage should remain a religious word, and religated to that realm. Since it is the POWER of words that causes all this ruckus.

If gays really wanted equality in the eyes of the government (as they should) then they should be pushing for Universal Civil Unions. As far as Uncle Sam should care about is that two people have joined into a civil union. It shouldn’t use the word Marriage at all, leave that to religious and social circles.

Of course, this is a sensible alternative and hence not to be pushed by those leading the pro-gay marriage debate.

Nov 8, 2008 - 5:31 pm 54. Roy:

Call it by any other name than “marriage” and it would have passed. I would have voted for “civil union” (or another name) with all the same legal benefits as marriage, but that is unacceptable to the gay community. So, they keep setting themselves up for defeat because they insist on that traditional word — marriage.

Nov 8, 2008 - 5:51 pm 55. Mickey:

Hogwash. No matter how much I believe that a chair is a television, I will never be able to watch HBO on it (unless I’m sitting on the chair facing a TV).

Homosexuals may truly love each other…but marriage is not only love, it’s the natural ability to produce children (”babies and bonding”). Two people of the same sex cannot produce children and therefore they cannot have a marriage.

Now before someone says, “But sometimes married heterosexuals choose not to breed”…True enough, but the exception does not validate the rule. Without marriage there is no family and without family there is no society.

I don’t give a rat’s patootie what two homosexuals do in their home…and there are lawyers available to create any sort partnership they like. But let’s not tell a lie and call something what it is not.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:10 pm 56. states rights:

Homosexuals may truly love each other…but marriage is not only love, it’s the natural ability to produce children (”babies and bonding”). Two people of the same sex cannot produce children and therefore they cannot have a marriage.

Agree.

The belief that 10 percent of the population is homosexual is based on discredited research done by Indiana University zoologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey in the mid-20th century. More recent research puts the number between 1 and 3 percent.
Why should 1- 3 percent of the population tell the other 99-97 percent of the population how we should preform marriages? Most churches are frightened of this gay liberal stance. Churches that refuse to marry gay couples could lose their tax exempt status.

Nov 8, 2008 - 6:58 pm 57. Knights13:

“Would we have a black president-elect today if the courts had not taken a strong role in advancing the cause of racial equality?”

No you wouldn’t have a black president because the people that voted are majority white and non black.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:39 pm 58. schnargley:

I am a proud, out-of-the-closet, egosexual. There are many of us, about 10%, including many politicians and celebrities. We were born that way. We have found our fufillment in comitted, caring, nurturing relationships with ourselves. Although many despise us and society has yet to accept us, while they still use offensive abusive, hate language like “jerk”, “tosser,” and “wanker,” we will soon be accepted and take our place in society with all equal rights.

Who said marriage has to be two of the opposite sex? Or even two people? Or more? Or less?

We look forward when narrow-minded religious bigotry is defeated and we are given a chance too.

Nov 8, 2008 - 7:57 pm 59. Knights13:

“Who said marriage has to be two of the opposite sex?”

Me. Who are you to tell me what it should be?

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:09 pm 60. Knights13:

“Besides, I’m tired of hetero couples bearing the burden of the ‘marriage-tax’. It’s time for gay citizens to step up to the plate.”

They don’t produce future capital if you look at it form an investment perspective.

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:15 pm 61. A Clay:

This piece is right on. I am moderately in favor of gay marriage (it’s not a major issue either way for me), but am vehemently opposed to judicial overeach. I voted for Prop 8 to send a message to Gavin Newsom and the Supreme Court that I do not like them making decisions for me. I suspect people who felt similarly provided Prop 8 it’s margin of victory.

Nov 8, 2008 - 8:31 pm 62. GeoffB:

I’m a Republican and a Christian. And I voted against Prop. 8. To read the anti-Republican, anti-Christian hate being spewed on some of the gay websites, you’d think it’s impossible for me even to exist. I’ve got news for ‘em: If you really want gay marriage, you’re going to have to win over people who are currently opposed, not just prove to your satisfaction that they’re horrible, horrible people. And you’re going to have to get away from stereotyping every group that isn’t with the LGBT agenda 100%.

The truth is, if you showed me the LGBT ads about “Marriage is for everyone” and the circus in the Castro, I might have voted for Prop. 8. However, I’m a little smarter about the stereotypes than some of these gay rights activists are about Christians and Republicans. I’ve met some pretty well-adjusted gays, people holding down jobs and having long-term relationships and raising good kids, that sort of thing – you’d think they were perfectly normal people! [sarcasm] – and I’m not going to deny them the chance to marry just because the leadership of the LGBT community are idiots. But other people will, because if the LGBT leadership doesn’t make the case for them, who will?

If gays really want marriage, they’ll dump the current LGBT leadership whose ideological approach lost for them (”Marriage is for everyone” only played into the far right nonsense about “Next they’ll want to marry their goats”). They’ll steer clear of the extremists whose anti-Christian bigotry is as idiotic and alienating as the extreme right’s homophobia. Finally, they’ll run ads showing just how depressingly normal a lot of gay couples are.

This is just my view, of course. But is the view of someone who wasn’t too sure about gay marriage four or five years ago and who has changed his mind. If you want to shift the vote totals a few more percentage points, I think that’s what you’re looking for.

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:14 pm 63. aloysiusmiller:

Well biology says that the family includes and mom and a dad. Culture says that a family is a mom and a dad. Truth says that a family includes a mom and a dad. So here we are in a huge denial of everything visible in the universe and saying that it is something else.

Don’t worry about conservatism ever coming back if we can’t support the most basic conservative value: the definition of a marriage. You are absolutely delusional if any other value you hold dear can be sustained if we can’t sustain that one. Freedom? No the soviets didn’t have that but they didn’t have gay marriages. Faith? No the soviets and Chinese didn’t have that but they had marriage.

You can flush the future down the toilet if we cannot sustain a traditional definition of marriage.

God have mercy on us.

Nov 8, 2008 - 9:15 pm 64. robotech master:

49. DCGamer:

“Gays are not trying to force churches to recognize their unions. They are trying to get the state to grant them the same rights that are granted to heterosexual couples.”

I hate to break it to you but thats not what they want… What they want is state mandated church approving of them… If they wanted RIGHTs they would go the civil union route and demand rights… CA has civil unions that are equal in every way to marriage at least the last I heard… thus they aren’t asking for rights because they have the same rights they are demanding for religious approval and since churches refuse to give it they are demanding that the government either force the churches to give it by law or create a government mandated church that approves…

I have yet to see a single things that shows these ppl AREN’T just another group of religious zealots trying to force other religions to believe in what they believe(ie in this case god approves of gays/gay marriage)

Nov 8, 2008 - 10:32 pm 65. cthulhu:

A large part of the problem is that nobody has a comprehensive idea of what it means to be “married”. It’s assumed in so many existing arrangements, contracts, pensions, laws….and it’s unknown exactly where these things should change if the underlying “married” changes definition.

As an example, what happens to pensions that continue to the death of a surviving spouse? If a large number of homosexual women couples were to enter such arrangements, the actuarial assumptions regarding future benefits would be seriously mistaken. This might cause the pension to be drastically underfunded, cutting into the rights of those already in the plan.

Just on the basis of the unfairness of retroactive application, gay marriage should not be enacted by judicial fiat. Even if it should come to pass, there needs to be a great deal of thought given to transition issues.

Nov 9, 2008 - 12:36 am 66. solidstate:

I’m a libertarian who is also gay. I have long wondered about the motives of those so-called leaders of the gay community who want the courts to confer marriage rights upon us, “deus ex machina” style. This strategy conveniently bypasses the hard, yet effective, work of educating the public on the facts of gay people’s lives. (Hint: They’re actually rather boring.)

As much as I’d like to see gay marriage legitimized overnight in the eyes of the state, I think part of being an adult is having the patience to do something slowly yet right, rather than swiftly and poorly. If in this case that means not seeing gay marriage recognized in my lifetime, then too bad for me. At least I’ll know I didn’t effectively help deny it for another generation or two of gay people.

There are so many important incremental accomplishments we could make, such as wider recognition of civil unions and more tolerant adoption laws that would help provide stable, loving homes for kids who desperately need one. And as many of the comments in this thread demonstrate, attempting to skip those incremental steps produces panic in some people who might, over time, realize that most gay Americans simply want to be seen as Americans, period.

Whatever others’ beliefs are, that’s how I choose to see myself.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:03 am 67. Sean:

Wow. Had no idea so many knuckle-dragging cretins read PJ Media. Let ‘em get married. Period. There is no fair logic to your arguments, wether it be “legislating from the bench”, or “5000 years of tradition”, or whatever. Face it. You are bigoted against gay people. I would admire you more if you just came out and said it.

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:20 am 68. Rachel S:

I’ve countered each of the standard arguments against gay marriage in my blog post here: http://insomnimusing.blogspot.com/2008/11/as-promised-my-rant-against-gay.html
I would appreciate any comment or feedback. Thank you.

Nov 9, 2008 - 10:36 am 69. robotech master:

for 67… your a racist moron and just to show you I’m sure you were at this rally being racist…

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077

“UPDATE: the openly gay president of People for the American Way, Kathryn Kolbert, has released a statement. It’s below the fold.

You could see this coming, and this is what I’m talking about when you ignore the elephant in the room. Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0 blogs reports on the escalation of the “blame the blacks” meme that has been swirling about the blogosphere and the MSM.

A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night’s marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.”

Just the opening act but at least their hating the right ppl… now if only they would hate muslims as much as mormons…

This is the true side of these religious zealots and their goals they hate everyone who doesn’t approve and are self important self absorbed morons. I would go so far as to stay that in this day and age more gay ppl are bigoted against straights then straights are against gays…

Like every other “endanger species” groups that thinks everyone should do everything for them and believe everything they believe they hate everyone who doesn’t 10x what ppl feel towards them… they project that hatred to other groups and think because their so much better then everyone else it means that they hate less then everyone else… and in their mind that means if they hate as much as they do and they hate less then everyone else everyone really really hates them.

When gays and other groups stop acting like a bunch of spoiled brats demanding extra cookies because their so much better then everyone else then you’ll see a drop in hatred toward them…. but no adays much like blacks and other groups they aren’t hated because they are blacks/gay/etc, etc, etc. They are hated because they are self absorbed haters who hate everyone else.

Nov 9, 2008 - 11:16 am 70. Spindok:

So, getting back to B. Blatt’s position.

After reading these comments I am not so sure that I agree with the idea of accepting a middle position.

So long as the State is going to maintain a two tierd system there should be no compromise on this, even if basic civil rights are near equivalent.

The idea of giving up a government ‘definition of marriage’ in favor of a ‘civil union’ has little possibility in real political terms.

The Gay community (I am not, hetero-married-kids, near 25 years now) IMO you should stand by your guns, dig in and get more ammunition

Good time to do that now. Y’all have some leverage here.

You are my fellow Americans and should expect the same rights and dignity as everyone else.

Fight now while you have the chance

Spindok

Nov 9, 2008 - 11:33 am 71. susan:

Robotech master, you are right. In my country the local gay pride parade involves nudity.

Due to PC no police agent ever notified them.

It would be impossible to any heterosexual to walk around naked without being stopped and persecuted.

I can fairly say heterosexual people are discriminated but nobody is out there screaming for their yuman rites.

Nov 9, 2008 - 12:01 pm 72. Someone75:

Knights13:
“Who said marriage has to be two of the opposite sex?”

“Me. Who are you to tell me what it should be?”

Okay, Knights13 – by your logic, who are YOU to tell ME what it should be? Doesn’t really work, does it?

Nov 9, 2008 - 12:32 pm 73. Knights13:

“Okay, Knights13 – by your logic, who are YOU to tell ME what it should be? Doesn’t really work, does it?”

It does work in the following ways:

A.) We come to an agreement on something inbetween or a way where the views don’t conflict.

B.) We go to war and might makes right.

C.) An external entity decides for one of us where by default is infringing on the right of one of the two parites.

Nov 9, 2008 - 1:36 pm 74. Matteo:

Knights13, you forgot option D.) A vote is held and the side with the most votes wins regardless of whether or not they could convince the other side. A lot of people seem dead set against this concept when they lose, and steadfastly for it when they win. I suppose Option D is a subset of option B…

Nov 9, 2008 - 5:23 pm 75. aloysiusmiller:

Be careful when you start to tinker with a a long standing institution. Things quickly spin out of control. How is this for a frightmare? The next big thing is polyamory. Then we get a decidedly Muslim flavor thrown in. Not too long after we have Sharia family law. Will the liberal heterosexuals who voted no on Prop 8 defend their gay friends? Have they defended gays in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Maybe in 20 years we’ll have gay men hanging from cranes and looking for Christians to protect them. They sure won’t find help anywhere else.

Nov 9, 2008 - 7:23 pm 76. Aurora:

Small excerpts of an article by Thomas Sowell:
The politically clever way to get special privileges is to call them “rights–especially “equal rights.” … The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.
… The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined–and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles? … Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation. Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different. None of us has a right to other people’s approval.” (5 Nov 2008)

Read the entire article. Equality and fairness mislead voters from dealing with the core argument. The government is involved for the above stated reasons. If gays want to be married, let them find non-governmental entities (religious or not) to bless the union. I was married twice in Germany. One ceremony was for the church which didn’t recognize the civil union as a religious rite. The other was for the government which didn’t recognize the church ceremony as “legal.”

Nov 9, 2008 - 9:32 pm 77. submandave:

Like many on this thread, I have no problem with the state recognizing a mutual agreement between two adults to afford the other certain rights and privleges (i.e. civil union), but agree that the critical role traditional marriage plays in the continuation of society via procreation is deserving of special interest and consideration by the state.

“Gay marriage” potentially poses several problems I’ve never seen addressed. One, for example, is if I could “marry” my brother or father? Since potential procreative problems are not a valid reason, is there one outside the “ick” factor? Isn’t this one argument against gay marriage that is almost universally derided as unfounded by proponents? Or why can’t I marry my post-menopausal mother? Same argument. What effect does marrying your parent have on survivor benefits of Social Security or pensions? Would consumation be a requirement for marriage? I can imagine an HIV positive individual may choose not consumate a loving relationship with a non-infected partner, so why couldn’t I marry my sister as well?

Many of these questions could equally apply to many proposals of civil unions, but has anyone actually thought about the impact of any such decission? Or, in typical ready-fire-aim liberal fashion have so many simply said “yea, that sounds cool/right/good” and lined up to run off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings? Aw, who am I fooling? To hell with caution, we’re in love! Let the world burn around us.

Nov 10, 2008 - 8:03 am 78. Leigh Thelmadatter:

reading the pros and cons, I see only one con that is possibly troublesome to my earlier suggestion that we have civil unions for everyone (gay or straight) and leave the word “marriage” for the religious aspect… that is how do we leave out polygamy if we accept unions for gays?

Again, we have to leave the religious argument out of it because there are religions that condone this (certain branches of Mormonism and Islam come to mind) In fact, this is a problem with using the religious argument to ban gay marriage. If religion should be used to justify laws, why ban Sharia law using secular concepts?

The legal and civil argument against polygamy (assuming everyone here is against such as I am) is that it is inherently unequal. The man has a right the woman does not… that is he can have sanctioned relationships with more than one mate while the woman/women cannot. (In polyandry it would be the other way around) That would be my main argument legally/socially. In fact, the idea that civil unions are a social contract helps with the argument against marriage with animals and such… a contract needs two competent entities under the law, and animals are not. That is why we do not allow for underage marriage… those underage do not have the legal capacity for such a “contract”.

Now… following this route some will say that group marriage is an issue. All are of legal capacity to enter in such a contract and all would, at least theoretically, be equal. I agree that this would be a theoretical obstacle… however, it is worth throwing out a possible solution for a concrete problem we have now based on a theoretical problem that would only apply to a very small minority of people and has no religious basis (in any religion Im aware of)?. Not even Wicca , of which I am a member and is pretty laid back in this respect, pushes group marriage. We can also avoid shams by simply defining civil union rights to one other person…. Meaning only one person gets the right to health care, making decisions for the ill partner etc as such also avoids the polygamy problem.

As for the children issue. I think you would have to prove that homosexual parents are necessarily bad for children, using something other than religion or traditional attitudes toward such. I don’t think such exists. Marriage as it is defined legally now is not about having children…if it were, we would require proof of one’s fertility for marriage. And someone my age (female, 44) would not be able to get married, as my ability is next-to-nil and my chances of having deformed offspring is quite high even if I did get pregnant. Nor is it about regulating who has sex with whom, at least not nowadays… Past laws against adultery and sodomy have gone the way of the dinosaur basically because they are really unenforceable and we prefer to keep the government out of our bedrooms. It might have been mostly for procreation purposes in the past, but in an age where there are over 6+ billion people on the planet, I doubt this is really an issue. Besides, gays are only physically barred from conceiving children… there are no physical, biological bars from raising them. They can help with the future. The bars against this are only religious/social as well. Personally, I think it’s a hell of a lot better for a loving gay couple to raise a child than for said child to be raised in the foster care system.

Heterosexual couples are not legally bound to have and raise kids with marriage/civil unions… gays shouldn’t be held to that standard either.

So what is marriage for, socially and legally? Whether gay or straight, there is a human need or strong desire to mate and to have that mate have formal familial rights, esp. as next-of-kin. While there may be gays who are looking to redefine religion through the courts… I seriously doubt that they are the majority of those looking for legal “marriage” This is the problem with the semantics issue. The problem is that the word has come covers both the religious aspect and the aspect of legal rights of kin are confused and intermeshed. This was not a problem as long as the two did not seriously conflict… now they do and its time to separate them… not only to protect gay’s need for a socially-recognized partner to act as kin but also to protect those religious beliefs that cannot accept homosexuality.

Nov 10, 2008 - 8:51 am 79. David W. Lincoln:

I see that no one touched my earlier post. Well,
here is what is at stake.

Leadership and authority dovetail, and this fact
is as old as the hills.

There is authority whose origins belong to the supernatural. This is different than the authority attributable to people, and I gave Randal and Kissinger’s definitions as examples.

Until the old habit of trying to get God to back
one’s efforts is weakened, all we will be doing is repeating the mistakes of the past.

Take a look at “The Gifts of the Jews” by Thomas Cahill to support my point.

Nov 10, 2008 - 8:56 am 80. mnotaro:

Being a Christian and believing in the bible and reading very clearly that marriage was designed by God for a man and a woman, I am so thrilled Prop 8 passed in CA! It was a nice feeling after feeling so down about the Obama win. The liberal illuminati gave one up to us!

Nov 10, 2008 - 9:05 am 81. Bret:

I voted pro gay marriage on every other ballot measure, but I was so angry at the legislation from the bench that I voted for prop 8 to send a message: use the legislation and the ballot initiatives if you want change – not the courts!

If an initiative to unamend the constitution allow gay marriage appears in the next few years, I’ll vote for it.

Nov 10, 2008 - 10:23 am 82. Karen:

There are two lessons to be learned by gays and their supporters here.The first is that relying on the courts to impose your agenda on an unwilling society is a losing proposition.The second is to get over the grievance and entitlement crowd’s mantra that everyone who disagrees with them is “a hater”.The tantrum that has ensued in California since last Tuesday suggests that neither of these lessons has been learned.

Nov 10, 2008 - 11:54 am 83. Marc Malone:

A month ago, one of the thread responses drifted into this area, and I floated the idea of getting government out of the marriage business. I’ve since decided I was wrong. In fact, as this election went on (and on), I became more conservative, when before, I was a moderate. I spent hours and hours every day, reading everything I could get my cursor on. I’ve come to believe that I was a moderate on things, because I didn’t have enough facts.

First, regarding marriage. There is secular marriage and legal matrimony. Secular marriage was invented by the French. Some Frog found out that what he owned was protected by law. He could kill a burglar, but he could do nothing to another man in bed with his wife, and cuckolding was a real problem among the French back when they had balls. Secular marriage was invented to provide him legal rights vis-a-vis his wife.

It serves the same purpose today (legal rights), except for the killing a cuckold part. (Actually, last I heard, you can in MA.) These rights include such things as medical decisions, property rights, inheritance rights, insurance, taxes, immunity from testifying, etc…. All the citizens in this country are, by definition, entitled to the same rights. Gays are also entitled to have a lawyer represent them, and so forth.

The only reason to deny them these rights would be if there is demonstrable proof of damage to others by the permittance thereof. We have concluded as a society that they can have civil unions, conferring upon them the same legal rights, so we agree that there is no demonstrable harm to others, right? But what about the word marriage? Why do the gays want it, and why do others wish to deny it to them?

I have since found out that in countries where it is actually legal for gays to marry, very few of the gays(about 4%) actually do get married. So, why the desire for their unions to be called marriage? Because they are looking for the government’s imprimatur on their lifestyle. They want people to be taught that their ways are normal and acceptable. Others do not wish this lifestyle to be established as valid, as it impinges directly upon the values they are trying to instill in their young. This is the crux of the issue.

So, why not just downgrade all secular marriages to civil unions? It took me awhile to come up with the answer. Why should normal people, those who form the foundation of society (the family unit), be diminished to satisfy the desire of a small group of perverts to be recognized as normal? There is a BIG difference between accepting their right to behave in the bedroom in a repugnant fashion, and giving the government’s good-housekeeping stamp of approval.

So, it comes down to the question: Is homosexuality normal? When I was a kid, the psychiatrists said, “No.” Eventually, that changed. Not coincidentally by the time it did, lots and lots of psychiatrists were gay. Gays like to say they are hard-wired that way. I’m sure some very small percentage are, just as some few people are hardwired towards real violence and predation. The rest make the choice, and rely on the few miswired individuals to justify their actions.

Homosexuality rates are varied around the world. In prison, of course, it nears 100%. In Islamic countries, it’s around 25 %! This is for two reasons. First, they are taught that having sex with unmarried women is “unclean”. That means fecal-matter unclean. Second, theirs is generally a polygamist society, where men can have many wives. This harms a society, as it creates a large number of males with no access to women. No wonder they pursue jihad and are willing to blow themselves up! (This, btw undercuts the argument that gay marriage can lead to polygamy, because polygamy can be clearly shown to have a negative effect on society.)

So, I’ll leave it to each of you to determine for yourselves if you think homosexuality is a perversion or not. If not, then perhaps you should support gay marriage. For myself, I do not wish my kids to get the idea that homosexuality is normal and governmentally and societally approved. I draw a line between tolerance and approval.

self-hating boomer – Actually, the government can indeed stop you from having kids with your sisters. Incest IS illegal, as is the procreation thereby.

Nov 10, 2008 - 12:49 pm 84. K-Lo:

Fortunately, my marriage is secure enough that it endured no lasting ill-effects when the guys next door got married. We wished them well but suffered no sudden urges to divorce. On the other hand, when Larry King got married for the 18th time, we shook in our shoes.

If marriage is about man and woman and children, then the wedding I attended between a 60 year old woman and a 62 year old man shouldn’t be sanctioned.

Those of you who think “civil union” gives you the same rights as marriage ought to talk to the Social Security administration and the IRS, for starters.

Why do Ellen and Portia scare you so much? And why don’t the Larry Kings and the Elizabeth Taylors of the world scare you more?

Nov 10, 2008 - 12:57 pm 85. Larsen E Whipsnade:

@ K-Lo said:

“If marriage is about man and woman and children, then the wedding I attended between a 60 year old woman and a 62 year old man shouldn’t be sanctioned.”

You have to get out more! Marriage between senior citizens is definitely NOT approved in Christian churches. Nor between infertile couples.

The church’s thinking is,”What’s the point if there’s not going to be children?”

It’s not a matter of being scared, as you put it. It’s more like it’s pointless, hypocritical, a waste of public resources.

Nov 10, 2008 - 9:33 pm 86. Cytherean:

Gay marriage is one area where I think that the traditional conservative platform has very weak arguments. I for one see the divorce rate and other social issues as being much more harmful to families than not letting people get married and develop a family, “fake” or not.

Nor do I understand the “social structure” or similar concerns about society as a whole – aren’t conservatives, as opposed to liberals who are in general more “socially” oriented (or modernly, outright Marxist), supposed to be concerned with individual rights unless there is a DEFINITE problem, not just a theoretical one?

Personally, I don’t see marriage as a government issue at all, it should be between you and a church, with any legal recognition optional or neutral. My understanding is that historically this was the case in the US, until divorce and interracial marriages became legal concerns. I just plain don’t care about this issue at all.

I think it really hurts the Republican party, as most gays I have known consider it to be one of their strongest points of identity and political concerns, even if it is unlikely they’d ever get married. I’ve known a few who were more concerned with other issues and voted as such, but it was always very important to them because of the perception of their social value as a whole riding on it.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:00 am 87. robotech master:

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

Its stories like this that really display the hate groups/religious nutjobs that are in the “pro-gay marriage” movement… And most of all its stories like this that show the whole gay community are behind and secretly approve of these actions…. You can see that by the fact that their is zero media coverage…. their are no “gay” groups saying what they did amounts to a hate crime(which if reversed chances are they’d be in jail already). Other then the argument that this is some kind of fringe group… which is completely BS because none of the so called “mainstream” gay groups have stood up and opposed it.

Once again until gays stop acting like this and step up and act like real ppl they will be hated not because their gay but because they are a radical religious movement attacking everyone and everything that they oppose.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:32 am 88. Mike O'Malley:

In regard to comment #16:

It is hard to see how histrionic posturing does justice to this issue Mr. Dan Irving. Wouldn’t you expect that if he had wished to do so, your coworker could have addressed his lover’s difficulties as part of his estate planning with the aid of competent legal counsel? … and that your coworker could have done so with minimal state intrusion into anyone’s life? Do you doubt that even the sensitivities of the lover and family could have been addressed in the obituary, if your coworker cared enough to do so? There is no need to further undermine a foundational institution of Western Society.

Nov 11, 2008 - 9:38 am 89. browndog2:

The gays and Christians have traded places.
It was once that gays were to keep their affairs inside the home, and were scorned in public.Now, Christians are scorned in public, and their affairs are to be kept inside the home.

Remember when the “queers” just wanted to be left alone.

Now the “straights” just want to be left alone.

And the liberals complain this nation is too conservative…..go figure

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:17 pm 90. RAH:

Gays can easily make a legal partnership agreement and define the terms. They can make up their own joining ceremony and celebrate. They do not need a state license.

Why do Gays want to be regulated on their personal relationships?

Nov 11, 2008 - 12:41 pm 91. aloysiusmiller:

What is this stupidity about removing state sanction for marriage of any sort? Will that mean no state sanction for any contract? Or no enforcement in the courts for marriage contracts? Or no court interference with any marriage contract to make it unenforceable? Get real. Marriage law is just the standard form contract for marriage. The state (courts) mare not getting out of the contracts business and the legislatures are always adopting uniform codes. Stop this nonsense about no state recognition of marriage. It is a non-starter.

Nov 11, 2008 - 8:18 pm 92. Making the Case for Gay Marriage « SF NeoCon:

[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/making-the-case-for-gay-marriage/   [...]

Nov 12, 2008 - 12:00 am 93. links for 2008-11-12 « Brain Music:

[...] Pajamas Media » Making the Case for Gay Marriage (tags: gaymarriage election08 prop8) [...]

Nov 12, 2008 - 1:03 pm 94. Teddy:

The real danger to marriage is not allowing homosexuals to form legal unions, but the ease at which normal people dissolve their sacred unions. Divorces need to become, if not illegal, extremely difficult to obtain. And those who do end up divorced should be shunned for breaking God’s law. Look at some of our leaders — Ronald Reagan, John McCain, Newt Gringrich, Rudy Guiliani — twice and thrice married. They make a mockery of marriage.

Nov 13, 2008 - 2:06 pm 95. designated conservative:

I believe in democracy and the supremacy of the people. In the U.S., laws are established by the people and through the people’s elected representatives in Congress and state legislatures. The liberal activism of the California Supreme Court offends me. It is not the place of the judiciary to make laws, and it is certainly not the place of a judge to stick his or her finger in the proverbial winds of culture to decide cases.

I’m glad to hear the gay marriage activists finally acknowledge that their court strategy isn’t good for them or America. I’m prepared to fight the good fight at the ballot box, so should they.

Nov 13, 2008 - 5:40 pm 96. Ms. Know:

So many of the citizens of America are not going with values and morals these days. That is the reason that I believe the liberal illuminati got control, but with some of the issues on the ballot, it shows there’s still some hope.

Nov 14, 2008 - 12:16 pm 97. Matt Sanchez:

I find the gay marriage “debate” dishonest, shallow and subversive.

The response of gay advocates to the LEGAL voting against a status that was shoved down Californian’s throats by legal fiat shows how little respect homosexuals have for the institution of marriage, since they see it as little more than a social entitlement.

Nov 15, 2008 - 2:21 am 98. CRT:

#24: It is true that in France there are dual civil and religious ceremonies. It is not true that this “gets the government out of the marriage business” in France. In 2007, same-sex marriage was rejected in France after a commission which studied the issue concluded that its ultimate decision to advise against gay marriage and adoption was meant “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.”

The French public strongly concurs. In all other respects, the French public strongly favors giving same-sex couples rights equal to married couples.

I used to review clinical trial designs for compliance with international standards for protection of human subjects. Given our present state of knowledge, it is easy for me to see how a government could decide that the placement of adoptive children with same-sex couples does not meet international standards for protection of the rights of experimental subjects.

This does not mean that gays and lesbians cannot be good parents. But the preponderance of experimental evidence points to a stable, low-stress marriage with the child’s biological parents as the ideal family form. This model is worth preserving for the sake of the majority of children who will be born to heterosexual couples.

I do not believe that approval of same-sex marriage will not change expectations for heterosexual marriage. Half of the gay married men in Massachusetts say they don’t place a high value on sexual fidelity. To me, this changes societal expectations for the words “husband” and “marriage”.

When the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with its statement in support of same-sex parenting, the organization received an unprecedented amount of critical feedback from its members. The natural response of the head of the committee which issued the statement was to express alarm that this negative feedback could damage the effort to use the Academy as a vehicle for positive change. Why wasn’t she instead curious about the views and experiences of the membership of the organization?

The leadership of our professional organizations is, at this time, heavily weighted with activists of one sort or another. People without a strong agenda don’t fight as hard for leadership in such organizations. It is hard for me to trust the “official positions” of these organizations because of the activist nature of their leadership.

Many existing studies of gay and lesbian parenting are characterized by poor study design, self-reporting by mothers and/or investigator bias. The data on same-sex parenting are very limited in sociological terms. We have no randomized generational studies.

We do now know that little children growing up without fathers (with single mothers) face a number of extra challenges. Girls enter puberty sooner and become sexually active at a younger age. Boys choose negative male role models. There are many additional negative statistical outcomes for these children.

“Father hunger” is well-recognized among the children of single moms. Rosie O’Donnell’s little boy wanted a daddy when he was six. One pro-lesbian parenting researcher found that some children of lesbian couples were obsessed with male images on television. One little boy had to be “pried off the leg” of a male day care worker every day. The child’s lesbian parents were happy that their child had a daddy substitute and that they didn’t have to worry about him because of this. The researcher wasn’t particularly concerned.

I can imagine certain situations where it would be preferable to place a child with a same-sex couple or a single parent. Even Catholic Charities sometimes placed children with same-sex couples before the same-sex marriage issue became a threat to their adoption services.

But I believe that the prudent course is to place most adoptive children with a mother and father. I don’t want the government to direct adoptions on the basis of fairness to prospective parents with different sexual orientations rather than on the basis of the best interests of the child.

I don’t think that the effects of same-sex parenting on children will be well-characterized until this family form becomes common in low-income areas for a generation. Future objective studies may be scuttled by civil rights concerns as married same-sex couples become a “protected class” with equal rights to children. We may be limited in our ability to make life better for both the children of heterosexual couples and the children of same-sex couples in the future because of the stridency of gay activists.

I don’t know how to explain to a little adopted child that his or her desire for a daddy or mommy takes second place to the rights of same-sex parents. Same-sex parents from the intellectual set may be able to compensate for this deprivation adequately. I am not as optimistic for children of same-sex couples in low-income areas after observing the attitudes toward children’s needs in various non-traditional heterosexual family forms in my town.

Nov 18, 2008 - 5:14 am 99. Buck Futter:

I would be against any kind of law or statute that would discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Keep in mind it wasn’t too long ago that women were not allowed to vote, and interracial couples could not get married in certain states as late as the 60s. If two people love each other shouldn’t they be allowed to get married?

Nov 18, 2008 - 6:02 pm 100. the gay one:

all you haters have no say in this.. why does it even bother you if we gays get married or not?? stay out of peoples lives..and argue about something that involves you! everybody is diffrent .. and everyone should have the same rights.
(i recommend you watch the movie “prayers for bobby” it changed a lot of peoples way of thinking)

Sep 30, 2009 - 9:46 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: