Pajamas Media

67 Comments

1. Gilligan:

The argument is frequently made that the only reason people vote against gay marriage is because of religion. This overlooks the “ick” factor. Prop 8 was passed in California where some significant number of people have inadvertently wandered into street festivals like this:

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:38 am 2. Keith:

Gilligan,

Has anyone thought that if such discriminatory laws against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms there would be absolutely no need for such “street festivals”, and therefore no “ick” factor?

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:32 am 3. Boris:

Just don’t complain when this “amendment” is overturned in 4-10 years. Progress is inevitable.

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:53 am 4. Carl D. Kaminer:

Keith…

So by your reasoning it’s okay for nudists to have a nude festival in Downtown, USA since they are consenting adults? Okay for people to have sex in public since they are consenting adults? Civil disobedience is one thing, lack of civility is something entirely different.

The Folsom Street Fair does nothing to promote gay marriage as acceptable, and as Gilligan correctly points out, does much more to hinder it’s ultimate acceptance among mainstream Americans.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:25 am 5. Torrance:

“Has anyone thought that if such discriminatory laws against what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms there would be absolutely no need for such “street festivals”, and therefore no “ick” factor?”
Are you serious? You used the words “need for a street festival” as if this kind of disgusting perverse filth is somehow necessary? Another question someone should ask; Why aren’t opponents of Prop 8 protesting in black neighborhoods? In front of black churches? Or latino churches and neighborhoods? It’s rhetorical. They’re cowards. It was the black vote that carried Prop 8 to pass but opponents of Prop 8 are too cowardly to take their fight to neighborhoods where they KNOW it won’t be tolerated.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:33 am 6. DC Gamer:

I applaud those who are continuing to fight for the right to marry. Gays, lesbians, and their supporters view this as a civil rights issue and a matter of equality under the law.

Some issues are too controversial to be decided by a simple majority vote of the people. Was slavery ended by a simple majority vote? Were women given the right to vote by a simple majority vote? Were schools desegregated in the South by a simple majority vote?

For those of you who are happy about the decision, consider how you would feel if the government dictated who you could marry. How would you feel about such an intrusion into a very personal decision?

If you believe that government should not sanction same sex “marriage,” I would agree with your position if you would agree that the government should get out of the “marriage” business altogether. Let the government issue everyone – gay and straight – a civil union license granting all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Let churches “marry” people. Churches can “marry” whomever they wish.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:38 am 7. seven:

The blacks oppose gay marriage. I suspect the gays are just being racist as usual.
If they can’t act in a more civil way, I suspect their “marriage” will be just as violent.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:54 am 8. hp:

One of the few victories for conservatives in the recently held national election occurred in one of the most liberal states of America.

~
that was the first thing that shocked the heck out of me.

the second was the days later reported demographics of who it was that went out of their way to shoot down the civil rights of others: a particular ethnic group (female, at that, if i’m not mistaken).

the obama campaign appears to have no humanity-based capacity for drawing on the empathy factor of purportedly being representative of a demographic “suffering” from discrimination.

in their heads, it’s every beast for themselves. “good luck, been nice knowing you” to the vulnerable among us for the protection of your rights, safety, and life as you believe them are not on the obama campaign agenda.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:18 am 9. Ray Eckhart:

I’d have more respect for this argument if it was anywhere acknowledged that the California legislature twice passed a same sex marriage bill that was twice vetoed by the governor, with the rationale that the courts have to weigh in.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:19 am 10. goy:

Keith, so-called “discriminatory” laws don’t engender a need for public behavior that is intentionally offensive, as depicted at that link. But that’s precisely what the moral adolescents of the leftist mindset seem to think is called for whenever they don’t like a rule or law that the Constitutionally represented majority passes. And let’s be clear – such behavior is not a “gay thing” it’s a “leftist thing”. It’s the moral adolescent’s adult-age equivalent of stamping one’s feet in a tantrum. Such behavior doesn’t make their audience think, “hmmm… maybe these folks have a point.” It makes one think, “hmmm… maybe these folks have some severe emotional issues. Maybe they should just grow up and learn how to educate people instead of trying to shock them.”

Gilligan, IMHO, it’s not just people inadvertently wandering into such situations. The media often seems to seek out the most caricatured, bizarre, potentially offensive examples of gender variant expression to focus on. Watch the TV coverage of any Gay Pride Day parade (btw, on that topic, when was the last time Obama marched in a GPD Parade?). Any message that might draw attention to the actual issues is pretty much lost in the sensationalist coverage.

It’s been my observation that this phenomenon is particularly prevalent in relation to the transgender/transsexual (’T') community, which is, unfortunately, sometimes treated as the ‘redheaded stepchild’ of the LGBT(TSQI) community. GPD-type expressions of ‘T’ gender variance can include bearded cross-dressers, flamboyant ‘drag queens’, etc., and a ratings-seeking media will ignore the vast number of more normative individuals and magnify the outliers, again, masking the “hey, WE are human beings TOO – and WE DIDN’T ASK FOR THIS CONDITION!” message. The general public’s reaction is, of course, predictable.

Even Baba Wawa’s (upcoming? recent?) “man having a baby” interview is a soft-pr0n version of this, which focuses on a situation that is not typical of transgendered individuals and couples (see the documentary Southern Comfort for something more typical). The aim, of course, is to use the ‘Dog-Faced Boy’ factor to increase ratings, not to improve the lot of the ‘T’ community (e.g., by making it easier to legally change identity, live full-time as one’s natural gender for the amount of time required by WPATH’s (Harry Benjamin) SOC guidelines to qualify for SRS, transition at work without losing one’s job, etc.).

Not being terribly religious, I would be against “legalizing” gay marriage simply on the grounds that the State has no inherent authority to recognize, dictate or sanction ANY aspect of marriage, save perhaps with regard to health issues (and even there I believe it’s a stretch). In fact, it’s my opinion that the State shouldn’t have any say or interest in my marital status, period. I understand that this poses some serious issues because the State’s (and other institutions’) reliance on that facet of human interaction is so entrenched in the system. I don’t think that, alone, makes it right.

In the end, the real solution is to get the State OUT of our lives. That’s what’s so sad (to me) about the whole gay marriage issue. Specifically, we have people like Keith railing against laws about what people do in their bedrooms while at the same time demanding laws to be given permission to marry. It’s kinda nuts.

How about we just start demanding the elimination of discrimination based on marital status, period? Wouldn’t that achieve the same end without all the divisiveness?

Or is the divisiveness really the goal here?

Maybe it’s true that that some folks refer to the Democrats as the “divide-and-conquer party” for a reason. If so, that’s certainly being demonstrated in spades in CA right now.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:30 am 11. Mike O'Malley:

That is nonsense Keith. Prop 8 is about protecting the institution of marriage. Surely California gays will continue to be free to do whatever they consent to do in the privacy of their bedrooms whether Prop. 8 stands or falls. You know this. I know this. We all know this.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:35 am 12. ?inPa:

What has happened to democracy in this country. Whether you agree with something or someone or not is irrelevant. It is supposed to be majority rules. Everyone gets a say but, the majority of the people chooses the direction. If you don’t like that system, then maybe people should leave for another country. This country is full of hypocrites. If something does not go their way, they complain and create more of a divide between people. If it does go their way then everyone should agree with them and be unified. Interesting don’t you think?. What has happened to our country?

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:38 am 13. susan:

I bet boris is one of those portrayed in the zombietime link

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:40 am 14. Benson:

The inheritors of Marx’s evolutionary philosophy do indeed believe mankind is inevitably progressing toward Utopia. That’s one of the defining features of collectivist, authoritarian “progressive” politics.

Nations and cultures go through changes, and citing that fact in order to demonstrate mankind’s inevitable progress is a deceitful two-step process: first you pick the dates for the start and end of the phase. Second, you define “progress” as you wish. For example, did Germany progress from monarchy and disunity to democratic unification? If you look at the period 1840 – 2000, you could say so. But not if you consider 1830 – 1944.

If you believe progress is inevitable, why ever express a political opnion? Why not just sit back and let the great stuff come? Oh, to hasten the world of tomorrow, perhaps. Not wise: a pre-capitalist nation, Russia, was pushed into “progressing” to communism, and quickly became a nominally Marxist fascist monstrosity. Cuba, too. Activism in support of “inevitable” progress can backfire badly.

There was nothing inevitable about the Enlightenment, or the Marshall Plan, or Fleming’s discovery of the first antibiotic. Einstein and Bohr were not inevitable, nor was democracy in ancient Greece. We could have been born into a world that never knew Rembrandt or Jefferson or Lincoln. Hitler was just as inevitable as Garibaldi and Charles Martel.

If we want a better world, we need solid fundamental principles plus the determination to press on with the task. We can do good or we can do evil, and what we choose today shapes tomorrow. The people of the former Union of Burma, today called Myanmar, know that things don’t inevitably get better, even over the long haul. That explains why our burden of moral responsibility is so heavy: politics is serious business. It matters. If you walk away muttering about how things will take care of themselves some day, things just might take care of you.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:42 am 15. goy:

My apologies on the link mess-up. The Southern Comfort documentary mentioned is here.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:50 am 16. Paul From Hamburg:

Using the term “gay marriage” and calling this a civil rights issue is misleading. Homosexuals have the same rights to marry as anyone else. Regardless of your sexual preferences, there are four obvious restrictions on marriage:
1. You can’t marry if the person you want to marry is a minor.
2. You can’t marry if the person you want to marry is already married to someone else.
3. You can’t marry if the person you want to marry is a close relative.
4. You can’t marry if the person you want to marry is the same sex.
Supporters of same-sex marriage want to remove restriction #4 as if it is the only restriction that exists (”consider how you would feel if the government dictated who you could marry”). Opponents of same-sex marriage want to know how you take away #4 without taking away the other three. If it is OK for some judge to decide the rule #4 is no longer valid, then is OK for some other judge to decide that rule #2, or maybe rule #3, or maybe even rule #1 is no longer valid. We know there are people who claim to be “polyamorous”. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry all of the people they “love”? If you get to the point where marriage is some random number of individuals of either gender, then the term “marriage” is meaningless.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:53 am 17. DC Gamer:

11. ?inPa:

What has happened to democracy in this country. Whether you agree with something or someone or not is irrelevant. It is supposed to be majority rules. Everyone gets a say but, the majority of the people chooses the direction.

—————-

You are forgetting the other half of the equation. “Majority rules, minority rights.” The majority cannot take away the rights of the minority. The courts are the system of government that ensures that this does not happen. For example, what if a majority of voters passed a resolution that repealed women’s suffrage? Would that be OK? Or what if Georgia passed a resolution creating separate schools for blacks and whites? Would that be OK?

Mike O’Malley, I will believe that you are serious about protecting the institution of marriage when you push to repeal divorce laws. If the institution of marriage needs to be protected, then attack the biggest threat to it – divorce. When half of all marriages end in divorce, I do not believe that same-sex marriage poses a big threat to the institution.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:59 am 18. DC Gamer:

Paul from Hamburg, if you think that gays have the same right to marry as everyone else, then why is it illegal for a gay man to marry a foreigner in order to grant him/her citizenship? Why can a gay person not “sell” his right to marriage for money? If a gay person cannot marry the person he/she loves, then what is the point?

Your argument does not hold water.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:03 am 19. The Boss:

After careful consideration and after listening to both sides of the argument, I have come to the conclusion that the Institute of Marriage
should not be redefined. Now everyone get back to work.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:06 am 20. Cato:

Paul from Hamburg. The problem with your argument is that there are already plenty of gay marriage advocates who would do away with the other prohibitions (except age) and the Muslims don’t believe in the age restriction. There are even those who want to do away with the limitation that the spouse be human.

Making marriage meaningless, of course, is what many radicals want – to destroy the family is to destroy the institution for the private accumulation and transmission of property, which is essential to liberty.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:06 am 21. Mark:

Marriage is not a RIGHT.

It is a SOCIAL CONTRACT. It requires a license. Like Driving.

The whole argument is based on faulty premises.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:19 am 22. dirtyrottenvarmint:

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a legal institution enforced by the state – that is why the state is able to go after “deadbeat dads” to collect alimony. A legal institution can not possibly be a “right”: a right is something one _has_, not something one is granted by a lawful authority. The right of two or more consenting adults to freely associate in an economic or physical union has nothing at all to do with a marriage license. The partners of a law firm are not polygamous; neither are the participants in an orgy.

It may well be true that the state should not be in the business of enforcing marriage contracts, but the fact is that it does so. A marriage contract is not a contract between two individuals: it is a contract between two individuals and the state. Again, while there are of course good arguments against the state’s involvement, there are several good arguments in favor. For example, it may be that the state has an interest in promoting the solidarity of a family unit that is designed to be able to create and support progeny. For example, it may be that the state has an interest in promoting heterosexual monogamy as a means of enhancing the status of women (if you don’t think heterosexual monogamy and the status of women are correlated, go visit a country where polygamy is common.)

The legal institution of marriage as a monogamous heterosexual union has absolutely nothing to do with equal rights for homosexuals. While there may be good social and legal arguments for the state to license homosexual marriages (the health benefits of promoting monogamy are an obvious example) the use of “rights” language in this argument is a grievous error.

Those of you who think that (a) the U.S. system of government is a democracy, (b) the U.S. system of government is based on the principle of “majority rules”, and/or (c) there is anything illegal or improper about the executive branch of the California government acting to block legislation proposed by the legislative branch of the California government, clearly do not have the slightest idea of how the U.S. system of legal government is designed.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:37 am 23. Paul From Hamburg:

DC Gamer,
If you are going to comment on other people’s posts, please read beyond the first sentence. If you think that you have a right to marry anyone you “love”, then you are proving my point. If you think Fred should be allowed to marry Steve just because they love each other, what if Steve is Fred’s brother? What if Steve is already married to Sam? What if Steve is only 13 years old? There are lots of heterosexual people who can’t marry the person they love.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:41 am 24. Leigh Thelmadatter:

Mark, with your argument, the State can then decide that gays cannot drive.

Denila of an ability has to rest on a valid reason.

Paul from Hamburg:

Denial of marriage to minors, those already married and to close family members is based on rationale other than religion and the the so-called “ick” factor. Minors cannot contract as they cannot be equal partners with an adult. Marriage against someone who is already married is because of the prohibition against polygamy, which while is originally based in religion still should be prohibited because it is inherently unequal (man has “rights” the women do not) and the prohibition against close relatives is based on biology – probably production of deformed offspring. The prohibition against gay marriage is purely on religious basis.

If you really want an ICK factor, how about Woody Allen’s marriage to his stepdaughter???? But that is perfectly legal.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:50 am 25. Matthew Avitabile:

And now its legal in Connecticut:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/connecticut-oks-gay-marriage.html

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:02 am 26. goy:

Cato, could you expand a bit on this: “…to destroy the family is to destroy the institution for the private accumulation and transmission of property, which is essential to liberty.”?

I’m not sure it follows, given that anyone can draw up legal documents to transmit property in any way they see fit, and given that the notion of same-sex marriage does nothing to destroy the family, per se.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:05 am 27. Eddie:

I really don’t get all the surprise… our whole society is based on legislating morality. Can a cousin marry a cousin? Can Polygamist marry all of his/her spouses? We can spend all day trying to figure out what happened, blaming conservatives, democrats, the blacks, or even Audubon Ron but the reality is everything we do legislates a morality… based on what is a different question… a majority? IDK. But we all do it.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:18 am 28. Mark:

If the gay community could settle for a word other than “marriage” — with the same legal rights as marriage — the Proposition would have passed. The militant “burn the churches” reaction to the loss of Prop 8 by the gay community cannot help but damage their cause. If there were a revote today, I believe Prop 8 would win by an even larger margin.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:32 am 29. Dee:

This issue is not really about the contract between the State and the couple, we have Civil Unions and legal agreements for those issues.

It is about the religious definition of marriage-a union, under God, between a man and a woman. It is also about demanding that everyone accept that same sex marriage is as legitimate as a woman/man union.

When this becomes law again, and it will,the churchs will need to stop performing marriages for everyone to accomodate their religious beliefs or they will be sued for discrimination.

Schools are already required to teach, grade appropriate, how all family arrangements are equal. To complete that requirement same sex marriages are introduced at an early age.

The real goal is to undermine our traditional values. And every victory against our traditions is a push in to the wilderness.

And remember, as California goes, so goes the Country.

Nov 12, 2008 - 9:44 am 30. Mark:

Leigh Thelmadatter:

Yes, the state can decide that a gay individual, or anyone else for that matter, may or may not drive depending said person’s driving record, how they maintain their vehicle, and if the vehicle is properly registered and licensed. Driving privileges can be revoked at any time at the state’s discretion. Driving is designated a privilege in virtually every state and in no state is it described as a “right.”

Just because an individual desires something, or believes they are entitled to it, does not automatically make it a “right.” The constitution designates the legislative process to resolve such issues.

Nov 12, 2008 - 11:00 am 31. Libsaremorons:

Paul From Hamburg is my new hero. Post 16=Best post evar

The only way gay “marriage” will ever be “legalized” and/or accepted is for them to go after the state being involved in the first place. Because you can’t have gay marriage without also having polygamy/incest etc at some point right after it’s “legalized” with how our system is currently handled.

Nov 12, 2008 - 11:15 am 32. Leigh Thelmadatter:

Mark.. but that would not be denying a gay the ability to drive legally because he/she is gay… it would be for other, more legitimate reasons.

Secondly… I have no problem with the idea of civil unions (and Im straight by the way)… I think ALL couples should have civil unions, which would be the only thing recognized by the State. The religious marriage would simply be that… religious. The problem is the mixture of Church and State here. If the law simply requires civil unions of all couples, as in countries like France and Mexico, and the religious ceremony would not have legal standing for anyone. Yes, that means two ceremonies for many couples… so what?

Right now, religious leaders are acting as agents of the State when they perform legal marriages. That leaves such open to the idea that the State is discriminating when said leaders exercise their First Admendment right to not permit a wedding ceremony between gays in their churches. If all couples have civil ceremonies, no one can claim that the State is discriminating against anyone and no one can try to sue a pastor, priest, whatever for not marrying someone. (someone’s gonna try it sooner or later)

There is one other problem with using religious arguements in this case. There ARE recognized religions that permit gay marriage and polygamy. If we base a law on the tenents of a religion, we open up the arguement that polygamy should be legal, which I do not agree with. We need to keep family law based on legal principles.

Nov 12, 2008 - 11:26 am 33. Boris:

“I bet boris is one of those portrayed in the zombietime link”

Do you hate homosexuals as much as you hate Muslims? Care to weigh in on Mexicans and the mentally disabled?

BTW, I am still laughing at you for thinking that a comedy site’s news story about the KKK supporting Obama was real. Pleases me to no end

Nov 12, 2008 - 11:33 am 34. fear Obama:

If I have to live with Barry Obama being my President.

You gays in California have to live without being married.

Best of luck,
try again in 4 years,

I know I will!

Nov 12, 2008 - 11:38 am 35. whatever:

It isn’t really called gay-marriage, but same sex marriage, therefore that would mean anyone could marry someone of the same sex regardless of their sexual orientation. Or for that matter, anyone could marry a person of the same sex regardless of whether they loved them or not. This is a very complicated matter and I think that people need to stop this nonsense. We need to do what’s right for our nation as a whole and people need to stop screaming rights everytime something doesn’t go their way. It is out of control and until we can put our children and future generations before ourselves, it will never stop. We are creating a society for the next generation, not for ourselves.

Nov 12, 2008 - 12:34 pm 36. Keith:

Hmmmm…

It would now appear I have struck a whole bunch of raw nerves…..

Folks, I invite you all to simply substitute the word “black” for “gay” in any of your responses to my original post and I do believe my point will then make itself.

The basic problem that nobody seems to want to address in any of these discussions is that, historically, marriage was an institution of the state which was co-opted by the church centuries ago for its own selfish purposes…most notably for control over people’s lives and fortunes.

Since then, a number of other countries around the world (most recently Canada) have now quite successfully managed to disentangle the two by returning the institution of marriage to its historical context as a civil (that is, legal) institution vice a strictly religious one.

Nowadays, in Canada, if two people want to get married, they can do so in front of a judge. If they want to get married in a church, then that’s both perfectly acceptable and legal in the eyes of the state as well, with the added provision that a church is not required by law to marry a couple if doing so would go against their religious beliefs or doctrine.

Indeed, one of Canada’s most popular Prime Ministers (Pierre Trudeau) probably said it best when he noted that, “The government has absolutely no business poking about in people’s bedrooms.”

The bottom line here is that a number of other countries in the world seem to have been able to move beyond this whole gay marriage issue by creating a number of alternative approaches to the institution of marriage.

Why can’t we?

Nov 12, 2008 - 1:10 pm 37. Spindok:

22 – Dirtyrottenvarmint brings up some good points concerning the interest of the State vis Marriage. Before this past election and the passing of Proposition 8 as well as some other measures passed this time around I would have agreed with much of that.

But battle lines have been drawn here. The State of California has now chosen the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and both parties have used that to capture certain portions of the electorate for their own reasons.

There is no possiblilty of the Feds giving up a ‘definition of marriage’ in the current environment IMO. Sad to me that the formulation of “I didnt vote for Obama for other reasons but celebrate the election of an African-American after all of these struggles and a shameful past and now we are equal” doesn’t work in this case. He abandoned you to get elected after all of your work.

He can crow about that all he wants but he let you down. Why? Just not enough votes to get elected.

I filled out forms for a new job all day today. Dont try and BS me about this. If I were not a boring hetero-married 25+ years this process would have been agonizing. Dont even try and tell me that this is equality.

So yeah, tell my new prospective employer that “I have a domestic partner who needs to be covered and so on and I will sue you if you dont hire me now…” Sure. Great start at work.

This is not equal. I love this country. I am a basic family oriented productive worker (medicine)and have believed that our system gives equal legal rights to law abiding minorities.

It does not.

I have no special personal ties to Gays. I have worked and lived with Gay persons all of my life and never had any problem at all with that.

And you Republicans and social conservatives wonder why you lost now?

This is the USA. We are not anyplace else but here. This is the land of Liberty and we come from the cast-off of the world. Democrats and Republicans have walked away from this small minority to try and get elected. Nobody has stood on principle. That is unless “sinner, pervert, ick-factor” are principles.

To the few remaing Gay Republicans I will stand with you. Do not accept a second-class status. Hold out and stand for true equality under the law.

Spindok

Nov 12, 2008 - 1:25 pm 38. SAL:

it takes a he & a she to make a marriage– so why is everybody worrying about it.
2 he gays can have their own union–
& 2 she women can have their own union– ignore the rest of it!!!!!!!!

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:03 pm 39. el polacko:

if civil marriage is a contract between two adults who agree to take legal responsibility for each other, then it has not been “re-defined” if gay people enter into the same contract. the california court simply found that the equal protection clause in the constitution applies to all citizens. a despised minority should not be exempted from equal protection and it is the court’s responsibility to see to that.
the same old canard from time immemorial about ‘protecting the children’ was dragged out again by the mostly out-of-state organizations that funded the campaign to repeal the rights of gay citizens in california. the current protests are not against religion, per se, or even those voters who were comfortable in repealing the rights of their fellow citizens, but against those who, through contributions of tens of millions of dollars, were able to get the proposition on the ballot in the first place and then produce scare-tactic advertising to convince some californians that allowing the court’s ruling to stand amounted to something akin to the rape of their children’s innocence and the end of civilization.
i can’t speak for you, but i know that if this had happened to me, i’d be roaring mad and taking it to the streets as well.

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:07 pm 40. StephanieInCA:

I just hope there are no more terrifying gay glitter sieges at pro-marriage churches: http://urbzen.com/2008/11/12/glitter-oh-the-humanity/

The horror, the horror!!

Nov 12, 2008 - 2:13 pm 41. Carl D. Kaminer:

Keith…

Although I found fault with your street fair comment, your second post was IMO one of the most reasonably presented ones in this thread. Of course, I still disgree with most of your argument.

If the issue of gay marriage is merely a matter of what we call it, there’s really nothing worth debating. No one wants to argue semantics, especially when there are more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.

If this is about more than what we call two people in a committed relationship, then there is another agenda here. If that is truly the case, I wish the G&L community would just explain it to the rest of us. If it’s about acceptance, well, you can’t legislate that. If it’s about equal treatment and equal rights, let’s address the specifics and stop playing word games here.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:31 pm 42. Mark Epstein:

Wow! Spindok wrote, “The State of California has now chosen the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and both parties have used that to capture certain portions of the electorate for their own reasons.”

Welcome to the “democracy” you leftists keep screaming exists when, in fact, it doesn’t. Tyranny, eh? That’s EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers said concerning their views of “democracy.”

Why is it “okay” to “okay” a democracy in one breath (Hillary’s desire to eliminate the Electoral College), but condemn it in the next? You leftists need to get your political house in order before casting stones at others. A basic Civics class might help you understand you’re living in a Constitutional Republic at the national level, but propositions ARE decided by a simple majority vote at the local level (state and below).

Get over it! You tried the judicial-fiat route (against the will of the people) and, now, when the people have spoken, you’re still whining.

Grow up! Welcome to the process. If you don’t like the process, you have an option: Convince individuals of the “rightness” of your position one-on-one. You know, just like you insist Christians conduct their evangelism.

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:32 pm 43. Stocks drop, Bum Ninjas “rock,” Big 3 don’t see the clock « Mark Epstein:

[...] obvious that freedom of expression is a one-way street for the “same sex madness” crowd. Or, as most heteros point out, there is one part of [...]

Nov 12, 2008 - 3:36 pm 44. goy:

Keith, in your efforts to blame religion for the plight of gays (who are not blacks), you might consider the fact that at the time you assert marriage was an institution of the state which was co-opted by the church, the church and the state were virtually inseparable. Your argument fails as a result. It’s even less valid than the notion that simply because other countries have implemented failing economic models, we should do the same.

Again, if we simply remove discrimination based on marital status, this resolves the issue without the divisive politics.

Nov 12, 2008 - 4:10 pm 45. Wayne Lusvardi:

No on Prop 8 is Anti-Feminist and Regressive
by Wayne Lusvardi, MSW, Pasadena, CA

As a former court protective services worker for abused and neglected children, I am in favor of Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage; however, I am unpersuaded by all the arguments for and against it.

The arguments in favor of the Prop 8 are overly defensive, conjectural, seemingly discriminatory and moralistic for the wrong reasons. Concern over a speculative future harm to children as the weakest members of society will not likely overcome the perception of actual discrimination against gays today in the eyes of much of the liberal public. Moreover, many people believe on religious and secular grounds that children should be taught not to discriminate against gays.

Conversely, the arguments against Prop 8 on the basis of injustice, unfairness and the unhappiness and social stigma inflicted on gays by denying them the sanction of marriage equally miss the mark. Gays have already mostly been granted rights and protections of quasi-marriage (power of attorney, family status for hospital visitation, benefits rollover). The social status of gay couples is essentially no different than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried status, including widows.

The notion that progressive “change” will overcome the “centuries’ long struggle for civil rights” for gay marriage is historically myopic.

The past Progressive reforms of busing in our public schools (“white flight”) and recent reform of affordable housing credit as a civil right (“sub-prime” loan foreclosures and investor wipe-outs) are tragic cases of the unintended consequences of the politicizing of “civil rights.”

If Prop 8 passes we may sadly see “straight flight” by parents, who were formerly tolerant of gays, pulling their kids out of public schools. Parents who were formerly laid back about teaching about gay rights in public schools may actually start teaching and preaching to their children the opposite at home. Needless to say, this would not further Progressivism.

The prospect of Muslim polygamous marriages proliferating in California due to rejecting Prop 8 does not seem far fetched, hysterical, or a scare tactic given the thousands of such marriages in Italy and Great Britain. Is this what we want in “Progressive” California?

Parenthetically, secularization has imposed rules of the game on religious believers, to wit: “You are completely free to live by your religion in private, but keep it out of the public sphere.” Jews have embraced this public-private dichotomy because it has afforded them protection and opportunities. Protestants have also accepted this bargain somewhat less enthusiastically, albeit with the option of withdrawal by sectarianism. A problem is that Islam is not a religious faith but a system of political and social organization that does not accept the modern public-private separation and does not sanction toleration, assimilation or intermarriage. Failure to ratify Prop 8 would send a signal that the public-private arrangement between religion and modern society is over. Your private marriage and your religion would be in the public domain. This would be highly regrettable.

This is not to say that civil rights for gays have been a bad thing. To the contrary, civil rights for gays have led to social tolerance. And social tolerance has brought about gays seeking to institutionalize and stabilize their partnerships instead of the social chaos which existed previously. This is relatively a good and Progressive thing.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I have two objections to same-sex marriage which I have not been addressed in the media. One: it is anti-feminist; and two: it is regressive.

No on Prop 8 is Anti-Feminist

The word “mother” comes from the Latin word “mater” for mother. And “mater” is what matters in marriage. Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality and procreation. Marriage can only concern a relationship to a woman for procreation. Marriage is the opposite of concubinage, which is an involuntary relationship with a man of higher status typically in a traditional society.

A social order that doesn’t protect a woman from rape or incest or concubinage can’t give women freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health (re: John Stuart Mill). Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in a modern society. Women’s freedom to control access to their body for procreation is what modern marriage is all about. Without that there is no societal or religious basis for laws to protect marriage, particularly gay marriage.

Defining marriage down to a mere contract between companions or non-procreative sex partners will only end up harming all women for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless. Women will ultimately suffer most. Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women. Traditional man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine.

Same sex marriage as currently proposed without strictures against polygamy, arranged marriages, and under-age marriages (or even contrived Oedipal marriages between an adult child and their parent for medical insurance coverage) would likely result in something anti-feminist and socially and politically Regressive. Modernity has liberated gays from discrimination but it has also led to a yearning to overcome the alienation and psychological “homelessness” that accompanies modernity. Same-sex marriage can thus be seen as a counter-modern movement (Peter Berger, et. al. The Homeless Mind).

A pro-feminine position would perhaps look favorably on gay marriage for lesbians, given that artificial insemination plus married lesbians would equal women with control of and a support structure for procreation. And lesbian couples have a lower level of failure than heterosexuals or male homosexuals.

No on Prop 8 is Regressive

My second objection to a No Vote on Prop 8 and the unthinking race to embrace gay marriage is that it is politically regressive and will violate the successful social contract of tolerance that has been built in our society.

Up to now there has been an absence of passion about opposing same sex marriage. The attitude of most of the majority public is reflected in the popular joke: “Same-sex marriage? Sure: Welcome to the joys of alimony!” Most Americans have gravitated to look at homosexuality as something to be avoided wherever possible. But they are tolerant toward homosexuals and have conceded them all sorts of rights, even superior rights and sinecures in the workplace, as long as they do not usurp the traditional meaning and sanctity of marriage. This social tolerance contract has now been abrogated by the California Supreme Court.

There is no guarantee that ending this social tolerance contract will be a good thing. In all likelihood, it will result in tragic and regressive unintended consequences. The negative consequences of gay marriage, as presently left vague and open, are as predictable as those who foretold the coming disaster of our financial institutions in 2004 (see: Mark C. Taylor, Confidence Games: Money and Markets in a World Without Redemption).

Sociology, Not Theology

I suspect the reason that I find the arguments on both sides of California’s Prop 8 so unpersuasive is that what separates people on this issue is not ideology or theology but sociology. Those in the professional class (law, education, media, and liberal clergy serving the professional class) are predominantly in favor of same-sex marriage and oppose Prop 8; and those in the commercial and working classes and the military (and their clergy) oppose gay marriage and favor the protection of marriage under Prop 8. (If this means anything, my carpenter is gay and is opposed to Prop 8).

There seems to be no way to transcend this social division given that both Christianity and Judaism are captured by social class and culture and have been unable to articulate a middle ground theology (theodicy) of toleration and marriage in a modern context (see Berger and Berger: The War Over the Family: Capturing the Middle Ground, 1983).

There is another possible sociological reason that there is so much conflict over this issue: many of the clergy leading the campaign for gay marriage are gay; conversely many of the clerical opponents of gay marriage are straights. Demagoguery, self interest and fund raising seem to reign supreme and we are left without religion to transcend social divisions and bring about reconciliation. Churches and synagogues that are nothing more than social clubs will be used as social “clubs.”

If we willy nilly grant marriage rights to one group – gays – we will find it politically impossible to deny such rights to others scripted with their own resumes of “victimization.” And politicians will always be ready to politicize modern marriage by expanding it beyond its original purpose.

Marriage isn’t a conspiracy of patriarchs, straights, or the respectable capitalistic bourgeoisie class. It is part of the divine and natural order – only through marriage can the world and social order persist. And it is also part of the larger social contract of modern society.

It is more important to exclusively preserve the freedom of marriage for women at this time than to throw out the social tolerance contract with nothing to replace it but backlash and a social order built around an anti-American notion of social “pillarization” as found in the Dutch social model. Preserving marriage exclusively for procreation and women’s freedom transcends the politics and religion of Left and Right and is the most Progressive option at this time until a consensus about marriage can be agreed upon.

Even though I am disappointed with the arguments both for and against Prop 8, I nonetheless urge you to VOTE YES ON PROP 8 as the Feminist and Progressive option at this time.

Nov 12, 2008 - 5:08 pm 46. Smokey:

Whites and Asians voted 51/49 AGAINST Prop 8 [thus, in favor of same sex marriage]

Hispanics voted about 53/47 FOR Prop 8

Blacks voted 70/30 FOR Prop 8

Black support of Prop 8 made the crucial difference, since the slim White+Asian vote against 8 was offset by the Hispanic vote. Blacks tipped the scales in favor of 8 at least in part because Obama opposes SSM, and has said so publicly.

But libs can’t fault their messiah, nor can they blame one of their key constituencies: African-Americans, who outnumber gays by more than 3 – 1.

So they blame religion, particularly the Mormon church — and the gays play along with that fraudulent scenario.

And then they complain about ‘fairness’?!

Please.

Anyway, the CA Supreme Court hasn’t forgotten the voter backlash against the Rose Bird court’s elimination of the death penalty; three justices, including Chief Justice Rose Bird, were tossed out of their black robes as a result of legislating from the bench. [After that they didn't get invited to nearly as many cocktail parties as the guest of honor].

No way the current justices are going to jeopardize their prestigious jobs for 3% of the population, in order to uphold a non-existent ‘right’ that can only be found with difficulty in an emanation of one of the Constitution’s vague penumbras.

Nov 12, 2008 - 6:12 pm 47. gcblues:

i am an atheist, i think the whole notion of god is stupid, i also think gay marriage is stupid.

just look in a mirror naked and the biological directive is clear. yes, homosexuality occurs normally in all species, so does a whole array of abnormalities. homosexual is biologically abnormal by definition and there is no positive reason for a culture to try to override or ignore biology. to ignore reality is simply stupid. innies are not for innies, outies are not for outies. there is no need to take direction from some jesus freak to see the obvious. religion is not relevant to any civil matter. duh.

Nov 12, 2008 - 7:37 pm 48. LiVon:

Leigh Thelmadatter
Denial of ability has to rest on a valid reason. Denial of marriage against relatives is based on biology.

Along this line of reasoning, denial of same-sex marriage can also be based on biology because same sex couples cannot procreate. I might also add denial of marriage can also be based on health. After all, homosexual behavior is one of the main causes of HIV, leading to AIDS. According to the CDC website’s data for 2006, of 973,354 cases of AIDS in 2006, 81% were in males & 59% of cases in males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Check it out: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/index.htm.

Society as a whole has taken a united stand against smoking as a behavior because it is known to be a main contributor to lung cancer. I think we can rationalize this to apply that homosexual sex is unhealthy behavior. The Zombie Up-Your-Alley event in San Fran is proof of their narcissistic & hedonistic behavior.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:30 pm 49. LiVon:

Boris, consider yourself lucky you live in the good ole US of A. As a homosexual in a Muslim country, sexual orientation alone makes one eligible for death penalty by stoning. I do not hate Muslims, just totally reject their close mindedness towards those who do not share their religion & culture.

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:46 pm 50. Battlecat:

Gays and lesbians have become complacent, believing that civil rights progress is both linear and inevitable. Prop 8 was a wake up call to this complacency.

I went to the protest rally at the Mormon church in New York City tonight, and turnout was massive. Further rallies are set to take place in cities all over the country this Saturday.

If a proposition banning interracial marriage were to pass, would this be the democratic ‘will of the people’? Could we ban Mormons from marrying one another with a democratic proposition? Or is democracy more than a majority vote? Doesn’t democracy protect the rights of minorities? Why do we protect civil rights for some, but not for others?

Nov 12, 2008 - 8:59 pm 51. gcblues:

gee battlecat. thanks for the help. try a black babtist church neck. afterall the black community despises you. people like you give us hope that politics will swing right again sooner rather than later.

Nov 12, 2008 - 10:37 pm 52. Leigh Thelmadatter:

LiVon… I see your point… but what I meant by biology is that sex between close relatives carries a great risk of children with birth defects…which can burden society. Gays do not procreate and given that there are 6 billion or so on the planet, I dont see that as a burden on society.

Nov 13, 2008 - 7:48 am 53. A Clay:

Gay marriage will be legal. It will become legal faster if addressed appropriately by the legislature and the voters, rather than the courts. I believe that enough people were put off by the power grab by the Supreme Court and the condescension of the likes of the Gavin Newsome to vote for 8 even though they ultimately favor gay marriage. I am one of them.

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:04 am 54. susan:

Mentally challenged boris:

“Do you hate homosexuals as much as you hate Muslims? Care to weigh in on Mexicans and the mentally disabled?

BTW, I am still laughing at you for thinking that a comedy site’s news story about the KKK supporting Obama was real.”

Have you looked at those photos? it was a pissing contest (on each other), that’s why I thought it was your ideal rally. I truly see you engaging in deviant and degrading behaviours.

Mexicans i have no opinions and mentally disabled even if I count you as one, no, I do not hate them.

And yes I am laughing too because it is true that KKK endorsed Zerobama, as I already posted back then.

But here’s again and with it the taste of your smelly foot in your mouth.

Obama is proud to have received the endorsement of America’s senior KKK politician.

Democrat Robert “Sheets” Byrd, as President pro tempore of the United States Senate, is third in line (after Cheney and Pelosi) for the presidency of the United States.

You really love to always make an a$$ of yourself, don’t you? What part of “America’s senior KKK politician” don’t you understand toilet Boris?

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:35 am 55. Craig:

Liberals raging? NO! I’m shocked I tell you…shocked.

Nov 13, 2008 - 11:34 am 56. on2ndthought:

“The prohibition against gay marriage is purely on religious basis.”

Not true. The basis is society’s interest in promoting a healthy, stable environment in which to raise children. You see what a disaster divorce is; why would we want to compound THAT?

Nov 13, 2008 - 1:57 pm 57. schnargley:

I am enraged. Some are calling for the burning down of the churches. I am not. I am a moderate. We should just burn down those that advocated Prop 8.

And beat up cross-wielding grannies who attack us.

Nov 13, 2008 - 4:48 pm 58. Lark:

If marriage is a right rather than a social contract, the state, in allowing religious organizations to opt out of performing same-sex marriages, would be upholding a right while allowing a segment of the population to violate that right. Paradox, anyone?

Love the Canadian bandwagon argument.

Nov 13, 2008 - 7:19 pm 59. Laura H:

Marriage is not just about two people in love. It’s a social contract and institution for the protection of children, as well as for the promotion of a healthy society. Sociologists and psychologists agree that children need both a father and a mother for optimal development. While no law can guarantee that a father and mother will raise their children with perfect love, there should NEVER be a law that guarantees some unfortunate children MUST be deprived of the love of both a father and mother because they were adopted by a gay couple. Men and women are different and give different love and guidance to their children. Both are needed!

Nov 13, 2008 - 9:11 pm 60. Random Thoughts » Prop 8 and marriage: What’s in a name?:

[...] marriage between people of the same gender is a constitutional right. John Stephenson details the legal wrangling bound to occur over this measure.  I’m honestly having trouble understanding how anyone has [...]

Nov 13, 2008 - 11:06 pm 61. Denny:

Anyone remember the book “Animal Farm”? The whole point of the well funded, lawyer-driven gay agenda is to make gays “more equal” than the rest of us. They already have civil unions, calling it “marriage” is simply to eradicate the milleniums old Christian belief in marriage as the basic unit of society. Similar to the push to make America basically an explicitly secular country. Anything goes, without God-given rights, might makes right. Note the recent thuggery by gays, intimidation tactics by the left in general. Wake up and speak up, America!

Nov 14, 2008 - 7:21 am 62. David:

Hi,

This isn’t just about discrimination, bigotry, or hate. The people that voted yes have real concerns about the legal implications of gay marriage, that don’t necessarily come from hatred of gay people. Many that voted yes didn’t vote to stop gay people from marrying- they voted against state law interfering with their churches and schools. You might not agree with them, but you need to really think about what discrimination means.

I asked some “yes on 8″ people about their reasons for voting that way. Take a few minutes to listen to why people disagree with you. I posted the interviews here: http://www.discovertheuser.com/prop8

Nov 14, 2008 - 8:09 am 63. Kurt:

I thought conservatives were opposed to the concept of mob rule. We’re a republic, not a democracy. Etc.

I guess I was wrong.

Nov 14, 2008 - 4:17 pm 64. Women hear me roar:

Was it Justice Roberts who was maligned because he didn’t want to take his children to disneyland during “gay week”? Well, if you even look at the censured version you would know why. It’s disgusting! They can do what they want in the privacy of their homes… I can’t even imagine taking anyone let alone children into such a den. Too bad he didn’t have these pictures to pass around in the senate committee (but then maybe barney would get off on it).
What a world we live in!

Nov 15, 2008 - 10:07 am 65. Robert Little:

the sodom and gomorrah outcry is loud and their sin is very grievous. I will now go down and see whether their behaviour is like the outcry that has reached Me; and if not, I will know

Nov 16, 2008 - 1:41 pm 66. Maria:

“consider how you would feel if the government dictated who you could marry. How would you feel about such an intrusion into a very personal decision?”

The State already dictates who can marry, by virtue of age laws (minors cannot consent) and relation closeness (brother and sister, 1st cousins, etc, cannot marry.) The reasons are based on health, especially where it relates to procreation. This is a vital key, as it is focused on the purpose. When children are born, marriage defines paternity in many states. If you redefine the parameters of marriage, you affect the purpose. If a child is born to a partner of a same sex couple (one partner as both cannot create a biological child together), marriage of same sex couples could then, by definition, eliminate the rights of the other biological parent, by declaring the other same sex partner as the legal parent. This also infringes on the rights of the child, as each person has a right to have knowledge of both parents. THIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE!!! If a child never knows of his other parent, they could stumble into a sexual relationship with a half sibling, inadvertantly. This is why many recipients of sperm donation have begun to seek out the other children of the same sperm donor. Do you have any idea of the genetic anomolies that occur from a sibling sexual relationship?

Consequently, understanding marriage is a matter of understanding its purpose in society. Go to http://www.usconstition.org and search on marriage. It explains the history of marriage. It will answer a number of questions. Marriage is a right…but it is a right for the sake of the children produced by that union, not solely for the two parties. To ignore this important purpose redefines the fabric of society.

Nov 17, 2008 - 2:50 am 67. Berlet98:

PROP 8 UPDATE: HOMOSEXUALS RESORT TO (MORE) THREATS OF VIOLENCE

“Burn in hell.” “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.” “I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi’s [sic] in the newspaper….Don’t worry though, we have plans for you and your friends.”

The above are just a few of the threats received by supporters of last November’s Proposition 8 in California as reported by CNSNews.com: http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=41735.

The reader may recall that Prop 8 was a proposal to amend California’s Constitution to protect and insure the sanctity of marriage with these 14 words: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Amazingly, especially for liberal Californians, the measure passed resoundingly by a margin of almost 600,000 votes, or 52.3 % to 47.7%.

(Lest anyone think the Left-Coasters were in a Yea-happy, conservative mood on November 4th, five other propositions went down to defeat of the twelve on the ballot, including Proposition 4 which would have mandated parental notification before aborting a minor’s baby and Prop 5, designed to beef up law enforcement: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm.)

That should have been it, right? The people had spoken, loudly and unambiguously through a fair and valid constitutional initiative and voted against homosexual marriage in the state of California. Unfortunately, that did not put an end to the controversial movement to permit same sex couples to marry; it was just the beginning.

Immediately following passage, gays took to the streets to protest the measure, protests which are entirely legal and permissible in our great country. What wasn’t legal and permissible was the nature of those protests, detailed previously here in various articles, including this piece which recounts the despicable abuse of straight rights in the name of gay rights: http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=645….

(Read the rest of this article at http://genelalor.com/.)

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:43 pm

Write a Comment

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