87 Comments

1. Mike Silverman:

It’s nice to read some good news

I think at this point letting states decide is the best way to go.

As a supporter of gay marriage, it distresses me to know that most states will decide to ban gay marriage, but it heartens me to know that a few forward looking states will legalize marriage or civil unions. Over the years, more states will gradually follow.

This is the bargain I would offer the anti-gay marriage folks:

We agree not to challenge DOMA in Federal Court or push for nationalizing same sex marriage, and you agree not to seek any Constitutional amendments on a Federal level dealing with marriage, or to interfere in individual states’ marriage decisions.

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:42 pm 2. flenser:

I have to say, the phrase, “gay rights” sets my teeth on edge. As does “eskimo rights” ,”afrrican american rights”, and “minority rights”.

People have rights. Individual people. As a group, all American citizens have rights. But I do not recognize the existence of any “group” rights, and the American system of law, properly understood, does not do so either.

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:44 pm 3. Mike Silverman:

“gay rights” is convenient shorthand for saying “equal rights under the law for individual American citizens who are gay”

After a while, typing the latter can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:52 pm 4. Roger:

What Mike Silverman said.

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:53 pm 5. flenser:

Mike

I’m not impressed with that offer. We currently are having gay marriage imposed by judicial fiat. You propose that this continue to be allowed, where it is currently happening, and by implication, that the SCOTUS eventually impose it nationwide, under the full faith and credit clause. Very generous of you.

Some people seem to have retained the bad habits they picked up while Democrats.

But that segues into a discussion of the mindset of “the left” that is still in our future.

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:54 pm 6. flenser:

Mike

I see.

And “”equal rights under the law for individual American citizens who are gay” is shorthand for what?

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:56 pm 7. R C Dean:

I second flenser’s comments. Terminology is destiny in political discourse, and by saying “gay rights” we are implying that gay people have rights other people do not.

If you doubt that the use of “gay rights” terminology could possibly lead to special pleading on behalf of the gay community, consider the quota system that resulted from affirmative action, the speech restrictions that arose from anti-discrimination law, the demands for reparations, and hate crimes legislation. We are moving away from, not toward, a color-blind community, and I for one am sorry to see it happen.

As for the marriage kerfuffle, I don’t really have strong views one way or the other.

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:56 pm 8. Knucklehead:

This is not a “gay rights” issue. It is an issue about whether legislatures or courts have jurisdiction over what marriage is or isn’t. I favor legislative decision, preferrably at the state level. Then we need to figure out “full faith and credit” since various legislatures will decide differently. I, for one, am sick of judicial fiat in the name of “rights”.

Aug 24, 2004 - 2:57 pm 9. R C Dean:

Make that, I second flenser’s initial comments, and Silverman’s process preferences. The two are perfectly compatible if (and this remains to be seen) the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not read to override state laws that do not recognize gay marriage.

Aug 24, 2004 - 3:02 pm 10. Roberts:

As above, in the case of Massachusetts, we didn’t have a “state” deciding the issue of gay marriage – we had a judiciary decide it and override the ability of the state to decide the question using a flagrantly dishonest reading of a state constitution.

Aug 24, 2004 - 3:33 pm 11. Sandy P:

Its’ not equal rights, it’s special rights.

And CNN can pit C against B, I don’t care, B thru it back to where it was supposed to be in the first place, the states.

That’s the only way to amend the Constitution.

Now if MS would agree to “civil unions” it could be faster than this route.

Aug 24, 2004 - 3:38 pm 12. Sandy P:

–That’s the only way to amend the Constitution.–

Which ain’t gonna happen, look at the ERA amendment. Still waiting.

Aug 24, 2004 - 3:40 pm 13. bdog57:

Much like the Swiftvets and JFK2, the push for SSM won’t be acknowledged and resisted by Americans until it becomes an “issue” that they must deal with every day. This hesitance on the part of the public to engage the subject has been mistakenly read by SSM supporters as tacit approval of SSM. Not so. Missouri and all of the states which are including a ballot-measure to ban SSM in their state constitutions attest to the fact that the idea of widespread SSM is not popular with a large majority of Americans.

“Gay rights” is a fraud. Gay privileges is what they are after.

Look for an amendment to SSM to pass when this does reach the SCOTUS. People don’t like being tweaked with (substitute appropriate synonymous verb for tweaked)….and tweaking with people is the only way these folks know how to get their way.

Aug 24, 2004 - 4:07 pm 14. M. Simon:

Cheney made Brokaw tonight. Seemed angry at Bush for the gay marriage bit.

You go Richard.

The Republicans have a plan:

Nationalize the American Flag

Nationalize Marriage

Nationalize what kinds of pain relief people may use.

Well at least they get the war right.

Aug 24, 2004 - 4:20 pm 15. holdfast:

Let’s not forget the rest of the Drudge report:

Cheney then went on to blast the courts for interfering in the matter and not allowing for the states to decide the issue:

“I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved. The courts were making the judgment for the entire country.”

I totally agree with Cheney. If gay marriage (”GM”) is imposed by judicial fiat, we’ll be arguing about it for the next 30 or 50 years (see abortion), whereas if it is brought in through legislation, it might take five or so years, but the vast majority of Americans, even those who oppose it, will go along in the end (see Civil Rights Acts). Yes, I know that there was Brown v. Board and there’s still a klan- but the gist of Brown and other decisions were ratified by the Congress in the Civil Rights Acts. That’s important – America is a democracy. When an issue comes up, it’s debated and then people vote, either directly or for representatives who campaign on the issue. The winners are supposed to be gracious and the losers are supposed to accept the will of the majority and make the best of it.

In many ways this is moe about a feeling of enfranchisement, rather than the reality of it. Peope, especially the people who ultimately lose the argument, need to feel like they were given a hearing, that their voices and thoughts mattered. When something is decided in the USSC, expecially social issues and matters touching on faith and morality, people feel disenfranchised. That leads to rifts in society, and insoluble issues like abortion. Continental Europe, which is inarguably more liberal that the US, has far more restrictive abortion laws about late term abortion than does the US – why? Because in the US the issue is treated as the ultimate litmus test and lodestone – and woe betide any from either camp who might stray from the orthodoxy. As a result, instead of the reasonable limits that many European states place on abortion, America has anarchy and endless political warfare. I know so many women who are otherwise essentially neocons, but will NEVER vote Republican (except for Mayor) because they are utterly convinced that the religious right wants to control her uterus – and let’s face it, there are some in the Republican party who do.

Let’s please not do this with GM. Let’s start with civil unions at the state level. I beleive that this would attract pretty widespread support. Most Americans really do believe in fairness and equality – and that’s how the issue must be framed. Not as “give me a RIGHT” but rather, “I’d like to enjoy the same rights you do, and by the way, it’ll be good for society in the long run.”

A few years later, Vermont or Mass will introduce true GM, and it will spread with relatively little opposition. Speaing for myself, I’d probably either support it or remain neutral – haven’t quite decided yet, but I would bitterly oppose the imposition of GM by the judiciary.

The Lefties go to the courts when they know that their ideas are opposed by the majority (often with good reason, though not always), when they’re too lazy to convice all those rubes and bumpkins who should really just shut up and accept the wisdom of their betters. Basically they don’t want to do the hard work of democracy.

Aug 24, 2004 - 4:21 pm 16. Jay Rice:

This isn’t a civil rights issue. Bdog57 is right. It’s not gay rights either. It’s privilege and the desire for judicially-granted legal recognition to bypass public scrutiny. States legislatures won’t enact such laws. They know they are unpopular.

Marriage is a rite. Most people, even the minimally religious and the non-religious marry in churches. If gays want a marriage right – call it what it is – a legal union. The road activists want to travel, though, is to declare marriage a legal right for all, then compel a religious sanction of it or have churches risk being legally prevented from performing any marriages unless they agree to marry gays as well.

It would be the end of marriage as a rite. It’s what the activists want.

Aug 24, 2004 - 4:27 pm 17. JB:

Sorry to say this, but at the bottom of it the argument for gay marriage is based on little more than special pleading and a veiled threat of “if you disagree you’re a homophobic redneck bigot.”

There’s no there there. It’s mindless PC.

Aug 24, 2004 - 4:33 pm 18. Terrye:

I heard Cheney speak on this and I got the impression that he felt the issue had been forced on the president.

Cheney says he supports allowing ther states to make the decision but does not support the courts acting without consent of the governed.

Aug 24, 2004 - 4:58 pm 19. Joe Schmoe:

The idea that gay people want “special priviliges” simply isn’t true. No one is calling for that, and with respect, I think the oppoents of gay marriage are simply making it up.

“Special privilges” means affirmative action hiring quotas; government set-asides; special preferences in college admissions, etc.

I have not seen one gay activist call for these things. Nor do I think they are planning to call for them later, but are keeping quiet about it now for tactical reasons.

From what I can see, a disproportionate number of gay people are fairly well-educated, successful, and financially well off. They just aren’t intersted in a government check or the fast track to a job at the post office.

What they are really looking for in the gay marraige debate is (a) to be treated like everyone else, and (b) an official affirmation of their sexual preference and lifestyle.

That said, I agree with most of the criticims of the road to gay marriage. I support gay marriage. While I think the question of gay sexuality is much more complicated than the gay rights groups would like to admit (just ask Gov. McGreevy’s wives and daughters…) there is simply no denying that there are some people who are gay by nature. I really wish some of the anti-gay marriage people would admit this, BTW. Yes, for some people (perhapse even the majority), gay sexuality is a choice. But for some people it isn’t. We’ve all had a friend or relative who is just plain 100% gay. It seems needlessly cruel to deny them the pleasures of marriage and family. And they should not have to hide who they are.

But the quest for gay marraige has taken a terrible turn. If we are going to have gay marraige, it should be after a national debate and a vote. That’s not the way it is playing out; this is judicial activism, plain and simple. And it’s frightening. A bunch of unelected judges should be a little hesistant to tinker with the very foundation of our socieity, an institution which has endured for millenia. But instead, they’re jumping right in and forcing gay marriage on the public. This is bad. Most people could probably be won over to the idea of civil unions, given time. But the left won’t wait, and the courts are willing to try to impose something that the majority of people don’t want. It’s not surprising that a backlash is forming.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:15 pm 20. Mark Poling:

Marriage does confer certain priveleges and obligations on the partners involved. Assumption of insurance benefits, shared debt responsibilities, etc. Matters of faith aside, there exist economic consequences in instituting gay marriage.

Let the states decide.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:22 pm 21. M. Simon:

flenser,

The Republicans are aching for a purge. They are sensible enough to wait til after 2 Nov.

Purity is becoming more important than winning.

It is as I have forseen. 16May’03 WoC.

This election cycle will see the destruction of both parties.

bdog57 – given the “liberal” nature of American politics in the long run – the enfranchisement and normalizing relations with all the population subgroups – you remember, blacks, women, Jews, Catholics, etc. Gays are just next on the list. Too bad.

Once we get that settled we can deal with users of unapproved drugs.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:27 pm 22. Mike Silverman:

Guess what, I am not going to pretend gay marriage is the most popular issue in the word, although I find it ironic that so many people here seem to think unpopular equals “wrong.”

If gay marriage becomes supported by 50% plus one person some day in the future, will all of you who oppose SSM now suddenly change your mind because it is “popular?”

Three more comments:

1. I would be willing to accept Civil Unions instead of marriage…as long as the civil rights are the same, I could care less what word is used. My friends, my family, and God consider me married, I could really care less what word Uncle Sam wants to use as long as I am treated equally.

2. While big M marriage has not yet passed legislatively, several states have passed domestic partnership and civil union laws legislatively…I want someone to tell me why the federal government has a right to butt in and tell a state that it cannot pass a domestic partnership or civil union law?

3. Let’s face the facts here: judges make political decisions every day. Law via Judicial fiat is not something new, but happens hundreds of times a year…and almost always passes with little objection….yet all the sudden when gay people are the beneficiary of this, the bigots run to the barricades. Mostof the objection to SSM can be explained purely by animus — that is a fancy word for hatred — of gay people. “Judicial tyranny” is just a convenient club to gay-bash with.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:32 pm 23. JK Ribera:

I am surprised at the intolerance of some people on here. Joe Schmoe above is, of course, correct when he says that most in the gay movement seek equality, not special privileges. I live in Chicago, many gay people, and most are living perfectly normal bourgeois lives. They are entitled to the same respect and privileges as the rest of us, in my opinion. And, yes, this must be done in a legal matter, not by the courts.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:33 pm 24. flenser:

Joe

“And they should not have to hide who they are.”

This seems a little romantic. We all have to hide who we are, some times and some places. It’s what allows people to live in society together.

I mean, try being a Republican in Manhattan. In order to live and work with these people you have to keep your views to yourself. Here the gays are “out” and the conservatives are in the closet.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:34 pm 25. flenser:

Mike

“If gay marriage becomes supported by 50% plus one person some day in the future, will all of you who oppose SSM now suddenly change your mind because it is “popular?”

No Mike. We will accept the law, because that is how our system of govenence works. By definition something that is unpopular is not going to last very long.

“I find it ironic that so many people here seem to think unpopular equals “wrong.”"

I have not seen a single person here make this argument, Mike, which seems to be a textbook example of a strawman. The overwhelming sentiment seems to be outrage at the way the decision is being made without “the consent of the governed”, a phrase I would hope you are familar with.

If the advicates of gay marriage can win popular backing for their position, and can enact laws, through the legislature, then more power to them.

They do not have the right to force these laws down everyone elses throat via the mechanism of the courts. Nor do they have the right to impugn the moral character of their opponents, a tactic of the left that is WAY overdue for retirement.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:47 pm 26. Knucklehead:

Mike Silverman,

Mostof the objection to SSM can be explained purely by animus — that is a fancy word for hatred — of gay people. “Judicial tyranny” is just a convenient club to gay-bash with.

That is a bigotted statement. You have no hope of understanding why there is opposition to SSM, or making SSM a reality, if you dig your heels in there.

If you are a troll, well, then you deserve the hammering you get. If you are sincere, you need to learn to come to grips with your own bigotries.

Aug 24, 2004 - 5:52 pm 27. Eric Deamer:

flenser:

We’ve had this argument a zillion times on this site, and the points you’re raising we’re raised every time (and much more convincingly), and many of them were refuted. Also, the anti-gay marriage spokespeople brought up some much more intelligent points in those debates. The bottom line is: Roger, Mike, and I and a handful of other people who post here regularly favor gay marriage, the vast majority of posters here don’t. The argument usually comes down to my “side” feeling that our morals and character have been impugned and the other “side” feeling the same way as well. I could tell you exactly how this is going to play out. The terms “activist judges”, will be used, as well as “judicial fiat”, (already used) “secularism”, and, if jerry shows up, “post-modernism”.

Go on your merry way, with all this, all I have to add now is that you should be careful inassuming that anyone who supports gay civil marriage, or at the very least doesn’t approve of extraordinary measures such as amending the constitution to stop it, is on the political “left”.

And the Manhattan Republican example was really weak. I live in NYC too and have unpopular political opinions. Roger is out of step with the politics of his area too. It’s not that big a deal, and not at all comparable to what you’re comparing it to.

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:03 pm 28. Eric Deamer:

I used to spend all the day giving gay marriage opponents the benefit of the doubt and trying to come to grips with their arguments, but after putting forth all that effort, I have found the arguments to be weak. The vehemence with which they continue to raise these weak arguments leads me, I’m afraid, to Mike Silverman’s conclusion. Sorry Knucklehead. It’s much the same feeling I get when seeing the same lame anti-Iraq War argument raised for the zillionth time. Think how you would treat someone who came in spouting off year-old, already-refuted-umpteen-times anti-Iraq war propaganda?

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:09 pm 29. flenser:

Eric, your delusions of intellectual grandeur, while interesting, are not really germane to the discussion. If you feel that you have arguments to contribute, intelligent or otherwise, I suggest that you do so, and keep your attitude to yourself.

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:10 pm 30. ricpic:

“Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable”

This is a quote from The End Of Marriage In Scandinavia by Howard Kurtz.

Please, please read the article. You can access it simply by doing a google search for End Marriage Scandinavia.

Same sex marriage is an assault on the institution of marriage. If we allow ourselves to be terrorized into acquiescence in the equality of same sex marriage with marriage between a man and a woman we are agents in the suicide of our own society.

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:11 pm 31. Eric Deamer:

ricpic:

Um, that’s Stanley Kurtz, the anti-gay marriage crusader, not Howard Kurtz, the media columnist for the Washington Post.

Anyway, I forgot to add that someone would bring up Kurtz’s lame, debunked-a-million-times-over social “science”, and, like clockwork, someone has. It’s sad to see conservatives embracing such crackpot, junk scholarship.

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:20 pm 32. flenser:

Knuck

Kids. [shrug] Wadda you gonna do?

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:41 pm 33. ricpic:

In a nutshell SS marriage speeds the dissolution of the institution of marriage by decoupling the concept of marriage from parenthood.

If, in more and more people’s minds, marriage is about an individuals fulfillment in union with another individual and less and less about the procreation AND PROTECTION of children then the very raison d’etre of marriage is radically weakened.

More and more people cohabit, procreate, AND DO NOT STAY TOGETHER.

Result: more and more psychologically and physically damaged children.

But then, if children are just an impediment to self-actualization………….

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:48 pm 34. Mike Silverman:

If you are a troll, well, then you deserve the hammering you get. If you are sincere, you need to learn to come to grips with your own bigotries.

Hardly a troll. Been here since day one. Just ask Roger.

I generally do not post for the sake of hearing my own voice, though.

I find it mildly amusing when I am acused of being bigoted — towards bigots!

If that is the charge, then I plead guilty.

I am also guilty of not tolerating intolerance, whether that intolerance comes from islamofacists, silly anti-semitic leftists, or anti-gay bigots.

…Nor do they have the right to impugn the moral character of their opponents

I am all aware that “good people may disagree” but on some issues the room for granting one’s opponent the benefit of the doubt is awfully low. When I argue with an anti-Israel troll somewhere, maybe someone who trots out the same tired arguments about evil Zionists or Palestinian “freedom fighters” I do not give that person much benefit of the doubt. I might grant AT BEST that my opponent is more ignorant then hateful…but if they insist on mouthing the same arguments, any small amount of goodwill I have goes down the drain. Same goes when I deal with anti-gay people.

Sure, I am aware that my pro-equality-for-gays view is the MINORITY here…then again, if I go to a college campus and argue for a strong Israel and America, I am in the minority there too…but I am just as right.

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:53 pm 35. asher813@aol.com:

Roger, this is great news.

Aug 24, 2004 - 6:59 pm 36. Roger:

ricpic, I would like to point out to you that as the father of a gay son, I have observed quite the reverse of what you say. Many gay people I know wish to marry primarily so they can adopt. It’s a rather conventional instinct in the end, although that might surprise you, the very opposite of the cliche of gay licentiousness. My six-year old daughter has a classmate with gay parents (men in their fifties). They have adopted two kids from foster homes who otherwise might not have had any kind of family life. As far as I can tell, they are excellent parents. You don’t have to believe me, of course. And maybe you won’t.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:00 pm 37. Darleen:

I should probably put the disclaimers upfront first. I’m for civil unions for same-sex couples. I believe this issue is as contentious as the abortion one, with each side shouting past each other. Generally, gays are not out to destroy marriage and straights are not out to murder gays.

That said, I support a state initiated contract law that would define civil unions. I have heard, and agree with many of the reasonable arguments for allowing same-sex couples to have a default set of contract laws covering their union.

But there are many good and reasoned arguments to continue, even in the most minute of instances, to treat opposite sex couples as different from same sex couples. And the basis of that is the fact that the genders themselves are different. This is not a “PC” stance, but it is one based in reality. Men and women are not interchangeable.

Disagree with him as you will, but Dennis Prager offers up thoughtful objections to same-sex marriage.

IMO, my problem is not with the goal of a civil union, but with the argument that marriage is a “right” based on “I have a right to marry the person I love.” Do go a look at any Family Code, and no where will you see “love” as a precondition of marriage.

I’m not trying to be flip, but as a woman when I hear the “marriage as a right because it is about ME ME ME” what I see is the door tossed open for one of the most historically exploitive “relationships” around…polygamy.

In our society today, there are many people who love each other, live together, and cannot, for many reasons, legally marry. The government is not interferring in those relationships, as is proper. I just wish that many supporters of same-sex marriage would see that just because they can’t “marry” that doesn’t make it the equivilent of AshKKKroft knocking down the front door and dragging people off to prison.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:00 pm 38. flenser:

You’ve gotta be cruel to be kind.

“Roger is out of step with the politics of his area too. It’s not that big a deal, and not at all comparable to what you’re comparing it to.”

From a certain self styled curdudgeon’s website;

“And, these enlightened urban hipster types in their ignorant hatred of Republicans/conservatives couldn’t possibly have anything in common with these violent anti-Semites in San Francisco and Wellington could they? Naaaaaa.

One of the comments at Karol’s site was:

Closet-Republican myself. Went to a concert the other day where the performer took some not-very-subtle jabs at the evil, un-elected President. The audience roared with approval. I felt like a black guy hiding under a white hood at a Klan rally. Hiding your Republican-ness and smiling at anti-Bush jokes is almost a reflexive survival instinct when rolling in some “enlightened,” “tolerant” circles.

I don’t think it’s time for us to hide though. History has shown that people with that special “tolerant” mind-set eventually come after all the people they hate, no matter what.”

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:02 pm 39. Mike Silverman:

I just wish that many supporters of same-sex marriage would see that just because they can’t “marry” that doesn’t make it the equivilent of AshKKKroft knocking down the front door and dragging people off to prison.

You are right, it is not the same.

The government doesn’t recognize my marriage.

On the lists of historic wrongs, that is not quite the same as Auchwitz, or even (for the most part) Jim Crow.

But it is still wrong, and it still hurts, and it still seems to me that I am not equal under the law as an American citizen, even though I was born here and will die here.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:14 pm 40. holdfast:

Mike Silverman:

I know that you are not a troll – you are, however, needlessly alienating people who are genuinely sympathetic to your cause but also care about long-term effects instead of short term gain. America really does not need another societal scab to pick at for the next 30 years.

Unfortunately, the SSM issue has gotten tangled up in a larger conservative reaction to unfettered judicial activism – and no, judges don’t “make law” every day – they interpret the law, and occasionally polish or sand down the edges. They make law fairly rarely, but when they do, it tends to be pretty important, and the effects far-reaching.

I think that enshrining a hetero definition of marriage in the various state constitutions is a terrible idea – but if activists keep trying to short-circuit the legislative process it will become more and more common. I am almost certain that SSM will become a reality within our lifetimes, but the way that it comes about is extremely important, though you obviously don’t see it that way.

Oh, and in my office in NY there are far more out gays than out conservatives. I realise that midtown Manhattan is certainly not the coutry, but you would NEVER hear a gay joke in our office, but you hear plenty odf nasty comments about republicans, and it is very clear that the only safe response both career-wise is to nod and smile.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:16 pm 41. flenser:

Mike

“The government doesn’t recognize my marriage. …. it is still wrong, and it still hurts,”

I am sorry you feel that way. The solution is for you to convince people that this is wrong, and change the law, via the legistlative process.

The solution is NOT to have some judge somewhere make the law, or overturn one made by the people.

Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease. You will be in far more danger in a country where the law is made by a handful of unaccountable men than you are in America as it is at present. The Jews in Russia were enthusiastic supporters of the soviet revolution. They paid for it with their lives.

Of course, nothing like that could ever happen here.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:32 pm 42. RogerA:

This is a wonderful thread–clearly the issue of Gay Marriage is a genuine heart felt position–I am reminded of an old adage about values vs facts–we can agree on facts; but values, that is, what ought to be, is something that cannot be right or wrong–it is, simply, what is. I have always regarded myself as a conservative in the Burkean sense. I do believe that the institution of marriage has some very fundamental biological issues devolving to it in its favor–yet, I have known too many gay people and recognize their genuine devotion to each other. Ultimately, I come down in favor of gay marriage–they are human beings who deserve the protections of the state in their relationships.

Yes–I understand all the reasons why gay marriage may NOT be appropriate–and I understand the arguments about activists courts–but fundamentally I see the issue as one of human dignity and freedom. This is my value judgment–you have presented the arguments pro and con, but ultimately this is a value judgment which cannot be “right” or “wrong.” I ask only that you respect that.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:47 pm 43. Darleen:

Mike

You still haven’t explained why it is “wrong.” Why are marriage contractual statutes any different than landlord/tenent, business/customer statutes?

Stop for a moment about yourself and look that marriage, as a contractual institution, is more than just you and your feelings, it is about how the society you live in functions.

There is a passel of polygamous marriages out in the hinterlands of Utah that don’t have government sanction either, and they “love” as much as you do.

You are going to have to come up with a far better argument than “feelings” and ad homenim attacks on people who don’t want to redefine marriage if you want to convince the people that the marriage contract should include you.

And I say this as someone who thinks civil contracts should be extended to SS couples! But I also don’t pretend that SS couples are the same as OS couples.

“Wants” are not “rights” and I’m so friggin tired of having to argue that over and over again.

Aug 24, 2004 - 7:53 pm 44. flenser:

RogerA

I respect your position. If you feel that gay marriage should be legal, I encourage you to fight for it.

But I urge you to do so within the constitutional framework of American government. This country is already split and divided enough. Another “Roe v Wade” type decision is not what we need.

So press for gay marriage, if that is what your conscience tells you. But reject this idea of using the courts to obtain it.

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:00 pm 45. Mike Silverman:

I am sorry you feel that way. The solution is for you to convince people that this is wrong, and change the law, via the legistlative process.

I know, as a simple matter of fact, that it is much more preferable to enact change (with regard to same sex marriage) via the legislative, rather then judicial process. A well-fought legislative victory is much more secure then a court-mandated change and has more legitimacy.

That being said, I am put in a very difficult position, because my preferred method of change has gotten “short-circuited” via the judicial system. I am basically backed into a corner and forced to argue in favor of a less-then-desireable “fact on the ground” (judicially mandated SSM) because the alternative (the FMA) is much much worse.

It is kind of interesting, because neither side ought to really want a fight over same sex marriage now — the fight is bad for the proponents because we are striking before our support has solidified, and as such we will lose if this is voted on, and it is bad timing for opponents, because being stridently against same-sex marriage makes you look intolerant and backwards. How is this for irony…both Bush and Kerry agree on one issue — they both wish same sex marriage would go away and not be heard from again at least until after the election!

I am reminded of the Battle of Gettysburg in the Civil War. Both sides were maneuvering around and neither side wanted a full-scale battle at that time and place. There would have been no battle there, but for the fact that a Confederate raiding party ran into a Union guard and skirmished. From this, the battle developed into history. The reason the Conferate raiding party was out and about? They were looking for shoes!

Yet, although neither side wanted the battle, once it started, you had to fight it. Sadly, I think that is what is happening with same sex marriage, for people on both sides of the issue.

TO try to keep the conflict at least to a low simmer instead of a boil, we need a way to insure that any judicial activism is confined to a single state; where that state’s voters may choose to amend their own constitution if they think the justice system has gone too far.

On the other hand, the FMA is so over-reaching that it literally scares me to death as almost nothing else in politics ever has.

Right now I think the best solution for America as a whole (as far as preventing conflict goes) would be for the Supreme Court to uphold DOMA, while at the same time having the FMA fail to pass congress. This would solve two goals:

1) no state should be forced to recognize ssm if it doesn’t want to.

2) if a state does recognize ssm, that is that state’s business only.

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:41 pm 46. Eric Deamer:

This is absurd. “Judicial Activists” have played a huge part in ending segregation, among other legitimate civil rights achievements. The court system exists, in part, in order to protect the rights of minority or unpopular groups that would be deprived of those rights if everything were simply decided by a majority rules system. The legitimate argument is over whether gay civil marriage is or is not a legitimate civil right. One can think that the Massachusetts supreme court was wrong in deciding this question in the affirmative, but I don’t understand how they were being “activist” or ruling by “judicial fiat”. If questions of civil rights for minorities were decided by popular vote or by the legislature than the majority would never give them any.

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:44 pm 47. David C:

Constitutionally, I definitely fall on the “let the states decide for themselves” position, and as for policy, I lean toward being OK with gay marriage… but….

The devil is in the details, and my lawyer’s mind keeps seeing all sorts of potential tangential issues that I don’t see people thinking about as they rush forward.

For instance, the implicit public policy reason for marriage in general has always been to encourage procreation. Sure, it’s not *all* that, and plenty of marriages happen between people who, for whatever reason (age, physical problems, whatever) cannot actually procreate. Inability to have children is one of the traditional accepted grounds for divorce, for instance. But if that’s *not* ultimately to be the policy reason for having marriage, what is?

Is it just about institutionalized nooky? If not, is there any particular policy reason to disallow a same-sex marriage between two people who aren’t sleeping together, but just want, for whatever reasons, the contractual benefits of marriage? Any particular reason to disallow marriage between siblings? And what about, to take another of those tangents, immigration? If an American marries a foreigner, that pretty much gives the foreigner an automatic path to citizenship, which means we police “sham marriages” in that regard. But what would constitute a “sham” vs. a “real” same sex marriage?

I guess I lean most toward a well-defined “civil union” as opposed to marriage per se, mainly because of all the weird little tangential problems like this.

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:45 pm 48. M. Simon:

flensner,

It says in the Declartion that our rights precede government.

It says in IX and X that ours is a government of enumerated powers not of limits on citizens. XIV says essentially that states may not abrogate citizen’s fundamental rights.

Which is how the courts get into the act.

We have two competing Parties working to Nationalize America.

The right wants to nationalize morality. The left property.

Between the two the ordinary citizen doesn’t stand a chance.

I’d like to see government limited to keeping the peace. To make that possible people ought to mind their own business. Marriage in Jewish law is contract based. Government’s job should be enforcing contracts among the various parties involved. Period.

I do not see a problem. As long as people mind their own business.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:46 pm 49. richard mcenroe:

Roger & ed. ó Dudes, everyone knows Halliburton is a major outsourcer of gay-American jobs overseas!

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:48 pm 50. M. Simon:

David C,

There was a time when marriage was sole provenance of the church. Many people didn’t bother. Which is how common law marriage came into being.

Perhaps we ought to return to those thrilling days of yester year.

Every change causes problems.

I have faith that we can sort them out.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 24, 2004 - 8:52 pm 51. richard mcenroe:

Glib answer ó Hey, the French banned same-sex marriages, so how good can it be?

Stop’n'think answer:

Should gays have the right to declare each other heirs and beneficiaries. Of course. It’s their money. Why not?

Should gays have the right to establish relationships that qualify for the equivalent of family health plans. I say yes, but let’s not gloss over that there will be real costs and consequences for this. One of the leading gay groups lobbying for such status actually provided such benefits for its staff, only to have to drastically cut them back because of the expense. Is greater cost a valid objection to civil parity. I don’t think so, but let’s not gloss over the fact that the money has to come from somewhere.

Should gays have the right to be declared next-of-kin for such humanitarian purposes as hospital visits and medical decisions for the incapacitated? Of course. It’s their lives. Why not?

Should these legal relationships be defined as a marriage? *sucks teeth* Welllll….

The thing that I’m uncertain on about this is that by defining same-sex relationships as marriage by law, you are essentially redefining the marital relationships people are already in, in essense, renegotiating a contract married couples have already entered into between themselves. The Voting Rights Act, for example, did not fundamentally redefine the act of voting itself, and I’m not sure gay marriage legislation can make the same claim. I’d be interested to hear thoughts on why I’m mistaken.

This of course begs the question of whether individual churches will acknowledge such relationships.

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:08 pm 52. flenser:

Mike

“That being said, I am put in a very difficult position, because my preferred method of change has gotten “short-circuited” via the judicial system.”

What does this mean? How has it been “short-circuited” by the judicial system?

“being stridently against same-sex marriage makes you look intolerant and backwards”

To who? I’m glad people keep telling me that it’s possible to be pro-gay marriage and not be Left. Because otherwise, all this ” intolerant and backwards” crap might remind me of the language I hear from the left every day. Do you people have any actual arguments to make for your position, or are are you simply going to continue to call people names?

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:14 pm 53. Mike Silverman:

What does this mean? How has it been “short-circuited” by the judicial system?

The debate over same-sex marriage has been short-circuited/accelerated/changed (you pick the word) by the courts. It has forced people to act, and re-act. There isn’t as much time now for a slow thoughful building of support such as any major social change requires.

being stridently against same-sex marriage makes you look intolerant and backwards”

To who?

To most thinking people, I believe. To President Bush, who continuously couches his support of the FMA with urges to debate the issue with respect and to honor the dignity of gay Americans (I don’t know how possible this is in reality, but it says volumes that Mr. Bush is making such a request).

Or do you think that being militantly anti-gay marriage, and talking about people having sex with dogs (a la Senator Santorum) or whatnot somehow makes you look like the rational side of the debate?

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:28 pm 54. flenser:

Kid Curmugeon

See Sufferage, Womens, before you say that “the majority would never give them any rights”. Also, 1964 Civil Rights Act.

M Simon

“XIV says essentially that states may not abrogate citizen’s fundamental rights.”

Is there a “fundamental right” to marry another person of the same sex?

Which rights are “fundamental”? Is there a fundamental right to get high? To spit on the sidewalk? To watch porn? What makes them “fundamental”, and so means that the elected legislatures cannot pass laws on them? Bear in mind that “Congress shall pass no law .. abridging the freedom of speech” and yet we have McCain-Feingold. That “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and yet, they are infringed nonetheless.

Real rights are being trampled on, by exactly the kinds of judges you people are cheering for, as long as they allow you to indulge yourselves in childish pleasures.

“I’d like to see government limited to keeping the peace.”

Fine. But that will not produce gay marriage. We keep getting Big Government because we “need” it to “protect” various “minorities” against the evil majority.

In a world without an all poweful state, where decisions are made by individuals, gays will be shunned by the majority.

For those seeking to expand the power and reach of the state, Liberty is just as effective a cry as Equality. The libertarians, in their rush to be free, have embraced and expanded government far more than the conservatives ever have.

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:44 pm 55. flenser:

Mike, you have yet to even make an argument to try to justify your position. Please do not give me this patronzing twaddle about “thinking Americans”, or the “rational side of the debate”. I do not dislike you for being gay, but I do have a low tolerence for fools.

If you have a case to make, do so. The fact that you continue to engage in name calling instead makes it appear as if you HAVE no arguments.

The entire “pro gay marrige” case, as presented on this thread, seems to consist almost entirely of calling your opponents bigots. “Rational”, my ass.

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:54 pm 56. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I think that SSM should not be called marriage, because it isn’t. I’m one who looks to tradition, and nothing is a traditional and tradition related as marriage. I think it should be left as what it is.

That being said, same sex couples have valid issues to be addressed – such as medical rights, inheritance, etc. But there are also rights that I don’t think should accrue to same sex couples, including the right to acquire children. The issue of health benefits is to complex to get into here.

Many on the right believe that homosexuality is wrong, period. That’s just a fact – religious based usually.

My view is that there are people who are homosexual, who seem to have no choice, are hurting nobody and hence disapproving or condemning them in any way is both illogical and inhumane.

Also, let’s consider the difference between a state sanctioned union and one which is legal but not state sanctioned. Civil unions would seem to be the former, and offer all but the cachet of Marriage (and some associated benefits). Hence I favor them. There is nothing to prevent such unions from having all the trappings of a marriage except for a state issue marriage certificate.

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:54 pm 57. Sandy P:

Geez, how far have we come – or reversed?

I’m a tail-end boomer and it was de rigeur(?) to live together while growing up. Give those old establishment types – da man- hissy fits while thumbing your nose at tradition.

Now tradition is in, who would have thunk?

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:56 pm 58. Mike Silverman:

In a world without an all poweful state, where decisions are made by individuals, gays will be shunned by the majority.

This assumption by you speaks pretty much says it all.

You have certainly imagined a world created in your own image, I’ll grant you that.

Aug 24, 2004 - 9:56 pm 59. Mike Silverman:

Mike, you have yet to even make an argument to try to justify your position.

Here is my argument in favor os same-sex marriage, Reader’s Digest version:

When two people commit their lives to each other is is a Good Thing for the individuals and for society. When people commit their lives to each other — forming a family — many good things flow from this. Couple in committed relationships tend to be healthier; they tend to need social services less then single people. They contribute to the economic stability of their communities more then single people; they tend to buy their homes and improve their communities. They tend to rely on each other,rather then the government, for assistance in bad times. In addition to the positive effect on the individuals and society, committed relationships tend to be the best environment in which to raise children.

I believe the government should recognizes the salutary effect of committed relationships and provides a legal status for such couplings. I believe the government should RECOGNIZE what already EXISTS, for the good of those individuals, the family, and society.

(you’ll note this is an argument in favor of the government recognizing hetersexual relationships as well as gay relationships)

goodnight

Aug 24, 2004 - 10:09 pm 60. flenser:

“This assumption by you speaks pretty much says it all. You have certainly imagined a world created in your own image”

Mike, for crying out loud, this was the world before the sixties. It’s not my imagining. It was not “big governemt” keeping gays in the closet. It was the opinions of the majority of the people. The state was not throwing gays in jail, it was public pressure that was oppressing them. If you revealed you were gay, you boss could fire you, your landlord could kick you out. It was the Big Government that stepped in to the rescue. This is historical fact.

Can you point to a time when things were not as I have said they were?

(You know, I’m being a lot more patient with you than you deserve.)

Aug 24, 2004 - 10:14 pm 61. insatty:

I agree with the notion that the courts should bow out. The problem is the US Constitution’s full-faith-and-credit clause. One activist court decides the issue, and all states must fall in line.

Additionally, the militant gay activists insist on gay marriage, not to vindicate individual rights (because people are free to live together as marrieds anytime they wish), but to poke “the establishment” in the eye. On balance, therefore, I believe the status quo definition of “marrigage” should remain the status quo and the militants should take a hike. In the final analysis, the militants are imposing their values on others, not vice versa.

Aug 24, 2004 - 11:56 pm 62. asher813@aol.com:

What is “marriagage”?

Is it some type of mortgage?

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:44 am 63. Goof®:

In 1987, Barbara Jordan appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the confirmation of Robert Bork to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Part of her statement to the committee involved a very controversial decision of the Warren Court, Baker v. Carr.

During the questioning by Senators, Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH) concluded his remarks by telling her that she would have eventually been elected to the Texas Legislature absent Baker v. Carr. She stared at him in silence as she waited for Senator Thurmond (or Hatch) to recognize someone else.

I often think of that silent stare when reading the constant stream of complaints regarding judicial activism and usurption.

Lately, I’m reminded of it when reading that gays (as a group) are seeking some sort of “special” rights in seeking to “marry” within the legal definition of that word. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — nor deny to any person within its [any State] juristiction the equal protection of the laws) — makes, in my opinion, judicial review on the basis that laws defining marriage as the union of one man with one women discriminate against homosexuals permissable should the courts be inclined to take up the issue.

If they do, and decide to overturn the existing statutes, I’ll content myself with a silent stare when listening to or reading how this would have all happened anyway had the courts stayed out of it.

…

Roger, have a great time in New York. It should be a blast. In 2000, I was still in the Philadelphia area and I was working for a company you would have thought was sponsoring the RNC had you been anywhere near the First Union Center. There were plenty of protestors to go along with plenty of Republicans. It sounds like you’ll be seeing more protestors and fewer Republicans this time around.

…

69 days to go.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:48 am 64. bdog57:

Mike,

You need to get your story straight. You said I was not a Neanderthal, just mistaken the other day. Now you say I’m ignorant and bigoted, if not hateful.

Missouri just got through passing a state constitutional ban on SSM by 70%. Clearly, it’s not just “many on the right” -as Mr. Moore states- that feel that SSM/homosexuality is wrong. Oregon has a similar ban coming up as a ballot initiative in November. This initiative gained more signatures than any other petition in OR history. Ever. I have the sneaking suspicion that it will pass. This in Oregon, no less…not exactly Texas or Utah.

My point in mentioning all of these things is that this is an emotional issue for all, and your judgement of people being “wrong” is a values judgement based solely upon your values system. Someone already mentioned that we can agree on facts but values are nebulous. Thus, when you say that people are ignorant/bigoted on this issue, you assume that 70% of the population of Missouri (as well as large majorities elsewhere) are either a) ignorant of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle/worldview/experience -for good and ill or b) have come by their values dishonestly and are just plain mean. Do you really mean that? Regardless of whether you do or don’t, bringing this up will not win more converts to your cause.

People are reasonable and will accept SSM if it is passed through the proper legal channels (a.k.a. the legislative process). This does not mean that they will like it, just that they will accept it (I’ve made this same argument many times).

Roger,

I understand (somewhat) where you are coming from by mentioning your son. I personally do not believe that all homosexuals are morally depraved sociopaths out to destroy family values and society as we know it. I have worked with and even roomed with homosexuals. Almost all of these individuals were enjoyable to be around and generally decent human beings (only one was uniformly unpleasant -he also had the unfortunate tendency of eyeing me like a piece of meat, which didn’t exactly endear me to him). Gay people are people, too, which is the sticky part of this argument.

My values, however, tell me that homosexual behavior is wrong. Nevertheless, they also tell me that slighting someone because they are homosexual is also wrong. This is where many people who believe that homosexuality is wrong will be conflicted in terms of SSM. This is where you could do well in advancing your cause.

The anecdotal evidence you offer will resonate with many people. Many people know good, hardworking, decent gay people. If you desire to win converts to your cause, continue to offer up this type of argument. Acting as moral arbiter as you did in this post won’t help (re: the condescending as it should be). Ask yourself, “What would Ellen do?”

Of course, many of us will prefer actual research along the lines of Kurtz (Who has provided lengthy rebuttals to his detractors, Eric).

Another thing that won’t win you guys points is by saying that SSM is about acceptance. This, from what I’ve seen, is the primary argument for. Joe Schmoe even re-iterated it nicely:

What they are really looking for in the gay marraige debate is (a) to be treated like everyone else, and (b) an official affirmation of their sexual preference and lifestyle.

SSM proponents want to conflate (a) and (b). Ain’t gonna happen. People are a little too clever for that. Additionally, a large percentage of the population is actually fine with (a), but they still won’t see the need to legislate for it (ERA anyone?). Proposition (b) is just simply un-acceptable for way too many people. Derb succintly sums up the sentiment on this issue in one (sort of) word: eiuw.

Also when Eric says this:

This is absurd. “Judicial Activists” have played a huge part in ending segregation, among other legitimate civil rights achievements.

And Mike says this:

I am basically backed into a corner and forced to argue in favor of a less-then-desireable “fact on the ground” (judicially mandated SSM) because the alternative (the FMA) is much much worse.

You only confirm the worst fears of your opponents. That is, that you are willing to put ends above means. Don’t get me wrong: some of the outcomes of Brown v. Board were positive, but it set a bad legal precedent which anyone who is familiar with it truly despises. Speaking of bad legal precedent, can you say Roe v. Wade?

This is also the reason I oppose DOMA. It is, at its heart, unconstitutional. It clearly violates the full faith and credit clause and it should be stricken down.

Eric,

Why is it that when you say this:

We’ve had this argument a zillion times on this site, and the points you’re raising we’re raised every time (and much more convincingly), and many of them were refuted.

It makes me think of this?:

Today marks the end of the dishonest and disgusting smear campaign against John Kerry and his crewmates from Vietnam. This morning on the front page of the Washington Post, one of the central figures in the effort to distort John Kerry’s military service was completely discredited.

flenser makes my point in this post. As Roger (or Pirandello) would say,”it is so if you think so”.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:59 am 65. DennisThePeasant:

Holdfast to Silverman:

…you are, however, needlessly alienating people who are genuinely sympathetic to your cause but also care about long-term effects instead of short term gain. America really does not need another societal scab to pick at for the next 30 years.

Sorry Holdfast, in all matters I find your posts top notch, but I’m going to have to point out the trying to recast the process of participatory democracy as “picking at a societal scab” has just set off the ol’ Bullshit Meter.

Blessed with the form of government we have, participatory democracy attempting to deal with societal issues is by definition “picking a scab”. Emancipation, universal sufferage, and ending segregation could have each been characterized as “picking at a societal scab” in their respective days. That has nothing to do with the relative merit of each of those issues.

If you are alienated I doubt it is needlessly…I would suggest it is an integral part of the process of discharging some of the emotion surrounding an emotional issue. And discharging emotion is an integral part of arriving at consensus and compromise. In my own case, it took about five years for me to come full circle on this issue…and before I did, I was alienated by those I disagreed with. But I now recognize that was more about me than them.

If you oppose gay marriage for any of a thousand different reasons, that’s OK by me. But please, do not beg off the question by pleading that we do not need one more problem on our daily plate…that’s evasion by any other name.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:48 am 66. D Anghelone:

There was a time when marriage was sole provenance of the church. Many people didn’t bother. Which is how common law marriage came into being.

Perhaps we ought to return to those thrilling days of yester year.

You are the only one to have hit upon the real problem – we’ve allowed government to be what defines and determines marriage.

Get government out of the marriage business and the arguments above become nothing.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:00 am 67. Matt Evans:

I think alot of folks here are honestly missing the point. The majority of folks believe in leaving it up to the states- I’d say the majority of folks here believe that a Constitutional amendment SHOULD be unnecessary. Unfortunately, ask practically any liberal if THEY believe the state legislatures should make decisions on the issue of gay marriage and you’ll be lectured on the “tyranny of the majority”- why ? Because as it stands, the majority of states do not want and will not vote to allow gay marriage. I have been often lectured on this issue by liberals- in their minds, the people have no right to make this decision because gay marriage (under the guise of equal protection) is a “right”. They begin with a fundamentally flawed premise and then began railing against the way in which laws are changed- why ? Because this particular “law” is “wrong” and gay marriage is “right”. Then of course, I get the inevitable civil rights argument- that gays are akin to african americans and because I resist gay marriage, I must also be racist.

I’d be in favor of a referendum in every state to determine if its citizens want gay marriage and/or civil unions. There SHOULD be no need for a federal constitutional amendment and there SHOULD be no need for state constitutions to define marriage but until Courts stop making decisions for the people of their states, these amendments seem to be necessary.

Folks like Roger can spearhead movement towards gay marriage- one of the really wonderful things about having so many former libs joining moderate republicans in this election is that it gives the socially liberal the opportunity to engage in civil discourse with the socially conservative- they can say “look we have all this common ground on the WOT – lets see if we can find common ground on our other issues and solve some of the issues that divide this country”- but imho, this type of discourse will ONLY occur when the socially liberal understand that unlike their previous party, the default position is no longer that gay marriage is right (or A right). The socially liberal folks need to be ready to do this – but instead of devolving into ad hominem attacks of “racist” and “gay hater” so prevelant in the argument of the left, they should understand that any change in this area is going to be a slow process.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:21 am 68. too many steves:

Tangential to the SSM/Gay Rights debate, I liked this tidbit from the Cheney appearance:

Cheney says: “At this point, my own preference is as I’ve stated,” Cheney said. “But the president makes basic policy for this administration, and he’s made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue.”

Imagine that, adults can hold different opinions on a particular subject and, yet, still respect each other and work together.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:22 am 69. M. Simon:

Is there a “fundamental right” to marry another person of the same sex?

Since our rights are not enumerated they are esentially limitless.

Within the bounds of keeping the peace.

Now if I’m minding my own business what in the hell does what two people call their relations matter to me?

If you say special privlidges then I ask why does government give special privlidges to married people?

This whole bit is just an attempt by busybodies to mind other people’s business. Or as I prefer to call it:

The nationalization of morality.

Before marriage became a function of the state it was a function of the church. I’m a conservative. I say let us go back to the old ways.

I’m an American radical. I say government out of religion.

Take yer pick: conservative or radical.

So here we have it: is marriage an individual decision or a state decision? Being a liberal I am for indivildual liberty in the broadest possible expression.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:32 am 70. Mike Silverman:

Imagine that, adults can hold different opinions on a particular subject and, yet, still respect each other and work together.

I don’t see why this is so amazing. I work with people who are opposed to SSM in my job, and the job still gets done.

Ironically, this is the real definition of “tolerance” — putting up with someone, ignoring their gaddamn neanderthal opinions, and working together to get something more important done.

I imagine those on the other side feel the same way. They put up with my godless immoral opinions to get the job done!

The alternative, of course, is for us all to kill each other. Believe me, there are days when sometimes I think for half a second that it would be so damn nice to have it out — but the fact that I/we are adults means we don’t. We are a civil society.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:39 am 71. M. Simon:

Matt Evans,

The marriage of social liberals with hard core religious conservatives is a marriage of convenience. It will not out last the election. It will be over on 3 Nov.

Bush will win this election in a landslide.

Then he will have to deal with the RINOs and the libs in opposition.

I predicted this (as well as the Dem melt down) over at Winds of Change (guest blog) 16 May 03.

This discussion is more evidence that the future still conforms to my predictions.

The RR Republicans will form one party. The libertarian left and the RINOs another. I predict the RRR will be marginalized and ineffective; because of dogma they are too rigid to form lasting coalitions.

If you want to stay in power you got to make the RINOs happy. Keeping the Log Cabin Republicans out of the convention is a very dumb idea if you are trying to build a winning coalition. Well its your party and you can purge if you want to.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:43 am 72. Mike Silverman:

You need to get your story straight. You said I was not a Neanderthal, just mistaken the other day. Now you say I’m ignorant and bigoted, if not hateful.

Response 1 was by charitable, tolerant, and calm Mike.

Response 2 was by angry cultural warrior Mike.

The latter comes with green skin and bulging muscles, but usually results in a torn up shirt.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:49 am 73. Eric Deamer:

Re: The whole tolerance/bigotry issue.

It’s true that screaming “racism” or “bigot” or whatever is a cheap and sleazy way of cutting off debate; For instance, the way some “liberals” cry “racism” whenever anyone criticizes any aspect of affirmative action.

It’s equally true that reflexively claiming that this is what the other side is doing is a cheap sleazy rhetorical trick.

For instance, nowadays if you come across a fanatical Israel-basher who is up on his talking points he will say that any accusations of anti-Semitism are automatically without merit. The new theory is that no criticism of Israel, no matter how extreme can possibly be anti-Semitic. If you say otherwise you are merely being “politically correct” and are “trying to shut down debate.”

This is where a lot of the gay civil marriage debates go now too. Of course, not everyone who opposes gay marriage to one degree or another is a bigot, but to say that anti-gay bigotry has absolutely no relationship to opposition to gay civil marriage is absurd. Some of the lamer arguments definitely have at least some component of bigotry. For instance, if you agree with Dennis Prager that gay people who want to get married to the people they love are in every way equivalent to Al Qaeda, that is an absurd, bigoted point of view. I’m sure there are some more puerile, leftist proponents of gay civil marriage who shout “bigot” first and think later, but that doesn’t mean that no one who is opposed to gay marriage can possibly be in any way motivated by bigotry. Also, what’s interesting is that a lot of these people who refuse to believe that anti-gay bigotry exists, are quick to call virtually any comment about Christianity “anti-Christian bigotry”.

All of this crap cuts more than one way.

Oh,and everything M. Simon said.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:59 am 74. richard mcenroe:

SandyP ó I’m a tail-end boomer and it was de rigeur(?) to live together while growing up. Give those old establishment types – da man- hissy fits while thumbing your nose at tradition.

Nothing changes. The small press I work for publishes a play from the 20’s or 30’s, Langnerís “Another Way Out” that describes a bohemian couple who moved in together to shock society and have now been together so long that no one realizes they’re not an old married couple, who decide to get married to shock their circle all over again.

The Boomers didn’t invent a thing,

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:14 am 75. too many steves:

Mike Silverman: I find it interesting for a couple of reasons:

1. Bush is supposedly a puppet of the neo-cons, led by Dick Cheney, and yet the VP yields to him on this, currently, big issue.

2. It is remarkably unusual for two public officials who are so closely aligned to say, essentially, “on this topic we agree to disagree”.

But, I agree with you entirely, this approach is common among my family and friends; in politics there is often only the toe-the-line approach. I recall VP candidate Lieberman basically swallowing his tongue on the issues in 2000.

I suppose it could be argued that this is a no lose position for Cheney as the President has no special authority when it comes to Constitutional Amendments. But I have to reject that argument as too cynical.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:17 am 76. Matt Evans:

R Simon,

I disagree with this statement:

“The marriage of social liberals with hard core religious conservatives is a marriage of convenience. It will not out last the election. It will be over on 3 Nov.”

That depends on the moderately liberal. Persons on this blog who are infinately smarter then I am have speculated that if the democratic party remains controlled by moveon stooges, it will go the way of the T-rex and dodo. I assume this is possible. However, the socially liberal yet fiscally/globally conservative have an incredible opportunity to make some level of changes in the republican party – the hardline religious right are getting old and are losing power in the party – social change is inevitable- I oppose gay marriage but even I agree there must be some kind of compromise on the issue. And this is the time to do it – now that many moderate libs are finding common ground with moderate conservatives, they can influence the republican party by showing the benefits of their social agenda rather than engaging in the shrill dishonest discourse thats become so associated with the far left and social issues. If the moderate left chooses to return to the fold of the democratic party, they are missing a golden opportunity to bridge a gap thats been widening over the last 20 years.

The far left should be irrelevant after this election – their politics are very much in contrast with american ideals- but when two groups of people with different social philosophies have found common ground, it seems to be me that not taking advantage of that common ground to engage in civil discourse on other important issues is a waste of an opportunity.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:03 am 77. holdfast:

Dnnis t P

time to get the ol’ Bullshit Meter recalibrated. If you follow my posts above, I am not arguing against SSM – I’m somewaht ambivelant on the concept as a concept – but I am strongly against imposing it through the courts. To folks like Silverman and Andrew Sullivan who are so personally invested in thi, it is probably a distinction without a difference, but I would expect a little more nuance from you.

Paticipatory democracy is a great thing – and I think that you’ll find that my first post advocated it; however, I do not think that having 5 out of 9 judges rule on a very devisive topic is very participatory at all.

Perhaps the scab metaphor was not particularly helpful, but I was not trying to say that the topic should be verboten, but rather that it MUST be settled through participatory democracy and not in the courts. Roe v. Wade has become a massivel political scab over a wound that will never heal, and I wish to avoid creating another problem like that. I don’t think that it would serve the interests of anyone except the preachers of extremism on both sides.

“If you are alienated I doubt it is needlessly…I would suggest it is an integral part of the process of discharging some of the emotion surrounding an emotional issue. And discharging emotion is an integral part of arriving at consensus and compromise.”

I become alienated when someone calls me a bigot not specifically here, but rather implied because I might have ANY argument against gay marriage, even if it is a process argument) without giving me a fair hearing.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:10 am 78. flenser:

Nostrodamus. I mean, M.Simon.

The RINOS and social libs are what is killing the Republican party at present. As long as these people are around, the GOP is almost indistinguishable from the Democrats. It ends up taking the wrong side on so many issues simply to placate these so-called “social liberals”.

Conservatives; against large scale immigration. RINO’s; for it.

Conservatives; against large scale government spending. RINO’s; for it.

Conservatives; against affirmative action. RINO’s; for it.

Conservatives; against gay marriage. RINO’s; for it.

Conservatives; against gun control. RINO’s; for it.

The Republican party at present is taking stances on a range of issues that are unpopular, not only with it’s base, but with the American people as a whole. Losing the RINO’s will be the best thing that can happen, and will cement the GOP status as majority party.

————————————————–

“Since our rights are not enumerated they are esentially limitless.”

This is illiterate. Saying our rights are not enumerated means that they are not enumerated, nothing more. Even the enumerated rights are not limitless, I point I already made and which you ignored.

Which “non-enumerated” rights are limitless? They cannot ALL be limitless, since many of them are in contradiction to one another. Our right to govern ourselves and pass the laws we deem appropriate cannot be limitless, if it is to be overridden by the courts in pursuit of our rights to do as we please, a move that you seem to desire.

You seem perfectly ready to jettison the rights of free association, of contract, and of self governance. You dismiss the rights of people to live in the society that they deem best. You reject the right of the people to impose the type of structure and order they desire on society. You endorse the notion that, since some structure and order must exist, it should be imposed on us by unelected, unaccountable judges. And while doing all this, you pose as some sort of champion of individual freedom.

Somebody is going to “mind other peoples business”, as you put it. The only question is who. When the state steps in and makes laws saying that a certain percentage of certain people must be hired, or that people cannot be fired because of their age or sex or sexual preference, the state is “minding other peoples business”.

Roger and others here have noticed that the self-styled liberals can be accurately labeled reactionaries, a useful insight to be sure. But it seems to be taking people a long time to wake up to the fact that the “libertarians” and others who claim to be champions of individual liberties are in fact the strongest proponents of taking real decision making power away from actual individual people.

In the “socially liberal” utopia, we will all have the freedom to have sex with whoever or whatever we want, whenever we want. We will have the freedom to wear whatever we want, or nothing all. We will have the freedom to do whatever drugs we wish. We will have to freedom to watch whatever we like on TV and the internet. Anyone who tries to thwart us will have the full power of the state brought to bear against them. And in return for this, all we have to do is surrender all our other freedoms.

It’s a utopia that only an adolescent could love, but adolescents are what America produces.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:21 am 79. Knucklehead:

Prior to the start of this thread I would have made a small wager that Roger’s Place was, perhaps, about the only place this discussion could take place civilly. I don’t go far enough back here to have experience with any previous discussions to know how they’ve faired.

I pondered doing what I’m about to do several times over. It is likely I’ll get, deservedly, hammered with “getcherownfreakin’ blog!” or consuming Roger’s Bandwidth. But I’ve decided to forge ahead anyway.

The following is something I put together for myself over a couple weeks. Most of it was from an extended econversation with a buddy who is an SSM proponent, but all of it was done trying to get a handle on where I stood on the issue. I’ve decided not to alter it. Nothing I’ve seen in this thread or elsewhere so far changes where I stand. Eric and Mike have, apparently, heard everything there is to hear on this topic from those of us opposed and dismissed it as “weak”. Well, so be it.

Here’s is how Yet Another Knucklehead pondered out his thoughts on SSM:

This is an exercise in getting things out on the table more for myself than anyone else. Writing, as poorly as I may do it, helps me get there. I’ve been trying to do some due diligence and figure out some reasonable, sensical position regarding “same sex marriage” and I’ve wavered. I started out “against” because it just seemed somehow “wrong” to me. But some vague sense that something is “wrong” isn’t a good enough reason to be against it. I demand something with a little more substance than that.

As a “non-believer”, and also an avid fan of the first ammendment, I reject out of hand any religious argument either way.

“God says so” is not a valid argument against same-sex marriage any more than it is a valid argument to allow, for example,

polygamy. Just because some People of Faith are against same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that those of us who are are simply “non-believers” but hold no animosity toward religion or the Anti-religionists (the angy-secularists; there’s no other type of secularist that I can find) should automagically line up on the other side of the question.

I also reject out of hand any argument in the “it ain’t natural” category. Its 2004 and getting later all the time. I’m not an eighteen year old living in a barracks anymore. Homosexuality isn’t a disease and even if it is it isn’t contagious. In the same way that I don’t understand religious faith but don’t see how other people’s faith “picks my pocket or breaks my leg” (I take my cue from Jefferson on this) I don’t see how other people’s sexuality does me any harm. Obviously my “whatever floats your boat” quasi-tolerance of different sexuality doesn’t extend to those who wish to take advantage of children or animals or get their rocks off doing sick stuff. But as far as I am aware there is no correlation between homosexuality and pederasty or pedophilia or any other “sick stuff”. No doubt there are sick homos just like there are sick heteros, but that’s a different issue.

The flip side of this coin, however, is that the rights of “consenting adults” are not an absolute. There aren’t any absolute rights of any sort. All rights are inherently restricted. We don’t allow consenting adults to engage in any and all behavior. I won’t even bother conjuring up examples (does “yelling fire in a crowded theater” ring any bells?). Suffice to say that We the People, on several ocassions, have found it fully consistent with our collective “welfare” to deny a subset of the population all rights up to and including the foundational “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (google up Wars and Drafts if you doubt this).

So, after knocking off the most immediate “no-brainers” I thought about it a while and arrived somewhere near where it seems many people are:

* its no skin off my back

* this is the USofA and we may struggle with it but we do generally find ways to let people live their lives as they see fit

* if loving, committed people want to get married who am I to tell them they can’t have what I consider a prime focus of my own life

* if more people, regardless of hetero or homo, are supportive of marriage how can that not be a good thing for marriage in general and society as a whole

* once upon a time we didn’t let back people drink from certain water fountains – that wasn’t a good idea and denying homos the license to marry probably isn’t a good idea either

Just for the heck of it, I ran through that list to see which matter and which don’t.

“No skin off my back” isn’t an argument for or against much of anything, to be honest. There are no end of restrictions We the People place on various segments of society. Just to pick an example out of the air, polygamy is “no skin off my back”. And there are things which are “skin off my back” which I have to accept whether I like it or not because its the law of the land. Affirmative action leaps to mind – a legalized preference based upon sex or skin color, or whatever, can and has affected my life and those of “people like me”. Regardless of whether one supports the concept or not, its been imposed upon us for the general good of the society. It can be argued back and forth till Doomsday, but the arguing doesn’t alter the negative impact it sometimes has on some indivuals within the society. Yet we’ve arrived at the conclusion that the it has benefit to the general welfare that outweighs its negative impact upon individuals or some segment of the population.

The “basic human rights” argument is somewhat overblown in this debate. Without the very long held traditional and cultural meaning of marriage, it isn’t really a “basic human right”. Its a legal “thingie” that arose from cultural origins for a host of good reasons. We the People do wierd little legal thingies all the time (just ask any member of the armed forces if they have the full panoply of “rights” that the general citizenry enjoys and how the Uniform Code of Military Justice stacks up against the legal rights of ordinary citizens). More on this later, but suffice to say that I hold the whole “second class citizen” argument to be little more than bumper-sticker sloganeering. We are all second class citizens – its the nature of citizenship that we give up some degree of rights as an inherent duty of citizenship. My First Ammendment right to free speech and religious freedom doesn’t give me the right to climb up on my roof with a bullhorn at 2:00 AM and loudly advocate for the immediate repentance of all sinners.

I don’t see a legitimate case that same-sex marriage is something that has been denied to a category of citizen. There is just no legitmate way to claim that marriage hasn’t always been defined, if only implicitly, as between one man and one woman. If marriage is a right, then granting it to same-sex couples is an extension of the “right” to some category of citizen that didn’t have it before. But it isn’t life and death. Whatever “pursuit of happiness” aspect it has doesn’t mean anything outside of the same traditional, cultural context that defined it as opposite-sex in the first place.

The comparison with slavery or “Jim Crow” and the denial of basic human rights just flat out strikes me as weak upon further consideration. Its got merit and doesn’t deserved to be dismissed, but at the “good of society” level, we’re not talking about Mississippi Burning here. No doubt individual gays who desperately want to be married disagree with that, but I don’t believe that personal level of investment matters to the argument as a whole. In fact, it may make some people unable to look at the “big picture”.

“Loving and committed” couples is a STRONG argument. Its the foundation of what I consider true marriage. Without that marriage is just another license for just another human activity. And the “more real supporters the better” argument folds right into this like nice newlyweds falling asleep in one another’s arms. These are STRONG arguments and almost make the case for me. But not quite.

Then there’s the standard, “didn’t give the whole thing much thought”, non-religious arguments against:

* why can’t they just let us “normal” people have something we can count on and call our own; why do “they” have to attack everything “traditional”

* this isn’t a case of taking away a right gays ever had (there are subtle but important distinctions between this and the whole “blacks in the back of the bus” thing).

* this is a WAY stickier wicket than it seems on the surface and maybe – probably – we really need to have a serious look at implications (marriage is a very Odd Duck and its odd-duckiness does have real implications). BTW, for what its worth this argument was prominent in the dissents in the MA case – the “civil rights” issues are real and may not justify digging in heels over, but by the same token they aren’t so hugely overwhelming that we can’t let this thing have the time it needs to figure itself out through the legislative process. Which is – I certainly believe this – where it belongs. I can live with getting voted down by a legitimate majority but I’m fed up with having the judiciary tell us what we should believe.

* the slippery slope to eliminating “marriage” as a legal, cultural, and social concept.

The first of those just doesn’t hold up. “Normal” ain’t what it used to be and it has never been all its cracked up to be.

The second I believe I’ve addressed. It isn’t slavery and it isn’t segregation in any real way. The legal/civil benefits can be gotten at in other ways and where there are weaknesses civil law could be modified to address those.

The next two are intertwined, but… If “Slippery Slope” doesn’t hold any water then “Sticky Wicket” is less dangerous. If the slope isn’t all that dangerously slippery then there’s time to make good faith attempts to properly manage even the nastier Unexpected Consequences regardless of whether we hammered them out up front or not.

Some commenters have made the case that the “anti” forces are lined up against it for economic reasons. I don’t think that holds up under scrutiny or is a powerful force either way. Big Corporate America surrendered this issue ages ago. They’d just as soon have all their employees married with kids and they’d pay whatever they couldn’t push off to the employee for benefits. Call me vile names for saying it (and one can’t say this sort of thing in polite company or the PC Police will haul one’s ass to the re-education camp) but Corp America knows damn well the most reliable and long-term productive employees are the Married with Children and Mortgages types. Straight or Gay is not an issue to them – married or in a “committed relationship” gets them closer to what they prefer wrt employees.

Uncle Sam may very well be against it purely due to the prospect of losing tax revenue or having to pay out more benefits. I just don’t see it though. That’s way too cynical even for me and when all is said and done, its probably a tax revenue wash ’cause, after all, Uncle Sam giveth and Uncle Sam taketh away.

I just don’t see any good evidence that this is really just an economic cat fight.

My next phase was to try (this is a habit that I’ve tried to build) to ask “what is it they want and why do they want it?”

The simplistic answer is that gays want “marriage” because it has “value”. (The bit about wondering why marriage has value to those who’ve never had access to it before is where I started to understand what a freakin’ legal Odd Duck marriage is.) Clearly it has value on an individual level or neither of us would have stuck with it (sorry, couldn’t resist the “woe is us” schtick). And I imagine we agree that there is overall social value – the best chance kids have of becoming decent adults and citizens is when they are raised in a stable marriage with both male and female influence. I spent some time pondering the value bit. I don’t know that I came to any particular conclusions, but here are some observations.

The value of any individual marriage to the participants (and I consider this both the couple and the children, if any) can’t be diminished (or strengthened) by any other marriage, same sex or otherwise. No strong marriage is injured by weak marriages and there surely aren’t many weak ones somehow magically made stronger by some nearby strong marriage. But weak marriages do “injure” society as a whole. You and I and our wives have raised and coached and mentored enough kids and been around the block enough times to know that broken homes are more likely to produce problem kids and single moms or dads have a real tough row to hoe.

The value of my marriage cannot be diminished if two men or two women decide to marry. I’m the one who determines what value it has to me personally and the value it holds for the other “stakeholders” is theirs to measure.

There’s more of a case to be made, but not a strong one, that a same-sex marriage doesn’t provide the same value to society. By this I mean that gay marriages are unlikely, when considered as a whole, to be as strong as male-female marriages. We got rid of any bans against interracial marriage quite some time ago but interracial marriages still seem to have a harder go of it than same-race marriages. I don’t have any stats but I do have friends and aquaintences who have interracial marriages and they and their children encounter some difficulties you and I just would never experience: faint or even open hostility, expectations that difficulties will break them rather than strengthen them, that sort of thing. Call it residual bigotry or whatever, but its real and this sort of thing takes generations to fade away. Its just Human Nature. My niece and nephew over in “Can’t be more freakin’ Liberal” Sweden experience more than their fair share of prejudice because they are “brown” and short rather than tall, blonde, and blue-eyed.. Even Swedes can’t always get beyond the bigotries they insist they don’t have.

There’s no good reason to assume this wouldn’t be the same for same-sex marriages. I understand there’s an arument that what doesn’t kill makes stronger, and what level of difficulty people are willing to accept is their own business and not a reason to forbid them from doing something, but given an entire population I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest that more problems correlates to more failures. And there obviously can’t be the same male and female influences on children to help them gain some balance and understanding of the opposite sex. (I suppose there might be some sort of approximation of this but what do I know.)

Some folks like to bring the matter of the “devaluing” of marriage or the high rates of divorce as some sort of attack against hetero marriage. I think those are lame arguments. Just because some people run back and forth to Las Vegas and think marriage is unimportant doesn’t mean those people are correct. Those sorts of marriages never provide any inherent value to society so the damage they inflict when they fall apart is probably minimal. And divorce has no context outside of marriage. It can be used as some commentary on the overall strength of marriage in our society, or its declining respect, but if there’s no marriage there’s no divorce. Just because there are people who don’t take it seriously or others who are such bad judges of character that they frequently marry and divorce people they don’t really like is no good reason to attack marriage either hetero or homo.

So what makes marriage valuable to us and to the gays pushing for it? Yeah, I know!:

* the wild and crazy and never-ending “safe sex”

* never having to say you’re sorry (what idiot ever thought there was a shred of truth in that?)

* those incredibly exciting college tuition bills

* the sheer enjoyment of fighting the Battle of Curfew Pass like your own personal “Ground Hog Day”.

I suppose there’s always the sheer aggravaton and consternation from the feeling of being “denied” something but that seems awfully petty to me. Surely gays understand this is way more important than putting some finishing touches on their sense of “arrival” or acceptance. It isn’t going to resolve those issues – at least not for another generation or three.

It must be something more than the monogamous sex partner aspect. That’s available w/o marriage if one wants it and marriage certainly doesn’t guarantee it. Granted, however, it places some additional level of social or cultural pressure toward that end.

It ain’t purely the life partner/companion thing. That’s also available w/o marriage. And sometimes its the one thing that doesn’t quite manage to survive “getting the kids raised decently”.

It ain’t purely the legal protections. Those can be had through normal legal mechanisms and we can probably fix any issues or breakdowns. But its when I started wondering about the legal aspects that I got most nervous. I don’t want to go down that whole path with you again but there are nightmares waiting there. The lawyers will have a field day with a whole new segment to the Grievance Industry. And we’ll all have to go back and take PC refresher courses to make sure we don’t say anything that might suggest marriage is an opposite sex thing or display any “hidden” preference. Relatively petty complaints but I’m growing weary of all the tip-toeing BS in my advancing years. Why do we each have to worry about every hypersensitive knucklehead we might encounter? I’ve even seen a new name for My Bad Behavior – “micro-aggression”. Geezus Looeezus. (Sorry, off topic).

It ain’t purely the idea of having a “family” since those “bennies” seem to be coming for gays for some time now. Interestingly enough (I mentioned this ages ago but there’s no way you remember) from what I overhear of the kids and their buddies discussions of gay marriage they think its OK with them but they find gay adoption a little “skeevey”. (I suppose the repulsiveness of the thought of one’s parents having sex goes through the roof when its carried over to thinking about one’s same-sex parents having sex.) I have an easier time with gay adoption than gay marriage. Odd. The way I see it, having two “moms” or two “dads” (whether they are “married” or in a “civil union”) might not be ideal, but its gotta beat being an orphan by a wide margin. Sorry, I digress yet again.

If gays want marriage for the tax implications they really are stupid – the tax benefits aren’t worth the trouble, effort, sacrifice and pain that go into making a marriage work and raising a family.

So I’m left with the idea that, for those gays who sincerely want access to the thing we call “marriage” with all its scope and depth, its all those little bits of “value” they can’t quite get to via “civil unions”. Those are, I suppose, mostly in the “spiritual” and “social” aspects. That’s fine. That’s legit. I can live with that. People who feel that way are “on my side” in my estimation.

There are clearly some legal matters that are simplified and more accepted for married couples. That’s legit also but way overblown by the supporters. Any sensible hetero married couple with children is going to visit a lawyer and put in place whatever legal documents are necessary to avoid leaving the fates of one another and their children to the whims of the courts and “default law”. One just don’t leave that stuff to the courts if one cares about it. I just don’t think the big push for same-sex marriage – Now, This Week, Today! – is the legal advantages or protections. It isn’t a factor that I consider for deciding where I’m going to stand on this. I’m pretty well convinced that this thing has been stoked up by the lunatic-fringe left (you and your buddies!).

Not being particularly spiritual or religious, that context for marriage holds little personal interest to me. But I have this strong nagging suspicion that part of the whole “what do they want” question is that they want to beat religions over the head with this until they either force them to accept gays and gay marriage or drive them right out of the marriage business. No proof of course, just a nagging suspicion that there’s some “subversive undercurrent” even among the “sincere about marriage” gays. I’m probably missing key emotional elements here but I just don’t understand why “religion” drives so many non-believers bonkers the way it does. If one doesn’t believe then one doesn’t believe. I’m not religious but I believe freedom of religion is a big, foundational right and the fanatic secularists are idiots for trying so hard to kill religion. We aren’t guaranteed freedom from religion, we’re guaranteed freedom of religion. I don’t choose to exercise that right, but I’ll be damned if I won’t man the ramparts against those who want religion gone from our society. Yet another digression, but the anti-religion nuts are so freakin’ Religious about it that they drive me bonkers.

So that leaves me pretty much at the point of trying to figure out if “slippery slope” is legit and, if yes, whether it is important. The knee-jerk screamers alway denigrate “slippery slope” but the pure fact of the matter is that “slippery slope” is a very real thing. One little generation ago, when your mom and dad had kids – you – in HS, the country was fighting over the legalization of abortion. The “slippery slopers” were saying that it would open the way to abortion on demand, abortion as afterthought birth control, sexual promiscuity, taxpayer demands, and even infanticide. They were shouted down as superstitious, freakazoid alarmists and reactionary neanderthals. The right to legal, safe abortions, the pro-case went, was nothing more than to bring abortion out of the “filthy backrooms and coathangers” world, allow women first trimester privacy over their medical decisions, and bring us all to a better world where No Child is an Unwanted Child and child abuse is all but gone. I was just a knucklehead in HS back then but I still can’t believe anyone bought the No Unwanted Kids and No More Child Abuse nonsense. Those issues are way more complex than whether or not abortion is legal. I’ll just point out:

* there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of unwanted or abused children

* abortion is a commonly used method of “afterthought” birth control

* what’s a freakin’ “first trimester” anyway

* parental notification is all but dead

* portions of the populace can’t see any problems with puncturing fetal skulls and sucking out brains of even 7 and 8 month fetuses, and

* “ethicists” in major universities are openly making the case for infanticide (why do they hate children so much that they must have an ever expanding list of acceptable ways to kill them?).

Call me a neanderthal reactionary, but I’m not convinced these developments are good things (OK, I don’t like them much at all) or that, even if they are, we’ve had enough time to argue or adjust. And regardless of whether one likes them or not, they sure do show that the “slippery slopers” were far more correct that the “legal and rare” crowd.

But abortion is a different animal (I can just hear you now!). Yeah, it is. If we ever change our minds about it or decide there’s some limit we want to impose, we can pick a date on the calendar and announce it far and wide. Everyone can run and get her abortion, or whatever particularly nasty version of it we are putting a stop to, before that date or they’re out of luck. Yesterday’s abortions don’t guarantee tomorrow’s abortions.

The marriage thing seems more Humpty-Dumpty to me. If we break this we aren’t getting it back together again. Once we head down this yellow brick road its Oz or Bust, Bubba.

Just a year or so ago we had the TX sodomy case go through the SCOTUS. I don’t care about no stinking sodomy laws. They sure seem so freakin’ YESTERDAY. The point, however, is that one short year or so ago Justice Scalia (or one of those scum-sucking, lying Conservatives ;>) made the dissenting case that the decision to strike down the TX sodomy laws would open the floodgates to legal challenges against hetero marriage. A senator (Santorum?) picked that up and said it sounded legit to him. They were vilified as right wing religious fanatics, neanderthal reactionaries, etc, etc. and the Enlightened (aka scum-sucking lying Liberals ;>) insisted (if I recall the decision correctly it even said as much) the TX sodomy case had NOTHING to do with marriage and nobody would EVER use it it to attack marriage as we know it. Well, it ain’t been all that long and the court cases are filed and working their way through the system and the SCOTUS TX sodomy decision IS being used as one of the legal arguments for attacking hetero marriage. I can’t cite the cases – I’m taking the claims of Pundits at face value here – but the Scalia dissent said it would happen and now it seems to be happening.

It doesn’t matter which side of the sodomy stuff you stand on, the point is that slippery slope is a valid argument. It may or may not be the right argument, but its valid. And things seem so damned accelerated these days. Slippery slope meant a generation not long ago. Now it means a few short years.

OK, enough. So Slippery Slope is demonstrably valid. That doesn’t mean that its valid in this case. Well, like I said, I’ve been trying to do my due diligence on this and I’ll leave it to you to verify or not as you see fit, but I’m tellin’ ya, Bubba, regardless of the sincerity of the folks who are fighting for same-sex, there are some folks out there who want to kill all marriage – homo, hetero, or otherwise. And they are already developing the legal cases and training up the judges. There are professors of law in some of our most prestigious and influential law schools who hold positions like heads of the Family Law dept who think “marriage” as we know it needs to be torn down and replaced. And they are developing Tomorrow’s Enlightened Judges.

There are organizations of “Polys” (polygamists and polyamorists) and every other sort of idea and group and they have conferences and strategy papers. They have identified same-sex as the straw that will break the marriage camel’s back and they’ll be dancing that “Thank You Very Much!” number from that Scrooge movie before you or I can say, “What the flock just happened?” There are people who want the social institution of marriage dead and buried and they’re hiding in the bushes with thier battering rams and stun grenades just waiting for Sincere Gays to get this door opened one little crack.

Maybe I’m just completely out of it and trying to cling to something (marriage) that has long outlived its usefulness. But Slippery Slope, in this case, is not only potentially legit but there are folks training fire hoses on the slope and preparing drums of grease to slather on it. The “progressive”, Get-rid-of marriage crowd basically believes that the whole two-people, hetero, procreation, paternalistic, oppressive “heritage” of marriage is way out of date and it needs to be replaced by legal concepts like its some Limited Liability Corporation rather than “family”. They might be right, I’m not smart enough to predict. It sure makes me nervous and jerky though. I really think that we (and here I include the gays who just sincerely want access to marriage) are being sold a bill of goods and not being given a chance to argue our points or defend something worthwhile.

And that brings me to where I am today. I’m sufficiently convinced that same-sex will be the death knell of marriage as we know it. Not only is slippery slope valid – its inevitable once we accept same-sex. Now, just because slippery slope is valid doesn’t necessarily mean that sliding down the slope will injure us or leave us in some bad place. Maybe we wind up mud wrestling ourselves into a better place. I’m no Nostradamus but I’m conservative when it comes to long-lived traditional social mechanisms like marriage – as Odd-Ducky as it may be. I don’t see why we want to throw ourselves head first down the slippery slope without first arguing it out publicly and maybe flushing out the subversives with a larger agenda they don’t want us to see.

I doubt you’re still reading, but thanks anyway I needed it. I know now where I stand. This isn’t something that should be decided by our courts. We the People need to have this argument openly and as loudly as necessary and we need to decide it legislatively rather than judicially. I seriously doubt a constitutional ammendment has a snowball’s chance to pass, but I want the cat fight to take place. At least then we will have accepted or rejected it rather than having it foisted on us by a bunch of legal elitists or fringe “futurists”.

Now, about the “amendment” thing… the idea that we should never even discuss amending the constitution is just hogwash as far as I’m concerned. Judges “amend” it all time. Its a simple document and allows for modification via a rather onerous process. I have no problem with attempting to invoke that process. I’d rather examine the details of what’s being considered.

Proposed FMA:

FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

This has gotten some heated attacks from all sides of the issue. It seems to satisfy only the “religious right” (although there are, no doubt, some on the “religious left” who probably agree with it – is there a “religious center”?). I won’t bother trying to analyse or parse this since I don’t have sufficient expertise to do that. I don’t care for it much simply because it doesn’t seem to me that it carefully enumerates a power of the federal government or guarantees a right to an individual. It seems to be a “prohibitive” wording that takes away rather than protecting. There’s huge room for argument there, but as much as I want the catfight to happen and believe that a majority of voters agree with me, this doesn’t allow a majority to disagree with me. I just don’t see how this wording is consistent with the “spirit and intent”. If it came to voting on this wording I’d vote against. And then there’s the whole “structural vs. semantic” argument and this one seems semantic to me rather than structural. Always go for the structural solution if possible.

So what about an alternative wording?

Senator Hatch (or someone else) proposes this:

Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman.

There are far more expert arguments than I can make, but this seems MUCH closer to something I could support. This seems to me to cover what I find most important and provides the minimum I ask for in this whole catfight. If we’re not going to support marriage as we’ve understood it for freakin’ ever, then I want a good solid argument about any changes and any decision to make changes belongs with the legislatures rather than courts. I can live with state legislatures vs. the federal legislature. In fact, I prefer the idea of 50 catfights rather than one big one. This wording seems to tell the state legislatures that its time for them to go through the trouble of defining “marriage” and also takes the act of defining marriage away from the courts.

Nothing in the wording says that individual states can’t define marriage to be anything they want it to be (and they’ll have to answer to their voters for whatever they decide). And the second sentence says “whatever individual states decide, nobody can use the US Consitution to pound other states into accepting anything different. If a state decides marriage precisely what we fully understand marriage to be today, then so be it. It specifically says that states get to define marriage for themselves via their legislatures and that if one or more states decide something other states reject, the courts can’t force the “rejecting” states to accept.

And it seems “structural” to me rather than “semantic”. It doesn’t give any right to the feds other than for them to demand that states define marriage and tell the courts to keep their freakin elitist noses out of it. And it says don’t abuse the constitution to twist and turn against the will of the majority. This wording addresses my Big Concerns (taking this decision out of the courts and putting it with legislatures where it belongs), doesn’t prevent any state from doing what they think best or make any decision completely permanent, prevents forcing one state’s views down every other state’s throat, and allows for “Me the Person” to be over-ruled by “We the People. I’ve gone and looked at some of the early complaints against this wording and I don’t find them particularly convincing. I suspect it might even do us some good to have some differentiation among states. Some of these various catfights might not be so darned uncivil if they weren’t such “national winner takes all” affairs. We really aren’t dealing with the giant issues of human existence anymore – maybe we should leave some of these smaller issues to states and let states suffer or prosper based upon what the people who live there believe important. Or at least it might give us the opportunity to investigate cause and effect. If IL decides they want same-sex marriage and 60 years from now there’s no such legal thing as marriage anymore and the children of IL are doing just fine and dandy, then IL will be able to hold that up and brag about it. And if NJ has screwed the pooch by wiping marriage out at least people will be able to escape to somewhere that hasn’t screwed the pooch.

I’ll leave it to better legal minds than mine to suggest the potential pitfalls with this wording and what tweaks it might need, but if given a vote I’d vote for this as an amendment.

As a sort of PS – I’ve been following some of the increasingly heated rhetoric around this – charges of “bigotry” and “spitting in the faces” of gays and the like.

Well, I’m personally fed up with the narrow minded who are so intolerant of anyone who dares disagree with them that they reflexively label those who disagree with them as intolerant, closed-minded bigots. Such people are in some serious need of some major introspection. I’ve put a great deal of effort into reviewing my “beliefs”, including prejudices, and making sure that my actions in this world reflect my beliefs. My credentials in this regard are in good working order and extend well beyond “beliefs”. I will not tolerate the “bigot” charge from some knucklehead who can’t fathom how anyone can disagree with him – especially when it comes from people who are not called upon to put their beliefs into practice other than what they “think” and write or who they have dinner parties or watch the Super Bowl with.

There’s enough figurative “spitting in faces” going on here that it’s a wonder we haven’t all drowned in spittle. As an example, I think MA Supreme Court Justice CJ Marshall “spit in the faces” of the six million people of MA by reaching out to a decision of the Court of Appeal of Toronto. The question at hand was not one of Canadian laws or the Canadian constitution. And they spit in the faces of the people of MA yet again when they issued their instructions to the legislature that it was free to legislate any way it saw fit as long as it gave full marriage rights to gays. I believe usurpist judges spit in the faces of all Americans when they ignore legislatures and the will of voters.

I stand with the dissenting judges in the MA case. This decision belongs with legislatures, not courts. And there is nothing about the “right” that is so compelling, or the damage done by denying it to gays so onerous, that this question cannot wait for We the People to decide via our legislatures.

I’ve also noticed the Eureka! moments several prominent advocates have had recently when they “discovered” that college students, or at least the ones who attended their talks on this topic, agree with them. Well, gee, Sherlocks, college kids have a tendency to be more tolerant than their parents. What a freakin’ revelation – whooda thunk it?

I will point out that I make a habit of listening in on the discussions and views of Our Bright Young Minds and have pretty good access to them. It might surprise these modern Archimedes to know that, in my experience, bright young people seem quite comfortable with the notion of gay marriage yet remarkably uncomfortable with the idea of gay-adoption. Young people are full of suprises. I have less trouble with the idea of gay people rasing children than I do with gay marriage. Having an actual mom and dad, male and female, may be the preferred situation but I’d rather see two moms or two dads rather than none, or one overworked partent, raising kids.

And notfuhnuttin’, but who do the Sherlocks think busted their humps and bankrupted themselves raising these wonderfully tolerant young people? It was We of the Stable Marriages who produced them. If they think they can throw them in our faces they’d better reconsider that tactic – we know more about them and they will “return” (in relatively short order) to something closer to us than the Sherlocks might like. Related to this, My Bride, a Scandinavian Social Liberal of the First Order, suddenly sounds like a flaming right-winger. A couple short weeks ago I was hearing the “why not let gays marry” argument from her and that has suddenly changed to “who do these mayors think they are just ignoring laws!” And my enlightened daughters who have argued quite intelligently in favor of gay marriage have done some “heebie-jeebie” shuddering while watching some of the TV spectacles we’ve seen lately on the news.

What college and HS aged young people think about issues is a good sign of where things are heading. But its no guarantee of where we’ll get to. First off, they have short attention spans and are itching to get on with their lives. They aren’t going to necessarily remain engaged or “on your side” of an issue. One of the key attributes of such young people is they learn a lot real fast and they don’t have long experience to keep their positions anchored. They can get passionate about things but they also carry keychains with slogans like, “Blah, blah, blah… who gives a shit?” By and large they think we older people make too much of too many things and they don’t buy in to all of Our Sacred Cows. But someday they will buy in to a Sacred Cow or two they would never buy in to today. Some of the most “politically incorrect” stuff I hear (if it weren’t funny it would be insulting) comes from Our Young, Tolerant Minds.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:23 am 80. Eric Deamer:

The “process/imposing it through the courts” argument is junk.

We already have:

1. The DOMA

2. The mini-DOMAs in 38 states.

3. Arguments by many people on both sides of the issue that the “Full Faith and Credit clause” doesn’t apply to marriages.

Yet, despite these three levels of protection, we still hear that the fact that courts in one state decided to allow gay civil marriage will somehow mean that it will be “imposed” nationally. And the “imposed” phrasing is overwrought and disingenuous to begin with. The day the courts force you to get married to a member of the same sex, then “imposed” might make sense.

And M. Simon is right about the enumerated powers clause. Or at least I hope he’s right or America is a lot more statist country than I thought. We don’t have to petition the legislature to pretty please bestow on us a right unless something in the US or state constitution specifically reserves that right to the state or to the federal government. I can’t believe that this is now the “conservative” position.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:31 am 81. Mike Silverman:

Knucklehead, that was an impressive post. I did take the time to read all of it, and although I disagree with yuor final conclusion, it was enlightening to “follow along” with your thought process. You obviously given this issue a lot of though.

I would like to make a brief comment on just two of the points you mades:

#1: “I’m sufficiently convinced that same-sex will be the death knell of marriage as we know it.

This is the crux of the debate. I can’t figure out (even after reading your entire post a couple times) how you come tot his conclusion. It just seems self-evident to me that allowing more committed couples “into” the institution would strengthen it, not weaken it.

#2 It ain’t purely the legal protections. Those can be had through normal legal mechanisms and we can probably fix any issues or breakdowns.

This statement is not true, at least as things currently are constructed legally in America. Lawyers and wills can provide a small proportion of the rights that legally married couples enjoy, but most of the rights married people have are statutory, not contractual, and cannot be simulated via contracts because they are specifically tied to governmental regulation (think immigration, social security, taxation, etc.)

I guess I would have more respect for many anti-gay marriage folks if they were more open to fixing some of these problems, even without legalizing same-sex marriage. Intstead, it seems the contrary is true and anti-gay activists actively construct and write their ballot initiatives and laws in such a way that any alternate way of solving these issues, such as contract law domestic partnerships are also made illegal. Read the actualy text of most of the anti-gay ballot initiatives and proposed amendments, and you can see they go much further then simply requiring the government not to recognize same sex marriage.

To your credit, you seem to realize this and do not want this, but most other people who are opposed to same-sex marriage do not feel as you do.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:49 am 82. Eric Deamer:

RINOs

Hmmm. Since George Pataki, Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, and Arnold Schwarzennegar have all been outed as dreaded “RINOs” at one time or another and all have had or are starting extremely successful political careers, I’m not quite sure I see how “RINOs” are such an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. Should they be trying instead to emulate the success of non-RINO politicans like Alan Keyes, and virtually all the California Republicans before Schwarzy?

(Yes, I know. “RINO” McCain lost to Bush, and Reagan beat to far more “RINO” senior Bush, so this cuts both ways.)

Who’s speaking during prime-time at the RNC again?

Yaaaay RINOs! I’d be a RINO too, if I hadn’t stopped calling myself a Republican after the introduction of that spectacularly successfull non-RINO measure, the FMA.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:50 am 83. DennisThePeasant:

Holdfast-

Yup, I farkelled the context. My bad.

Recalibration in progress.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:40 am 84. Sandy P:

Is it sexual harrassment if the guy’s gay???

New story on McGreevey:

…In the e-mail, Johnson, who began working for McGreevey in 2001, addressed questions about long-standing rumors that McGreevey was gay.

“Jim, when with a small group of us, would make extremely heterosexual jokes and allude to the various characteristics of hot women,” Johnson wrote….

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:21 pm 85. Yehudit:

First of all: what Eric said. All of it.

second, flenser, who the hell are you? Eric has been a regular on this site a lot longer than you – where do you get off calling people trolls and carrying on airs?

And your example of the poor persecuted Manhattan Republican doesn’t begin to compare with the suffering of people who are prevented from being legally recognized as family: not being able to see their loved one in the hospital or being allowed at his funeral, being forced out of their mutual home after his death. Gays can be faithful partners for 30 years, but the minute there is an issue of sickness or death they are not treated as equal before the law.

I am a Bush supporter in Manhattan, and yeah, it’s no fun right now. Big deal. Suck it up. Enjoy the Convention.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:25 pm 86. Yehudit:

“It was the opinions of the majority of the people. The state was not throwing gays in jail, it was public pressure that was oppressing them. If you revealed you were gay, you boss could fire you, your landlord could kick you out. It was the Big Government that stepped in to the rescue. This is historical fact.”

So you want to return to these thrilling days of yesteryear?

Big Government also stepped in against blacks and women being discriminated against. (I don’t mean affirmative action, I mean blatantly refusing blacks and women for certain jobs they would otherwise be qualified for.)

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:33 pm 87. flenser:

geshunheit

“First of all: what Eric said. All of it.”

Well, there’s a profound argument. Looks like the serious intellectuals are joining the fray.

“Eric has been a regular on this site a lot longer than you”

What is this, a union shop? Do long time posters get bonus points, regardless of how poorly thought out their positions?

“where do you get off calling people trolls ”

Work on your reading skills. I have not called anyone a troll. Although I might make an exception for you.

“And your example of the poor persecuted Manhattan Republican doesn’t begin to compare with the suffering of people who .” yada yada yada

I suggest you have another look at the quote I provided, from eric’s own web site. I’ll post it again.

“And, these enlightened urban hipster types in their ignorant hatred of Republicans/conservatives couldn’t possibly have anything in common with these violent anti-Semites in San Francisco and Wellington could they? Naaaaaa.

One of the comments at Karol’s site was:

Closet-Republican myself. Went to a concert the other day where the performer took some not-very-subtle jabs at the evil, un-elected President. The audience roared with approval. I felt like a black guy hiding under a white hood at a Klan rally. Hiding your Republican-ness and smiling at anti-Bush jokes is almost a reflexive survival instinct when rolling in some “enlightened,” “tolerant” circles.

I don’t think it’s time for us to hide though. History has shown that people with that special “tolerant” mind-set eventually come after all the people they hate, no matter what.”

That Eric, what kind of wuss is he, making statements like this? Can’t he suck it up, like you suggest?

(If I was really cruel, I could have so much fun with that …..)

“So you want to return to these thrilling days of yesteryear?”

Try to follow the plot here. I did not call for a return to the “thrilling days of yesteryear”. I am attempting to point out, to the rather brainless libertarians, that their stated goals of very limited government are not compatable with their desire to have gay marriage. We may end up with gay marriage in America. If so it will not be due to a triumph of the libertarian cause, but due to the corecive power of government.

That is the point I made. If you disagree with it, explain how and why.

One it is accepted as true, we can perhaps move on to a discussion of what the proper role of the state is.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:36 pm

Write a Comment

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