235 Comments

1. Yehudit:

I have similar ideological heartburn, expressed in the middle of this rather long report. Scroll down to:

“The event was an interesting experience for me as a social liberal.”

We don’t have a political home at this point, Roger. Maybe we can capture one of the two parties, or maybe one will be so fractured it will die and be replaced by a new one, but for the near future us fiscal conservative, socially liberal hawks don’t have a home.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:21 pm 2. Emory:

It was stupid to put this in the platform. I disagree with the position. I don’t know if it helps but we need to keep in mind that it is possible for people to oppose gay marriage without being anti-gay. I know such people.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:29 pm 3. ter0:

No need to flak for either party.

Instead why not buttonhole a GOP spokesperson and confront him with Barron’s statement? Hell, enlist one of the other bloggers and double team them.

Isn’t that the what credentialled bloggers are there for? You could have gone without sleep at home.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:30 pm 4. rickE:

Roger, I’m sure that you must realize that not all people who are opposed to same sex mariage are homophobic. The issue of redefining marriage is very complex but ultimately also comes down to children. If one were in charge of an adoption agency and had to chose the parents for a newborn baby and one had the choice of an equally loving a)single woman b)two men c)two women or d)man and women couple, who would you choose to be the baby’s parents? I believe it would be unfair to the baby to deprive it of either a mother or a father in starting out life if one has a choice. I believe each of the sexes brings something truly unique to the baby’s development. If marriage is legally redefined it would be impossible to give preference to the opposite sex couple. Certainly for older harder to adopt children same sex adoptions are occurring and would continue to occur. This is only one, but a very important reason to retain the present definition of marriage. On a personal level I believe it is important to show compassion to same sex couples and be loving on an individual basis, without redefining marriage and all that it entails. Dennis Prager writes an article on this topic here. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040504.shtml

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:31 pm 5. thibaud:

Third Party, Roger. Socially tolerant, fiscally conservative, dead serious about national security and preserving the moral high ground as well.

Practical? Hell yes. Win over the Republicans and non-crazy Dems in CA and NY, as Arnold and Giuliani have done, and focus intensively on moderates and independents from Texas to Seattle. Add asian-Americans and latinos and a healthy portion of the military vote and you have a national party that’s not dependent on some flaky quixotic figure like Perot or McCain.

A change is gonna come….

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:35 pm 6. stumbley:

A thought:

Has anyone stopped to analyze just exactly what will happen if someone actually *does* start this “Gay Marriage Ban” constitutional amendment process? 38 states have to ratify it…does anyone *actually* believe that it has a shred of possibility of passing, given that the bulk of the population has no real desire to see it happen?

The amendment plank in the platform is a sop to the radical right. Anybody who thinks it will pass is simply ignoring the expressed will of the populace at large. If the amendment is acted upon by Congress, it will be defeated by the states. The constitutional amendment process was put in place by the party leadership *only* to prevent the establishment of gay marriage by judicial activism (there are still too many people in the countryó”flyover” statesóthat oppose the word “marriage” in association with gays). Civil unions with full legal rights equal to marriage will be established in a few years; it’s what most of the country wants.

I personally cannot for the life of me understand what the objection is to combining the words “gay” and “marriage”. But in conversations with friends and (older) family members, this seems to be the only major objection to establishing some sort of “partnership rights” situation for gays. I think it’s mostly a generational thingólike Andrew Sullivanóand that in 10 or 15 years, the whole argument will have gone away.

I know it’s difficult to counsel patience to people who have waited their whole lives to be considered equal and productive citizens under the law…but it’s coming. Society changes slowly.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:39 pm 7. Knucklehead:

Oh Gawd, Roger is channeling Totten!

Can anyone ’splain to me what Party Platforms are used for other than to keep some portion of convention attendees sober for a little while while they screech out the details? They are non-binding documents that set out a set of party principles and positions.

The Defeating Terrorism as its number 1 item. Does anyone really believe the Democratic Party has any intention of trying to subdue, never mind defeat, terrorism? Ed Koch sure doesn’t seem to think the Democratic Party has the stomach to followthrough with their first freakin’ plank.

The Republican Party Platform, such as it is at this point, says:

We support the traditional definition of “marriage” as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

I don’t know what the words have been changed to, but the chances of a consitituional ammendement “banning” same sex marriages are slim, fat, and none. The wording that is likely to be proposed, if anything is proposed, and will never see life as a ratified ammendment, will do nothing more than take the matter out of the hands of the federal judiciary and remove state definitions of marriage from the “full faith and credit” clause.

In other words they will put this matter where, IMO, it belongs - state legislatures. For the life of me I cannot see why that is viewed as some unbelievable horror. Proponents will have to slug their way through the legislatures as elected by their fellow citizens. What a burden.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:39 pm 8. Mike_Nargizian:

thibaud

I mused about that how McCain or Giulliani couldn’t get the nomination due to the socially conservatives not wanting them, not that it would be impossible depending on who the social conservative in the primary would be.

The problem is the Middle tent isn’t large enough nor has enough money to make a dent and then would have a hard time governing in Congress? though if the right person with the right amount of magnetism to the American people he could change the landscape somewhat and dent it.

Wey’re not even close to being there. The only 3rd parties are from the extremes, Greens, Buchananites etc..

Moderates are moderate by nature and thus less motivated I personally think?

So you’ll have to get moderates from the Repubs and Dems or pared down leftist or rightists like Clinton and Bush.

The far alternative is the nutsy Parliamentary System of Britain or France.

Mike

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:43 pm 9. Knucklehead:

There really are only two choices here. The Dems will deliver SSM at the federal level by judicial fiat. The Reps will attempt (very possibly unsuccessfully) to force SSM proponents to achieve their goal through legislative action in the states. A third, fourth, or twentieth political party will not change this fundamental situation.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:43 pm 10. Plinypere:

Roger, the whole subject of gay marriage was discussed under the DOMA during the Clinton era. It was the extreme left that brought all the confrontations using the unelected liberal judges and mayors pandering to their base as a divisive wedge during this election cycle. Many Democrats (Feinstein, et al) wanted this to wait for more peaceful times, ie, after this nation dealt with the alligators in the boat (islamic terrorism, leftist agitators, etc).

While our house if burning is not the time to discuss whether Jimmy or Judy gets the bigger bedroom. It would (& will) happen naturally…soon.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:44 pm 11. Kevin P:

Roger:

As stated above you are not a flak, you don’t need to like that part of the platform and you have a website in which you can speak your mind. As far as third parties go they don’t work, never have worked and unless there is a parlimentary system installed they never will.If TR couldn’t do it no one can. It would take years to form one and a solid money base. What you can do is speak your mind and try to influence the direction of the party. Remember platforms are usually constructed for the hard core party members and don’t always point to what the party leader is going to push during his term.

If you are feeling shakey about supporting Bush because of this issue just re-read the Kerry-Edwards give the Mullahs the bomb plan and read about the latest suicide attack in Israel.It may not make you feel good but I think you have made a wise choice in choosing the security of this nation your #1 priority in deciding which party to back. You can always go back to the dems in the future, but not if a WMD goes off in LA.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:50 pm 12. Rick Z:

I forget where I first heard it–it may have even come from Clinton’s ‘92 campaign–but the expression “boob-bait for the bubbas” I believe best describes the attitude of the leaders of both parties for the populist effluvia that must of neccessity be included in official platforms.

Presidential contests between the major parties are fought and won between the 40-yard-lines, and the proven game-winning strategy includes appealing to the instincts and fears of the worst in and among us.

Being a political grown-up requires recognition of the fact that politics in a democracy isn’t pretty.

As for the larger issue, there’s no question that in another decade the issue of gay marriage will be settled in the affirmative due to simple demographics. Polls of young voter attitudes on both sides of the fence are virtually unanimous on this finding.

In the meantime, we have ideological issues that won’t be settled so simply and inevitably, and we have no choice but to join the battle.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:51 pm 13. Brian:

The gay marriage debate ain’t about gay, it’s about marriage. And judicial activism, these days. Set fire to me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see how homophobia even has any bearing one way or the other.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:53 pm 14. syn:

I met a “Fag for Bush” at this Sunday’s protest. He calls himself a homosexual and believes the “Gay movement”, a term he abhors for it’s myoptic stance on homosexuality, is nothing more than a fascistic hyjacking of homosexuality. He is also a man of deep religious faith and considers himself to be “Over” the Rainbow.

Roger, sometimes we fight for the right thing but go about it in the wrong way.

Not all homosexuals consider themselves ‘gay’ nor do they believe in the politically correct gayness that is being forced upon them. For my homosexual friend, he believes it is dangerous to follow a constricted ideology which is forcing him and others to deny their own core beliefs.

He is a Republican, Bush-supporting, religious man, see him for this not because he has been labeled “Gay” by a constricted movement.

This is what I love about the majority in the Republican party, they honor an individuals right to their follow one’s core beliefs.

By the way, my friend believes that the powers that be in the gay movement are hijacking marriage so that one day they will be able to completely eliminate the core value of marriage, thus destroy the entire institute. His voice is condemned in the “gay movement” which is why he joined our group of counter-protesters.

This NY’er has provided me with food for thought I haven’t heard in my eleven years living in NYC.

Hope I can help pass his message along before it is too late.

Aug 31, 2004 - 12:59 pm 15. WichitaBoy:

Thibaud, nonsense. There isn’t going to be any third party in the near future. That would come only in the event of a major breakdown in the entire political system.

Roger, there’s a lot to be said for standing outside the two parties and being that oft derided independent who continually pulls the two parties back to sanity. On the one hand, it’s nutso to believe, as Edwards seems to believe, that playing nicey nice with the mullahs is going to solve the problem. That’s classic head-in-the-sand make-it-go-away-daddy behavior. On the other hand, we have TmjUtah (with whom I usually agree and whom I often admire) stating that Giuliani’s not a real Republican.

I simply do not feel obligated to agree with one group or the other on every issue.

Take one of the most contentious ones, abortion. I agree completely with Clinton here: “abortion should be legal and rare”. I also understand the problem with this: if it is legal, the ability to have one is going to be abused sometimes. I also sympathize with the frustration of pro-life activists who have found that their opinions have been completely ignored by judicial fiat. When they’ve tried to “play within the system” by getting their own judges appointed (a necessary check on the judicial branch, by the way), they’ve been stymied by Democratic shenanigans. Think what you will about abortion, there’s something that stinks in those tactics.

Or take gay marriage. I favor it, but I also realize that it’s a major change from millenia of history, and the “law of unintended consequences” should probably give us pause here. I think in another generation it’s a done deal. I know people in the present are suffering and I’m sympathetic to that. So we’ll probably have it before another generation. But it’s going to take time for people to mellow on the concept.

I don’t, in short, fit at all into either party. And I don’t expect a whole bunch of people to suddently join me in some ill-thought-out third party; crazy as I am, that would undoubtedly be an even worse solution than the present mess.

I agree with ter0. Knock the Republicans on their behind. Ask them the hard questions. Don’t be shy. Right now we’ve got Michael Moore trying to pretend he has some level of objectivity in his coverage of Republicans. How much better for this important task to be accomplished by someone with intelligence, humanity, and taste?

Inconvenient facts are ignored by both parties, albeit different ones in each case. It’s a civic duty to continually bring these facts to their attention, whether they are pleased or not. Sometimes that means voting for the other party, since that’s the only real leverage any of us possesses. Often that means holding our nose and voting for the other party, because the facts being ignored by the one are more important than the nonsense being spewed by the other.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:02 pm 16. ambisinistral:

First off, this is more than some obscure plank in the Republican Platform that is never going to be mentioned again. The Republicans already pushed this issue and they’ll push it again.

Secondly, if it is not about homophobia, then exactly why is it being fought so furiously?

As a liberal, my unease over this issue is that it is yet another attempt by the religious right to impose their values on the rest of us. If their churches don’t want to recognize gay marriages then don’t perform them. However, people outside of their sects may have different beliefs about gay marriage and I see no reason why those different beliefs should not be respected buy our secular government.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:09 pm 17. thibaud:

Mike,

The problem is the Middle tent isn’t large enough

Not so. Look at the numbers, starting with who’s off limits to a third party: The hardcore left-liberals are about 40% of Dems, who account for barely 30% of likely voters. There’s 12% of the total. Add perhaps another 5% who are left-libs but do not identify with the Dems, so maybe 17% of likely voters are too left and therefore out of reach.

The hardcore social conservatives are maybe 50% of Republicans, who account for maybe 33% of likely voters. That yields about 17% of the total. Add another maybe 10% of the electorate that’s very socially conservative and you have about 27% who are out of reach on the far right.

That leaves about 56% who are in the center and 44% who are on the far left and far right. Even if I’ve underestimated the extremes, it’s very unlikely that left-libs account for more than 20% of the population or that social conservatives account for more than a third of the population.

This is a centrist country, and winning over two-thirds of the centrists will give you a plurality of the vote in a presidential election.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:11 pm 18. Knucklehead:

Brian,

As far as I can ponder this out, SSM is one of several issues that one side just cannot accept disagreement about without assigning a dark, even subconsciously held, motive. No matter how one arrives at the decision to be “against SSM” and no matter what form the “against” takes, those “for SSM” will insist (and probably believe) that some form of active or latent homophobia is the “true” cause. Abortion is similar. One cannot present any case against abortion without being assumed to be a radical, right-wing, religious freakazoid.

I don’t understand why SSM proponents are unwilling to fight this out in legislature and, seemingly, would rather piss off half or more of the population by attempting to achieve it through Judicial Usurpy.

Abortion is another example. If I were a supporter of Abortion on Demand, No Questions Asked, Taxpayer Funds It and Shuts Up, I wouldn’t want my cornerstone to be dubious nonsense like Roe v. Wade. But one cannot discuss the legal merits of Roe v. Wade - the topic is banned. In fact, accepting that piece of judicial idiocy with a polite smile and sage nod is considered a litmus test. One cannot even discuss the idea of discussing limits to abortions procedures or funding sources without being labeled a VRWC fanatic.

Just one of those odd topics that drive people bonkers beyond any ability to discuss or even consider reasoned argumentation about. Talk about gun control to some gun folks sometime.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:13 pm 19. Brian:

Secondly, if it is not about homophobia, then exactly why is it being fought so furiously?

Because marriage is an important institution, and weakening marriage typically leads to an increase in state power and intrusiveness.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:17 pm 20. TmjUtah:

Oh geeze.

Gay marriage:

If you are a Left activist, it’s a chance to stick one right in the eye of the conservative right, with the added spice of limitless opportunities to hurl homophobe, fascist, and fundie labels with reckless abandon. From the right, you are defending an institution that predates our constitution by about four thousand years and WORKS.

Speaking of the war thing:

I just watched the first thirty seconds of the Nepalese hostages being slaughtered. Then I threw up all over my lap. No warning at all; I moved just quick enough to keep from more than splattering my desk and the carpet below.

I’ve seen dead people before. Shucks, I’ve watched a few die from trauma. I’ve felt more empathy while dressing a deer than those barbarians evinced during their act of murder.

I don’t think our current Doctrine can work fast enough to defang the evil that is become Islam. I applaud the vision and still respect the limitations of our political divisions, and recognise that we as a nation are probably doing the best we can do at this time…but it may be time to put away the scalpel.

Screw that. It’s past time.

Islam delenda est.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:17 pm 21. Knucklehead:

For those who believe there is some magic “center” that holds uniform opinions on the “important” issues, please construct, for discussion purposes, a Centrist Party 2004 Platform.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:24 pm 22. Gerry:

Mr. Simon,

I have a question for you. Do you believe it is possible to oppose gay marriage without being homophobic?

Gerry

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:26 pm 23. thibaud:

WichitaBoy,

Here’s the problem with the two parties. This nation is facing two catastrophes, one that’s top of mind and that may or may not occur, another that’s all but ignored but is almost certain to occur.

The first disaster has provoked a reasonably respectable response from one party and total confusion from the other. The second looming disaster provoked a reasonable response from one party when it held power and total incoherence from the other now that it has power.

In other words, if I vote Republican and they control the Congress and the White House, it’s a near certainty that these don’t-tax-do-spend opportunists will hasten a fiscal catastrophe caused by the confluence of enormous dependence on foreign capital, demographics, medical technology and the entitlements mentality. There is next to zero likelihood that fiscally-irresponsible Rove Republicans will address this honestly and courageously. My vote doesn’t mean squat to Karl Rove, who’s more interested in raising evangelical turnout than appealing to intelligent centrists.

OTOH if I vote Democrat I may get some hope on the fiscal front if only because of divided government (recall 1994), but there’s a serious chance that these irresponsible naifs will be blackmailed by a nuclear Iran. And there’s little chance that I can persuade my party’s leaders otherwise. They think they can win my vote by saluting at the camera and mouthing idiocies like “Reporting for duty!” while putting forth more Carterite mush.

So we’re screwed if we vote D, screwed if we vote R. This is not an acceptable choice.

This situation cannot hold. It must change before we collapse, either from an Iranian-supplied dirty bomb or a cascading financial collapse triggered by Asian central banks deciding that massive Treasury holdings don’t look so necessary after all.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:27 pm 24. ambisinistral:

There are two main views about homosexuality. On is the secular notion that it is a sexual orientation some portion of the population is prone to. The second is the religiously based notion that it is a sin.

If the secular people are right then civil same sex marriages make sense. If the religious notion is right, then same sex marriages are sinful unions. That is the fault line the debate seperates on, and to pretend otherwise serves no useful purpose.

We live in a secular society. I’ll respect a religious sect who’s dogma does not sanctify same sex for its membership. I will not respect a sect that attempts to make its dogma national policy.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:28 pm 25. thibaud:

Two looming catastrophes, and the party in power wishes to talk about… homosexuality.

It’s the political equivalent of bread and circuses.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:30 pm 26. asher:

Roger, great post. But why would attending the Republican convention, and being favorably impressed by some of what you see and hear there, make you a “flak” for the Republican Party? I hope you’re not slipping into this leftist mentality where if you happen to agree with [insert applicable authority figure here], you must be selling out to “the Man”.

I’m a registered Republican. I plan on voting Republican this November, and my blog is listed on “Blogs for Bush”. Does that make me a “flak for the Republican Party”?

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:32 pm 27. Matthew Cromer:

Thibaud,

What’s the difference between proportionally smaller deficits today (along with huge ongoing productivity and economic growth) versus the larger deficits of the past? Why are we suddenly about to face economic collapse that has heretofore failed to visit us?

I’m not a fan of government spending, but I fail to see the sky falling.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:34 pm 28. Knucklehead:

Ambi,

Secondly, if it is not about homophobia, then exactly why is it being fought so furiously?

There is no exactly. There are numerous reasons in various combinations with various weights and priorities.

And what is your definition of fought so furiously? Anything short of rolling over and letting whichever Minor or Major Mayor or JoP decide its time for the nation to shut up and accept SSM is “fighting it furiously”?

For those who are fighting so furiously for SSM, what exactly is it you want? What, exactly, is marriage and what, exactly, are the benefits it confers upon those who enter into it that are needed so badly, right now? And why, when the Dems had both houses and Clinton as president, wasn’t this issue getting the same full-court press it get’s today?

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:34 pm 29. lindybill:

It’s an uneasy marriage for most of us. Both parties are so big that you have to “swallow hard” in either.

The battle is between the Eagles and the Social Conservatives in the Republican party on domestic policy and they agree on foreign. It is between the pacifists and the hawks in the Democratic one, and they agree on domestic.

Right now, the war on militant Islam is the overriding issue. That controls my vote.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:38 pm 30. Knucklehead:

I meant to say …when the Dems had both houses or Clinton as president… (did they ever have both?)

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:39 pm 31. ambisinistral:

And what is your definition of fought so furiously

Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:42 pm 32. rickE:

Ambi,

You set up a false dichotomy. It is possible to be opposed to SSM strictly based on secular arguments. There are many such arguments, but please go back to the top of this discussion and read my post( the fourth one down, discussing newborn adoption issues) and the article linked by Dennis Prager. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040504.shtml Homophobia or religion is not the issue.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:46 pm 33. flenser:

ambisinstral

“..the secular notion that [homosexuality] is a sexual orientation some portion of the population is prone to. ….If the secular people are right then civil same sex marriages make sense.”

You are making some incredible leaps of logic there. How does this “make sense”? There are a great many things that people are “prone to”; that does not mean that society needs to embrace and endorse them all, surely?

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:52 pm 34. fatherson:

From my viewpoint as an economist, the purpose of marriage is to protect the father’s investment in the child. In marriage, the father, “forsaking all others”, is promised in return that the child for whose upbringing he is responsible carries his genes. In a same-sex union, there is no fatherhood to protect.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:53 pm 35. stumbley:

Ambi:

“Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels.”

Proposing a constitutional amendment *forces* the issue to be addressed at the local and state levels…and will result in *exactly* what its opponents want: no federal law against same-sex marriage, and the forcing of state and local legislatures to deal with the issue on their own.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:55 pm 36. Charlie (Colorado):

Michael Moore’s USA Today column asks a random Republican about these things and finds that Republican is “too liberal for the GOP”.

Who Moore proposes as the real GOP is apparently defined as “all the people who I don’t like in the GOP”.

Roger, remember I suggested you get around and talk to the actual delegates? You might try asking some of these same questions. My own impression is that opposition to gay marriage is about as widespread, or as limited, as it is in the population as a whole: something like 65 percent.

We may not like it, but it’s a category error to then say it’s the Republicans.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:56 pm 37. TmjUtah:

“So we’re screwed if we vote D, screwed if we vote R. This is not an acceptable choice.”

Thiabaud -

I’m declaring a punk’d in action.

The Democrats refuse to recognise that we are involved in a clash of civilizations.

The Republicans won’t acquiesce in the destruction of an institution that is without a doubt one of the key foundation blocks upon which our entire culture stands.

And you think the level of spending on the part of the Republicans the last four years stands as proof of some sort of abdication of sense?

How about a short term strategy to ensure solid support of existing constituencies, with an eye to picking up more seats the next election, instigated by a recognition that without substantially increasing the number of their seats they would continue to be hamstrung by the monolithic obstruction of the Democratic minority?

Why, that would be spending other peoples’ money to achieve a political goal, wouldn’t it? I like the reaction of Democrats whenever they see Republicans resort to classic left parliamentary shenanigans; they look like they’ve been savaged by a duck. Politics is about staying true to priniciples but sometimes you have to win right now in order to make it possible to further those prinicples. The Republicans are playing by the rules of the arena they are in. Distasteful? I suppose so, but the last fistfight I was ever in left me tired, bloody, and bruised but still conscious. That is the arena of our congress right now, make no mistake about it.

I’m much, MUCH less concerned about the current level of spending in congress than I am about keeping a strong majority that supports fighting this war. What excesses the Reps are party to now can be partly attributed to early efforts to reach across the aisle, and for their efforts they got kicked right in the teeth. As a function of GDP our deficits are high but nothing remotely unsustainable…especially in light of the fact that a Republican administration and majority will likely foster continued economic growth as well as effectively address Social Security and litigation reform.

There’s the opposition, and then there’s the enemy. It’s essential that one be able to make the distinction when it matters. I say that for BOTH sides of an argument, too - and encourage that the participants in our national debate that hold office or positions of power work very, very hard to remember the job is to protect and defend the country FIRST and their agenda second.

I don’t support the part of the Republican plank that attempts to rule out civil unions or legal protections for same-sex relationships. Sue me..but I’m still a Republican in spite of disagreeing . There will NEVER be a constitutional amendment passed that contains such prohibitions.

On the other hand, there is no such guarantee that some court may remove the debate from the public forum entirely, with who knows what consequences?

You can pass a law redefining a zebra as a horse…but there’s never going to be a zebra standing in the winner circle at the Derby because even if it has four legs, a tail, and a mane, it can’t compete in a competition that horses were bred for. Water flows downhill. DOWNhill. And there’s no court or law that can change that. Hubris.

We live in interesting times.

Aug 31, 2004 - 1:59 pm 38. Knucklehead:

Ambi,

Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels.

That’s a fat load of twaddle (and you are well aware of that). Judges, mayors, ministers and JoPs were going off half-cocked and marrying homosexuals before it had been addressed at the local and state levels. A small minority segment of society tried for force this on the entire nation as a fait accompli. The proponents, with full forethought and, perhaps, malice, decided it was time to force the hand of a Republican administration and congress. No politician would have touched this with a fifty foot poll if the issue hadn’t been forced by opportunistic activists who were at least as much interested ins starting a national catfight and blaming it on “The Meanspirited Bigotted Republicans”.

Now, go here and read about the proposed amendment and the onerous process of amending the constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment is not going to happen unless SSM proponents refuse to climb down off their moralistic hobby horses and go through legislature the way they should. Activists pushed this issue and found out the majority of the nation aren’t ready to be pushed around about this. Get to work convincing people rather than shoving this down their throats.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:01 pm 39. flenser:

ambis

“Going off half-cocked and proposing a Constitutional Ammendment banning it before it had been addressed at the local and state levels.”

This is disingenuous. The whole strategy of the gay marriage proponents is to bypass the state and local levels entirely. Once gay marriage is “legalized” in a couple of states by one group of rogue judges, the issue will be kicked up to the SCOTUS. Based on their language recently, there is every indication that they will decide to strike down laws banning gay marriage.

Taking the issue out of the hands of the courts, and putting it back where it belongs, is the correct answer. That is, if the question is anything other than “How do we guarantee that gay marriage becomes the law of the land?”

Question for you. Why are you so opposed to letting the people, through their elected representatives, make the decision as to what constitutes marriage? Don’t you think that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:06 pm 40. Thom:

Whether or not you approve of gay marriage, the comment above expressing incredulity that 38 states would pass such an amendment is off the mark. The required number of states (including many “blue” states) already have enacted defense of marriage acts or state constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage. While that may not indicate that they would all support a federal constitutional amendment, if a court decision came down forcing them to recognize out of state gay marriages, the federal constitutional amendment is likely to pass.

This issue is one of the reasons that I don’t think Ohio or Louisiana are seiously in play in this election, and why Michigan will probably go for Bush. All of these states will most likely have anti-gay marriage proposals on the ballot, and as we saw in the bellweather state of Missouri, these proposals are wildly popular (70% voted in favor of a constitutional amendment in Missouri last month).

The liberal Mass Supreme Court thought it was throwing Bush a curve by forcing this issue in an electin year, but it badly miscalculated.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:09 pm 41. bdog57:

ambisinistral,

The Rs didn’t start it (Hello MA judges! Hello Gavin Newsom!). They’re just going to finish it. Talking about it is a winning issue, here’s why…

all,

There seems to be a popular notion in these quarters that the majority of the country supports SSM, and if the social conservatives/religious right would just get out of the way the “rest of us” could all live in harmony. Wrong, wrong, wrong. DOMA passed in 1996 by greater than 75% (if I recall). 38 states have mini-DOMAs. Missouri (the bellwether) just passed a state constitutional ban by 70%. Oregon recently got a ballot initiative added which will put a ban into their state constitution which garnered more signatures than any other in OR state history (it’s gonna pass, folks). Eleven other states have similar measures on the ballot in November. California passed Prop 22 in 2000 by 61.4%.

If even California and Oregon are passing these measures by such large margins, I’d say that the RNC is on solid footing in putting this in the platform. (BTW, ambisinistral and thibaud, I highly doubt that these large majorities of people across the country are all bible-thumping, religious right fanatics who are out to usurp all happiness and fun from society. Just a guess).

An amendment banning SSM is a distinct possibility. Should DOMA be struck down as unconstitutional (rightly, I might add), an amendment will be a near-certainty.

thibaud,

Equivocating a near-treasonous stance on national defense with irresponsible fiscal policy isn’t realistic. One gets you less rich (notice I didn’t say “poor”). The other gets you dead.

On the need for a new party:

This party is already in existence. It is called the Democratic Party. It has been hijacked by the Commies and needs to reform desperately. When the Democratic Party rejects socialism, embraces nationalism, and spurns elitism/racism/class warfare, people will flock to it again and American politics will return to normalcy. Until then, I’m afraid that those who have a vested interest in self-preservation are stuck with the Good Ol’ GOP.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:14 pm 42. bdog57:

Hmmm….

Looks like a few people already made some of my points (Sigh). I take too long to write.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:15 pm 43. thibaud:

Tmj,

The Republicans won’t acquiesce in the destruction of an institution that is without a doubt one of the key foundation blocks upon which our entire culture stands

I agree on much of what you say as regards foreign policy but the above statement, in a society in which 63% of all marriages end in divorce, is nonsense. Obviously, the demise of marriage as a serious lifelong commitment has not subverted “the foundation of our civilization.”

The vast majority of Americans, like most western Europeans, consider marriage to be a contract between two willing parties who can dissolve it at will at any time. Since it’s happening in equal numbers in both religious America and secular Europe, it has nothing to do with one’s religiousity or commitment to “moral values.” Most Christian marriages end in divorce, most Republican marriages end in divorce, most marriages period in 2004 in the western democracies end in divorce.

To me this is a stupid and bizarre trend that makes a mockery of the right’s commitment to “family values.” I don’t believe in god and wasn’t married in a church, but my wife and I are committed that only death will part us. My wife strongly opposes gay marriage but frankly, given the appalling track record of most straight marriages, could the gays really do worse?

btw, the Church into which I was baptized and which educated me does not permit divorce. Why should I believe that core Republican denominations such as the Baptists and Methodists that permit divorce are somehow more stalwart champions of “family values” than liberal Catholics who do not divorce?

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:18 pm 44. Mike Silverman:

There seems to be a popular notion in these quarters that the majority of the country supports SSM

I don’t think anyone believe that all-out same-sex marriage is the majority position in America.

However, I think (and I am pretty sure polls bear this out) that the majority of the country supports some type of accomodation for gay couples short of marriage — such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Indeed, if you look at recent years, several state legislatures have passed domestic partnership laws on their own volition, without the courts being involved.

This is where the raw line of difference is within the body politic. There are a lot of people who are squeamish about marriage who nonetheless support domestic partnerships or civil unions. Yet the “true believers” oppose those limited accomodations (even if they are passed legislatively).

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:21 pm 45. Terrye:

Roger:

I ususally agree with you, but here we part ways.

In a recent election in Mo. 70% of the people who went to the polls voted against legalizing gay marriage. All they are homophobic? Do you know them? Do you have the right to make that determination based on that vote? And Kerry supported it. The Dems are not exactly getting behind this. To hear people tell it you would think that gay marriae was the law of the land and the Republicans were taking a right away from someone. Not so.

People say the states should decide it, so what if the states do what Missouri did? For that matter California passed a referendum against gay marriage the Mayor San Francisco just ignored it.

So is it fair to say the state legislatures should decide it and then ignore the law when they do or bypass them altogether?

I think gay marriage might have been a far more acceptable institution in some future time and I think if gay activists had been more patient this would not be an issue now.

I don’t think the amendment will pass, but I do think a debate will take place and hopefully we will come to an agreement that the majority of us can live with.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:22 pm 46. submandave:

There is a very big elephant in the SSM living room that can be summed up in a single word: children. That which diferentiates homosexual couples from heterosexual couples is the ability to, independently of external forces, create new life. This is a biological fact and while there have been many advances in medical practices that can assist non-conventionally conceived pregnancies, the norm is still that a child is born to a man and woman. As such, the only compelling interest I can see for the State in marriage is the effect that particular institution has on the creation, development and growth of the next generation. When you remove the issue of children it makes no sense for the government to impart any significance upon any personal relationship based solely upon the emotions of the parties. In this regard, on what basis should the government confer special status upon two people but not upon another two based upon the presence or absence of sexual activity? It is absurd to use this as the basis of legal standing. In the case of a heterosexual couple, however, while it is not required it is reasonable for the State to assume that children are a likely outcome of the partnership and therefore recognize it as having distinct legal standing.

As medical and societal practices change, this norm may be challenged, perhaps even rendering the traditional concept of marriage moot. That, however, is not the landscape in which we find ourselves today. (more here)

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:22 pm 47. lindenen:

“I agree on much of what you say as regards foreign policy but the above statement, in a society in which 63% of all marriages end in divorce, is nonsense.”

And maybe this isn’t good. Maybe this is something that needs to be changed. Maybe we shouldn’t do things that might exacerbate an already tenuous situation. And I’m sure you’re more than aware that there’s a ton of research which basically states this situation has not been particularly good for children or women.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:23 pm 48. Mike Silverman:

I think gay marriage might have been a far more acceptable institution in some future time and I think if gay activists had been more patient this would not be an issue now.

What about civil unions or domestic partnerships?

I think (and I am pretty sure polls bear this out) that the majority of the country supports some type of accomodation for gay couples short of marriage — such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, even if they are opposed to full marriage rights.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:27 pm 49. Kevin P:

To everyone:

Third parties are a fantasy. Study the history of third parties in this country.They have failed EVERY time.The Republican party replaced the Whigs after that party collapsed. The reform, the libertarian,the communist, the green, the dixiecrats, the bull moose. They failed, failed,failed failed, failed, failed. You can have some success on a city or possibly even on a state election but as far as national elections they are a constant historical failure. Even that boob Michael Moore figured this out after the failed Nader-Green flop.

Third parties are fun to discuss at cocktail parties and they go well in college classrooms.But if you study the history of third parties and examine the structural rules of our political system you can come to only one conclusion, they don’t work. And the two parties are not going to change the rules to let third parties flourish. If there is one thing I can guarantee will unite the Dems and the pubs this is it. You have a better chance of changing a party from within the party. There have been historical examples of this, for instance the change of the republican party from the party of Rockefeller to the party of Reagan. it takes decades of hard work and sweat but it has and can be done. Give me one example of a third party working, in this country, and I might change my mind

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:30 pm 50. Rick Ballard:

“I take too long to write.”

au contraire bdog57, you’re assessment was well worth waiting for. The facts that you laid out concerning DOMA and the favorable percentages (I’ve never seen the subject poll less than 60% favorable) would lead anyone with political acumen to be a bit puzzled by the responses appearing here. Is the Republican party supposed to commit hari kiri with its base in order to satisfy the desires of what amounts to a fringe? As if the DNC would allow a plank opposing the proposed amendment into their platform.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:34 pm 51. Mike Silverman:

I don’t think the amendment will pass, but I do think a debate will take place and hopefully we will come to an agreement that the majority of us can live with.

I am curious what “the majority of us can live with” would be.

There are both anti-gay and pro-gay folks posting here…I am actually curious as to what a real compromise woul dbe.

I am a gay person who believes marriage is a civil right and that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is morally wrong. I am hopeful that the majority of Americans will one day see things as I do, but that day may be years or decades away.

I am willing to compromise, and live with a separate but equal (or even a separate but unequal) status of civil union or domestic partnership on a state by state level.

I guess what I would ask social conservatives is that if a state passes a civil union or domestic partnership law, will you guys agree to leave it alone and not try to overturn it at the Federal level?

As far as I can see things, the only compromise that will work is state by state — if either side tries to force a uniform nationwide policy at the federal level, that will not fly….and that goes for pro-gay marriage folks of course, too.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:34 pm 52. thibaud:

bdog,

ambisinistral and thibaud, I highly doubt that these large majorities of people across the country are all bible-thumping, religious right fanatics who are out to usurp all happiness and fun from society. Just a guess

I agree with you totally that most people in this country are against gay marriage, just as most are against outlawing abortion. I didn’t raise the issue and would defer to the people on it.

If the people wish to keep gays out of this sacred institution, which for 63% of those who enter into it has all the binding force of a dog license, then so be it. In my proposed party it would not be treated as a constitutional issue.

As to the fiscal disaster, here’s the problem. As a nation we do not save nearly enough to fund our deficits. Given this negative savings rate and our $450B deficit, US interest rates and mortgage rates remain low only because the central banks of three asian nations– Japan, China and So Korea– have decided to buy up something like 2/3rds of the US Treasuries outstanding.

There is no fundamental economic reason why they should continue to do so. Europe has low inflation, the euro is very stable, and teh risk-return profile of euro fixed-income investments, as bond gurus like Bill Gross of PIMCO and longtime policy gurus like Peter G. Peterson have pointed out, are much more favorable than Treasuries.

So if the asians decide to switch over to euros, then demand for Treasuries will quickly tank, causing either pressure from the Fed for US investors to swap out of other investments (like equities) into Treasuries or else, far more likely, a very sharp fall in bond prices = sharp rise in interest rates. In either case, the two sources of savings that are sustaining 90% of the middle-clas households in this economy– equities and home equity– will come under great pressure. And of course, with high interest rates economic growth will not exceed 1-2%, meaning higher unemployment. This is a very real danger.

In other words, your economic future and mine depends on the good graces of a few men in Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul. That scares the s*** out of me and should scare the s*** out of every American.

And I see absolutely no evidence that Rove or Bush gives a damn about this danger.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:35 pm 53. RogerA:

I tend to reject the notion that to oppose SSM is to be homophobic–I think it possible to oppose SSM on strictly Burkean conservative lines. I am generally in favor of SSM along the lines indicated in numerous comments above; to wit, Let the State recognize civil unions as marriage (with all the rights pertaining thereto) and let the churches have sole authority in determining if they will celebrate marriage according to their tenents. Having said that, it really is important HOW this change takes place in society. Somehow, it must take place through a process that reflects the will of the majority–either in the several states or through constitutional processes. It should not be imposed (IMHO) by judicial fiat nor unilateral action by civil authorities. The concept of marriage, it seems to me, is long standing across all civilizations, and not to be changed lightly.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:35 pm 54. Mike Silverman:

Regarding third parties, I echo what Kevin P said — they will never work, and the best way to effect change is within a party. Historically, when third parties appear, they either rapidly take over as one of the two major parties, or they go kaput after a couple election cycles.

And if you are stuck at the razor’s edge like Roger (or other socially liberal hawks) you don’t claim allegiance to either party but vote each election on an contemporary issues basis. That means for Roger this year it is Bush because of terrorism, but in 4 years, maybe it will be the Democrat, and 4 years after that, the Republican again, all based on what you see as the most important issue of the day and the qualities of the candidate.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:39 pm 55. thibaud:

lindenen,

a society in which 63% of all marriages end in divorce…: Maybe this isn’t good. Maybe this is something that needs to be changed. Maybe we shouldn’t do things that might exacerbate an already tenuous situation. And I’m sure you’re more than aware that there’s a ton of research which basically states this situation has not been particularly good for children or women.

I oppose divorce, just as I oppose the absurd notion that the miserable record of heterosexuals justifies their refusal to allow gays to “subvert” this institution that’s no more sacred than a dog license to them.

Let’s suppose the state of, say, Missouri, suddenly allowed gay marriage and thousands of gays and lesbians who had been devoted to each other for ten years or more rushed to the altar.

What would be the effect of this on the overall divorce rate five years from now? Would it go up or down?

If the latter, as is likely, then it follows that gay marriage would actually STRENGTHEN marriage in this country, not the reverse.

Again, I have no dog in this fight but it’s completely absurd to argue that gays are weakening heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuals are doing a nice enough job of of destroying it by themselves, thank you.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:43 pm 56. TmjUtah:

thibaud (BTW, apologize for the misspelling above) -

Where did I make a moral or religious argument in favor of traditional marriage?

It’s a matter of practicality to me.

So what if 63% of marriages end in divorce? What place in this argument can that statistic have any relevance? “See, the institution is a failure already, so we can’t screw it up any worse?”

I could see you using that stat in another argument, though. Prior to the 1960’s, when uncontested divorce became the norm, the leading edge of juvenile crime was…unruly classroom behaviour. That standard no longer pertains. Wonder why that is? Maybe if the contractural bonds of marriage were legally strengthened we might be able to knock back the incidence of monsters resulting from broken homes?

On-demand divorce is just one component of the ‘no guilt’ pop culture that has returned monstrous divedends after being enacted with the best of intentions. It takes WORK to make most marriages work…and removing the social and legal onus from that reality by a stroke of a pen was a horrible mistake.

Uncontested divorce allowed the participants in marriage to dissolve a contract without incurring personal penalty. Oh, there’s child support and sometimes alimony, sure, but socially? Nah. You weren’t happy so you got out. And that the kids will grow up lacking direct and daily input, guidance, and mentoring from both halves of the psychological universe that is family is never mentioned. There’s an economist around here someplace. Maybe he’ll weigh in with what effect contracts without enforceable obligations have on commerce. Just a guess.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:45 pm 57. Vail Beach:

Political parties live for votes and money. The The Democrats have become a shell for labor and the wealthy left who together pay almost all the bills, which is why that party’s preoccupations seem almost quaint and must be hidden from view when voters are in the room. There aren’t many voters out there for pro-labor, Hollywood-PC causes. The Republicans have almost the opposite problem. They raise money on the basis of their economic and defense positions, but they can’t scare up a majority without votes from bigoted fundamentalists who would undoubtedly dump George W. Bush in a heartbeat if he ever spoke a word in favor of same sex marriage.

It’s possible to imagine a scenario in which the Republican party collapses, and its funders try to create a new party designed to peel off moderate Democrats to join them in favor of economic sanity, social libertarianism, environmental sustainability and defense hawkishness. These are all majority-held positions that can be coherently argued together as well as separately. But that day seems a long way off.

The Democratic party will not change; it will only become more sclerotic as the obsessions of its primary funders become less and less relevant to today’s world, while their checks correspondingly get larger.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:45 pm 58. insatty:

I disagree wholeheartedly with ambisinistral’s statement of conventional wisdom. All the gay folks I know and know of are very successful people in monogamous relationships. Their inablility to obtain a marriage licence has not negatively affected their lifestyles. The entire gay-marriage issue was foisted upon our culture by liberal, unelected judges and the militant gay lobbies. To me, ambisinistral, the religious left are imposing its views on the rest of us. After thousands of years, where custom and practice of human existence has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, why did the religious left suddenly find a “right” to another definition in 2004?

This entire issue is fabricated to create a wedge to elect socialists that would do more to abolish economic and social freedom than any person that wants the traditional definition of marriage to stay traditional. Gay folks have the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that any other hetero has. Being unable to obtain a licence documenting a legally created fiction that codifies eons of custom and practice does NOTHING to diminish these inalienable rights.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:47 pm 59. Rick Ballard:

Mike S.,

It is at least possible that you could sit down with evangelicals and gain their support for civil unions or domestic partnerships. There is no true theological impediment (that I am aware of) to developing laws covering contractual arrangements between individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, that would cover the vast majority of the status issues that are truly important.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:49 pm 60. Eric Deamer:

Roger and Yehudit:

Did you know that Rick Santorum and, of course “the Derb” were both at that thing last night? Kooky huh. Now there’s some ideological diversity.

Yeah, the schism between social/religious conservatives Republican and social liberal Republicans is getting pretty bad. See Judith’s link. These people do not want us defining the direction of the party whatsoever. They’re pissed off that Giuliani/Schwarzeneggar/Pataki/McCain are even getting to speak in primte time. They actually think that Bush is not socially conservative enough, not anti-gay enough. It’s amazing. If it wasn’t for the war I think you might see the party splitting in two or the social liberals trying to take over the Democrats and make them reasonable (which might not be a bad idea even now come to think of it).

At that panel, Zell Miller seemed to me to say that the only reason for his political transformation was his opposition to gay marriage and conservative stance on other social issues. He didn’t say word one about foreign policy. It’s all the culture war for him.

The second panel was even more nuts. It was essentially composed of all these old school New York/Catholic/Conservative Party guys, who are darkly warning that if Bush doesn’t gay bash enough, social conservatives will just take their ball and go home. In answer to the “Where will they go?” question, one guy said, “We’ll go bowling, fishing, spend time with our families on election day.” Is this true? And, if so, what the hell is wrong with these people? Are they really willing to turn the country’s national security over to John Kerry simply over a few domestic issues? And people complain about Andrew Sullivan . . .

My question is what more could they possibly want from Bush? He’s already said that he supports an Amendment to the constitution the wording of which prohibited states from allowing any gay civil marriage or even civil unions. He is strongly pro-life. He can’t unilaterally outlaw abortion as president, but he appoints strongly pro-life judges, and probably would get to appoint a strongly pro-life Supreme Court Justice in his second term. To top it all off, he even supports an anti flag-burning Amendment. Yet, still these people are petulantly whining about having non culture-warriors speak and are threatening to stay home. I say we call their bluff.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:50 pm 61. flenser:

Somebody give thibaud a nudge.

His needle is stuck.

thibaud, do you have more than one post? I mean, can’t you at least change the wording a little, rather than doing these cut-and-paste jobs?

The Asians, and the Europeans, all have a vested interest in the US economy not going down the tubes. When America sneezes, the world catches a cold.

Have you checked out what the debt scenario is for the countries of Old Europe? If you have money in there, I recommend not leaving it too long.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:51 pm 62. thibaud:

I agree wholeheartedly that divorce causes major social problems. For middle-class people, divorce is a temprorary headache. For working-class people, divorce is an unmitigated financial disaster.

Children in families that stay together, that have two incomes and that benefit from significant economies in household costs, are far less likely to be poor than children in single-parent families. Remember when such families used to be called “broken homes”? They’re the norm now, and it has absolutely zip to do with gays.

Which is one reason that I have no problem with the prospect of committed homosexual couples marrying. It’s absurd to say that the self-centeredness and parental incompetence of so many heterosexuals is somehow a result of gays coming out of the closet. They should fix their own damn house instead of blaming innocent third parties like Roger’s son and his friend.

A pox on both your parties.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:52 pm 63. chuck:

Heh! fight! fight!

Look, Kerry’s campaign is now about medals. Do you want Bush’s to be about gay marriage? It’s all about priorities folks. If the WOT is the big concern, then let us put aside differences until the job is well in hand. If not, hey, it’s your funeral, and maybe mine too.

And WTF is this RINO bit. You show me who owns the Republican party, and I’ll let them make the call. If, just on the off chance that you *do* own the Republican party, why don’t you devote a part of the convention tomorrow to a formal excommunication of Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzenegger. That way you can rest assured that you are among the chosen. After, dressed in white robes to advertize your purity, you can go forth and impress the people.

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:57 pm 64. Rick Ballard:

“A pox on both your parties.”

Why do I think that he doesn’t mean “I’m leaving and not coming back.”?

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:57 pm 65. bdog57:

thibaud,

This set off my bovine excrement detector:

Obviously, the demise of marriage as a serious lifelong commitment has not subverted “the foundation of our civilization.”

Plenty of studies to show that yes, indeed, divorce does all sorts of awful things materially and psychologically to all involved -including the children. This causes a drain on society which will cause it to break. It’s interesting that you should make this argument after accusing the Rs of being fiscally irresponsible.

You have given the European definition of marriage. Google Stanley Kurtz for more on the consequences of SSM in the Netherlands (”Going Dutch?” is the name of one article, can’t remember the name of the follow-up).

Mike,

The battle for “gay rights” was won a long time ago. Your side won! Everyone knows someone who is gay and no one wants to be the bad guy.

This might explain why polls taken right before the Missouri amendment vote showed 61% for and the exit polls showed 70% for. People don’t want to be seen as bigoted.

I would submit that people don’t confuse/conflate “gay rights” with “gay marriage”. Rightly so. Frankly, this whole thing reminds me of the ERA. The Feminists had already won. The amendment would have just been icing on the cake.

When society embraces Ellen and Queer Eye, I would say that normalization has occurred.

You correctly note that in some states the proposition of civil unions will be accepted. Of course, you also assert that some “true believers” (ahh! scare quotes! loaded phrases! you might as well have said “moderate”!) will oppose this even if it is passed legislatively. If you mean that they will try to stop it in the legislature, you are correct. If you mean that they will try to overturn it afterwards -against a clear majority- you are probably incorrect. Needless to say, you didn’t back up any of these assertions with data so…(shrug).

Of course, I also have yet to see any state legislatures proposing civil unions (VT has it already). The MA legislature, on the other hand…

Aug 31, 2004 - 2:59 pm 66. Mike Silverman:

And, if so, what the hell is wrong with these people? Are they really willing to turn the country’s national security over to John Kerry simply over a few domestic issues?

I am guessing there are some people who would rather see an American city go up in nuclear fire then live ina coutry where gay people are allowed to live openly as committed couples.

If you are asked the question which you prefer:

a) An American victory over the forces of Islamofacism…. and the eventuality of legal same-sex marriage

or

b) An american city lost to nuclear terrorism, but an amendment against gay marriage succeeds

and you have to think for more then one millisecond before choosing “A” then you have a serious mental problem.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:01 pm 67. submandave:

Mike Silverman: “I am willing to compromise … with a … civil union or domestic partnership on a state by state level.”

I, too, would have no problem with a government establishing a standard set of legally recognized conditions that individuals may freely enter into. In my eyes, this serves many societal purposes by simplifying the establishment of a domestic relationship, be it heterosexual, homosexual or completely non-sexual. In addition, it might allow attention to be focused on how the institute of marriage can be strengthened to better protect our future. I would envision the union or partnership to be a less tight “contract” than marriage, given that the responsibilities associated with the assumed child-raising role are naturally greater.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:03 pm 68. Fresh Air:

Mike S.—

I guess what I would ask social conservatives is that if a state passes a civil union or domestic partnership law, will you guys agree to leave it alone and not try to overturn it at the Federal level?

Yes.

The resolution of this issue is really quite simple. A few sentences attached to the DOMA as an ammendment that eliminate judicial review as a possiblity will return this issue to the states…for good. Which is where it should be. Anyone who is interested can read about it here.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:05 pm 69. Terrye:

mike:

I don’t really care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think civil unions can accomplish much the same in regards to legal ststus but I realize that legal status may not be the point.

When I say something we can all live with I mean that someday I think attitudes will change and most people will feel comfortable with ssm. However, if this is pushed now the majority will have its way.

This is a departure from a long held tradition, to accuse anyone and everyone who questions its wisdom of homophobia is a cheap shot.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:06 pm 70. Mike Silverman:

Of course, I also have yet to see any state legislatures proposing civil unions

For reference, here is the state of civil unions and domestic partnership laws in America today:

California — Very comprehensive domestic partner law (basically everything an individual state can do marriage-wise), passed legislatively., 1999 (initially) & 2001 (added on to)

Hawaii — Domestic partnership law passed legislatively., 1997

Vermont — Civil Union law passed legislatively, but after a court order., 1999

Mass. — Full marriage, direct court order, 2004

New Jersey — Domestic partnership law, passed legislatively, 2003

Maine — Limited domestic partnership law, passed legislatively, 2004

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:07 pm 71. thibaud:

flenser, how will you feel when the dollar sinks to its true level, ie about $0.60 to the euro? Do you think major oil producers like Russia and Norway will still price their oil in dollars? If not, then the dollar will fall still further and gasoline prices in this country will soar.

Read these articles before you parade more ignorance:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/markets/gross/

The U.S. dollar is overvalued by 20 percent, propped up by an inflow of foreign capital that can be reversed at any time

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Breaking+Commentary/IO/2004/IO_07_04.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83510/peter-g-peterson/riding-for-a-fall.html

Three long-term trends are threatening to bankrupt America: the burgeoning costs of waging the war on terrorism, the U.S. economy’s increasing reliance on foreign capital, and rapid aging throughout the developed world. Washington must understand that committing the United States to a broader global role while ignoring the financial costs of doing so is deeply irresponsible

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:07 pm 72. bdog57:

Rick B.,

Thanks

Mike,

Yes.

Even though Clinton wasn’t my choice for President, he was my President.

As a card-carrying member of the religious right, I assure you that there are many others on this side of things who believe sustaining due process (even if they disagree with the end result).

Frankly, I would wager that there are far more things upon which we agree than disagree.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:07 pm 73. Mike Silverman:

The battle for “gay rights” was won a long time ago. Your side won!

I know you are being kind of sarcastic, but I see your point. Basically, you can live your life as openly gay in many (perhaps most?) places in America today.

Unless this trend is actually reversed, some form of national recognition of same-sex relationships (whatever it is called) seems to be inevitable at some point down the road. I mean, eventually, legislative accomplishment follows social acceptance…at least that has been the trend in American history.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:14 pm 74. Greg D:

Which party is this?

It’s the party of democracy. The party that believes “the people” are soverign, not “the judges” or “the intelectuals”.

Misouri just voted 70 - 30 against gay marriage. (And Kerry said in an inteview with a MO state paper that he would have voted with the 70.) Do you think there’s ANY state in the country that would vote FOR it?

Nope? Neither does anyone else. Which is why dishonest people, and people who care about nothing but their own desires, are trying to get judges to ignore their oaths are create a “right” to gay marriage from nothing other than their desires.

The fact that the Republican Party opposes such evil behavior (that would be the judges) is a point in its favor.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:16 pm 75. Eric Deamer:

Wow! I just saw that Log Cabin ad. Very effective.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:18 pm 76. Erik:

Kevin P,

You’re absolutely right. A third party is simply not viable in the US system. As the rules are set up, it will favor two parties. (lots of resources for this on the net, anyone interested can try googling for “first past the post” for starters)

The current parties will only be replaced by another if they fail totally. It doesn’t matter how big the center is, and how many potential votes there are there, with a two party system you will always have one “right” and one “left”, fighting for the middle. If a “center” party should emerge, the other two will simply move their agendas towards the center and squeeze the C party.

And a C party will easily be projected as indecisive. As soon as they take a clear stand on any issue, the voters that think differently about that issue is lost. If they try to keep a middle opinion, they will be attacked with “but what do you really *stand* for?”

In countries with multi-party systems, the true “centrist” parties are small, the bigger parties are in either side of the center, but may also cover the center to some extent.

So, what if the “right” party (R) should disappear, could that be an opening for a C party? I doubt it. The “left” party will simply move it’s positions more to the center to attract voters. C will be forced to move right, or face a new R-party emerging, and be squeezed in the middle. Either way, there will be two parties.

I believe this is self adjusting. Any party that moves too far from the center will loose the voters there, and thus loose the election.

And the fact that there is elections for the representatives in congress seems to balance things out nicely. If the middle think the president is too far out, they are likely to turn to the other party for congress, and that will balance out the power.

To have a third party in the US, the electoral college need to be dropped. Then the president will probably be elected the same way as in France, one national election when the two front runners are selected, and one election (if noone has more then 50% in the first round) to pick the winner.

Expect the losing parties to come up with great slogans. Chiraq was endorsed with a poster that went something like “Vote for the crook, not the idiot!”

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:18 pm 77. Mike Silverman:

As a card-carrying member of the religious right, I assure you that there are many others on this side of things who believe sustaining due process (even if they disagree with the end result).

As a card-carrying member of the “gay rights lobby” I would like to assure you that the same thing is true over here. If the FMA passes, then it is part of the Constitution and that is that; the people have spoken. I will still treasure this wonderful country where I have freedom of speech and religion and I can organize and petition for redress of grievances…a country I will always believe is the best hope of our world.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:20 pm 78. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

homophobe n, used to demean anyone with any objection to any part of the “gay agenda.”

Original meaning based on old fashioned psychology: homophobes are afraid of their own latent homosexuality, so thet react against gays.

The term is offensive. It is meant to be offensive. I don’t like hearing it applied to me (as it has been here) because I’m not afraid of homosexuals, and I dislike sloppy speaking - especially using offensive code words.

I say again, the term is offensive. Within itself it contains two falsehoods about the motives of those it is applied to - it is a dishonest epithet defined to end rational discourse and allow the person using it a moral triumph.

It does not require religious belief to understand the dangers of SSM. Let’s start with children - adopted, created with modern reproductive technology. Then lets move on to the confusion in the young about what this thing called marriage is. We can mention the other forms of relationships that be awarded a “right” to marriage - such as the quasi-Mormons (denounced by the church I believe) in Colorado City who already practice polygamy. I can see polygamous groups spreading due to demographic advantage. Has anyone noticed how the Hutterites (who do none of this) have taken over big chunks of midwest farms? Imagine instead some Koresh style folks.

One could go on, but the fact is that SSM is a change in an ancient tradition.

Republicans still have a lot of conservatism, and that includes respecting tradition until that tradition is shown to be wrong (racism, for example).

Simple prudence says that changing an age old institution suddenly is dangerous.

The thing that amazes me is those willing to violate a tradition so ancient and change the meaning entirely (and that is what SSM does). And on top of that, to call opponents offensive names and imply that they are thoughtless neanderthals.

There are many varied people in the country. Some groups organize to get something from government. Gays have gotten a whole lot, some of it deserved. This is the place to draw the line.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:27 pm 79. chuck:

John Moore:

Didn’t some of the Indian tribes have squaw men? I seem to recall such from Andrew Garcia’s memoir, “Tough Trip Through Paradise.” Much recommended, by the way, for a view of living among the Indians in the 1870’s.

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:31 pm 80. Mike Silverman:

Some groups organize to get something from government.

…another phrase for that is “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

Everyone can do that — everyone SHOULD do that. That is what our country is about.

Gays have gotten a whole lot, some of it deserved. This is the place to draw the line.

What a perfectly nonsensical statement.

What is “it” and why does anyone “deserve” anything?

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:34 pm 81. bdog57:

Mike,

Your side won!

Not being saracastic. I’d say that stopping attacks against homosexuals just for being homosexual is a very, very good thing. Societies that sanction this don’t go very far.

You ignored all of Mr. Moore’s arguments leading up to the sentence which you criticized. He believes that the institution of SSM will lead to the dissolution of marriage, and subsequently the family.

I argue that this will be the case because marriage and child-bearing will become mutually exclusive activities. They are headed in this direction already, and the institution of SSM will sanction that message. Kurtz has discussed this in his articles.

Unfortunately, I must go. I will return to the discussion tomorrow (sorry, no home PC).

Aug 31, 2004 - 3:47 pm 82. Eric Deamer:

I don’t like the term “homphobe” because it implies that whole fear/latency thing. I prefer “anti-gay bigot”, (though John Derbyshire refers to himself as a “mild homophobe). So, can someone be opposed to gay civil marriage and not be bigoted towards gays?

Well, first of all to claim that there’s no overlap between opposition to gay civil marriage and anti-gay bigotry is absurd. The fight against gay civil marriage is hugely supported by Falwell, Robertson and all the usual suspects. The first umpteen threads on gay marriage here primarily consisted of bdog57 and jerry and others digging up various Bible passages on the aberrance of homosexuality. The FMA which so many here so supported was drafted by Marilyn Musgrave, whose entire career has been based on anti-gay measures, most of which had nothing to do with marriage. Many of those who oppose gay civil marriage also opposed the Supreme Court striking down Texas’s sodomy law, and used the same arugments (”Activist Judges” etc.) With all these connections it’s sometimes hard to tease out the opposition to gay civil marriage from the simple anti-gay bigotry.

Second, many of the anti gay civil marriage arguments are so weak but they are made with such vehemence and such emotion that it makes you wonder about the motivation. We’re told over and over again that marriage is all about procreation (despite the fact that infertile couples are allowed civil marriage) that gay men are licentious and immoral and would ruin marriage (when allowing them into the stabilizing, conservative tradition of marriage would help counteract negative behavior) that Stanley Kurtz has done yet another ground-breaking, epoch-making study on the effects of gay civil unions (not marriage) in a small, Scandinavian country with a completely different culture than ours and we should accept that as prima facie evidence that gay civil marriage wouldn’t work in America etc. etc.

Third, opponents of gay civil marriage never answer Andrew Sullivan’s basic question of what sort of life they envision for gay people. They are against gay promiscuity, yet are also against gay’s entering an institution that promotes and celebrates monogamy. So, what are they to do? The answer, I’m afraid, is that a lot of them believe that you can choose to be gay and can choose not to be gay through some kind of “reparative therapy” or something, or that homosexuality truly is an aberration which is obviously a bigoted attitude. Or they don’t even think about such questions, which is also a sort of bigotry IMO.

The strongest argument against gay civil marriage, IMO, is John Moore’s argument of “whoa, let’s slow down a minute,” The basic, conservative argument in the most basic sense of conservatism. It’s a big change and it should be taken slowly, which is why it should be left up to the states. The Republicans, however, want to nationalize marrige law.

But I’ll also submit that marriage isn’t being changed “suddenly”. It’s been undergoing changes continually for years, most especially with the introduciton of no-fault divorce laws (based on the California law that Ronald Reagan signed). This is but a small part of that long, gradual change.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:05 pm 83. lindenen:

Has anyone else ever thought the expression “gay marriage” was odd? If you consider procreation an innate aspect of marriage, as I do, then the two are mutually exclusive. It’s like arguing to legislate the existence of “dry rain”. Does this count as “double think”?

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:06 pm 84. Mike Silverman:

He believes that the institution of SSM will lead to the dissolution of marriage, and subsequently the family.

I guess I have greater confidence in the family then he does!

Unless the human species changes on a deep biological level, the primacy of opposite-sex pair-bonding and the raising of children by such couples will continue into the distant future.

Gay couples are a very small percentage of the total number of couples that will come together naturally, and as such will have no effect on marriage or child-rearing as institutions unless those institutions unless human nature has changed (and I don’t think it has for thousands of years).

I argue that this will be the case because marriage and child-bearing will become mutually exclusive activities

I disagree, because most people are

a) heterosexual

b) desire to pair-bond (that is, marry)

c) desire to reproduce (that is have a family)

Sorry to sound like a textbook, but the notion that same-sex couples in an advanced post-industrial society have the ability to somehow change what is hard-wired into the vast majority of our species seems ridiculous to me.

Same-sex marriage (or whatever you call it) is something that I think we can afford, easily, as a society. It is not going to change what most people do. It is not going tochange the nature of the American family for the vast majority of people. I actually think it will strengthen the family as an institution by allowing for more stability and protection for those who are same-sex couples.

Unfortunately, I must go. I will return to the discussion tomorrow (sorry, no home PC).

As a liberal (ha), I am willing to support a wasteful government program to pay for a subsidized home PC for you!

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:07 pm 85. lindenen:

A lot of people think we should get rid of no-fault divorce laws as well.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:08 pm 86. Hugh Jorgan:

I guess I really can’t figure out why someones sexual preference matters to anyone not involved in that relationship. While I am heterosexual, I don’t want my “potentially” scandalous escapades in the bedroom subject to the political whims of whomever. Neither Ashcroft nor Reno.

Exactly how does my sexuality and ability to create a monogomous, lifelong relationship (marriage… male or female) effect those who perhaps… are not quite confident in their own sexuality?

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:11 pm 87. Knucklehead:

60+% of marriages end in divorce?!?! Whoever made that claim is going to have to back it up.

The divorce rate peaked in the late 70’s and showed a slow decline though most of the 90’s. Through the ’90’s there were roughly two marriages each year for each divorce in the same year. But those two numbers don’t correlate in any meaningful way. The pool of marriages available to end in divorce in any given year consists of all marriages in all previous years - not just the given year’s marriages.

Here are some stats, NCHS, and link.

Please don’t throw around bogus numbers - it fails to make whatever point you were after.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:12 pm 88. Matthew Cromer:

Thibaud,

43-50% of marriages end in divorce, not 63%.

http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:19 pm 89. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Mike

With all due respect, I don’t particularly want to open up that can of worms. So let me just say that I have a big problem with the tactics of too many of the gay rights movement.

As a conservative, I am not fond of government mandates, and that includes a lot of anti-discrimination rules. That is one area I am referring to (but that’s because I believe in freedom of association, and don’t like any anti-discrimination rules outside of government itself).

As to the lifestyle of gays, that is up to them. And I believe that there should be available suitable protections, such as medical decision making, inheritance and the advantage of other rules that allow people to have a life and handle emergencies. I do not believe gay couples should have the right to raise children, except in those cases where a child is already bonded to one of the people.

Now you may not remember, but the gay revolution of the ’70s, which ignored lots of traditions, was directly responsible for the explosion of AIDS and the delay in controlling the epidemic. I don’t say this to condemn gays, but to show the unexpected consequences that can result from tossing tradition aside with wild abandon.

You say “or that homosexuality truly is an aberration which is obviously a bigoted attitude. ”

No, that is not an obviously bigoted attitude. How do you define aberration? I consider homosexuality to be an aberration. That doesn’t mean I dislike homosexuals. Tell me, what adjectives would you use for bipolar disorder?

It is too easy to throw around the language of civil rights inappropriately. You use bigotted where it does not necessarily apply. While the APA in their political correctness does not consider homosexuality to be a psychological disorder, I disagree with them, as do many others. That doesn’t mean that it is “curable” or that it should be “cured.” But from a sociobiological standpoint, or from common sense, it is most likely a disorder.

Are those bigotted thoughts? Is it possible to talk about things like this without name calling?

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:26 pm 90. Fresh Air:

Eric D–

The Republicans don’t really want to nationalize marriage law. They want to federalize it.

There is an important difference. This was discussed upthread. You know perfectly well that gay activists will litigate gay marriage up to the SCOTUS and try to get invocation of the full faith and credit clause. The FMA is a sledgehammer to forestall this possiblity. A more precise instrument would be amending the DOMA, as I said earlier.

Saying that it’s okay to allow state-by-state gay marriage before DOMA is amended is a disingenuous tactic by people like John Kerry to allow them to claim they are against it, when they know quite well the SCOTUS will secure it through the back door.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:31 pm 91. Matt Evans:

Sigh. This type of post depresses me. I realize there are quite a few socially liberal folks who read and comment here. However, I take issue with Roger’s apparent belief gay marriage is the default “right” thing to do. Several of us have posted on this blog our belief that gay marriage should not be sanctioned and we’ve covered the spectrum on our reasoning- financial, religious, social, et al. Gay marriage is simply not the default position- you’re going to have to convince those who don’t like it/don’t believe in it and there is quite simply no way you’ll do that if you fall back on the old liberal standby, “its right”.

Chris Barton falls into the very same trap that so many homosexual advocates fall into - accusing republicans who actively oppose gay marriage as being “mean spirited”. Blanket statements like these substantial hurt the cause- essential, you’re accusing anyone who is against gay marriage as being prejudiced or bigoted against gays. WHile you’re welcome to make that argument, you’re not doing yourself or your cause any good. I realize many of you want gay marriage right now but wake up - its just not going to happen right now. Its going to take alot of work and alot of honest advocacy on your part to make enough hay for the GOP accept gay marriage (hint- start with civil unions). And quite frankly, this “we’re socially enlightened” is not going to fly.

Hell, I’m happy to have former liberals and centrists because I want nothing more than an honest and open debate within the party, in the interests of changing the party for the better. THe republican party NEEDS that debate- it needs to open its mind to some extent, both in order to more fully except people from all walks of life (though not necessarily ENDORSE their lifestyle) and appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. At the same time, you simply cannot and should not expect staunch conservatives to immediately shift their viewpoints on gay marriage because you personally think its the “right” thing to do.

the GOP has come a LONG way from where it was in the mid-90’s and continues to be a work in progress. At the same time, social liberals who are become associated with the GOP should also realize that quite simply, you won’t win EVERY argument on social policy and need to look for common ground and potential compromise.

Baby steps.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:33 pm 92. Mark Poling:

Possibly back on topic, possibly not:

I guess I’m feeling a little like a flak for the Republican Party. I don’t particularly enjoy that feeling.

Hey, think of yourself as an old school journalist; you know, the type that figured all politicians were crooks, and whatever the flavor, the fun was in making them squirm.

The hat makes the image perfect.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:37 pm 93. Eric Deamer:

Homosexuals are “aberrant” and probably have a “disorder”, yet you decry “name-calling”. Truly remarkable.

I mean, I get that you’re using the words as terms of art or as scientific terms or whatever, i.e. homosexuality is “aberrant” in that it’s not the standard. True. But to me at least the world also has a connotation of strong moral condemnation by the speaker.

“Disorder” only makes sense if you think the sole purpose of life is to have children, which, I suppose in a purely biological sense might be true.

Fresh Air

1. DOMA

2. mini-DOMAs in 38 states.

3. Many arguments by those on both sides of the issue that the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” doesn’t apply to marriage.

We need the marriage amendment why exactly?

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:45 pm 94. Matthew Cromer:

Thibaud,

You aren’t seriously trying to argue that people in Asia are better off buying bonds in declinest Europe (who are accelerating into a demographic crash because they refuse to reproduce themselves) with anemic growth and a bleak future versus investing in the most dynamic economy in the developed world, are you?

There have always, always, always been Cassandras warning of imminent doom to the American economic future. Yet somehow we keep getting better and better off, investments continue to grow over long time scales, and the sun keeps rising.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:50 pm 95. Mike Silverman:

..at the same time, social liberals who are become associated with the GOP should also realize that quite simply, you won’t win EVERY argument on social policy and need to look for common ground and potential compromise.

I am all for compromise, but remember, it takes two sides to compromise.

Can you give me any exmple this year when social conservatives in the GOP have compromised on issues dear to them?

I don’t think any social liberal who is going Bush this year expects the GOP to endorse gay marriage or be socially liberal, but look at the platform — its writers went out of their way not only to endorse the FMA, but also say that NO benefits of ANY kind should go to same-sex couples…a position that is to the right of Mr. Moore here!

Where is any spirit of compromise?

In sales, you generally want to leave the customer with a good feeling, that he or she is getting something of value, and is buying not only a product but a relationship with your company. You can sometimes get a single sale if you push the customer into buying something grudgingly, because they “have to” for whatever reason, but they willnot have any good feelings for your product and they likely will not make an emotional buy-in to your produyct or company — this makes any future sales much more difficult. Right now, the social conservatives in the GOP are basically saying to hawkish social liberals “We’re in charge here…you’ll buy our product because you don’t have any other choice, but remember, this is OUR party and we do not want to hear from you…vote for Bush and shut up about the social stuff, because we’re going to push it as far right as we can!” This isn’t a good way to get new people to “invest” in the Republican Party, and as such, as soon as the current emergency is over (or the Dems actually nominate someone who can fight the war on terror), these people (and I count myself among them) will see no reason to stick around.

I guess it comes down to whether the GOP wants to become a true majority party, or a party which manages to cobble an ad hoc majority together just during election time.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:54 pm 96. penwil:

On this topic from the WSJ’s Best of the Web today, regarding the race for Gephart’s vacated seat in Missouri (Federer is the Republican):

–And Federer thinks Carnahan is vulnerable on the issue of same-sex marriage. An initiative on Missouri’s Aug. 3 primary ballot prohibits the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples; it passed with more than 70% of the vote. On July 27 Carnahan, a state representative, wrote a letter to the Friends of PrideFest, a gay-rights group, boasting: “This year I was one of the few to vote against House Joint Resolution 47, which put the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot.”

Federer hands a copy of the letter to anyone who’s interested, and he says Democrats in the district, many of whom are socially conservative, are usually persuaded to vote for Federer after reading it. That this is such a radioactive issue in a Democratic-leaning district in the ultimate bellwether state illustrates why John Kerry, in his nomination speech last month, referred only in code to his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. In fact, we mentioned that reference to Federer, who obviously closely follows this issue, and he said it escaped him.

At least Russ Carnahan stood up and took an unpopular position on principle. Agree with it or not, you have to admire him for having the courage John Kerry lacks.–

http://opinionjournal.com/

Personally I’ve never fitted into any party and that has never particularly bothered me, since the older I get the less of a joiner I am anyway. I figure you got to pick your battles, and while I’ve nothing against gay marriage (I was actually one of the 30 or so % who voted against the California referendum), I don’t think the country can afford, at this point in time, to let ourselves get torn apart over this issue.

Looking at it from a practical point of view, if the electorate is truly as evenly divided as the polls seem to indicate, then gay marriage could tip it to Bush. Karl Rove figures there were 4 million evangelical Christians who stayed home last time and who are now highly motiviated to vote for Bush based on the gay marriage issue alone. Then there’s the fact that it’s going to be on the ballot in a lot of swing states and the Missouri election showed that it’s a ballot issue that results in unusually high turnout–and the turnout trends conservative, which again is going to help Bush.

It could turn out to be one of those unentended consequences things, that by pushing the gay marraige issue to the fore in this election year, the gay activisists are only going to end up helping to elect Bush.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:57 pm 97. Fresh Air:

Eric D.–

I don’t think we need the FMA. As I said, amending DOMA would do just as well. I think FMA was viewed as a more easily graspable concept than full faith & credit and ending judicial activism. I would support either, but I don’t think FMA has a prayer of being enacted.

Even if, as you say, many people don’t believe full faith & credit would apply, there is ample reason to be skeptical. And given how ridiculous our Supreme Court decisions on social issues have gotten, I would rather decide it the old-fashioned way: through the legislative process.

Anyone who truly believes in the rule of law would accept that. As we can see from the actions of certain officials in San Francisco, Massachusetts and New York, a lot of Democrats don’t.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:58 pm 98. chuck:

This discussion brings up several things I find curious. Mind, I am not concerned with “legalities” here.

1) Homosexuality seems to occur at a rate of maybe 5% of the population. Why? If this rate was evolutionarily disadvantageous, it would be gone. Perhaps it is a tradeoff of some sort. Note that I am of the opinion that it is biological, not a choice.

2) Polygamy. This was (is) acceptable over wide swaths of the world. It is not the custom in the West. Can the legal status of monogamy be justified outside of custom? I always thought that the Mormons of old had a good argument for their ways. Not that I advogate polygamy, mind you, it is not my custom.

Aug 31, 2004 - 4:58 pm 99. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Eric

One can read nastiness into any word that is not a compliment. But if that is habit, then it becomes impossible to discuss certain ideas. Aberrant means different, and in general it means it in a negative way - just like disorder does. It isn’t a judgement on the person, but implies something is wrong - in this case, in a psychiatric sense. As one who is very skeptical of analytic psychology, I really mean a neurological sense - not some BS about parents or something that can be “treated” with “therapy.”

The homosexual movement on the one hand wants to find a “gay gene” and on the other hand be considered “normal” whatever that means. I would guess that the cause, or at least a strong predisposition for male homosexuality is neurological - but most likely a complex of genes or maybe some genes plus developmental events. We are just at the start of correlating human mental characteristics with genes and other influences.

Finally, I want to comment that there seem to be a lot of benefits that accompany homosexuality. How much is wrong stereotype and how much is right stereotype I’m not sure, but there seems to be an excess of artistic and aesthetic ability among gays. I’m going out on a limb here - that may be a stereotype that is invalid, but if so it is widespread.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:01 pm 100. Fresh Air:

Mike S–

Saying “you never compromise” is a debate tactic. Of course, how open each side is to compromise depends entirely on where the two parties starting positions are. I could argue that Republicans and citizens in general already have compromised, insofar as the notion of a civil union is widely agreeable to the voting populace.

Besides, we’re talking about marriage, not a transportation bill.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:05 pm 101. Matthew Cromer:

Holy Cr*p John Moore! Did you really say “gay people shouldn’t have the right to raise children”?

I’m speechless.

I think it must be a generational thing — even the hardest core young conservatives I know think gay marriage is just fine, even as they are much more disapproving of divorce than the baby boom cohort.

Look, you old fogies need to figure out that the world doesn’t revolve around you and your hang-ups. You turkeys are the ones who screwed up the social fabric America with your absurd levels of support for socialist nonsense like ponzi retirement schemes, your assault on the family life of the poor through permanent government handouts, your brain-damaged war on drugs, your abominably selfish attitude towards heterosexual marriage and divorce, your narcicistic carreerism that put children way down on the list of priorities, and your prejudice against anything you didn’t understand.

For those baby boomers who do not agree with the majority of your cohort — such as our host, I thank you. For the rest of you — wake up. You don’t own the world — it belongs to your children and grandchildren now — get out of our way — thanks for the help, but we’ll take it from here. We do not need the iron club of the middle aged and geriatric politicians bashing our gay Gen-X, Gen-Y and younger brothers and sisters. And if you think you are going to take their kids away from them — over my dead body! I’m voting for Bush but if you think I’m going to let the bigots roll back the clock — you can forget it.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:10 pm 102. Syl:

Something occurred to me. Some people think some type of civil unions for gays is preferable to gay marriage. I’m beginning to think that’s not true.

I think actual marriage is preferable. And I believe (IMO, of course) that a few decades down the road statistics will show that divorce amongs gays probably wouldn’t differ much from that among straights (are we still allowed to use the word ’straight’? I honestly don’t know).

Civil unions, on the other hand, open up an entire new kettle of fish. What about heteros living together? What about roommates sharing expenses but don’t have a sexual relationship? Why not some type of civil union for them too? I mean it’s nobody’s business whether they sleep together or not.

I know a few states recognize some form of common law marriage under some circumstances but it’s not very clear cut at all.

So, in that sense why should gays have it better than anyone else? Let them get married like us other folks must to reap any contractual benefit.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:12 pm 103. Matthew Cromer:

I’m going to have to agree that no-fault divorce is a mistake. Marriage should be a weighty, weighty commitment. If people don’t want to make that commitment, they ought not get married. I don’t have a problem with those not serious about the permanence of their relationships living together — but society should encourage and support a firm marriage bond which forms the bedrock of society. Gay or straight is fine with me — just no more of treating marriage like a suit of clothes, to be discarded when convenient.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:16 pm 104. Tom Grey:

Roger, the Left needs to be booted out of the Dem Party by more reasonable folk, and social tolerants who are fiscally responsible can take the Dem Party back.

Since the Dems booted out the pro-life folk, many of whom are believers, they’ve taken over (?) the Reps.

They’re not going anywhere else. As the US becomes more secular, the pro-life folk will become more strident. You won’t like it.

But there won’t be any successful push to Quarantine gays, or Aids carriers, for instance.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:20 pm 105. Jamie Irons:

I’ll throw in my two cents.

My objection to gay “marriage” is perhaps an odd one: I object to changes in the meanings of words when those changes are legislated or imposed by political pressure groups of whatever stripe, including Republicans or Christians. (I don’t object to our language’s natural evolution, which obviously continually and radically alters the meanings of words, even changing a word into its antonym.)

A group wants to, as it were, abrogate a word’s clear meaning, a word whose signification has been perfectly transparent and understandable to everyone for several thousands of years. I don’t like it. “Marriage” is, I insist, “my” word.

I have a similar problem when, to take a far less serious example, the American Ornithological Union decides (as it did a some years back) to change the name of, say, the White-Tailed Kite to the “Black-Shouldered Kite.”

An arbitrary and unwarranted assault on the language. (This outrage has since been corrected!)

Now, I happen to be very sympathetic to the idea of gay couples having monogamous relationships, and having those relationships sanctified by the state with respect to issues of taxation, inheritance, and all the rest. (Adoption and child-rearing are more problematic, but I am open to discussion.) I honestly don’t see why gay couples should be accorded any fewer protections under the law than straight couples or any other kind of couples.

I just don’t think they have a “right” to a word.

Jamie Irons

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:24 pm 106. Charlie (Colorado):

“The point is, same sex marriage is a change to an ancient tradition.”

So are eliminating chattel slavery and universal sufferage. Is there a problem with those?

Eliminating the tie between a state and a state religion is also quite against tradition — and it’s hardly universal today. In fact, it’s such an unusual notion that we’re still working it out in the USA.

First, convince me of the long-standing traditions involved in established marriage in a secular state, and then I’ll listen to an argument about how state-established marriage is a long-standing tradition.

“Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:42 pm 107. Terrye:

Folks:

I think you are all missing the point. It is not a matter of old fogies or anything like that. I don’t see Democrats making this a national issue, in fact a Democratic president passed the DOMA. Nobody calls the Dems homophobic

because of it. But the intent of DOMA was the same as the president’s proposal.

This is not just a party issue.

It is social and a lot of people feel very uncomfortable with it, some don’t even want to talk about it.

It is like abortion, I say I am pro choice but I sue as hell do not want my 15 year old getting an abortion without me even knowing about it.

When it comes to social issues there are a lot of personal beliefs involved and like it or not people have a right to them.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:43 pm 108. ambisinistral:

That’s a fat load of twaddle (and you are well aware of that). Judges, mayors, ministers and JoPs were going off half-cocked and marrying homosexuals before it had been addressed at the local and state levels

To asll who addressed this point (working my way down through the thread). I’ll agree that judges marrying people was going off half-cocked also. That doesn’t mean the amendment isn’t half-cocked as well. As subsequent higher court cases have confirmed, at the appeals level the lower court’s actions were overturned.

It is now time for the States to legislate this matter. then of course we’ll have the mess of differing State’s laws. No need to rush the process (and polarize the electorate further in the process) — let it be hashed out.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:46 pm 109. Knucklehead:

Ambi,

There was no amendment. There was a proposal and it went nowhere. Judges, mayors, etc., on the other hand, married people and some of those have appently been tossed out and are not valid. Others probably will suffer the same fate. Which did more harm - the proposed amendment that went nowhere or the government officials who ignored the law?

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:57 pm 110. Knucklehead:

Not sure what you’re getting at, Charlie. The SSM issue doesn’t measure up to chattel slavery or segregation or women being unable to own property or vote or any of that stuff. Taking it down that rathole and pretending its anywhere near the same league as a “civil rights” issue is a non-starter.

What is marriage? Its a strange, sometimes completely civil sectore licensed “partnership”, sometimes religious but fully recognized by the civil state, long-standing “tradition” that has legal benefits and obligations. In some cases (common law) it doesn’t require either civil or religious ceremony (executing the license?) and sort of just has the legal aspects adhere to it somehow.

Is there anything else in our system that functions this way? There are religious thingies that carry civil recognition and some forms of odd benefits, but not many. Ministries, rabbinates, etc.

Marriage as we know it is possibly unigue in its secular and religious intermingling. It predates our federal and state legal systems. How many states even went so far as to define the term marriage. It never required a definition, only a license. The one-man, one-woman nature of it is completely implicit and never confused anyone. The singular exception to that was outlawing polygamy.

I don’t understand the basis of any claim that marriage ever has been anything but one-man, one-woman in the eyes of any authority one cares to point to - secular or religious. And the only thing it carries beyond a ceremony and the legal benefits and obligations is some vague “social stamp of approval” which is completely meaningless after some portion of time. It was never “denied” to homosexuals because it never had any meaning in the context of homosexuals. If we’re goint to enlarge the context we damn well have a right to have a catfight about it and get the issues on the table.

Just for the heck of it (I’m not sure it has anything to do with this discussion when all is said and done) here’s THE MARRIAGE WARS: Five Myths of the Postmarriage Culture and here’s Legal Information Institute’s marriage: an overview which at least helps describe marriage from a legal standpoint.

Most of us arguing this issue can’t even identify what marriage is and why we want it or what benefits and obligations it carries.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:21 pm 111. Fresh Air:

Matthew C.–

Whooaaah! Easy, fella! Chew on a pencil or something.

John Moore has a right to his opinion just like you do. And don’t blame him for social security. I doubt he was alive in the thirties.

For what it’s worth, I largely agree with him and I’m not over the hill just yet. It’s not just old fogies who aren’t real comfortable with gays raising children. Nor is it merely the ultra-religious. If, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, single-parent families play a causal role in crime and poverty, isn’t it possible that same-sex families might be missing an ingredient for success, too? There are lots of unintended consequences bound up in all this that can trouble conservatives, issues of morality aside.

People like John don’t come by their beliefs without a lot of deep thinking. So spare us the ad hominems, will you?

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:22 pm 112. Charlie (Colorado):

There was no amendment. There was a proposal and it went nowhere. Judges, mayors, etc., on the other hand, married people and some of those have appently been tossed out and are not valid. Others probably will suffer the same fate. Which did more harm - the proposed amendment that went nowhere or the government officials who ignored the law?

I don’t know, Knuck — which?

To be frank, I’m having a tough time identifying any significant harm that either one did. Wasted a few hours of legislatures’ and judges’ time, maybe, but from some of the other things that get their attention, I suspect they’ve got a little too much time on their hands anyway.

I’d prefer a lot of impotent posturing to when they’re being productive.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:26 pm 113. Knucklehead:

Terrye,

Don’t get me going about the whole Parental Notification idiocy. That nonsense is nothing short of Moonbats Gone Wild.

“Oh, but what about cases of incest!” You got a case of pregnancy by incest then call the freakin’ police you moron!

Our minor daughters can’t get a planters wart removed without our permission and some asshat moonbat thinks they can decide whether or not somebody else’s child’s parents should be notified about a pregnancy and potential abortions. Geeze do moonbats piss me off.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:26 pm 114. ambisinistral:

Knucklehead,

Yes, I know it was a proposed amendment. I think that us clear to all.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:37 pm 115. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Matthew Crome

I am responding in the hope that your won’t again generate a couple of paragraphs of intergenerational spew.

Yes, I don’t think gays have the right to raise children, except in the special circumstances I mentioned. Not only that, I think it is wrong (in most circumstances) to grant that privilege to gays.

I don’t say that out of evil intent. I say it because children are so special, and good luck convincing me that “Heather Has Two Mommies” is a good environment for raising kids - especially in the face of vast amounts of research showing that boys who are not raised with their natural father are at much higher risk of social pathologies. Furthermore, almost all cases of domestic sexual abuse are by step-parents or relatives outside of the nuclear family.

Apparently having such a view is pretty heretical, since you responded with two paragraphs of cross-generational spew.

This blame the last generation crap is really old. Who do you think raised you? And as far as the financial stuff, it wasn’t my generation that did that. I went to Vietnam so you could have the freedom to heap dung all over me. What have you done for your country lately?

Charlie… read what I said closely. I specifically mentioned slavery. The fact that some traditions are wrong does not make all traditions wrong. In fact, that is an absurd logical fallacy.

A conservative like myself looks at changes and traditions. When you make a change to an ancient tradition, it needs testing, debate, great caution. So far, I have seen relatively little debate on the subject. One side says “no gay marriage.” The other side says “homophobe” on the way to finding a judge. Furthermore, and this angers me although it is irrelevant to the issue itself, the gay movement has long engaged in offensive behavior including vandalism, attacks on churchs, and all kinds of tactics to get their way. The worst thing they did was to oppose public health authorities in the early AIDS epidemic, attacked blood banks that wouldn’t take their blood, refused to close bath houses, and generally acted irresponsible in a way that caused hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. Note that I am not describing every gay, but rather the movement.

My generation was the one that trampled all over traditions. I thought I was smarter than the old fogies who had created or still defended those traditions. So did most of us. We was wrong.

Simple example: no fault divorce. Terribly destructive force in our society. It gives an example of the dangers of tinkering with that stuff.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:37 pm 116. Terrye:

Knucklehead:

Yes and therein lies the whole issue of unintended consequences, as if human relationships can be so easily ordered. As if all the possibilities could be forseen and neatly accounted for.

As for us old fogies getting out of the way, that 70% vote in Mo. means that either young people don’t want gay marriage or they failed to get their asses out of bed and go vote.

So when the young folks want to step up to the plate and share the burden and responsibility that goes along with making the rules then fine, they can have had it.

But until then they can give us old fogies some respect or they can go to hell.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:44 pm 117. ambisinistral:

Knuckle,

Ooops, hit enter by accident. My full post should read…

Yes, I know it was a proposed amendment. I think that is clear to all posting in this thread so’ll you’ll forgive me for being lazy and not always qualifying it?

On you second point, I’ve already said I thought both actions were precipitous.

Syl,

When I say Civil Union I mean marriage outside of a religion.

Others,

If you think homosexuality is a sin, then of course they shouldn’t be able to adopt children. If you believe it is possible for a homosexual to be ‘normal’ except for their sexual preference, then adoption is less of a quandry. The optimum is a child with their birth parents, but we certainly have many families structured otherwise. Perhaps a child with a normal gay couple would be better off than a child in an orphanage?

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:45 pm 118. flenser:

thibaud

“flenser, how will you feel when the dollar sinks to its true level, ie about $0.60 to the euro?”

It’s true level? The dollar is not a pegged currancy like the yuan. It floats freely in the world markets. It’s “true level” is whatever level it happens to be at, at any instant.

Perhaps you can explain the precise formula you used in determining that the dollars true worth is sixty cents to the euro. You may want to pass this tip on to the markets. Appearently the rest of the financial world shares my ignorance.

“Do you think major oil producers like Russia and Norway will still price their oil in dollars? If not, then the dollar will fall still further and gasoline prices in this country will soar.”

The oil producers use the dollar for very practical reasons. They are not about to switch to the euro, a currency which did not exist a few years ago, and which may very well not exist s few years from now. The British pound and the D-mark always traded higher than the dollar, and OPEC never switched to these currencies.

None of this should be construed as saying that there are no problems. Yes, America runs a large trade deficit. This is caused by millions of Americans going out and buying cheap Chinese imports. This in turn is largely due the decision of Americans that they would prefer to out-source those manufacturing jobs, and those manufacturing plants, to Third World countries. Health and safety and enviroimental regulations in the US are partly why American companies relocate abroad.

Yes, we have large budget deficits. The solution is to spend less. And it’s the American people who are unwilling to reduce governemnt spending. That is, they could decide to spend less on themselves.

Yes, there are demographic problems affecting all of the “advanced” countries. Europe is in especially bad shape, but we are not a whole lot better. According the the Foreign Affairs article that you cited;

“The primary cause of the coming demographic revolution is falling fertility. Since the 1960s, birth rates have declined steadily throughout the developed world (and in most of the developing world as well). But whereas in the United States fertility has stabilized at just under 2.1 births per woman, which roughly assures a stationary population, it has fallen much further in other countries: to 1.5 in western Europe overall, 1.4 in Japan, and 1.2 in certain southern European nations such as Spain and Italy. In most of these countries, people live at least as long as in the United States and immigration is much lower. Together, these trends produce very rapid aging.”

None of these problems are being imposed on us from without. They all exist as symptoms of the underlying social disorder afflicting all the people of the West; namely; that they are entitled to whatever they desire, and that it is the responsibilty of the state to provide it for them. The whole “gay marrige” nonsense is just another manifestation of the same illness.

In other words, at the root of the disorder is the whole libertarian, “socially liberal” mindset that you yourself espouse. You rage against budget deficits while embracing the very mentality which creates them. What steps would you take in order to effectively attack what you see as economic problems? And how realistic is it to think that these steps would ever be embraced by a majority?

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:46 pm 119. Charlie (Colorado):

Not sure what you’re getting at, Charlie. The SSM issue doesn’t measure up to chattel slavery or segregation or women being unable to own property or vote or any of that stuff. Taking it down that rathole and pretending its anywhere near the same league as a “civil rights” issue is a non-starter.

Thereby defining the argument away. It’s not a “civil rights issue” to you, but to me it’s a question of whether people I like can have the same legal protections other people can, which sure as hell sounds like a civil rights issue to me.

Marriage as we know it is possibly unigue in its secular and religious intermingling. It predates our federal and state legal systems. How many states even went so far as to define the term marriage. It never required a definition, only a license. The one-man, one-woman nature of it is completely implicit and never confused anyone. The singular exception to that was outlawing polygamy.

Uh, which side are you arguing here? I agree that the current state of marriage is possibly unique in its intermingling of the civil and religious spheres. You appear to be arguing that it is therefore desirable, in this sphere and no other that the strictures and definitions of the predominant religions should determine civil law.

As a member of what is, in this country, a very much minority religion, I’m not convinced that I see this.

But the notion that “one man one woman” marriage is implicit, and never confused anyone, must come as very much of a surprise to the Mormons, to the Oneida Colony, to a billion or so Moslems, to anyone who is haltingly familiar with the history of China, the Indian subcontinent, or Africa.

I don’t understand the basis of any claim that marriage ever has been anything but one-man, one-woman in the eyes of any authority one cares to point to - secular or religious.

Oh, come on, Knuck. For all your cognomen, you don’t seem to be ignorant. Surely you’re aware of at least the fact that polygamy is extremely common throughout the world.

It’s “tradition” in the West that one’s children are chattel, to be disposed of at will; this tradition included the absolute right to kill a child. (Read Romeo and Juliet.) The notion that there were legal limits to the degree to which one could beat one’s own children was very new and very controversial not so long ago.

The idea that a government could be formed by the mutual consent of the governed, rather than by divine right of descent from somebody who whupped the last guy who formed a government by divine right, has been around for a vanishingly small part of history.

So — do you have another argument, besides “this is way we’ve always done it”? Because it’s not the way we’ve always done it, and we have changed a lot of other things from the way we’ve always done it.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:47 pm 120. Matthew Cromer:

Fresh Air,

I’m friends with several lesbian couples with children. Some adopted, others through pregnancy.

If you agree with Moore and you somehow imagine you have a rat’s ass of business taking their kids away, I have news for you — I’m not going to let you. Mind your own damn business. There’s plenty of actually abusive parents (some straight Christians among them) — the idea of breaking up gay families because you “don’t like it” is revolting. I don’t know if you sign on to Moore’s crusade to persecute gay families or not, but you better think long and hard about it.

Live and let live. Words some of you need to learn. Fortunately, only a small minority of people under 40 are bigots like this.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:48 pm 121. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Chuck

1) Homosexuality seems to occur at a rate of maybe 5% of the population. Why? If this rate was evolutionarily disadvantageous, it would be gone. Perhaps it is a tradeoff of some sort. Note that I am of the opinion that it is biological, not a choice

The number is around 2%. Hundreds of years ago bisexuality was just about all that could be found. Bisexuality obviously has a different evolutionary status.

But for evolution, you usually need much longer times. Also, evolution has a couple of characteristics that are often ignore.

1) It isn’t perfect. We all have appendices, which are counter-selection - we’d be better off without them. 1% of the population has bipolar disorder, which is inherited. Apply the same logic.

2) There are side effects. For example, the gene in Blacks that fights malaria causes sickle cell anemia when two copies are inherited. Overall, the human system is so complex that a given gene may affect several systems, which may explain the existence of disease clusters that appear in individuals - if you get x, you are likely to get y and z.

3) Male homosexuality is not necessarily an evolutionary negative - if one imagines a polygamous hunter/gatherer society. Males are less important in reproduction.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:50 pm 122. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie… read what I said closely. I specifically mentioned slavery. The fact that some traditions are wrong does not make all traditions wrong. In fact, that is an absurd logical fallacy.

John, read what you said carefully: the fact that some traditions are right doesn’t make all traditions right, either. Nor does saying “some traditions are wrong” constitute an argument that other traditions are right.

This is precisely my point: if you want to argue from the traditional basis of marriage, it’s you falling off that curb. I’m just pointing out that there are lots of other things that were “traditional” but that we’ve chosen to throw over in favor of the Rights of Man.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:52 pm 123. Knucklehead:

Charlie,

A proposed amendment that never even got raised for a vote can’t possibly have done any harm other than getting people agitated.

If, on the other hand, if you were part of a homosexual couple some mayor issued a marriage license to and JoP or minister executed on the license and you went home all happy that you were finally legally married and altered whatever paperwork needed to be altered and notified whomever you needed to notify and had whatever it was you wanted from marriage and cruised along all blissful and fulfilled for several weeks until it was announced that the mayor had no right to issue you a license and the JoP had no right to execute it and you were, after all, not the least bit married, would you still think of it as “no harm, no foul”?

And if all that represents “no harm, no foul”, because nothing of any significance, other than emotion or feelings, has been altered or harmed, then how is SSM a civil rights issue so important that it can’t wait to be handled by the legislative process? If nothing was lost in the end, then what was gained in the first place?

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:53 pm 124. Charlie (Colorado):

The number is around 2%. Hundreds of years ago bisexuality was just about all that could be found. Bisexuality obviously has a different evolutionary status.

John, do you have a reliable citation on this? Considering, eg, Sparta and Shogunate Japan, I think you’re looking at a very limited sample.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:54 pm 125. Fresh Air:

Matthew–

We are officially done speaking. You do not know me and you know nothing about me. Go fuck yourself!

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:57 pm 126. Charlie (Colorado):

If, on the other hand, if you were part of a homosexual couple some mayor issued a marriage license to and JoP or minister executed on the license and you went home all happy that you were finally legally married and altered whatever paperwork needed to be altered and notified whomever you needed to notify and had whatever it was you wanted from marriage and cruised along all blissful and fulfilled for several weeks until it was announced that the mayor had no right to issue you a license and the JoP had no right to execute it and you were, after all, not the least bit married, would you still think of it as “no harm, no foul”?

Knuck, you’re absolutely right. Proposing and failing to amend the Constitution isn’t nearly as harmful as preventing people from forming legal marriages to match their emotional bonds.

I would have sworn you were arguing against gay marriage, but I’m happy with the result.

Aug 31, 2004 - 6:58 pm 127. Terrye:

Matthew:

Settle your ass down. You are being rude.

I don’t give a damn who you or anybody else has sex with. And nobody is talking about taking anybody’s kids away from them.

two points:

1] same sex marriage is not legal, nor has it ever been and so nobody is taking anything away from anybody.

2] the question is not whether gays can marry, but whether they can marry each other.

Now I am going to go watch the convention. It must be past your bedtime.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:03 pm 128. Knucklehead:

Charlie,

Oh, come on, Knuck. For all your cognomen, you don’t seem to be ignorant. Surely you’re aware of at least the fact that polygamy is extremely common throughout the world.

So what? It is specifically outlawed in the US. The commoness of polygamy around the world has nothing to do with any point I’ve made. We’re talking about marriage in the US and has never been recognized by any secular or religious authority in any of these united states. I don’t give a fly bleep at a rolling donut what the marriage traditions in Saudi Arabia are. Those dopes push little girls back into burning buildings if they aren’t properly dressed to be seen running down the street.

It’s “tradition” in the West that one’s children are chattel, to be disposed of at will; this tradition included the absolute right to kill a child. (Read Romeo and Juliet.) The notion that there were legal limits to the degree to which one could beat one’s own children was very new and very controversial not so long ago.

Comeon, Chalie. We’re not talking about beating children. We’re talking about fuckin’ marriage licenses. I’ll toss the “you’re not ignorant” nonsense right back at you - you keep raising analogies that have nothing to do with SSM and you know they don’t.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:04 pm 129. richard mcenroe:

So, it is clear that the Log Cabin Republicans are Log Cabin RINO’s… like Andrew Sullivan, they will throw over their party for their single issue.

Questions:

Is it any surprise to anyone between the Hudson and the San Gabriel Mountains that many, many people are uncomfortable with the redefinition of marriage to include relationships outside male/female?

That being said, is there a realistic chance that 38 states will vote to amend the Consititution in this fashion?

Was there any chance in hell that the Log Cabin Republicans could deliver a significant percentage of the gay vote?

If they cannot, and I don’t think they could, is it realistic for the Republican party to alienate a sizeable fraction of their electorate, an electorate all the pundits insist they desperately need, to placate the LCRINO’s?

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:04 pm 130. richard mcenroe:

Charlie(Colorado) ó I’m also aware that the cultures that endorse polygamy tend to be the ones that drive unveiled schoolgirls back into burning buildings, or hang teenagers for their “sharp tongues.”

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:07 pm 131. flenser:

Charlie

“to me it’s a question of whether people I like can have the same legal protections other people can”

This is overwrought. You act as if homosexuals have no legal protection under the law. In fact, that have the same legal protection as everyone else.

“But the notion that “one man one woman” marriage is implicit, and never confused anyone, must come as very much of a surprise to the Mormons, to the Oneida Colony, to a billion or so Moslems, to anyone who is haltingly familiar with the history of China, the Indian subcontinent, or Africa.”

WOW.

We do not live in China, or India, or Africa, or (thank God!) under Moslem law. We have our own customs here. If they don’t sit well with you, well, there is always Saudi Arabia.

“Surely you’re aware of at least the fact that polygamy is extremely common throughout the world.”

Charlie, if you really want to pursue this line of thought, you might want to consider that, in other parts of the world, it is also extremely common to do things like kill Jews and homosexuals. Are you quite sure you want to go there?

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:09 pm 132. Knucklehead:

Knuck, you’re absolutely right. Proposing and failing to amend the Constitution isn’t nearly as harmful as preventing people from forming legal marriages to match their emotional bonds.

Sorry, Charlie, but there have always been legal restrictions preventing people from marrying to match their emotional bonds. Didn’t we just mention the illegality of ploygamy? Is polyamorous marriage legal?

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:12 pm 133. Charlie (Colorado):

Richard:

Charlie(Colorado) ÔøΩ I’m also aware that the cultures that endorse polygamy tend to be the ones that drive unveiled schoolgirls back into burning buildings, or hang teenagers for their “sharp tongues.”

Not if you know what you’re talking about, you aren’t.

What you know is that some such cultures exist.

Can you say “false generalization”?

Knuck:

So what? It is specifically outlawed in the US.

So you’re arguing that the reason it should be outlawed in the US is … that it’s outlawed in the US. Can you say “begging the question”?

The commoness of polygamy around the world has nothing to do with any point I’ve made. We’re talking about marriage in the US and has never been recognized by any secular or religious authority in any of these united states.

Can you say “Mormons”? Polygamy was accepted for a good long time by the LDS Church in Illinois — until they were chased out by a murderous mob — and was accepted by both the dominant religion and the secular government of the Utah Territory while it was most definitely a US possession.

Comeon, Chalie. We’re not talking about beating children. We’re talking about fuckin’ marriage licenses. I’ll toss the “you’re not ignorant” nonsense right back at you - you keep raising analogies that have nothing to do with SSM and you know they don’t.

Knuck, I’m not particularly sensitive about these things, but I will point out that swearing at me doesn’t, at my advanced age, impress me as a rhetorical trope. As to the other — well, if these analogies don’t have anything to do with same-sex marriage, you’re going to have to convince me of it, because I don’t agree. Saying “you know they don’t” apply isn’t going to sell me, because I know no such thing.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:19 pm 134. Knucklehead:

So — do you have another argument, besides “this is way we’ve always done it”? Because it’s not the way we’ve always done it, and we have changed a lot of other things from the way we’ve always done it.

I’m not arguing against SSM because OSM is “tradition”. I’m arguing that the entire concept of marriage in has no meaning outside of tradition.

Without the traditional aspects it is nothing more than some legal stuff. Beyond the legal aspects the entire power of marriage is nothing more than adherence to its “traditional” value. Alter that and there’s nothing left other than the legal parts and we can move along to calling it precisely what it will be - a civil partnership contract. If that’s all the folks who want SSM are interested in - the partnership contract - then why bother pushing for the “traditional value”? And no law is going to deliver unto them the traditional value. That will require evolutionary change in what the society as a whole recognizes as the “traditional value”.

When we move the discussion of marriage to potentially include SSM then my argument is that it needs to be done, or fail to be done, through the legislative process.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:26 pm 135. Charlie (Colorado):

Sorry, Charlie, but there have always been legal restrictions preventing people from marrying to match their emotional bonds. Didn’t we just mention the illegality of ploygamy? Is polyamorous marriage legal?

Hey, it was your argument. I just paid attention to what you said.

Didn’t mean it? Fine. Why don’t you try telling me what you did mean, without insisting on the normative power of tradition — so long as it’s a tradition you agree with — or with what you “know that I know,” rather than what I’m saying?

Flenser:

You might want to just go back and re-write that submission, as I’d have to give you credit for effort to give it a C.

I will point out that I’m not claiming there’s any determinative power to any tradition, whether it’s Western Tradition, English common law, or middle-eastern tradition, whether Christian or otherwise. It’s John Moore and Knuck who claim that tradition is a sufficient argument — as long as it’s the traditions they like.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:27 pm 136. Knucklehead:

I wasn’t swearing at you, Charlie, it was a modifier to “marriage license”. Nonetheless I apologize, it was unnecessary.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:28 pm 137. chuck:

richard mcenroe:

I’m also aware that the cultures that endorse polygamy tend to be the ones that drive unveiled schoolgirls back into burning buildings, or hang teenagers for their “sharp tongues.”

Don’t be silly. Polygamy was not an invention of Islam. It was probably almost universal at one point. Islam merely codified and restricted an existing custom. I suspect that one could argue that a form of polygamy is still practiced in France and was also common among wealthy men in this country in the 1880’s thru 1920’s and is probably still around for the powerful. I always liked the stories about Joseph Kennedy and Gloria Swanson myself. I think that the spread of monogamy has a lot to do with the ascendancy of the West and the spread of Christianity. This is a recent phenomenon, nor do I think it is easy to argue that the success of the West is due to monogamy.

On the other hand, I will grant that traditionally marriage has been concerned with family and children. Even in cultures that accepted homosexuality, I do not believe it went as far as marriage. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can comment, but I suspect that if two Athenian men had married each other, they would have been laughed at.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:29 pm 138. Knucklehead:

So tell me, Chalie, what is the method for altering a tradition which carries legal baggage? Just cease to pay attention? Just allow whomever decides to ignore whatever laws that pertain to the tradition to go about their business? Basically just turn civil disobedience into a recognized manner for “legalizing” whatever some of us decide should no longer be legal?

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:31 pm 139. flenser:

Charlie

You are the one who needs to sell your position, if you want to change peoples minds.

Pretending that the non-existence of gay marriage is equivalent to the gulag, or the concentration camp, or slavery, is not going to get the job done.

I realize that you have not (yet) made reference to the first two of these. But I’m sure that must have been due to some sort of oversight on your part, given the hysterical nature of your remarks in general.

You know, you are as effective an advocate for your cause as some moonbat burning a flag is for his.

I blame it on pilates. I told you you should do yoga instead. You would not have all these issues.

Om.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:36 pm 140. Charlie (Colorado):

John: I’m one little point behind, and wanted to get to it.

I don’t say that out of evil intent. I say it because children are so special, and good luck convincing me that “Heather Has Two Mommies” is a good environment for raising kids - especially in the face of vast amounts of research showing that boys who are not raised with their natural father are at much higher risk of social pathologies. Furthermore, almost all cases of domestic sexual abuse are by step-parents or relatives outside of the nuclear family.

John, I’d be hard-pressed to argue that single-parent or other “non-traditional” families are good environments. But then, the “nuclear family” isn’t a traditional family either. My father lived in an extended household that included his Aunt Chris — who raised his father after great grandfather Jeff left them — a couple of other uncles and aunts, their kids, some of the inlaws, and a couple of black people whose families had been close with my family since my family “owned” theirs. This is the “extended family” that is the most common familial structure.

But then, what are you proposing? That children raised by a loving same-sex couple are necessarily at a disadvantage compared to an abusive het couple? Maybe so, but do you actually have evidence of it?

What about single parents? I was raised by my father after my mother ran off. Do you propose that we kids should have been taken away and given to a “nuclear family”? Or should my mother have been compelled by force to come back and live with my father when she had found it intolerable?

And if so, how would you have sobered her up?

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:38 pm 141. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m not arguing against SSM because OSM is “tradition”. I’m arguing that the entire concept of marriage in has no meaning outside of tradition.

Without the traditional aspects it is nothing more than some legal stuff.

Yes, exactly. Now, why should certain pairs of humans have the advantage of that legal stuff, and other shouldn’t? Can you make an argument for that that doesn’t reduce to tradition, that convincingly doesn’t mean certain people have access to legal protections others do not, and — here’s one that will be very convincing to me — doesnt come out to be isomorphic to the reasons why my great-grandfather shouldn’t have married a white woman?

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:43 pm 142. Charlie (Colorado):

I wasn’t swearing at you, Charlie, it was a modifier to “marriage license”. Nonetheless I apologize, it was unnecessary.

Accepted, it should go without saying. I did want to point out that it maybe should have been phrased “a marriage fucking license.”

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:45 pm 143. Knucklehead:

I linked to this Legal Information Institute before. But just in case anyone has the remotest interest in how the law views marriage, its worth poking around at.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:49 pm 144. Matthew Cromer:

Terrye you are right I am being rude. Unfortunately you are wrong about people talking about taking kids away from people. I’ll quote Moore later in the thread.

I got supremely offended by John Moore’s suggestion that gay people have their kids taken away from them. And I’m not sorry about that. I’m straight and have kids and the idea of taking away someone’s kids because you don’t like their choices is about the most fascist thing you could ever say. I have no idea why he said it, but he’s wrong, wrong, wrong.

But I didn’t tell anyone to go fuck themselves, like “Fresh Air” did. Perhaps the theory that people who use nicknames feel more free to attack people is true.

As for the “log cabin” remark, I am neither gay nor am I a Republican. Like I said, I’m voting for Bush this time around. The war on Terror is critical, and Kerry is a catastrophe. Bush is much better on taxes and regulation, which are crucial for economic growth which makes everyone better off. I don’t think the constitutional amendment has a “prayer” of passing. I don’t particularly think getting gay marriage passed in the courts is a good thing — far better to let it gradually spread rather than force it down the throats of people. But I’m not going to let a comment like

“I do not believe gay couples should have the right to raise children”

slide. Ever. Even if he adds the caveat of “allowing” the parents to keep the kids if there is an “emotional bond”. If “Fresh Air” wants to go to the mattresses for John Moore’s campaign to take gay babies away from their lesbian moms and tell people to go fuck themselves when they get irate about it — well that’s his problem.

About being a bigot. It’s not the end of the world. It’s not a horrific permanent blight on the soul. It’s an understandable reaction to things you don’t understand and have discomfort with or fear for. Xenophobia is a perfectly human reaction, evolutionarily honed over millions of years. But it’s not a very seemly condition. I used to be bigoted against gay men and women. My religion taught it as something bad, and I internalized it. But later I got to know enough gay men and women to realize that these were just normal people whose sexual desire was wired a bit differently than mine. That doesn’t mean I think anonymous sex in bath-houses was a good idea (although not too different from what many hetero men would want to do if they could). But encouraging marriage among gay men and women, and encouraging a return to a more enduring marriage bond among all couples (yes no-fault is a catastrophe for children) are good things for society.

As for my rant against the boomers, I apologize to the minority of boomers who don’t fit my stereotype. I’m just sick of the way you guys screwed things up in a lot of ways, and I’m ready for your cohort to stop trying to control your kids and grandkids lives through the mighty force of goverment coercion. We’re adults now — you have a moral duty to allow us to make our own decisions and get your thumbs off the scale.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:50 pm 145. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charles,

Constructing defective marriages is not an argument for same sex marriage. It is an argument for good marriages.

Nuclear families are (or were until no-fault divorce) traditional. As you go into the past, with different conditions, extended and substitute families happened, which largely provided the same structure as a nuclear family.

So what?

By the way, for those who raise the divorce statistics, there are two problems:

1) the probabiliy of a first marriage ending in divorce is well below what the overall statistics project. A significant number of divorces are second or third divorces, which means the number of successful marriages are higher than one might think.

2) The divorce rate of marriage is irrelevant to the SSM debate.

Some said that I consider tradition sufficient in itself for preventing SSM. That someone needs to read more carefully.

Tradition is a powerful guide, and depending on the situation, a very strong guide. It is valuable because evolution, at the social level, selects those traditions. Societies with really screwed up traditions aren’t going to last as long - at least if they end up in competition. If you have a very good society, ignoring its traditions is foolish or arrogant. Taking traditions without any questions at all is not that good an idea.

There’s an old saying: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s another way of saying that fiddling with things that work is hazardous.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:59 pm 146. flenser:

“It’s John Moore and Knuck who claim that tradition is a sufficient argument — as long as it’s the traditions they like.”

Charlie, what do YOU consider sufficient argument? What is the intellectual undepinning for YOUR position? What religion or school of morals are YOU drawing on, if any? If you reject all of these, what is left but abstract reason?

I have not seen you making arguments from reason either.

Other than saying that those who disagree with you are bigots, do you have an actual argument for your position? And, “It feels right” is not going to cut it.

Perhaps I only deserve a “C” here, but if that is where the standard is being set, you are pulling an “F”.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:00 pm 147. Knucklehead:

On the topic of marriage and children, some might find The State of Our Unions 2003

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:03 pm 148. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Mathew

If you are going to write long screeds, perhaps you should learn to read first. You have put words in my mouth that not only did I not say, but that are the opposite of my viewpoint.

I was very careful to make it clear that I didn’t believe in taking kids away if they are tied to the family. It’s harder to be more bonded than to be a young natural child.

I don’t want Heather to Have Two Mommies, but I wouldn’t take the kid away except using the same child abuse standards that are used for heteros.

As far as boomers go, grow up or stuff your opinions.

Attacking an entire generation, which built the world you live in, is terribly immature.

Misreading statements for the worst possible interpretation indicates a lack of good faith.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:08 pm 149. richard mcenroe:

Chuck ó No, polygamy was not an invention of Islam, and indeed is practiced by other cultures as well, even today.

And most of those cultures, I maintain, treat their women badly.

And are you equating the practice of keeping mistresses with polygamy? In what culture did mistresses, and more importantly, their children, have anything like the legal and social stature afforded to wives and legitimate heirs? Historically, bastardy has had many legal and social sanctions attached to it.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:17 pm 150. richard mcenroe:

Chuck, Charlie ó Actually, can you name any polygamous societies that treat women in a fashion that could be considered acceptable in Western society? I can point to Islam and various African cultures that don’t. Where’s the obverse?

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:19 pm 151. syn:

Nike Silverman

Does you “gay rights lobby” recognize that homosexual’s have the right to believe in their own individaul core values or are homosexuals expected to simply conform to your “gay lobby”?

Do you even acknowledge the homosexual as an individual, or are homosexuals simply a group of conformed gays?

I now understand why “gay” is so offensive to many homosexuals.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:25 pm 152. Charlie (Colorado):

You are the one who needs to sell your position, if you want to change peoples minds.

Flenser, you’re making a mistaken inference. First of all, I’m not necessarily arguing for any position, although — not to be a tease — I will do so below. I’m pointing out that the arguments people have presented against gay marriage don’t stand up to much scrutiny. The best evidence I could hope for to show this is the fact that, given some logical scrutiny, the arguments become pretty heated without ever making a lot of progress.

Second, I’m specifically pointing out that our society is, in many ways, not just the product of weakened traditions, but the product of actively rejecting tradition: chattel slavery, the Divine Right of <del>The Descendents of The Biggest Thug</del> Kings, established religion, that only men have the right to participate in politics.

Now, as far as what I’m arguing for, or rather shall now argue for:

- I’m arguing that, first of all, I take it as self-evident (that is, axiomatic; I take it to be obvious and state it as such as a basis of my further arguments) that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights

- that among these rights are the right to security in one’s person against force imposed by others, to make free choices without coercion, and to live one’s life to suit one’s own desires, limited only by the equal and concomitant rights held by others

- that chief among these rights is the right to make decisions based on one’s religion, or lack of religion, without coercion, within the limits of one’s conscience and the equal and concomitant rights I mentioned above.

As a consequence of these axiomatic assertions, I believe that neither legal privileges nor legal impediments can properly be applied to one person that are not equally applied to another, except to the degree necessary to preserve the equal and concomitant rights of others, or to preserve the rights of those incompetent to make decisions for themselves, as with children, or those in whom reason is impared.

I believe, therefore, that the right of two people to contract a civil relationship in which they agree to jointly own property, and assume certain obligations, one to the other, is a right that is possessed by everyone, if it in fact possessed by anyone. Further, the right to choose freely the other party to such a contract without restriction is inherently a consequence of these self-evident assumptions.

To the extent that such restrictions are based in religious belief or social tradition, I hold these restrictions to be morally without force, and void, except among those who voluntarily hold those religious beliefs, excepting only those restrictions needed to maintain the equal and concomitant rights of others.

Restrictions, imposed by law or social compulsion, that violate these self-evident rights are inherently immoral and unjust. To the extent that they can be ignored, they are justly ignored; to the extent that they cannot be ignored, they are justly fought in the name of the rights of Man.

Neither majority vote, nor “social contract”, can make that which is unjust, just.

To the extent that I think “marriage” should be an issue of government at all, I only believe that civil partnership, open to all, can be morally justified. To the extent that “marriage” is defined by tradition or religious believe, it can only be applicible to those who hold those beliefs freely, without coercion.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:29 pm 153. chuck:

Nuclear families are (or were until no-fault divorce) traditional. As you go into the past, with different conditions, extended and substitute families happened, which largely provided the same structure as a nuclear family.

Extended families are still traditional almost everwhere but the US. We are the odd family out, and I would argue that the extended family offers more security and a better environment than the nuclear family. Look at Charlie’s story as an example. Exactly how the modern nuclear family came about would make an interesting study, and there is probably a tome out there somewhere, but I doubt the reasons are because of traditional values.

Actually, can you name any polygamous societies that treat women in a fashion that could be considered acceptable in Western society?

No. But as a counter example, I offer up Europe of a century or two ago. Much has to do with the spread of modern civilization and it’s liberal values. Whether or not civilization and liberal values are tightly bound is an open question. Certainly, classical civilizations required no such connection.

As to mistresses, I would argue that they are a form of polygamy adapted to a monogamous society, to the detriment of the bastard children.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:44 pm 154. ambisinistral:

As for my rant against the boomers, I apologize to the minority of boomers who don’t fit my stereotype. I’m just sick of the way you guys screwed things up in a lot of ways, and I’m ready for your cohort to stop trying to control your kids and grandkids lives through the mighty force of goverment coercion. We’re adults now — you have a moral duty to allow us to make our own decisions and get your thumbs off the scale.

Mathew,

I’m one boomer who doesn’t mind your whini… er, complaining about us Boomers. Perhaps that’s because I have a 21 year old son and you ought to hear what he thinks of Gen-Xers.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:49 pm 155. Charlie (Colorado):

John:

Charles,

Constructing defective marriages is not an argument for same sex marriage. It is an argument for good marriages.

So I’m “Charles” now, eh?

I really prefer “Charlie”, thanks.

As to the rest, I agree that good marriages are a good thing. Have you got an actual argument here, or are you simply continuing the assertion that the only good marriages are traditional marriages, by definition?

Nuclear families are (or were until no-fault divorce) traditional. As you go into the past, with different conditions, extended and substitute families happened, which largely provided the same structure as a nuclear family.

John, I’m referring to a “traditional” family structure that was in place in 1930; the only reason my Dad’s family isn’t there still is that my grandfather — crippled in WWI and unable to do physical labor — was forced to look for work outside Cherokee County by the Depression.

The “traditional nuclear family” wasn’t traditional even in the United States in living memory. It was the terrifying consequence of moving away from one’s family, on the frontier or because we developed a more mobile society.

Flenser:

Charlie, what do YOU consider sufficient argument? What is the intellectual undepinning for YOUR position? What religion or school of morals are YOU drawing on, if any? If you reject all of these, what is left but abstract reason?

Well, I don’t actually see “abstract reason” as being a bad choice, so I think you’re making another unwarranted assumption. But I think I actually beat that one to death just above.

Richard:

Chuck, Charlie ÔøΩ Actually, can you name any polygamous societies that treat women in a fashion that could be considered acceptable in Western society?

Hell, Richard, can you point to any Western societies that treat women in a fashion that would be considered acceptable in Western society, and have done so for more than about 30 years? The whole notion of what we consider “acceptible” has changed radically since I was in high school; the notion that women should be able to vote has only been accepted in the US since 1920 — and still isn’t in some places in Europe.

(Not to mention the problem that I wouldn’t necessarily say a society that prevents a woman from marrying whomever they want to is treating women in a fashion that could be considered acceptable.)

I will grant that polygamous marriage does appear to go with the notion of wife as chattel. But then it’s not that long ago that monogamous traditional marriage treated the wife as chattel too.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:50 pm 156. Matthew Cromer:

OK John you have now backtracked on your statement. Good. I’m glad you don’t want to take any kids away from any families.

One of the lesbian couples my wife and I know pretty well adopted two minority girls from an abusive family situation. These girls would have been in a foster care family until age 18 if it weren’t for this couple.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:54 pm 157. syn:

This is what the “gay rights lobby” is doing to homosexuals, they are coercing homosexuals into accepting ‘gay marriage’.

Because of the ‘gay rights lobby”, today’s homosexuals are not allowed to be themselves instead, all that matters to the gay lobbyist is that one be “gay”, forget the individual.

Homosexuals have been hijacked by the gay movement yet, somewhere over the “Rainbow”, homosexuals are finding themselves again.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:54 pm 158. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie,

Taking your system, I would say that homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals - they can Marry.

Marriage is an ancient custom in which people of the opposite sex are joined legally and usually religiously.

If members of the same sex want to create some legal device that recognizes the union of two homosexuals, then they can go to the legislature and lobby for it. I see no natural right for the government to sanction such a union - in fact, there is no natural right to government sanctioned marriage either. It takes dishonest wordsmithing to construe Marriage to be just the legal and religious union of two people of undefined sex. Without such dishonesty, no illegal discrimination occurs.

Put simply: gays want something that does not exist. Furthermore, they insist that it be called marriage, which fans the flames, because it redefines marriage.

It is typical of the gay rights movement to go for the extreme, and use all sorts of nastiness to get their way. In this case, SSM is the extreme - in fact it is a meaningless term since the SS and the M are incompatible. They would do much better seeking various protections that come with marriage, if there are any that cannot be produced simply with contracts.

I have not yet heard why gay “marriage” is important.

What are the practical benefits of SSM’s and why does it have to be called Marriage?

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:55 pm 159. ScottM:

So virtually ever human being who has ever lived has been hateful and bigoted (since virtually none of them have ever even considered the possibility of two men or two women marrying) until…thank God!…Roger L. Simon’s generation came along to bring light into the darkness!

[Trumpets, and Hosannas from the angelic choir]

If I were less polite, I might point out the appalling arrogance of that position.

Look, if you want to redefine marriage to include homosexual couplings, at least have the honesty and the guts to admit that you are calling for a radical change in the very concept of marriage, rather than trying to avoid debate with charges of bigotry.

Do that (and abandon efforts to impose this change without debate through the courts), and we can talk. Until then, we have nothing to talk about.

Aug 31, 2004 - 8:55 pm 160. Charlie (Colorado):

Flenser:

This just sank in:

Other than saying that those who disagree with you are bigots, do you have an actual argument for your position?

If you can find a place where I said that people who disagree with me are “bigots,” I’ll not only apologize most heartily, I’ll make a significant contribution to the charity of their choice by way of apology.

On the other hand, if you can’t quote such a statement, I’ll expect your apology forthwith.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:00 pm 161. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Mathew

OK John you have now backtracked on your statement. Good. I’m glad you don’t want to take any kids away from any families.

I see you are still having reading difficulties.

One of the lesbian couples my wife and I know pretty well adopted two minority girls from an abusive family situation. These girls would have been in a foster care family until age 18 if it weren’t for this couple.

Why were the girls not adoptible by a hetero family? There are 2,000,000 wanting to adopt. Of course, I know the child welfare folks in a lot of states have some crazy practices, including putting lesbian couples ahead of heteros, not allowing cross racial adoption, etc.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:01 pm 162. Terrye:

Matthew:

You are trying my patience you insipid little snot.

I was born in 1951 in Oklahoma and it was not legal for a white woman to marry a black man. Your generation did not change that. Your generation has not a concept of what a real war is like, what real injustice is like, unless you go to another country. You don’t know what real poverty is like. I mean people living in tar paper shacks with no shoes to wear or enough to eat.

And so you invent a crises, gay marriage. Fine let them get married, I really don’t give a rat’s ass.

There are people in this world who would take those lesbian friends of yours and hang them in public. That is what I care about.

So buzz off.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:14 pm 163. lindenen:

ambisinistral,

“Perhaps that’s because I have a 21 year old son and you ought to hear what he thinks of Gen-Xers. ;-)”

ooH! Ooh! What does your son think of Gen X?

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:17 pm 164. flenser:

Charlie

“I’m pointing out that the arguments people have presented against gay marriage don’t stand up to much scrutiny.”

Well, you can claim that if you wish, Charlie. But you certainly are not pointing it out, a phrase which implies that you are some detached observer making accurate and impartial observations.

“The best evidence I could hope for to show this is the fact that, given some logical scrutiny, the arguments become pretty heated without ever making a lot of progress.”

Has it ever crossed your mind, even for a nanosecond, that the heat that you speak of might be in some way attributable to your tendency to impugn the intelligence, the morality, and the good faith of those whom you are allegedly engaging in civil debate?

So much for the pissing match part. Thanks for (finally) making a thoughtful response. I’ll have to respond to the substance of your post tomorrow. Time for bed.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:19 pm 165. Charlie (Colorado):

Taking your system, I would say that homosexuals have the same right as heterosexuals - they can Marry.

So long as they only agree to marry those people you say they may.

Forgive me if I’m not deeply impressed with this argument. Go back to the argument I made, and try again.

It is typical of the gay rights movement to go for the extreme, and use all sorts of nastiness to get their way. In this case, SSM is the extreme - in fact it is a meaningless term since the SS and the M are incompatible.

Again, you’re making a circular argument, “begging the question”.

In any cse, though, if as you appear to be asserting, the strength of “marriage” as you have it defined comes from its religious or traditional basis, then to the extent it conflicts with the right of two people to freely form a “marriage contract”, I hold it to be unjust, and morally void.

They would do much better seeking various protections that come with marriage, if there are any that cannot be produced simply with contracts.

I agree with you completely; what I want to see is for the right to make such a contract extended to everyone.

As it stands, however, there are a number of things that simply can’t be done by contract, or can only be done by contract at the expense of extensive legal help. For example:

- you can’t, by simple contract, establish an absolute right to visit or be considered “next of kin” in a hospital

- you can’t, by simple contract, establish the right of joint ownership of property, to financial benefits that would be granted automatically by marriage, or to inheritance

On the other hand, you can by contract establish joint ownership with rights of survivorship — but you won’t get the tax protections granted a “spouse”.

You can, by contract, agree to share income and expenses — but you can’t enforce that contract to have both partners covered by health insurance or employment benefits.

You can, by contract, agree to share a retirement fund — but you can’t force the government to pay “survivor benefits” from Social Security.

I have not yet heard why gay “marriage” is important.

See above.

What are the practical benefits of SSM’s and why does it have to be called Marriage?

Again, see above, for at least a partial list.

I’m actually willing to argue that there shouldn’t be a legal entity called “marriage”. (Where’d the capital letter come from, by the way?) But, assuming it granted the same rights and privileges to any “married” couple, I don’t care if you call it Aloysius.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:23 pm 166. chuck:

Heh. Will, to tell the truth, I come down a bit on both side, which is probably dangerous. I can see John’s argument that there is no need for calling gay couples “married”, and I tend towards preferring slow social change as safer. The nuclear family is a recent change that came on a bit too fast IMHO.

However, there are undoubtedly forces driving these changes that run deeper than preference, economic forces for example. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the spread of the Hutterites — I think it is actually mostly the Amish and Mennonites — to midwestern farm lands that no one else can afford to farm, is an example of economic forces at work. Likewise the thinning of the countryside in places like NM.

The only reason for govenment to be involved at all is children, and this is also new and not everyone will agree on this either, often for traditional or religious reasons. How to handle children is an open question, but perhaps a coupling should take on special significance once children are involved. As in married, with children (where have I heard *that* before).

I also suspect that if homosexual couples were accepted as a normal part of society, the push towards marriage would subside. To some extent, I think it is an attempt to gain acceptance of homosexuality by borrowing a word with sacred connotations to others.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:26 pm 167. Sporkadelic:

Flak is anti-aircraft fire, or its figurative counterpart. A press agent is a flack. (/pedantic)

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:29 pm 168. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, you can claim that if you wish, Charlie. But you certainly are not pointing it out, a phrase which implies that you are some detached observer making accurate and impartial observations.

Actually, I’ve on several occasions pointed out the logical flaws in the arguments, naming them by the formal terminology. If you’re not familiar with it, I’d be happy to refer you to a text or any of several websites.

Has it ever crossed your mind, even for a nanosecond, that the heat that you speak of might be in some way attributable to your tendency to impugn the intelligence, the morality, and the good faith of those whom you are allegedly engaging in civil debate?

I think you’ve confused me with someone else.

In the mean time, I still await your example of a case in which I called someone a “bigot”, or your apology.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:29 pm 169. Knucklehead:

Charlie,

If you can show me one place in this or any other discussion where I made any claim that tradition is a “sufficient” reason to oppose SSM, please do so.

Marriage cannot be discussed without reference to tradition. Surely you do not argue otherwise. And our tradition of marriage has changed over time as have our legal restrictions and removal of restrictions. The reasons for those alterations have led us to futher restrict marriage (making polygamy illegal, raising the age of consent, forbidding marriage to close relatives, requiring checks for venereal disease, etc) and have sometimes removed restrictions (inter-racial marriage).

In no case has any change I am aware of altered the fundamental social view of the reason for marriage, which is, as described by the LII I linked to above

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

We still strongly recognize marriage between a man and woman as the essential basis for the family unit and as significant, if not primary, factor in raising children from infancy to adulthood in the best possible physical and mental condition. See the Rutgers study I linked to above. I have no doubt I can find others which establish similar links.

So our social/cultural notions of marriage have changed in important ways yet have remained quite anchored in the fundamental sense of being seen as the primary traditional institution upon which the family and childrearing is based.

Families raising healthy children has, IMO, a general value to our society as a whole. This overall value marriage provides to our society as the basis for the family unit is certainly the primary reason we have given it legal protections and privileges as well as legal obligations. These legal protections and obligations, a brief list of which I’ve linked to earlier in the discussion, are focused on several key areas which deal with child-rearing/custody, inheritance, medical decision-making, access to and continuation of various “benefits”, etc.

All of these legal protections and obligations could, with sufficient effort, be replicated for any sort of “personal partnership”. This would not even be a particulary daunting technical challenge. These things are not denied to anyone by “denying” them marriage. They could each and all be provided through legal methods that do not require altering the thing we know as marriage - the “traditional” thing marriage has evolved into and serves us today.

So why do we need marriage at all? We need marriage because it has some intangible meaning, or power of tradition, to it. The legal protections and obligations are not part of this “power of tradition”. It is this intangible whatever that marriage has that provides the value to society primarily through childrearing. Without this “power of tradition” marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Those of us who commit ourselves to raising healthy, productive children often (not always) rely heavily on this power of the marriage tradition. Its the foundation.

Nothing about any of that says it needs to remain that way. We can easily find examples of single parents, gay couples, and so on who do not have the “crutch” of marriage on which to lean and have, in fact, managed quite well while having the crutch torn out. But I do not believe we, as a society overall, are ready to throw the crutch away. It is a support we still need and which still provides net positive value - contributes to the public good. To try and put it another way, the tradition in its current evolution is not ready for, or perhaps cannot survive, a major overhaul.

OK, now the next step. Since there are clearly childless married couples marriage has context outside of the childrearing family unit. So what harm can SSM do to marriage in the case of childless marriage? The answer, at least as I see it, is SSM does no direct harm. I’ll come back to the potential for indirect harm later. I will say, however, that in its context outside of childrearing family units, marriage provides no particular value to society - it just is.

Next… if the public good is enhanced by healthy, childrearing family units, and childrearing family units are often well served by the power of traditon carried by marriage, then wouldn’t SSMs raising children be better served by having access to marriage? There are two parts to this which, unfortunately, yield an answer of “no”.

The first is that SSM carries no “power of tradition”. It cannot and will not unless the entire institution of marriage survives long enough to evolve such that it culturally encompasses SSM child-rearing couples. That will require at least a generation, probably more. You can’t decree or legislate “cultural acceptance”, it must evolve.

This first portion then devolves into whether or not marriage, as an institution providing value to society, can survive SSM. I do not believe it can. The reason for that is that, for Progressive Family Law leaders, SSM is nothing more than a Stalking Horse. Google it for yourself, I’m growing weary. In particular watch for Relationship LLC. Note the names of the people involved with these “progressive” movements to redefine Family Law and the positions they hold within our Law Schools.

This movement is not friendly to marriage of any sort - to them marriage is nothing more than the residual fecal waste of a patriachal, oppressive society and must be replaced by the legal frameworks I mentioned above and those legal frameworks must be made to a fully “inclusive” range of whatever definitions of “family” people wish to construct. (Google “polyamorous” while you’re googling.) All this group needs is the crack in the dam. And the desired crack in the dam is to break the remaining traditional definition of marriage as “one man, one woman”. Once cracked the dam can be broken and it will wash away not only our “traditional” notion of marriage but the SSM that wedged the crack in the first place.

Which brings me, BTW, to the indirect harm that childless SSM can bring to marriage as an institution. That is, of course, its overall danger as a crack in the dam.

If marriage could survive SSM long enough to evolve the cultural acceptance necessary to make it valuable to society and worthwhile to those who seek it, it would need to survive the Relationship LLC Barbarians At The Gates, but it can’t survive them unless the legislative process is used to do a deep dive on the full ramifications and laws carefully constructed to clearly delineate precisely who and under what circumstances marriage is being extended to and from whom it remains denied.

But how can marriage be denied to anyone once it is no longer restricted to that little piece of tradition it still hangs on to - one man, one woman.

Well, I’m finished with this topic. I’ve got my kids as raised and well-launched as I can get them. Y’all wanna wreck the nextgens ability to keep society moving forward and provided with decent kids who become decent adults, that’s your choice. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:32 pm 170. Charlie (Colorado):

So virtually ever human being who has ever lived has been hateful and bigoted (since virtually none of them have ever even considered the possibility of two men or two women marrying) until…thank God!…Roger L. Simon’s generation came along to bring light into the darkness!

Scott, who the hell are you talking to?

By the way, Roger is just north of 60, so I suspect the generational assertion there is way wide of your intended mark.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:32 pm 171. Matthew Cromer:

Terrye I never claimed gay marriage is a crisis. The crisis is hetero marriage — which many in your generation decided to throw in the trashcan in a fit of apoplexy about “liberation” and other such rot. Gay marriage is just about being civilized and just to gay folks.

My complaints about the boomers are as follows:

1) You guys have crested the top of the hill and are walking down the other side. You have no right to impose your bigotry on the younger generations who do not share your hostility towards gays. The last time we had this sort of idiocy imposed on the constitution was Prohibition. Stop trying to cast the future in your image.

2) Your generation’s experiment with this disaster known as the “War on Drugs” is a collossal failure. Call it off. Anti-narc politicians are a dealer’s best friend — you can be sure the dope smugglers are thrilled that pot is illegal. I know you didn’t start this but you damn well should have finished it when “I didn’t inhale” got elected.

3) Your utter and complete failure to do anything about entitlement reform is a disgrace. I don’t know a single Gen X or Gen Y person who expects to get a wooden nickle from Social “Security”. You guys should have privatized this system long, long ago. You boomers know the system is a collossal failure and you did nothing about it.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:45 pm 172. Charlie (Colorado):

Knuck, John:

A conservative like myself looks at changes and traditions. When you make a change to an ancient tradition, it needs testing, debate, great caution.

My generation was the one that trampled all over traditions. I thought I was smarter than the old fogies who had created or still defended those traditions. So did most of us. We was wrong.

Marriage is an ancient custom in which people of the opposite sex are joined legally and usually religiously.

Marriage cannot be discussed without reference to tradition.

And the desired crack in the dam is to break the remaining traditional definition of marriage as “one man, one woman”.

The first is that SSM carries no “power of tradition”….

Or, by citation, In the English common law tradition, ….

Guys, your argument, as stated several times, appears to depend on the “traditions” or “ancient customs” or the “power of tradition.” If you didn’t mean to base your whole argument on “tradition” as the determinative for “traditional marriage”, you’ve fooled me.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:54 pm 173. lindenen:

‘To some extent, I think it is an attempt to gain acceptance of homosexuality by borrowing a word with sacred connotations to others.”

A friend of mine (who is gay) and opposed to gay marriage (”Marriage is for breeders.”) thinks that so many gay people want marriage because they’re not comfortable being gay and it assauges their consciences. A lot of people confuse “equality” with “sameness”. If same sex marriage is the same as opposite sex marriage, then their guilt is alleviated.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:55 pm 174. lindenen:

“Guys, your argument, as stated several times, appears to depend on the “traditions” or “ancient customs” or the “power of tradition.”

No, but there’s a reason why in all cultures the tradition is opposite sex marriage, it’s called BASIC BIOLOGY.

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:57 pm 175. richard mcenroe:

Charlie (Colorado) ó Well, let’s see, the Spartans permitted women to hold, inherit and bequeath property, but that was 2400 years ago.

At the time of Louis 14th/The Thirty Years War, a woman who could prove a charge of rape on a man could indemnify him to her personal service until any resulting child reached majority.

By the 18th century, women such as Madame du Stael sat at the centre of intellectual life and discource in the salons of Europe.

By the 19th century, women were being acknowledged in the arts, stage and journalism.

By the 20th century, women were given the vote. Note: they did not WIN the vote, because hey, they couldn’t vote for it, they were GIVEN the vote by men who recognized the injustice of denying them the franchise and expanded the right.

The point is, slowly, haltingly, and erratically, monogamistic cultures evolve and develop the relationship between the sexes, with the attendant stimulation of the culture, where polygamous cultures tend not to. Can you name an Islamic culture in the Middle East, a polygamous tribal culture in Africa, or a traditional Asian culture such as Imperial China or Tokugawa Japan, that has anything like that tradition and heritage of social change?

Aug 31, 2004 - 9:58 pm 176. richard mcenroe:

As I think on it, one might also make an argument against gay marriage on the grounds that it would further attenuate a system of relationships that is integral to the progress of women.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:01 pm 177. Charlie (Colorado):

So tell me, Chalie, what is the method for altering a tradition which carries legal baggage? Just cease to pay attention? Just allow whomever decides to ignore whatever laws that pertain to the tradition to go about their business? Basically just turn civil disobedience into a recognized manner for “legalizing” whatever some of us decide should no longer be legal?

Uh, knuck, isn’t that more or less the way we do it in the US? The civil rights movement in the 60’s operated in precisely that fashion: they agreed to ignore the unacceptable laws.

Prohibition died out because no one — not even the President, FDR liked a drink as much as anyone — paid any attention any longer.

Seems we took the Stamp Act and the import rules in Boston pretty badly as well.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:05 pm 178. Matthew Cromer:

Knucklehead,

I think you are wrong. What destroyed the fabric of society was the unbelievable conceit of the people in the 60s and 70s deciding that life was all about immediate personal gratification and that getting a divorce was like changing your dirty socks and that kids would do JUST FINE with only one parent, or seeing dad on the weekends, etc.

The younger generations have decided that was all a bunch of selfish rot, many because we had to live in those 1 parent or “back and forth” households. We’re a lot more serious about marriage than our parents were, *particularly* once kids roll around. We care a lot more about family and a lot less about climbing the ladder and buying the biggest house and car possible.

I recognize that a core of ne’er do well socialist activists think that gay marriage is a trojan horse and will lead to the destruction of the institution which is their goal. But they are swimming against the stream of gay men and women I know who have relationships, and often kids, for the same reason the rest of us do.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:06 pm 179. Charlie (Colorado):

No, but there’s a reason why in all cultures the tradition is opposite sex marriage, it’s called BASIC BIOLOGY.

Lindenen, I’m not sure you’re big enough to ride this ride.

You’re absolutely right, the biological parents of a child are pretty much invariably of opposite sexes.

From this, I suppose you could infer that “marriage”, as a bond between man and woman, is biologically driven to be between a man and a woman.

On the other hand — brace yourself — marriage doesn’t appear to be a necessary condition for the biology needed to produce a child. I know you must find this shocking, but I did attend medical school for a while, I can assure you it’s the truth.

As I said, I don’t care if it’s called “marriage” or Aloysius, as long as same-sex couples have the same legal benefits as het couples.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:13 pm 180. Charlie (Colorado):

Richard, I’m not quite clear what you’re answering in your last.

I mentioned Sparta and Shogunate Japan as societies in which homosexuality was acceptable, not as examples of women’s rights — although, as you point out, Sparta did have a tradition of women’s rights to property etc. (On the other hand, they had a tradition that included both chattel slavery and ownership of the citizens by the State.)

If you’re trying to argue that there is a general upward trend in women’s rights, I’ll note that while Shogunate Japan wasn’t a notable example of women’s rights, Heian Japan (as in the Genji Monogatari or Sei Shonagon’s Diary) let women own property and was quite sexually open six hundred years earlier. While current conservative sects of Islam are quite oppressive — to women and pretty much everyone else — The Q’ran is comparatively “liberal” and in fact the Prophet married his “boss”, who owned the business.

I think i’d argue that women “won” the vote by being insufferable pains in the ass until either the essential rightness of their opinion became clear, or their husbands just couldn’t stand it any longer.

Whch, come to think of it, is more or less the way my ex handled arguments too.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:30 pm 181. Charlie (Colorado):

Richard:

As I think on it, one might also make an argument against gay marriage on the grounds that it would further attenuate a system of relationships that is integral to the progress of women.

You might hop on one foot for 24 hours straight, thereby establishing a Guiness world record — but I don’t think either one would be easy, nor particularly informative.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:32 pm 182. chuck:

Ok,

To sum up for myself. There should be a recognized relationship, called perhaps Aloysious (hope the other brothers don’t mind), that grants visitation rights and such as set forth by Charlie. The word marriage should be reserved for it’s traditional use. Words are cheap and eveyone should have some, but they can be owned, and it looks to me like some feel an attempt is being made to steal the word marriage. Why pick a fight over the issue?

Now I don’t think this will make all homosexuals pressing for marriage happy, because I am not convinced that legalities are the main point. I think they want to be blessed. Fine in itself, but there are other ways to achieve a blessing than by borrowing a word.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:36 pm 183. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie

Thanks for the list - seriously, that is what I wanted to see.

- you can’t, by simple contract, establish an absolute right to visit or be considered “next of kin” in a hospital

Medical power of attorney does this as far as I know. If not, or if it doesn’t pass state lines, then a solution needs to be created, by legislation if necessary.

you can’t, by simple contract, establish the right of joint ownership of property, to financial benefits that would be granted automatically by marriage, or to inheritance

I believe that you could indeed do this by contract. Ownership and disposal of property is one of the fundamental aspects of contract law. Furthermore, one could construct a master contract to avoid having to do one on every bit of property.

Inheritance taxes might be a problem, in which case a change should be made in the law (of course, I favor abolishing those taxes). I don’t know what the IRS does if money is given to a non-relative. I think it’s ordinary income, which has a much better rate than death taxes, but doesn’t have the big exemption.

you can’t enforce that contract to have both partners covered by health insurance or employment benefits.

Since those benefits are granted by the employer at their whim, this is an employee/employer issue. They don’t have to cover traditional spouses either. It won’t be long before they no longer grant medical insurance, btw. The system is collapsing (I work in the field).

You can, by contract, agree to share a retirement fund — but you can’t force the government to pay “survivor benefits” from Social Security.

I would favor legislation to equalize this.

These look like easy issues, and ones where humanity suggests they should be solved for SS couples, with legislation as required.

And call it Aloysius.

As to my reliance on tradition, it is a strong argument. It isn’t the only one, but I didn’t want to get into the whole SSM debate again. He who discards tradition often creates serious unintended consequences. But there’s another, stronger argument: SSM is utterly unnecessary.

Chuck

The Hutterites are a variant of Mennonites. I had a friend who was from a Kansas Hutterite community. They are taking over farms all over the place. Not that this is bad, but it’s interesting.

Knucklehead

Outstanding presentation.

Mathew

You are an ignorant annoyance. Learn how to carry on a reasonable discussion if you want anyone to answer you. I would suggest asking one of the boomers here.

lindenen

I believe that a lot of the behavior of the “gay movement” is a result of discomfort with the homosexual status, a discomfort which they feel will be eliminated if their behavior is normalized. Given all the damage that movement has caused, I don’t have a lot of sympathy with them - they’ll try to force SSM on us. They’ll vandalize churches again. In general, they will misbehave. Those who adopt the in-your-face style are clods. There is no way we should create SSM to assuage their discomfort.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:41 pm 184. lindenen:

‘On the other hand — brace yourself — marriage doesn’t appear to be a necessary condition for the biology needed to produce a child. I know you must find this shocking, but I did attend medical school for a while, I can assure you it’s the truth.”

Wow. You’re an asshole.

Also, for the record, I’m fine with civil unions, etc.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:42 pm 185. chuck:

Charlie,

My grandad preached both temperance and women’s suffrage. He saw them as complementary, as in women should not be subjected to drunken husbands. Things do change, do they not?

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:46 pm 186. Charlie (Colorado):

Why were the girls not adoptible by a hetero family? There are 2,000,000 wanting to adopt. Of course, I know the child welfare folks in a lot of states have some crazy practices, including putting lesbian couples ahead of heteros, not allowing cross racial adoption, etc.

John, having listened to a lot of friends trying to adopt, I think you’re radically understating the difficulty in placing multiple siblings with tough backgrounds and “minority” ethnicities.

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:48 pm 187. WichitaBoy:

Sheesh. You guys are typing much faster than I can read, much less type.

I can’t possibly at this point respond to all the people I want to. Let me just say that I agree with absolutely everything that Charlie (CO) has written and chuck has written.

The nuclear family is not traditional. It’s still not even extant in many cases. Just look around.

Polygamy is very traditional, all over the world, including the United States. Not just for Muslims by any means. China until quite recently had a very rigid standard for a family to take in a second wife when the original wife reached a certain age. Sometimes a third. There’s a polygamous family that lives right down the street from me, and at least three others around Boulder that I know of. They’re not Mormons. They’re old hippies from the Sixties. Not that I haven’t seen a few polygamous families around Salt Lake City. The idea that the Disney version of the family is the only version that has ever existed and is therefore THE tradition which we all must salute is risible. In fact it has almost never existed until quite recently. Far from being a tradition, it is a novelty.

And Charlie is absolutely correct: this country isn’t about tradition. Quite the contrary. It’s about revolution. It was founded in revolution and fundamentally in its core based on the concept that change, even revolutionary change, is sometimes necessary, sometimes desirable.

One thing that really gets my goat is when people dehumanize other groups. This RINO crap is a good example. I grew up as a left-wing (not “liberal”) Democrat surrounded by Republicans. Most of these Republicans were good people. Most of them were quite moderate or liberal. The Republican state of Kansas was far more liberal than the nearby Democratic states of Missouri or Oklahoma. This is a tradition going back to the Civil War. Republicans are not demons and they are not bigots and they are not crazy fanatics who want to stuff their beliefs down your throat, let alone drive your plane into the local skyscraper. Republicans aren’t TmjUtah’s fantasy’s of Republicans, nor are they Catherine’s husband’s fantasies. Republicans are people too.

Nor, by the same token, are all Boomers evil. How puerile. I see that some young people are almost as stupid as I was at that time. Yes, indeedy, I did believe that overthrowing everything my parents stood for would somehow purify the world.

People always seem to be looking for a large group which it is politically acceptable to demonize. We can’t demonize blacks or Jews or gays, let’s go after the Boomers!

So much of the reasoning which occurs in these arguments seems to me to be oversimplified if not stereotyped, when in fact the situations are different in almost every case. My brother was in what amounted to a gay marriage 20 years ago, under Reagan. It’s not that new a concept, people. Furthermore, –wait for it– this was in Texas! So much for the demonization of the Texans as backward rednecks. My brother and his partner raised two children, my brother’s partner’s from his previous marriage. Yes, he had been previously heterosexually married and even had children, but he really didn’t have an ounce of straightness in him. How did it happen? He came from a very traditional background in a very small town in a very remote corner of the country (not Texas) and it took some time before he realized he was gay, or even that there was such a thing as “gay”. His wife turned out to be gay too. Whaddaya know? I suppose those of you who are demonizing divorce believe that they should have been forced to stay together and raise their kids? Trust me, the kids were better off having my brother as their keeper/protector/surrogate parent.

Then there’s the demonization of divorce. I’m divorced, not by choice. So is my wife. Now she and I have been happily married for a long time and my children have known a truly happy marriage at first hand, something I can’t recall having observed as a child. My parents weren’t divorced. Instead, they fought all the time and hated each other. They were miserable and I was miserable watching them. They should have been divorced. Much as I hate to admit it, I think my children of divorce have been raised in much happier circumstances. So much for demonizing divorce. It’s not always wrong, it’s often right.

Homosexuality probably has many causes. It is well known that you can induce it in female baby rats by giving their mothers large doses of testosterone during gestation. In humans, the best research I have read tends to indicate that the human “sexual mask” is fixed by age five by a combination of physical and psychological factors. I’m personally convinced that there are probably some genetic possibilities here and some purely psychological ones. A family with a very strong father with a very weak mother and no boys often seems to produce lesbians (no current VPs mentioned).

The Kinsey report put the rate of male homosexuality in the United States at 10%. This was in the Forties I believe. I believe the rate may be lower now. I have heard, but have no proof to hand, that the rate varies from society to society, being relatively low in Scandinavia and high in Arabic countries. If true, I would not find this particularly surprising. If women are completely denigrated, why would you desire one?

Marriage was traditionally about children and property. It’s still about property. But there are obviously lots of hetero couples who don’t have any and have no intention of ever having any. Should we deny them “marriage” for that reason? It’s not traditional, after all. And should these childless couples be forced to remain married if they no longer wish it because we’ve outlawed divorce?

It is extremely important for me that my wife be female. This goes deeply into my soul. It goes into every stitch of my being. It is very important for me to have a soulmate who is female, an importance far below the conscious level. It makes me happy. It is one of the sources of great happiness for me in my life.

But for my brother, the need for a male partner, a male soulmate, was just as great. How could anyone with a heart seek to deny him the same satisfaction? I don’t know, but I certainly can’t find it in me to deny what seems to me to be a very basic human need.

As for tradition, well, there were a couple of English kings whose soul mates were clearly male.

And I will go further. Polygamy doesn’t bother me. Nor polyamory of any sort. I wouldn’t be too surprised to find that we have the capability in a few years for men to become pregnant. If two gay fellows want to have a child and one of them wants to get pregnant, more power to them. And if a woman in a future age needs to marry her horse, who by that point may be so genetically augmented as to be intelligent, that will probably be fine with me too.

I must say I agree wholeheartedly with Dennis Miller here: if a couple of gay guys want to get married, that’s fine by me. But if some guy wants to come over here from some other country and kill them for getting married, well, I have a serious problem with that. That’s why I support the Republican party at this point.

Tradition is not what it is cracked up to be. Whatever was traditional doesn’t matter all that much. We don’t live in that world any more. The world we live in is massively different from the world of 100 years ago. We don’t die at age 20. We don’t stay within 10 miles of our place of birth. Women don’t die in childbirth and an ear infection doesn’t kill. We no longer have to watch black and white TVs. The news isn’t just what the New York Times says it is. When looking at the past, we seem to have a huge propensity toward romanticizing it rather than realizing it “wie es eigentlich war” (as it really was). It wasn’t at all nice and it’s nothing any sensible person would wish to preserve.

Furthermore, and this is a point that is seldom addressed, why should we, in our society which takes in people from around the world, people having all sorts of traditions, think that only the English traditions of the last couple of hundred years are “our” traditions? To even state the question is to see the silliness. I’m not a “multi-culti” but I can’t see why we can’t gain from all the traditions available to us. “I am large; I contain multitudes.”

As to courts vs. legislatures, I absolutely agree with knucklehead. Pushing things down people’s throats before they are ready for them is a huge mistake. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Aug 31, 2004 - 10:49 pm 188. chuck:

John,

I looked it up before posting. There seems to be a distinction

link.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:00 pm 189. Charlie (Colorado):

Since those [spousal health] benefits are granted by the employer at their whim, this is an employee/employer issue. They don’t have to cover traditional spouses either.

I don’t agree. While they don’t have to cover traditional spouses, I doubt they could, say, only cover spouses as long as the spouse isn’t Mexican, say.

If negotiating spousal benefits were part of the negotiation in general, and were open to whomever you might want to include, I might buy it.

As to my reliance on tradition, it is a strong argument.

Well, no, actually, it pretty much sucks as an argument. It leads to cirularities almost instantly.

It isn’t the only one, but I didn’t want to get into the whole SSM debate again. He who discards tradition often creates serious unintended consequences. But there’s another, stronger argument: SSM is utterly unnecessary.

Uh, John, as I understand your previous points, you’ve just agreed that all of the issues I brought up in terms of different legal treatment of same-sex partners and “married people” should be eliminated, and that these desirable changes are “ones where humanity suggests they should be solved for SS couples”.

So you agree that it is desirable, even necessary, to eliminate the distinction in civil law and equalize the threatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, so that legally they have identical privileges and rights as same-sex partners as the “married” opposite-sex couple … but you then say that “same sex marriage is unnecessary.”

In order to preserve the word “marriage.”

Okay, so let’s look at this further: lets say that you have a same-sex couple who are joined in the respected state of Aloysius.

And they then send out cards saying “Marriage announcement”.

What do you propose as the solution to protect the Holy Word of Marriage?

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:05 pm 190. Charlie (Colorado):

Wow. You’re an asshole.

See? I told you you weren’t big enough to ride this ride.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:06 pm 191. lindenen:

“Whatever was traditional doesn’t matter all that much. We don’t live in that world any more.”

Human nature doesn’t change. I also strongly disagree with your statement. Tradition matters a great deal. I don’t think you understand how dependent societies actually are on tradition for basic order.

“Furthermore, and this is a point that is seldom addressed, why should we, in our society which takes in people from around the world, people having all sorts of traditions, think that only the English traditions of the last couple of hundred years are “our” traditions?”

Because they are our traditions. And we are entitled to our own culture. How sad is it that I have to argue that we the people should be able to determine our culture. Anyway, you do realize that our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, etc are based on English common law. The US is the specific result of a period in English history. Did you ever think that maybe this country is so successful and stable because we follow these traditions? That it would be disaster to toss these aside. That maybe our culture is the cause of our success. That maybe what you argue is trash is the bedrock of our success.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:07 pm 192. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

WB

How does not providing a marriage for same sex couples prevent them from doing just about anything they want?

As to tradition, it is a long term accumulation of knowledge, sometimes in the form of rules. Societies without tradition tend to be ephemeral. You say the US is about revolution - to we have a tradition of revolution? If not, what do you mean? Too much “revolution” leads to chaos - we can see that in the consequences of the many changes resulting from the causes of the ’60s generation.

I have one major issue with gay activists and others: SSM. Not Single Sex relationships, but Single Sex Marriage. With all the words that have been exchanged here, not one has provided a reason that gays need to have a legal status of marriage.

One other issue: why do we have to keep changing things? There are always movements to change yet one more thing, and if you aren’t in favor you are a reactionary or a bigot or something.

In partial answer to my question, there are people whose thing is fighting society. Too many of these are lawyers, often in the ACLU. Too much of the fighting takes place in court. Many of them simply want to shred the structure of our society, and replace it with their own ideas. They rely on “progressive” judges to work their way.

These people create a backlash. It isn’t an accident that religious people in the US are moving to either the Catholic Church or to evangelical churches, at the expense of the old line churches.

In other words, all this fighting is divisive. It especially angers those who lose to an arbitrary court ruling. Roe v Wade and its insane sequelae have been a major reason for the emergence of the religious right. Gay marriage has the same potential.

Personally, I am sick of things being forced on my country. The constant drum-beat against religion is offensive. The homosexual movement’s continuous attack against the boy scouts is likewise offensive. When there is a continuous movement againt good things in our society, that naturally leads to a buildup of resentment.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:08 pm 193. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Charlie,

First, I did not include rights regarding children in the list. MAJOR distinction.

As to sending out Marriage announcements. It’s a free country, and it has a first amendment.

I am primarily concerned with the governmental issues related to same sex couples. Some of the issues you raised needed (apparently) government action to provide a humanitarian solution.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:14 pm 194. Charlie (Colorado):

And we are entitled to our own culture. How sad is it that I have to argue that we the people should be able to determine our culture. Anyway, you do realize that our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, etc are based on English common law.

Lindenen, I’ve got several problems with this, the most major one being that it’s just flat wrong. Mistaken. Ahistorical.

No question that a lot of people here were of British descent, and that they were aware of English Common Law, but the whole founding of the United States was the result of literally the violent rejection of the British system. While there are certainly traces of the Common Law, there’s plenty of evidence that the Constitution and Declaration were influenced by everything from the history of the Roman Republic, to the Articles of the Iroquois League to Spinoza and Euclid. (”We hold these truths to be self-evident….”) Not to mention the influence of people like Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, Burke, George Mason, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson — possibly the most talent-filled, and most revolutionary, fifty years in human history.

One of the first jobs of the new Congress was the development of stated statutes to replace the “common law”, based on a written Constitution that replaced the unwritten, and infinitely mutable “constitution” of the United Kingdon.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:32 pm 195. Syl:

In a nutshell:

Eric Deamer

“The strongest argument against gay civil marriage, IMO, is John Moore’s argument of “whoa, let’s slow down a minute,” The basic, conservative argument in the most basic sense of conservatism. It’s a big change and it should be taken slowly, which is why it should be left up to the states. “

Charlie C to John Moore:

“So — do you have another argument, besides “this is way we’ve always done it”? Because it’s not the way we’ve always done it, and we have changed a lot of other things from the way we’ve always done it.”

Here we have the foundations of the argument. And both sides are legitimate and valid. Change is Natural but Let’s Be Damn Sure of the Consequences First.

Sounds about right to me. One step at a time rather than a giant leap via the courts. I fall on the Change side, but respect the conservative view.

John Moore

“So let me just say that I have a big problem with the tactics of too many of the gay rights movement.”

Like any movement I think strong tactics are necessary in the beginning to shock the populace into addressing an issue. But as time goes on and most of the wishes/demands have been realized the movements tend to become overly fanatical to the point of turning potential supporters off. (I think NOW should have been dissolved a couple of decades ago).

Also the gay rights movement tends to give people the impression that all gays indulge in a certain lifestyle and/or may have a tendency towards child molestation which is a tragic exaggeration. So the movement has done a lot of damage.

It’s certainly legitimate to discuss the technicalities of how SSM will legally come about. But we’re not yet to the point of fairly discussing the consequences on the institution of marriage without understanding who gay people really are. And the vast majority are not the ones marching in gay pride parades nor indulging in promiscuous behavior.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:39 pm 196. chuck:

Charlie,

I think you exaggerate a bit when you claim the english common law was rejected wholesale. I am no scholar on the matter, but ISTR that Justice Holmes wrote a study on the provenance of laws, tracing many to the English common law. I also buy John’s point that the country operates as much by tradition as by law. I always think of how orderly Americans are when faced with a failed traffic light, my impression is that this is far from universal. On a slightly different note, I think the knowledge of how to make a building is more tradition, passed down from worker to worker, than something learned in school or mandated by law. There is no reason to think that such observations apply only the making of things.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:43 pm 197. Charlie (Colorado):

First, I did not include rights regarding children in the list. MAJOR distinction.

I think this is, frankly, tinfoil-hat, Art-Bell, Face-on-Mars-being-covered-up-by-NASA, Area-51-alien looney, but I will note that I didn’t actually bring it up.

As to sending out Marriage announcements. It’s a free country, and it has a first amendment.

I am primarily concerned with the governmental issues related to same sex couples. Some of the issues you raised needed (apparently) government action to provide a humanitarian solution.

So, uh, you agree that the humanitarian and tax-law issues ought to be resolved to lead to equality of treatment, and you don’t care if people call it marriage, so long as it’s understood that it’s something different from marriage as defined by “tradition”.

I’ve got to say, this is getting way too scholastic for me.

How about we agree that we’ll call same-sex partnerships marriage, and you’ll call het partnerships marriage, and we just agree its two different things that happen to have the same name?

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:45 pm 198. TmjUtah:

WB -

Please drop me an email, and enlighten me on what my ‘fantasy’ about Republicans is all about.

Rudy Giuliani is a fine man and a tremendous leader. He’ll never win a national election running as a Republican because his stance on abortion and the second amendment will lock off about fifteen percent of the base of the party…unless he runs against Hillary, granted.

I may have shot from the hip on RINO…but the ramifications of being aligned with a party are that failing to support key planks of the national platform will put a limit on how far you can advance because the platform represents the political will of the majority of the base.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:48 pm 199. chuck:

I’ve got to say, this is getting way too scholastic for me.

Come, come, there is a big difference between what people call things in a letter, or in conversation, and what the law calls things. For that matter, there is a difference between what I call things in polite company, and what I call things amoung close friends. Life is not lived without distinctions.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:50 pm 200. Charlie (Colorado):

I think you exaggerate a bit when you claim the english common law was rejected wholesale. I am no scholar on the matter, but ISTR that Justice Holmes wrote a study on the provenance of laws, tracing many to the English common law.

Well, I dunno. Propose a measure for what counts as “rejected wholesale” and I’ll tell you what I think. But we rejected the notion of the Divine Right of Kings and replaced it with government by the consent of the governed; we rejected a notion of a “constitution” that vaguely sets out some historical arguments about differences in responsibilities and replaced it with a written Constitution that set out the powers of the Government explicitly and great care taken to be rigorous and complete; and we largely rejected the common law — which is, remember, the accumulation of precedent without written statements of the law itself, cf. Blackstone — in favor of an explicit written code of law that was considered determinative and more or less final.

I count that as “rejected wholesale”, but your mileage may well vary.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:52 pm 201. Charlie (Colorado):

Come, come, there is a big difference between what people call things in a letter, or in conversation, and what the law calls things. For that matter, there is a difference between what I call things in polite company, and what I call things amoung close friends. Life is not lived without distinctions.

Chuck, I’m a mathematician and an engineer; maybe I’ve got different expectations. But when you tell me that we’re talking about something that’s legally very much the same or identical, performing the same function, albeit for another group, and we agree that there’s no reason not to call them the same name informally, I’m getting pretty confused about what distinction John’s trying to preserve.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:56 pm 202. chuck:

Charlie,

And where did they reject the Massachusetts laws on who could gather firewood on whose property. The things you mention are important, but the vast majority of laws regulated everyday life and were unchanged.

Aug 31, 2004 - 11:56 pm 203. lindenen:

“One of the first jobs of the new Congress was the development of stated statutes to replace the “common law”, based on a written Constitution that replaced the unwritten, and infinitely mutable “constitution” of the United Kingdon.”

You mean that They wrote down English common law! No way! The English would do well to write down common law as well before Blair completely decimates it.

“the whole founding of the United States was the result of literally the violent rejection of the British system.”

What they rejected was the British telling them what to do as well as the creation of an American aristocracy, which is what the British planned to create. You should read David Hackett Fisher’s Albion’s Seed. It’s absolutely fascinating to discover that many different British cultures were essentially transplanted to the US. There is an astounding amount of cultural continuity despite the successive waves of immigration. Make no mistake. No other country but England could have produced a nation like ours. Why is it that the economic and cultural changes left behind by British colonialism have been so much more successful than French colonialism and Spanish colonialism?

“Not to mention the influence of people like Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, Burke, George Mason, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson — possibly the most talent-filled, and most revolutionary, fifty years in human history.

Hmmm…what do these people have in common? Could it be that they are all products of the English-speaking world?

I feel as if you seem to think culture is essentially disposable and can be changed at will like a pair of shoes. This is most decidedly not the case. I also believe that the US of 100 years ago is not that different from the US of today, despite the many social changes and material advances. What do I base this on? Reading a lot of history. If anything the social changes were a further affirmation and fulfillment of this nation’s long held beliefs. These changes were actually based on tradition. Traditions that do, in large part, go back to England.

Sep 1, 2004 - 12:01 am 204. chuck:

Charlie, I too have a Ph’D in mathematics, and an undergraduate degree in physics. It is not pertenent to the argument. The word is *not* the same, because for John it includes the man woman thing. To John they are not the same concept. If you disregard every point on which John differs, then you may have satisfied yourself, but you haven’t won the argument. Besides, a dictionary containing only the word “the” would be somewhat boring.

Sep 1, 2004 - 12:01 am 205. Syl:

What WichitaBoy said.

But this is really great. Honestly. This discussion. The arguments. The counter-arguments.

This is as it should be.

Let’s not do a Roe vs Wade for SSM.

Sep 1, 2004 - 12:29 am 206. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Chuck is correct that there is a significant difference, which I explained.

To be exact, marriage has a number of characteristics regarding children. I am not in favor of including those in the humanitarian set of law changes for same sex couples. Hence one is traditional marriage and the other is something else - perhaps civil union.

Does it help that I too used to be a mathematician and am an engineer and programmer?

And, I studied a bit of contract law, which is originally derived in whole from British contract law.

Sep 1, 2004 - 12:46 am 207. Catherine:

everyone

I am going to force myself to work on my galleys (gallies?) instead of reading 206 comments on gay marriage, but since I’ve gotten as far as Terrye’s comment, I want to second her:

I ususally agree with you, but here we part ways.

In a recent election in Mo. 70% of the people who went to the polls voted against legalizing gay marriage. All they are homophobic? Do you know them? Do you have the right to make that determination based on that vote?

I’ve always objected to labeling huge groups of people racist or sexist or homophobic when they’re doing anything that falls much short of actually saying, “I hate blacks” or “I hate homosexuals” or “I hate women.”

Liberals have done this for years and years and years, and I’m against it.

I was against it when I was a liberal, too. It’s not a liberal thing to do.

Sep 1, 2004 - 6:06 am 208. Eric Scheie:

Roger I admire your integrity, and I thank you for standing up for freedom.

Sep 1, 2004 - 6:50 am 209. ScottM:

I haven’t been following the screaming match, but as to the question of whether English common law (and for that matter, English statute law) was “rejected wholesale” by the new United States of America, here’s an interesting link:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/18th.htm

Let’s look at some early state contitutions.

Maryland:

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by facts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights-subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Crecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

New York:

And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

New Jersey:

That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.

This doesn’t seem much like “wholesale rejection” to me.

Sep 1, 2004 - 6:58 am 210. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie, I too have a Ph’D in mathematics, and an undergraduate degree in physics. It is not pertenent to the argument. The word is *not* the same, because for John it includes the man woman thing. To John they are not the same concept. If you disregard every point on which John differs, then you may have satisfied yourself, but you haven’t won the argument. Besides, a dictionary containing only the word “the” would be somewhat boring.

Chuck, I was actually claiming the mathematics background as a possible handicap….

But, in all seriousness, John’s offering us Marriage (I’m still curious what’s up with the capital letter) in which there are a whole bunch of legal advantages and which is between a man and a woman.

He’s then saying that he thinks as a matter of human rights or humanitarian concern that individuals of the same sex ought to be able to contract to have the same collection of legal advantages, called Aloysius here for argument’s sake, but that people might very well call “marriage”.

It really sounds like we’re talking about to “different” things that are isomorphic up to renaming, at least as far as legal rights and obligations.

(Oh, on the children thing, another point of possible distinction: as I understand it, John doesn’t approve of unmarried or un-Aloysius-ed gay couples having custody of children any more than “married” gay couples, so I don’t think that’s a distinction either.)

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:03 am 211. Charlie (Colorado):

Does it help that I too used to be a mathematician and am an engineer and programmer?

Good God, they’re thick on the ground here. WitchitaBoy too.

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:05 am 212. Charlie (Colorado):

Scott, it really seems to come down to what “rejected wholesale” means.

We rejected the underlying notion of the basis of the authority of common law in favor of another axiom set, we established a new set of basic assumptions that conflicted with many of the basic ideas of common law, and established a written Constitution that in all cases dominates over common law — if the Constitution and the common law don’t agree, the Constitution wins.

Then some states adopted common law — with the unstated, but very real, provision that it was adopted only if it didn’t conflict with the new basis of law we’d established.

If you say that’s not “rejected wholesale” I guess I can’t argue, but my opinion doesn’t change.

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:15 am 213. TmjUtah:

I’m not a programmer, nor a mathemetician.

If you are looking for an example of a revolutionary republic that categorically rejected huge chunks of its traditions and common law, it would have to be france. I do not think the same can be said about the time-zero United States at all.

The french turned out swell, didn’t they?

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:23 am 214. Charlie (Colorado):

Lindenen, I’m getting a little confused on what you’re trying to argue here. You’re right that most all the people I mentioned spoke English and grew up under the British system — although I could have just as easily thrown in Goethe, Voltaire, Schiller, and there were a whole lot other of Europeans involved as well; I happen to know the British thread better. Could the Enlightenment have taken root somewhere else? I have no idea how to say anything other than speculation.

As far as “wholesale rejection”, I don’t think we’re disputing the facts — we’re disputing whether or not the facts constitute a “wholesale rejection”. That’s a matter of opinion, and I don’t really see how we can form an argument one way or the other.

Were things all that different a hundred years ago? Not in some ways … but on the other hand, a hundred years ago my ancestors couldn’t legally buy liquor, or in many states, couldn’t legally marry white women. The laws against selling liquorr to Indians were still on the books, if unenforceable, when I was in high school.

Ask Colin Powell or Condi Rice if things have changed.

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:33 am 215. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m not a programmer, nor a mathemetician.

Guys, honest, I said that claiming additional geekiness, not that it somehow better qualified me. I’m sorry that I gave that impression.

If you are looking for an example of a revolutionary republic that categorically rejected huge chunks of its traditions and common law, it would have to be france. I do not think the same can be said about the time-zero United States at all.

Gee, what do you have against ten-day weeks and months named after lobsters?

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:37 am 216. jerry:

I have stayed out of the gay thing for quite some time now but I have read couple of recent stories that point to the absurdity of treating Homosexuality as distinct group the deserves special treatment.

(1) Apparently Rover and Jaguar have cut a marketing deal with GLAAD offering discounts to Homosexuals. Interesting concept, but how do the check on it. What stops me from showing up at my local Rover dealer to claim the discount? Do I have to perform a specific act to get the discount. In the post McGreevy era is marriage a disqualification? If being gay is just like being black, female, Asian etc, how come there is no objective measure that can be used to validate my claim?

(2) On a more serious note the San Francisco Health Commissioner has petitioned the FDA to have a warning posted on ED drugs stating that the use of these drugs increases the risk of contracting HIV and other STDs. As you may know, the use of ED drugs is very popular in the gay community because it allows the user to perform in a multi-partner environment. According to the Health Commissioner the problem is the drug not the behavior that seeks out the drug.

Homosexual exceptionmalism is not about expanding human rights. It is a tool used by the left to undermine individual rights. It is fast becoming the equivalent of the Article 58 [anti-Soviet activities] of the Western world. It is a device to silence non-socialist political thought

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:41 am 217. flenser:

Charlie

Rights.

The rights you say you believe in are ancient ones. They are rights to property, to free association, to freedom of contact, and others. They are very much part of the Western tradition, and represent the conclusion of Locke, Jerrerson, and others. You regard them as axiomatic for your present purposes. I’m willing to accept that to keep this within some limits. But the conclusion of one argument forms the axiom for another. These axioms do not stand apart from the rest of our traditions.

If you want to claim that based on free association and free contact, two homosexual people have a right to live together, to jointly own property, to assume obligations to each other, then we are in prefect agreement.

Can they not do these things at present? What does “gay marriage” have to do with any of this?

But.

Do you REALLY believe in free association and free contact, or is it just a pose? Do all people have these rights, and are they all inalienable? If so, does it not follow that people have a right to not associate with people they dislike, for whatever reason? Do they not have a right to refuse to enter into contacts with others if they so wish?

To answer my own question, no, people do not possess these rights, as a matter of law, in present day America. The reason why they do not possess them is not very hard to find. If all people posses these rights, and the majority of the people disapprove of a minority, they can make life very difficult for the minority. They can chose not to associate with them, not to enter into contract with them. In blunt terms, they can refuse to hire them, to give them shelter, to sell to them, and so on.

The U.S. government has decided that this state of affairs is not acceptable, and that therefore the rights of free association and contact that you and I both cherish must be curtailed. Being a fellow believer in our inalienable rights, I’m sure you will join me in regretting this state of affairs, and in particular, in condemning the courts who have been chiefly responsible for trampling on our rights in the pursuit of a chimerical and abstract Liberty.

As you yourself say; “Restrictions, imposed by law or social compulsion, that violate these self-evident rights are inherently immoral and unjust.” Why then are you so anxious to see laws passed that do exactly that, and to exert precisely that compulsion?

Ok. Stripping away the legal chatter, you want to craft an argument which will prohibit the “social compulsion” of one person or group by another. This is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. In any family setting there is an enormous amount of social pressure to conform. If you work with others, you are probably going to be expected to dress and comport yourself in ways that do not always “suit one’s own desires” as you put it. Man is a social animal, and to be around other people is to be subject to their approval/disapproval, and also to subject them to yours. Your comments on this thread comparing opponents of gay marriage to supporters of slavery or the divine right of kings are not meant, I assume, to convince through force of reason. (Unless you are a lot less skilled with reason than I think you are) Rather, these remarks of yours are intended to exert “social compulsion” on others. The opponents of gay marriage are to be threatened with exclusion from the ranks of the “rational” and of the “right thinking people”. Unlike you, I am not going to say that it is immoral or unjust of you to do this kind of thing. I think it is very human of you. But I’m unpersuaded by it.

In attempting to curtail peoples natural tendency to exert social pressure on others, the “social liberals” have taken a sledgehammer to a lot of very important freedoms. They have also appointed themselves arbiters of what is good and bad, a position that I no more trust them in than the religious types that they are so exercised about. (I guess they don’t like the competition)

The end result of trying to get the kind of minority rights you desire is to adapt the position of the Democratic party, and to favor the idea of group rights which supersede those of individuals.

Reason

Reason is a means to an end, a tool. It cannot make value judgments. If you want to feed a million people, reason can tell you the most expedient way if doing it. If you want to kill a million people, reason can tell you the most efficient way of doing that, too. Reason itself is quite indifferent as to which is more desirable. I don’t see how an appeal to pure reason can get you to gay marriage. And since you end up instead appealing to the views of some guys who died a few hundred years ago, I suppose you can’t see it either. You darn traditionalist. In any case, their ideas do not support the propositions you are trying to build on them.

PS

It seems to me that this particular thread on the issue has a better light to heat ratio than normal.

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:57 am 218. Charlie (Colorado):

Um, flenser, I’m continuing to be a little confused here. Are you arguing that by defining gay unions, we’d be restricting someone’s rights to free association?

I’ve got to give it another look, but on first read I’m not getting the drift here.

But I’ve got to go be employed right now.

Sep 1, 2004 - 8:29 am 219. flenser:

Charlie

I’ll make this simple for you. The Cliff Notes version.

Is it actually your view that people have an inalienable right to free association? Yes or no?

Is it your view that people have an inalienable right to enter freely into contract with other people of their own choosing?

If yes to the above, does that right extend to all people?

If yes to the above, do all people have the right to not associate and not enter into contract with those they dislike?

If yes to the above, what is the likely result of the decisions of millions of individuals making their own judgments about the “rightness” of homosexuality? We already know the answer to this from history. Socially unpopular groups end up being ostracized.

Do you defend the concept of individual freedom, or do you only invoke it as a convenient tool when it is useful to you? Do you endorse the government policy of erasing the concepts of right to free association and contract, where the exercise of these rights has an adverse impact on a government defined group of people?

Sep 1, 2004 - 9:44 am 220. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

flenser

Lots of good logic.

However, I don’t know how much ostracising would take place today. In my (limited) personal experience, gays at my employers have been treated as normal people, as they should. This was not a result of laws.

Me thinks Charlie is perhaps being intentionally obtuse.

Sep 1, 2004 - 11:19 am 221. dn67:

“On the one hand, it’s nutso to believe, as Edwards seems to believe, that playing nicey nice with the mullahs is going to solve the problem. That’s classic head-in-the-sand make-it-go-away-daddy behavior.”

Funny, the first time I ever heard the position that we ought to playdown anti-proliferation policy in favor of geostrategic interests was form the very conservative — but now very anti-Bush — Genderl Bill Odom. It actually makes sense: the spread of nuclear weapons is probably inevitable, and the question is whether anti-proliferation policy should always trump other concerns, such as playing the Iranians off against the Sunni Islamicists.

Regardless, this _wasn’t actually the Kerry camp’s proposal_ — they are, if anything, much more concerned about nuclear proliferation than the Bush administration, e.g., in revitalizing the cooperate threat reduction program — it was to call the Iranian’s bluff by offering them nuclear fuel and technology in exchange for very restrictive oversight. If the Iranians said “no”, then they couldn’t argue that they were pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes. If they said “yes”, then the international community would get more oversight than it has right now over a program that probably has the capability of producing nukes (thanks, in no small part, to the Pakistanis). Interesting, this is a policy consistent with the NPT that we’re supposed to be enforcing on the Iranians, which is another reason it kind of seems attractive.

Sep 1, 2004 - 11:52 am 222. Matthew Cromer:

Apology:

I was intemperate and pissy and it wasn’t called for. I’ve come down with some kind of fever and I was short on sleep and feeling very snarky. I’ll try to bite my tongue next time I get in a foul mood.

Sep 1, 2004 - 12:15 pm 223. Knucklehead:

dn67,

it was to call the Iranian’s bluff by offering them nuclear fuel and technology in exchange for very restrictive oversight.

Restrictive oversight? What the flock is that? ‘Splain, Lucy.

If the Iranians said “no”, then they couldn’t argue that they were pursuing nukes for peaceful purposes.

Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Saying “no” to Kerry’s proposal does not carry with it any restriction regarding what the Iranians could or couldn’t argue in the future.

What stops the Mullahs from simply saying, “Thanks, but no thanks. We’ll manufacture our own fuel for our own peaceful purposes. Have a nice day.”

If they said “yes”, then the international community would get more oversight than it has right now over a program that probably has the capability of producing nukes (thanks, in no small part, to the Pakistanis).

“International Community Oversight” has not stopped the Iranians to this point, didn’t stop the Pakistanis, didn’t stop the Indians, and didn’t stop Libya from forming his program.

This is a weak plan even assuming that the “International Community” has some capability to oversee the Iranians rather than being led around by the nose. And given what we’ve seen so far of the “International Community’s” oversight capabilities and even its willingness to oversee that which it doesn’t seem to want to see over or under, what gives this plan eyes let alone teeth?

And, BTW, what is the International Community (other than a nice euphamism for not the United States)?

Sep 1, 2004 - 12:19 pm 224. Charlie (Colorado):

Okay, guys, let’s see if we can subdivide this a bit.

(1) Flenser, I do indeed believe in an inalienable righ to free association to the extent that it doesn’t conflict with another’s rights. If you don’t want to marry another person of the same sex, that’s just fine with me. If you don’t want to go to a gay bar, that’s fine too.

If you so object to gay marriage that you want to beat up gay people who are trying to get married, I object to that.

If you don’t want to employ gay people in your private business, I think you’re a moron but I think you have that right. If you want to make it illegal for gay people to be employed, say as school teachers, I object.

To the extent possible, I’d prefer to see the government prevented from making any distinctions in what rights and benefits are granted to adults by keeping the government small and ineffectual enough that they don’t have the ability to have much effect.

To the extent that this is impossible, I think it’s wrong for the government to select one group over another to benefit. Thus, I dn’t beleive in affirmative action (but do believe that it might be useful to have remedial programs for people who want to better their positions.) I don’t believe in a “marraige penalty” in the tax system, but then I’m not a big fan of “progressive” taxation.

I believe that men and women are properly equal — which imples indistinhguishable — before the law. I therefore don’t think that it makes sense that we have certain contracts that can only contain one of each, as that imples a legal distinction. And, before you ask, yes that means I think women ought to be available for combat in the military.

I’m not a big fan of the whole notion of legal protections for “groups of people”. I do believe that the government has a proper role in preventing the rights of one person from being infringed by another. If you want to propose some particular interaction that you’re thinking about, I’ll try to answer.

To the extent that this answers your points about rights etc, I hope it satisfies you. A lot of the rest of that seems to be arguing with someone else, because I don’t remember saying anything about most of that argument. You might want to find whomever it is you’re addressing and take it up with them.

(2) You are, however, mistaken to assume that I am proposing that the government impose some solution on someone. If the government were to, for example, eliminate all vestiges of any trace of particular advantages to marriage — which is pretty much what John and I seemed to be converging on — I’d feel that appropriate.

It’s the privileging of certain two-party contracts over others — in fact, the impossibility of making such contracts — to which I object. I’ve laid out the reasoning, and the answer I keep getting is that it’s not traditional.

I don’t accept “it’s traditional” as a well-founded argument, because, in WB said, we have so many different traditions in this country, and in history, that it seems inevitably to reduce to a petitio principii — it “begs the question”. Have you got another one? that doesn’t turn out to be equally fallacious?

(3) For both of you, but especially John: some time ago I didn’t want to get into an abortion argument because, I said, it would inevitably lead to a conflict of axiomatic values. This one has done the same thing. You, flenser, and Knuck appear to me to be making the notion that there is something special about “marriage” (whatever it is) into an axiom. That axiom appears to me to depend on magical thinking: there is magic in the word “marriage”, so that if gay people had a legal agreement with the same extent, rights, and obligations as “marriage” that would be all right, but if it was also called “marriage” it would be a Danger To The Fabric Of Society.

Now axioms, logically, can be selected as desired. However, when applying logic to the perceptual “real world”, it’s generally good to confirm that those axioms model the real world.

I tried to point out the underlying issue here by proposing we come up with some other name, like “Aloysius”, for the state of “same privileges and obligations as marriage but it’s not marriage because same sex couples could enter into the state of Aloysius.”

I claim “marriage” and “Aloysius” are the “same thing” in the sense that they’re not distinguishable, except arbitrarily — “isomorphic up to renaming”. To demonstrate that claim, consider a pair of people who enter into aloysius, but who happen to be of opposite sexes. Can we distinguish this from “marriage”? It has the exact same rights and privileges as marriage, and it’s between people of the opposite sex.

Sep 1, 2004 - 1:36 pm 225. thibaud:

Can’t we all just get along?

Sep 1, 2004 - 1:45 pm 226. thibaud:

And who, pray tell, speaks for the transgendered?

When I lived in the Bay Area, the locals took great pride in noting that their city provided free sex-change operations to municipal employees.

So now I get to choose between the San Francisco party and the party whose VP, the father of a lesbian, wishes to amend the Constitution to ban marriage by people of the same orientation as the Veep’s daughter. Some choice.

Sep 1, 2004 - 1:50 pm 227. flenser:

thibaud

“..wishes to amend the Constitution to ban marriage by people of the same orientation as the Veep’s daughter.”

Thats not actually the case. The “marriage” you speak of is not legal, so it makes no sense to speak of banning it.

The proposal is to seek to stop the courts from whipping up a fresh “right”.

Sep 1, 2004 - 2:36 pm 228. flenser:

charlie

I’m afraid that, as John suggests, you are being deliberately obtuse.

You contine to propose some pretty radical ideas, which you see as “axiomatic”, without providing anything in the way of support for them.

e.g.

“I believe that men and women are properly equal — which imples indistinhguishable — before the law. I therefore don’t think that it makes sense that we have certain contracts that can only contain one of each, as that imples a legal distinction. And, before you ask, yes that means I think women ought to be available for combat in the military.”

You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, but the law has and still does make a distinction between men and women. The ERA attempted to have the strict equality of the two sexes written into the constituition, but it failed. Among the arguments used against it; that it could be used to advance the idea of homosexual marriage.

You continue to claim that you desire a “small and ineffectual government”. If that is the case, then I would think that you would support the idea of limiting the power of the courts to make laws without any checks or balances. Strangely, you do not do so. You have an very odd notion of limited government.

Like so many “social liberals”, you see the world as composed of individuals, who bear with them innumerable “rights”, and the state, which functions as the adjudicator amoung all the individuals whenever their “rights” conflict with each other. Whatever else can be said for the state in this scheme, it does not play a small and ineffectual role.

I thnk it’s pretty clear WHAT you believe. There is not much to be gained by your repeating your stance. I’m more interested in WHY you believe it. But I can’t seem to get much of an explanation from you, other than a fairly bastardized version of libertarianism which requires other people to behave as you wish them to.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

Sep 1, 2004 - 3:14 pm 229. Charlie (Colorado):

You contine to propose some pretty radical ideas, which you see as “axiomatic”, without providing anything in the way of support for them.

I’m guessing that you didn’t catch that I was paraphrasing the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

Radical? Yeah.

If that is the case, then I would think that you would support the idea of limiting the power of the courts to make laws without any checks or balances. Strangely, you do not do so. You have an very odd notion of limited government.

Flenser, you’re arguing with someone else again. I don’t recall at any time saying anything about the power of the courts, and in fact just checked with “Search…” and find no time at which I spoke at all about the power of the courts.

I’ve pointed out on several occasions now that youu were making arguments to me about things I hadn’t said. I’d say something about “putting words in my mouth” except it’s clear its not so much that as the voices in your head that you’re responding to.

I will, however, point out that I said specifically that I’d prefer the government not to have the power to get into these things at all. I presume, therefore, that it’s the voices in your head again; echoes of other arguments you’ve had with other people, who you’re somehow confounding with me.

Like so many “social liberals”, you see the world as composed of individuals, who bear with them innumerable “rights”, and the state, which functions as the adjudicator amoung all the individuals whenever their “rights” conflict with each other.

Yup. Me. Thomas Jefferson. James Madison. George Mason. John Locke. John Marshall.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See Amendment IX.)

Buncha goddamn radicals.

But then, I was pointing out how radical the American Experiment really was.

Sep 1, 2004 - 4:16 pm 230. Ray:

Roger,

I am not a gay man and I know that you are sometimes troubled by the Republican platform that “appears” to restrict gay rights. Before I run off at the mouth, may I say that I am glad, scratch that, proud that you are a Republican? Thank you for supporting the conservative agenda.

Please be aware that we must win 51% of the electoral vote. If I believe that Martians speak to me every night, and 51% of the electorate then concludes that I am unfit to represent them, I face the distastful choice of letting someone else represent me and my fellow martians, or, I can perhaps pick a team that will win, and give me and my fellow martians most of our immportant objectives and hopefully, a chance to win over the biased ones at a later date. I recognize that getting 51% to agree on anything (especially sex) is impossible.

Please hang in there Roger, this is a conflict that you will not lose.

Sep 1, 2004 - 6:47 pm 231. Teresa:

“But there’s nothing that makes me more angry than masked or unmasked homophobia. It’s deeply reactionary and immoral.]” I agree. But there should be room for both views in the party. How boring to be in a political party where everyone believes the exact same thing! We all live and work with different types of people all with different viewpoints and seem to do a pretty good job of getting along and working things out (at least for the most part…)I think different viewpoints provides a good balance.

And I think you have made a blanket statement about the Republican party being homophobic. Sure, there are a pretty good amount of Republicans that are homophobic, but I would venture to say that there are probably a pretty good amount of Democrats that are homophobic as well.

Some people in the Republican party have strong judeo christian beliefs, and the gay marriage debate is in direct conflict with their beliefs; but that certainly doesn’t mean they are homophobic or hate gay people. Personally, I think it should be decided by the states - and I bet most Republicans would feel the same.

It frightens me when the government tries to ammend the constitution. It needs to be left alone, and the judges need to do their job in interpreting the law and not writing law (we all remember the election of 2000, don’t we???)

Quite frankly, the whole gay marriage ammendment thing is a non issue to me and probably always will be, especially when we are in such serious times and our attentions need to be focused on fighting terrorism.

Sep 1, 2004 - 7:19 pm 232. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

There the word homophobic goes again.

That word is just plain wrong. I doubt if there are many homophobes in either party. But there are plenty of Republicans who object to some of the latest gay legal actions - such as push gary marriage.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Amendment was to stop crusading courts. If a court finds gay marriage in the entrails of what’s left of the constitution, it will result in many people. It will have short circuited the democratic process just like Roe v. Wade did.

A society where one side wants to achieve success through court fiats is an unhealthy one.

Sep 2, 2004 - 2:21 am 233. jerry:

Homophobe is one of those totalitarian non-words used by the so-called left to intimidate their ideological opponents. Proponents of “Homosexual rights” are not arguing for equality, which Homosexuals already have, but a Homosexual excecptionalism based upon higher privilege. Throughout the western world totalitarians are using homosexual “rights to suppress the right of free speech, religion and association. Laws banning the disapproval of homosexuality are becoming the equivalent of the infamous Article 58 of the Soviet criminal code. If you don’t believe that look what is going on in Canada and Europe. You have to ask yourself the question how many of your rights are you willing to give up in support of the gay agenda? Rights once forfeited in a cause you support will not be returned to you when you are on the wrong side of “history.”

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:33 am 234. Charlie (Colorado):

I doubt if there are many homophobes in either party.

Maybe not many, but vocal. I count John Derbyshire as a friend, but it’s none the less clear that his reaction of homosexuals is driven by a deep and unreasoned “ooh, those queer guys are icky” distaste. Stan Kurtz has much the same reaction going on.

It looks very famiiar to me: it looks an awful lot like the reactions my Georgia grandfather, and my father, had to black people.

I loved and admired both of them, but on this topic they were just nuts. The Kobe Bryant case (to cross threads) would have had my grandfather railing about how black men want to have sex with white women, except he wouldn’t have said “black men” or “have sex with”.

I’m not claiming, by any means, that anyone who doesn’t like gay marriage or equal rights efforts is phobic — just that some of these people seem to be motivated by the same queasy discomfort I feel around spiders.

Sep 2, 2004 - 6:50 am 235. Charlie (Colorado):

Before I run off at the mouth, may I say that I am glad, scratch that, proud that you are a Republican?

Ssshh! Roger still thinks he’s a disaffected Democrat. The mind control rays haven’t gotten him completely yet.

(If only he’d take of the goddamn hat….)

Sep 2, 2004 - 8:00 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: