17 Comments

1. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Roger, I think you underestimate the polygamy argument. There is some (growing?) amount of de facto polygamy in Euro-land and perhaps Canada, where Muslim immigrants go on vacation to the motherland and return with another wife. The multi-cultural societies are making adjustments. Mormons were never able to get polygamy accepted here in the USA but Muslims may be able to make a more forceful dent. It is hard to understand how allowing alternative (gay) marriages won’t soften the opposition to alternative (polygamy) marriages.
I will feel a whole lot better about gay marriage if it results from a decision of the people or their reps. The imposition of gay marriage via court decisions (often when recent votes show 70% or higher disapproval) seems wrong to me.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:05 am 2. mojo:

Why not an amendment banning too many sweets before bedtime?

This kind of crap does NOT belong in a constitution.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:17 am 3. dclydew:

The problem I see with the “state rights/federal rights” argument here, is that people love to forget the primary rights holder, the citizen.

Citizen’s rights should never be superceeded by the States and the States rights should not be superceeded by the Federal. I find it disingenious that many protest Roe v. Wade as Federal interference and then support the idea of a federal amendment on gay marriage. I can almost tolerate the liberal argument that (at least) the mother’s life should be protected… but with Gay marriage, there’s no life at stake. I think Roe v Wade is a very bad idea and for those same reasons, I think any sort of gay marriage amendement is also a bad idea.

At any rate, anyone who actually believes that the people in power care about the issue, are deluded. When a topic gets discussed only near election time, beware, because you’re about to get spun. It astounds me that the American voting public allows themselves to be manipulated so obviously, so often. If Bush, Lott, DeWine, etc etc really were worried about the sancitity of marriage, they would have done something by now. However, if they leave it with the occasional half-hearted bill and the loud election time rhetoric, they’ll use and abuse any person that wishes to elect people that share their morals.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:21 am 4. Roger:

“At any rate, anyone who actually believes that the people in power care about the issue, are deluded.”

What you said.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:33 am 5. Alexandra von Maltzan:

All Things Beautiful TrackBack Codifying The Sanctity Of Marriage”

Whilst I am popping in Roger, I thought I would share a thought from one of my commenters who has been in a homosexual relationship for 16 years:

We are registered Domestic Partners here in California. That law gives us the same rights as spouses for state purposes. We have community property and shared assets. This law protects us from having our wishes denied if something happens to one of us. This law was voted into existence by the Legislature and signed by the governor.There is some resistance to the law here from some, but essentially the vast majority of the population probably doesnt’ even know it exists. Why is any of this the business of the federal government? Every reasonable gay person I know would be perfectly happy with a civil union or other “non-marriage” status. “Marriage” can be reserved for heterosexual couples. But it really makes no sense to deprive us of the ability to take care of each other and jointly manage what is ours. And we shouldn’t have to carry around a briefcase full of legal papers to do so.

Does not seem like a bad solution to me.

Jun 5, 2006 - 12:13 pm 6. A B:

Hey Roger, I’m against the amendment. But I’m also against SSM for one reason: it’s a bridge too far in the competition between allowing gay couples to live their lives as they choose while simultaneously promoting the traditional family values which is the basis of how we all got here and how our children and grandchildren will get here as well.

I won’t go into details, I’ll just ask people who have strong opinions either way to look at the other side’s arguments with an open mind. I switched back and forth on this issue and I’m willing to switch again. Which is why I’m against the amendment — we all benefit when issues are debated publically and thoroughly. I’m glad that is happening and the less the courts interfere, the better.

Jun 5, 2006 - 12:35 pm 7. trantor:

Roger;

I know you live in an area where gay marriage is almost normal, it isn’t in most of the country.

I have problems with this issue being addressed right now, it is so obviously a political ratings ploy, it has no chance of going anywhere. Nor will it increase the republican poll results. Border security and spending cuts will, but neither are forthcoming.

I am for a “civil union” arrangement, I am dead against “marriage”. There needs to be a difference. Any two persons should be able to enter into a civil union, and have most of the tax/financial benefits of a marriage. It is a trivial thing to legalize one without destroying the other. Congress has done much over the decades to cause marriage to decay, as has Hollywood.

I do think the polygamy argument is a serious one, but that is not the main reason to oppose gay marriage. Gay marriage is opposable simply because is not a procreative activity. That is the sole reason we should protect and sanctify marriage as an institution. A proper Marriage should have unique benefits also, but that is another topic. But this entire topic should be a States issue, i believe, so this administration should leave it alone.

Jun 5, 2006 - 1:51 pm 8. Kathy from Austin:

You know, it just seems to me that with all the important issues we have to deal with right now, like Iran, immigration, terrorism, etc. that this is small potatoes. Let’s get the bigger issues resolved instead of playing footsie with this (IMHO) relatively trivial issue.

Jun 5, 2006 - 3:00 pm 9. freetotem:

I oppose a lot of the gay political agenda that would lead to yet another protected class, with its attendant license to sue for alleged discrimination, affirmative action, and all the rest of the identity politics golden package. I also oppose the active promotion of homosexuality in the popular culture as something we should all feel a certain way about, all as prescribed by Hollywood or activists. I resent accusations that I have a phobia, rather than dissenting opinions, about all this.

But it’s hard for me to see the arguments against gay marriage. The procreative one is just silly. Should sterile couples, or elderly couples be barred from marriage? Should young couples be required to sign a “procreation oath?” Please. The “threat to marriage” argument is weak too, I think. I mean, if gay marriage were the biggest threat to traditional marriage we had, we’d be doing pretty well. I don’t think it threatens it at all.

But it certainly does open the door to polygamy, at least legally. And “pathetic Mormons” won’t be the ones who we will see bring it up. It will be Muslims. Polygamy is more problematic than gay marriage because of the “consent” issue. Are (particularly young) women in certain insulated subcultures really giving “free” consent to be married into polygamous marriages?

Still, that isn’t persuasive enough an argument for me to oppose gay marriage. Denying gays the right to marry because we are afaraid of certain subcultures pushing polygamy isn’t logical, and it isn’t fair. I think our culture faces bigger threats than two people wanting to commit themselves to a loving relationship.

Jun 5, 2006 - 4:16 pm 10. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

well i all for equal rights.
but how can a law change an instition?
sure, let same-gender couples who want to, have the rights and benefits of married couples.
but that no more makes them married than calling a dog’s tail makes the dog have five legs.

btw: marriage is NOT limited to heterosexuals, but to members of the opposite gender. then sexual preference of the man and woman in the marriage is not relevant.

what has never in hman history been part of marriage is same gender marriage. neihter has human-animal marriage or human-corpse marriage – neither of which would harm third parties in a technical sense.

as hayek wrote: insitutions like marriage grew up over eons and have many intricate and seemingly hidden beneficiary/anciliary effects in a society. when we tamper with them we may be undermining those other effects -havo9ng UNINTENDED consequences, ya know: the ones which always come back to bite you.

that’s why i support legal unions for same gender couples. and oppose altering the instituion of marriage.

let’s give them their rights without tampering with one of our oldest institutions.

Jun 5, 2006 - 5:06 pm 11. Shochu John:

I am also totally in favor of gay marriage, and I would frankly like to have it made legal by a vote, but if the courts have to do it, so be it. Clear majorities in the South voted to maintain segregtion. However, in that case, just as this one, the will of the majority was abridging the rights of a minority by denying them equal access to public institutions. This is unconstitutional and cannot stand. If there is a public institution, there must be equal access to it. Two solutions then, either gays are allowed to marry or marriage is ended as public institution. Under the latter arrangement, we could leave only civil unions, either gay or stright, and “marriage” becomes whatever everyone’s individual belief systems say it is.

Jun 5, 2006 - 7:39 pm 12. JenLArt:

Jim (above) is on the right track…For the ultimate answer as to why we need a Constitutional Amendment, look no further than the Great One: Mark Levin–the states’ courts and the USSC have given us various decisions that work to undermine the will of the people of those several states that have invariably decided against same sex marriage in referenda.
I do live in Dallas, in the heart of Red Country (or “Jesusland”) and even though I have gay friends and relatives, the thought of sanctioning their ephemeral relationships as “marriage” makes me ill.
As to giving gays their “rights,” they already have plenty and I don’t see them suffering any deprivation of their civil rights even without “gay marriage,” unless you wanna count one of them as the “right” to wear a Vera Wang bridal gown and register for china patterns, which they can still do anyway.
As far as the gay activists are concerned, this isn’t about rights, it’s about the political destruction of the foundational institutions of our great country and our heritage.
As for the Big Picture and us having other things to deal with right now, how we handle homosexuals is important in the WOT–the IslamoNazis are watching to see how we deal with what they consider to be an abomination.
Our current policy indicates that while America is tolerant, we won’t trash our most cherished and important institutions like Judeo-Christian marriage to achieve that tolerance.
But the “love that dare not speak its name” needs to SHUT UP.

Jun 5, 2006 - 7:48 pm 13. WichitaBoy:

Roger,

It’s Houston rather than Dallas which has the large thriving gay community. Not that there isn’t one in Dallas and even Ft. Worth, but the attitude is different. Houston is freewheeling in all respects.

I don’t understand your prejudice against polygamy. I really don’t see it as anything but irrational prejudice, exactly the way JenLArt’s attitude toward gay marriage looks to me. Being in favor of gay marriage is officially GOOOOD among the current thought-fashion tsars, while polygamy is of course still BAAAAAD, but I fail to perceive any reason underlying the prejudice in either case.

The argument that we shouldn’t change the nature of marriage after all this time (and that is what is being proposed here—polygamy has in fact been common from time to time in human history while gay marriage has never been) because there may be unseen consequences which we do not understand does hold some weight with me, but only some. After all, followed to its logical extreme this attitude would preclude any change whatsoever, which cannot be the true path.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:18 pm 14. vegetius:

Before anybody advances any more arguments re SSM, there needs to be a definition of exactly what ‘marriage’ is or what it is not.
For instance …what about consanguinity?? When is a marriage consumated?? Why is ‘2′ the magic number??..etc..etc…

Jun 6, 2006 - 5:50 am 15. A B:

WichitaBoy:

There are clear consequences to gay marriage. Scandinavia has had gay marriage for 15 years. Basically:
1) Very few gays actually marry each other.
2) They tend to have ‘open’ marriages.
3) Many of them are older Scandinavians importing much younger men from poor countries.
4) As the focus shifts to individual relationship rather than societal expectations of getting men and women together, marriage becomes just another alternative– optional, rather than expected. So marriage rates overall go down.

And more… read Stanley Kurtz for more details.

Basically, not much of a win for gays, a big loss for Scandinavia.

Jun 6, 2006 - 7:40 am 16. Shochu John:

AB says, “As the focus shifts to individual relationship rather than societal expectations of getting men and women together, marriage becomes just another alternative– optional, rather than expected. So marriage rates overall go down.”

Even if true (and I don’t know, I’m not up on my Scandinavian sociology), so what? Since when is it the government’s job to socially engineer its citizenry? It’s government’s job first and foremost to guard individual rights, such as equal protection under the law, and if society is evolving, through the combined decisions of it people, in a direction that causes marriage rates to go down, really, what’s the big deal? We’d be more married as a society if divorce were illegal, too, but I don’t see anybody adovcating that.

Jun 6, 2006 - 11:27 am 17. A B:

Sochu John writes:

“Even if true (and I don’t know, I’m not up on my Scandinavian sociology), so what? Since when is it the government’s job to socially engineer its citizenry?”

Since forever– all governments, throughout all recorded history.

Might be interesting to try one that doesn’t do so, but I think it’d be better to find a small island somewhere and first try it there.

Actually, William Golding once wrote a novel on that, right?

OK, I’m done with this topic. 3 posts is enough.

Jun 6, 2006 - 2:56 pm

Write a Comment

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