…because I’m pìššëd øff.
So I’m watching this “TV Guide Best of 2003” show for no particular dámņ good reason, and they’re talking about how shows like “Queer Eye,” “Boy Meets Boy,” “Will and Grace,” etc., have caused America to understand and embrace the gay lifestyle. What a spectacular load of crap, as evidenced by the poll which indicated that 70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages.
Americans laughing at the Fab Five no more translates to an actual acceptance of homosexuality in this country than a hundred years ago when audiences laughing at Minstrel shows translated to a belief that blacks and whites should be able to drink at the same water fountain. “South Park” absolutely nailed it in the episode where all the men in town “embraced” the gay lifestyle but were simultaneously horrified by the notion of actual homosexuality, and that was before the poll came out.
If anyone thinks that the ratings of gay-oriented TV shows provides anything remotely approaching acceptance, just wait until the 2004 Prez race heats up. When that poll hit, the GOP must have been peeing themselves with excitement since Dean’s Vermont supports civil marriages. The Clinton administration being sandbagged in its first six months by the gays in the military issue will be, I suspect, just a warm up for this go-around. The GOP would be crazy not to take advantage of it. I can just see the adverts now: “With George W. Bush in charge, our armed forces captured Saddam Hussein. If Howard Dean were in charge, our soldiers would have been too busy marrying each other to get anything done.”
This may well be the final nail in the Dean’s Un-electable coffin.
PAD
• 
The term is “civil unions,” not civil marriage, which is something most married people should aspire to have.
While having most of the same legal ramafications of actual marriage, unions are different. I believe that Dean has said that while he is proud of singing civil unions, he is still opposed to gay marriage in principle.
Marriage is still a social and religious institution as much as a legal one, so that could explain the uneasiness that the 70% of Americans (including myself) feel towards gay marriage.
I myself have nothing against gay people in general or in particular. I have gone to school with several out gay people, and have counted some as very close friends. My religious beliefs, however, prevent me from fully accepting such a lifestyle as “correct.” At the risk of being flamed (I swear that is not a pun), I believe that the Bible pretty clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. That being said, Jesus teaches us to love, forgive, and show compassion, so I do not think gays should be marginalized or mistreated. they are due their equal rights as human beings.
This raises an interesting question: What is true democracy?
If 70% of the nation feels that gay marriage is wrong, should our elected officials bow to popular opinion? Or should the government preserve the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, enforcing social change from above. Which is the trully democratic thing to do?
Peace. Happy Chanukah (I completely botched that, sorry) and a Merry Belated Christmas to Kathleen and Caroline.
And a Happy Kwanza to any African Americans lurking or posting.
Excuse me, I’d like to take objection to that “70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages” number.
Here’s a recent email to me following up on just such an online poll:
Dear Glenn,
Participation in America’s Poll on Homosexual Marriage at http://www.marriagepoll.com continues at a steady pace. As of noon Saturday, December 28, the results were as follows:
I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and “civil unions: total votes: 201914
I favor legalization of homosexual marriage total votes: 378691
I favor a “civil union” with the full benefits of marriage except for the name: 52238
If you have not already voted, click here to do so. Be sure to forward the poll on to your family and friends.
Only votes that have a valid email address associated with them will be counted. We will be purging those with invalid email addresses, which may cause poll results to change somewhat.
Sincerely,
Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
That’s 68% in favor of gay marriage. And this is the AFA polling, not exactly a hotbed of liberalism in Mississippi…
Yes, the Bible does say homosexuality is an abomination, and even prescribes the death penalty for it.
This is why I don’t live my life according to the Bible.
The Bible says lots of things. It endorses slavery, prescribes the death penalty for a rebellious child, for anyone who works on the Sabbath, for anyone who wears clothing made from two different fabrics, says that a women is unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl as she is after giving birth to a male, and so forth.
I don’t pay any attention to those passages any more than to the one prescribing the death penalty for gays.
Peter, I just finished Tong Lashing. Good read. Hope there’s more tales in store for Apropos, and that the first three get made into films.
Happy Holidays to all. 🙂
What’s so bad about Dean being “un-electable?” Look who’s the Prez right now and tell me that not being elected is any barrier to the presidency! =)
Matt
PS…I won’t let it go, EVER.
Excuse me, I’d like to take objection to that “70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriages” number.
I think you mean “take exception,” and you can do so all you want, but I’m quoting the study widely reported in various news media including AOL.
PAD
This is to me a very simple issue that needs to be fixed. Homosexuals should have every right that anyone else has under the Declaration of Human rights or what ever you Americans call it. Religious views on what is right and wrong should have nothing to do with laws that should passed. Every human being has every human right to be equal. If your views are harming another individuals lifestyle or well being than I think you need to truly reflected on if those views are constructive for the betterment of your community. Do you truly think that having a homosexual marriage is something wrong and harmful to the well being of others. I would like to ask anyone speaking on the subject to give some reasons why a homosexual marriage shouldn’t be legal.
First of all I am in favor of gay marriages. I am also in favor of legalizing everything that people do anyway that doesnt cause harm to anyone but themselves like legalized marijuana and making not wearing a seatbelt legal again. but i digress. but my question is this, being a legally ordained minister i understand how marriages happen in this country, but if someone gets married in another country does that transfer over to here? is it only if its a marriage that is legal here like opposite sex marriage? or if its only done in a way that our government tolerates? so someone married in a mass ceremony might not be considered married here. (i dont know if mass marriages happen in this country) what about if a sultan with 20 wives comes here. are they all considered his wives here or just the first one?
thanks in advance to anyone who can answer these, because i have long wondered about this. on another note, happy holidays to all and i hope you get better soon peter because i miss your “last thought for the night” posts.
Are you talking about that poll that was done by the family-based orginization and was going to be sent to the Senate? That thing was hijacked so much and so badly it’s worthless.
The psuedo embracing of homosexuality has a ring of blackface to it, doesn’t it? Not only does it have the “I can be entertained by them, but I won’t let them have the same rights as my superior self” comparison, but there’s also the fact that most people that portray homosexuals aren’t homosexuals. I can think of very few out (as opposed to forcibly outed) gay actors, actually. >.> The only ones that come to mind off the top of my head are Sir Ian McKellen, and Ellen Degeneres.
And it bothers me so much because I don’t think all this “Gay TV” is actually representative of your average gay person. I can’t bring myself to believe that a love for Cher, a lisp, and a penchant for fashion really makes you a homosexual. I’d rather define a homosexual as a person sexually attracted to their own gender, and not a Bette Midler fan.
I can’t say I’m sold on that study. I wonder how many of the respondents would change their answer if the poll question were to specify the manner in which gay marriage would be implemented. If the decision comes down to a single justice or a group of justices, then I’m opposed to gay marriage (if that’s what they decide.) If the issue is dealt with through the proper legislative channels, then I’m for gay marriage. Overall, I’m for it, but I would prefer if the judicial activists are left without a say in the matter.
However, I do think that Peter may be overestimating the importance of the issue in the 2004 election. It’s just one issue out of many, and there very well may be people who aren’t terribly thrilled with the prospect of gay marriage who vote for Dean, anyway.
Or to put it another way, I seriously doubt Bush will coast to reelection with 70% of the vote based on this one issue.
Voters will vote for candidates that they have qualms about. Even
if I were a liberal and inclined to vote for Dean, I’d still have to overlook some downright crazy positions of his (like the assertion that we should essentially give U.N. veto power over how our military is used, even though they don’t seem to place much value on military force as a way to back up their resolutions.) If I vote for Bush, I’ll have to do the same thing (any number of idiotic religious-right stances of his come to mind.)
As for “embracing homosexuality” (which revolves around intercourse between same-sex partners), I see no reason why heterosexuals should do that. Mere tolerance is fine enough. I mean, I can’t stand the taste of corn, but I don’t have a problem with those who do like it simply because they like it. I tolerate it. But I see no point in embracing those who eat corn and building myself up to the point where I can eat corn without retching and choking. That’s just silly.
Of course, South Park nailed it just right—just because one thinks that a certain group of individuals is interesting doesn’t mean that their interest will extend to those individuals’ sexual habits.) But I don’t see a problem in embracing the gay lifestyle (in a cultural sense) while not being too keen on the homosexual sex act itself. Or to put it another way, I think Peter overextended himself with that one sentence.
Well, that and the ‘minstrel show’ remark. Are the cast members of “Queer Eye for the Stright Guy” really straight actors pretending to be gay? I doubt it. Maybe the “Will and Grace” actors are, but isn’t the whole point of acting to pretend that you’re someone else? If Peter means ‘minstrel show’ in the sense that they’re casting gay culture in an embarrassing light, well, it’s certainly loads more flattering than the impression given off by, say, actual, real-life participants in a gay rights parade, obsessed as they are with flaunting their sexuality in public above and beyond what most people would find appropriate for either gays or strights. Which is to say, I think gays are getting the better end of the deal when it comes to representation on TV.
-Dave O’Connell
Marriage in the US isn’t just religious, its become more of a legal status now, pertaining to the joining of two people together in the eyes of the state. Those that hold onto this religious banter that marriage is only between a man and a woman are denying basic legal rights to a section of the populace. They are insisting that the veiws of a few religions be forced upon those who have no belief as they do. Denying homosexual marriage is a civil rights violation based in a violation of the laws seperateing church and state. Am i to these people not married as i was married by a judge and not a preist? Do those married(handfasted) in a wiccan ceremony qualify as married or should we name these situations something different… If this whole “civil unions” bûllšhìŧ goes through, all marriages in the eyes of the government should be renamed then to “civil unions”.
Well, frankly, I’m convinced that the legal status of marriage should be removed from American law altogether. If people want the decision to be religious in nature, let it be religious in nature and remove all legal benefit from marriage; that way conservatives can have what they want — whatever the hëll it’s supposed to be — and gays can have what they want — they can get married by their own preachers or ministers or what have you and it will be the church’s responsibility to say who can and can’t get married.
As for the benefits that come along with marriage, such as tax and insurance benefits, visitation and inheritance claims, and so on: why should this be an issue solely for married people?
For the last two years I’ve been a student, and my sister, whom I live with, has been supporting me. Why, if she’s willing to put forth the money required, can she not cover me under her insurance, for instance? I’ve been uninsured this whole time because I can’t find work, and she can’t cover me because she’s not my mother or wife. There are a number of benefits of marriage that don’t make any sense as specifically being exclusive for married people. I think “marriage” as a legal concept should be replaced with “household.” Everyone living under one roof, putting a portion of their financial dependance on another person, should be considered a single unit, capable of deciding better than the government what is right for that household to run smoothly. Siblings, unmarried couples of any combination of genders, communes; there are so many social combinations people can form as a single unit, so what makes married people special? That they have sex? That they underwent a religious ceremony (which should have no bearing on legal status)?
Marriage is a red herring. Don’t get me wrong, I hope one day to meet the gorilla my dreams and get married and have 2.5 children (I analytically endorse polygamy/polyandry, but I don’t really want it for myself), but I fail to see how that has anything to do with who gets all my stuff if I forget to write a will.
My suspicion is that the Democratic position here is actually pretty safe. Opposition to gay marriage is much broader than it is deep, in all likelihood; the people who care enough about it for it to affect their vote will vote for Bush regardless of what’s going on.
The Dems have staked out the kind of compromise position that is too wimpy to become a wedge issue. Since they’ve all gone on record saying they oppose marriage (all of the ones who have a shot anyway), “civil unions” is going to make for a very difficult rallying cry.
I still think this is going to come down to the economy and Iraq, barring some other major event from changing things, such as Castro dying or a North Korean nuke scare. I don’t think the gay marriage issue will be able to stay in the headlines without any actual events to keep it there.
Luigi, your concerns re: the old testament laws are pretty much moot, since the new covenant of Jesus points out the unattainability of the law. I respect you a great deal, so I thought I’d let you know that (though obviously not in enough detail to make much difference).
I would place myself in the camp of both Ben Hunt and nekoukan (though I don’t believe we have an equal rights issue. The law currently states you can marry any willing, single, of-age member of the opposite sex. It doesn’t say you have to love them. Gay people have the right to marry the opposite sex, they just don’t want to).
Nekoukan is right in that marriage as a legal status is downright silly. I can live carnally with two or more women with no problem, but the government tosses me in jail if I marry them? Silly.
This just goes to show that polls are only that: a small sample of the population.
Hëll, it’s an insignificant sampling at that.
I read an article that said the number was 55% in favor of banning gay marriage, not 70%.
But then, whether it’s 55% or 70%, what do you think the %-age was 50 years ago? 25 years ago?
I bet it was more than it is today.
Let’s be frank: the majority of those opposing gay marriage are the Bible-thumpers.
And as was commented in an earlier post, I don’t see people following all of those other things the Bible says to do. Makes me wonder if it’s a load of homophobia or extreme hypocracy.
When i got married, I was married twice.
Once when I signed those documents (a civil union) and twice when the priest did his ol mumbo jumbo magic.
As long as the churches are not forced to do anything then let it be people, let it be.
That marriagepoll.com thing is all kins of out of whack. I watched someone take screenshots every hour one day. There were times when 1000 votes would mysteriously disappear from those in favor of gay marriage. And beyond the unscientific-ness (there I go making up words) of an online poll like that to begin with, that particular one is more of a measure of who’s spreading the word faster, as both sides have sent out loads of emails and flooded message boards and blogs with “go vote for X! Make sure the others don’t win!”
The more Dems open their mouth the more W. will be re-elected. Dean is nothing but a Al Gore wannabe who is just about the most hated Dem in his party right now. I just sitback and laugh at them…
http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2003/Dec/847.html
See above link for a letter from the Rutland, VT newspaper on this topic, making a very fine (liberal) point.
This may not be “the issue” that decides the election, but it is a valid one. Civil rights and human rights may be, and should be, defining issues in the 21st century worldwide. Without that foundation how can our civilization continue to stand?
–Todd Morton
Just make it legal. Gays have families as well as straights so why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry??? Doesn’t make sense to me. God & the Church has taken a backseat in America right now anyway so what’s the big deal???
Craig J. Ries said (Re:banning gay marriage):
“But then, whether it’s 55% or 70%, what do you think the %-age was 50 years ago? 25 years ago?
I bet it was more than it is today.”
I disagree. 50 years ago there weren’t any gay people. In the 50s,
this country was perfect. That’s why we need to make laws to force this country back to the 50s. (And yes, I’m being sarcastic.)
Rob said:
“Luigi, your concerns re: the old testament laws are pretty much moot, since the new covenant of Jesus points out the unattainability of the law.”
This may be, but a LOT of people live their lives in accordance with the Old Testament and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. This is why they call themselves fundalmentalists, although the ‘mental’ part of that word is seldom true.
50 years ago there weren’t any gay people.
Only because no one dared come out of the closet 50 years ago.
Rock Hudson didn’t dare come out of the closet for fear he would never work again.
Gays have been around since the dawn of time. Nothing new here just that today it’s more out in the open.
Eek. And very, very realistic.
I’m just glad that Peter brought up the issue, because we’ve seen fairly reasonable arguments both supporting and opposing.
And for the fellow who wants to legalize things that only hurt yourself – will you make sure the legislation includes what if while doing this thing for yourself you end up hurting others, having an extreme penalty? I.E. the driver on a subtance in an accident, or the passanger who flies out of a car and hits another person?
Luigi – thanks for the biblical examples, I was going to paraphrase about women not really supposed to be indepdent or working ever in anything not about the household support, but your examples were among the good ones.
My maternal grandmother, for example, gave her entire paycheck to her father until she got married in the 1930s (first as a fashion buyer, then model, then elementary school teacher – which is what she had gone to school for and was waiting for an appointment while she did the fashion jobs).
Rob – umn doesn’t your quote prove that Jesus invented reform Judiasm as much than anything else?
Household guy: yes– option three! Good futurism leading to the practical on your side. Now, if you can only get more people to pick up that.
You’re still going to have people wanting a “legal marriage” not for the civil benefits but the social regonition; but good job on trying to split a complex issue into smaller parts!
Gay marriage (or legal civil unions) becoming legal IS going to happen. Maybe not this year, or next year, but it will happen. Just look at the major businesses that have started to accept same-sex partners in their health plan and benefits coverage (Disney for example).
TV shows like “Queer Eye” and “Boy Meets Boy” may be doing more harm than good however. People that don’t like or agree with the gay lifestyle don’t want it thrown in their faces. Stereotypes rarely win arguements. Except to show that it’s OK to laugh at gays, and that’s not really acceptance is it?
Anyone here remember when Maggie Sawyer was introduced in the Superman Comic? Strong, tough leader of the Metropolis SCU, and a lesbian. They even showed her partner several times. Then, when the cartoon came out, Maggie was there, as well as her partner (I’m blanking on the name now). When Maggie was hurt by an attack by Darksied, her partner was even there in the hospital holding her hand. All this in a cartoon, right under the eyes of the censors, and not an “in-your-face” attitude.
It’s going to take time for the majority of Americans to accept the gay lifestyle. It’s also going to help if TV programs start showing gays in a positive, non stereotypical light. Not all gay men are flaming crossdressers, nor are all lesbians flannel wearing, boot wearing, short haired and butch.
Finally Matt…the recounts all show Gore lost. That’s including all the recounts by the major papers and TV networks. Seriously man, let it go before you hurt yourself. There are plenty of other windmills you can tilt at. : )
“I’m quoting the study widely reported in various news media including AOL.” When you do that, it always helps your argument to actually cite the poll in question. Otherwise, it just reduces it to a “he said/she said” opinion piece.
An AP poll (conducted by ICR of Media, PA) found the split to be 35% in favor of gay marriage and 51% against. The website also mentions a national poll conducted in 1998 by the Human Rights Campaign, which found that nearly 50% opposed gay marriage, and just over 40% were in favor. Here’s that
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=7662
The Pew Research Center for the People & the press conducted a poll, on which MSNBC reported on November 18:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/995040.asp?0cb=-216193181
That one found with 32% favoring gay marriage and 59% opposing it.
Via a simple Google search, those seem to be the professional polls being talked about the most.
I fully support gay marriage. I think the two hallmarks of gay equality will be the ability to get married (with all the legal benefits therein) and protection based on job discrimination due to sexual orientation.
That said, I think PAD nailed it on the head in his first posting. To use a slightly more recent example, thinking straight America supports gay rights because they enjoy TV shows with gay characters is like thinking people enjoying black musicians in whites-only clubs in the early 20th century was a step towards desegregation. Sure, they didn’t have the same rights as everyone else — but they’re entertaining and we love to watch them perform! (Yes, that was sarcasm.) The test of gay rights is in the law. Watching Jack prance around on WILL AND GRACE is entertaining; knowing gay people can marry is progress. (And unless either of them are coming out of the closet, Britney kissing Madonna is pretty much pure titillation.)
As for the arguments about separating religion from marriage, I agree — but that doesn’t matter. There are plenty of secular marriages (civil ceremonies, commonlaw marriage, quickie weddings), and plenty of marriage issues that are legally fine but have religious opposition. (States recognize divorce, but the Roman Catholic church doesn’t.) And that’s fair: Churches can and do make their own rules, and it’s up to people to accept those rules, reject those rules and leave the church, or reject those rules and stay in the church anyway. Unfortunately, opponents of gay marriage oppose ALL forms of gay marriage (wanna bet that if Bush gets that constitutional amendment against gay marriage, he’ll forget about allowing civil ceremonies) and they want a legal ban that would cover everyone, regardless of religious belief.
Many religious people have no problem citing the parts of the Bible that support them (yes, there are Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality) while ignoring the parts they don’t like (there are Old Testament passages allowing you to kill your kids). And Bush has made no secret of his religious beliefs affecting his policy. (Then again, wasn’t it Clinton who signed something — the Defense of Marriage act or the like? — that gave the legal basis for marriage only being between men and women?)
My advice is not to be lulled into complacency by fictional gay characters, but to speak out for gay rights — legal rights.
And once again, SOUTH PARK nailed it on the head with their metrosexuality. All they lacked was calling the school beating a hate crime.
Elayne wrote:
An AP poll (conducted by ICR of Media, PA) found the split to be 35% in favor of gay marriage and 51% against.
Holy cow — ICR in Media?? I used to work for them! I remember interviewing kids (who had parental permission to talk to us) about what kind of bubble gum they prefererred, and cold-calling households across the country. To avoid taking the hang-ups personally, I used to use a fake name when I called — usually something out of a comic book (Victor Sage comes to mind, and maybe Jack Ryder). The worst job was calling up people (again, who said they’d be willing to talk) to find out what laxatives they’d been using. And why.
Ugh.
Anyway, that’s my digression for the day.
Rob
I have no problem with gay marriage, if they want to join in the stupidity, let ’em.
My problem is with this whole “Queer Eye” thing and it’s sissification of men.
I got no problem with fops and sissies, I’m not saying I’m at all bothered by them.
But to act as if every man should want to preen like that bothers me. The whole show seems to be saying “If you’re NOT a “Metrosexual” you’re a useless slob.”.
Screw that. I find preening males funny, almost as funny as preening females. Sorry, I don’t care how much makeup you put on, if you’re ugly, you’re still ugly and covered with crud. So what be the point?
Maybe it’s because no amount of makup or proper dress could hide my flaws, but I can’t understand why anyone would feel the need to do so. Your flaws are who you are. They’re what make you unique.
Unless you want to be like everyone else.
Then you scare me.
“Be yourself, gawdammit.” – Uncle Willy
Rachel,
Dunno, I’m not familiar with reformed Judaism. The OT said “do things or be doomed”. The NT says “you can’t follow the law, so follow Me, I’ll take the price of your lawlessness on Myself. All you have to do is love Me and love others.” Follow God, not rules. The motivation is different, as is the result.
While I disagree with gay marriage, I do recognize it’s going to be legal soon. I’d prefer the “household” solution, though. No one’s morals are impacted; I could support such a law. I mean, people are people and they’re going to do what they’re going to do. My belief system says homosexuality is not a good thing, which means I shouldn’t engage. I can’t SUPPORT something outside that. At the same time, it’s not my place to stop someone else from doing something not immediately harmful. So, to me the solution is the “household” idea. Everyone wins.
I’m not in favor of gay marriage, since marriage implies something that homosexuals cannot achieve, a family creating and spiritual unit intertwined by some religion. I think it’s a problem that many of our laws use the same terms as Judeo-Christian religions, but that’s probably more pervasive than just marriage.
However, I am 100% in favor of civil unions or whatever property-and-rights creating union the lawmakers decide to create. There is no reason why a gay couple can’t have probate rights, medical rights, etc., the same as heterosexual couples. However, any such union would have to apply to unmarried couples of any stripe, including boyfriend/girlfriend, roommates, etc. It cannot just apply to homosexuals.
I read it somewhere once, and it crystalized the thought in my mind: “I’ll be happy not to descriminate against them, but I’ll be dámņëd if I’m going to descriminate FOR them.”
*coughs*
Well, let’s have this coming straight from the mouth of a lesbian, ne? *laughs*
Quite frankly, I would LOVE to be able to marry my other half within the next couple of years because, hey, we’re going to be living together anyway and we would feel entitled to the same rights that committed hetero couples gain no matter WHAT it’s called, even if it’s simply referred to as a “civil union.” The wording doesn’t bother me, but the rights do.
Also, I’m a bit wary of the American media anyway because for the most part it is so effing biased… It’s difficult to get a *cough* “fair and balanced” view of anything. Par example, all they report are the atrocities the Palestinians commit against the Israelites, but NEVER what the Israelites commit against the Palestinians and yet as I studied the situation last year in my Judaism class, I found that the Palestinians were just as oppressed by the Israelites. Some of those articles were even WRITTEN by people with Hebrew names. And then I tried to search for the same stories off of CNN.com and the like, but no… They only had stories about the Palestinian strikes against Israelites.
Quite frankly, I lost a LOT of confidence in the American media. It seems to report what the government wants you to hear by card stacking. And to me, statistics mean crap…it’s all based on the group of people they polled and really has little representation of the actual beliefs of the majority of America.
As for the gay-based shows…I never watch them. They simply reinforce stereotypes that aren’t always true like SOMEHOW gay men have this wonderful culinary, design, and fashion sense when, in actuality, a good lot of them don’t. Plus, it’s all about the guys, have you noticed that? When will a good lesbian show come out? *laughs* Ahh well.
I’ll spend my time watching anime, “Family Guy,” “Futurama,” and “Star Trek” just to be happy and ignore the idiocy of most popular television…although two of those shows are fairly idiotic. Oh well. *pets Stewie and Fry* Cartoons are better anyway…>.>
The whole idea of ‘legal’ marriages is flawed, and probably should be scrapped in favor of a ‘household’ system instead.
Originally the idea of giving married couples tax and financial breaks is because they’re sharing resources. Instead it’s become a political battleground of who’s going to be ‘approved’ officially by the government.
That bothers me, because eventually things like non-profit status for churches will be in the same exact boat. How long will it be before the government starts deciding that Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism aren’t widespread enough to enjoy non-profit status? Just like the government is endorsing heterosexual marriages only, they could end up endorsing Christianity only as well.
And I don’t want to hear the old mantra, ‘We live in a Christian society and follow its values’. That’s not true. The U.S. constitution was specifically written to squelch the power of people who like using that as an excuse.
I wrote something about this very same subject in an extended critique of Queer Eye for a magazine recently. I reprinted it on my Web site: http://theblacksaint.com/2003/12.html#000385
Queer Eye and Will & Grace change nothing. America has laughed at gays since the beginning of the century. “Embracing” stereotypes is not the same as recognizing the actual lifestyle (not that you *see* that lifestyle much on Eye or even Will & Grace).
If 70% percent of America is against gay marriage do you think it might be because they have been bludgeoned with these shows that have made them take a stronger stance then they actually believe.
There are the same tax breaks for gay couples and even legal unions, the one thing they do not have is the word marriage. that’s what all this fighting is about…a word. It is this self-riteous behavior that the democrats will lose again in 2004.
I have always agreed completley with liberals when it came to social issues and was only a conservative fiscally. But lately it has come to my attention that liberals will not stop until they have opened up the brain of every “evil republican” (because the liberals believe it’s free speech only if you agree with them)and carved out all the chunks that are conservative.
Jesus christ guys! Self- riteousness is for religious nuts but you liberals have taken the cake. You guys just scare me now.
As I see it, there are two gay marriage issues.
The religious marriage aspect, and the state marriage aspect.
It is the right of any religious organization to not marry anyone for whatever reasons they see fit. As a non-practicing Catholic, I’d disagree with them if they refused a gay couple, but I was taught at a young age that the Bible was a guide that can’t always be taken literally, and you should follow your conscience, so I’m certainly not typical of Catholicism as a whole.
On the secular side, I can’t see even a single rational arguement against gay marriage. Maybe I’m biased, as my brother is gay, but if two people want to share their lives together and have a family, then why should they be denied the basic rights that any other couple in America have access to?
Jam said:
“Sorry, I don’t care how much makeup you put on, if you’re ugly, you’re still ugly and covered with crud.”
Too true. That’s why I don’t wear makeup.
**As I see it, there are two gay marriage issues.
The religious marriage aspect, and the state marriage aspect.
**
That can be said for the majority of political arguments period. Until we, as Americans, decide to separate ourselves from the Puritanical background and our Rebellious background (and yes, we have both) it always will be there.
I have nothing to say about gay civil unions. Or media pushing forth a gay lifestyle.
I am not homosexual. And really, i don’t care. I think it’s a non-issue, along with hundreds of other non-issues will obscure this election to the point of aneurysms.
And there’s not enough deoderant in the world for me to start arguing this.
Travis
You know, I’ve heard the arguments that marriage is a sacred moral and legal institution defined by a commitment of love and affection between a man and a woman. I don’t doubt that it can be a profound and sacred union. But I don’t think defining it as “1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage” benefits the world.
If two people, ANY two people, can find a lasting love, a profound and deep love and affection for one another in this lonely world of ours, then God bless them. I’m a Christian who has read his Bible, and I know the Bible speaks against homosexuality. But I also know that there is a context; I know that the Bible is a puzzle that takes a lifetime to figure out, and none of us probably ever get it right. There are prohibitions in the Bible that simply do not compute in modern society. We’re more enlightened. Christians are no longer the oppressed minority seeking self-preservation through condemnation of homosexuality. We’re the majority religion in this country.
The Bible has a context. It was compiled and codified as part of a different culture. There are non-canonical books that weren’t deemed fit to be included. There’s a larger picture at work, and that’s why I shudder when people start talking about what God thinks. God is a being of incredible and profound sentience and resonance and wisdom. Let God be God.
So, from my perspective, it comes down to a simple test: which reaction would God favor more from his children? Conflict, or reconciliation? Hatred, or love? Acceptance, or rejection? Unity or division?
As I weigh the issues, I can’t believe that the Judeo-Christian God, a God of love and a Father to His children, would think that denying people the right to share a profound sense of love and commitment is a good thing, and that refusing to recognize it in our laws is a good thing.
I think the debate really centers on how people perceive homosexuality. Some see it as a “sinful behavior” that can be changed. To these people, it’s a “sexual practice.” I don’t believe that. It seems clear to me that it’s an identity characteristic, much like ethnicity or gender or religion. To deny equal protection and rights under the law because of one’s identity…can anyone say that is a good thing?
So you know, as a Christian, I honestly don’t understand why homosexuality is this big quandry. I have to believe in a God who loves all his children, and who would delight in their finding some deep and profound love here on Earth, for whatever amount of time we’re given here.
*shrugs* I just don’t understand.
Luigi, by dismissing the Old Testament outright you minimize the impact and effects of the New Testament and Christ’s work.
Sounds like I’m in agreement with quite a few people here (including my fellow Lynch). If one faith or another believes that gay marriage is against their tenets, that particular church (temple, mosque, sacred grove, etc.) shouldn’t be forced to marry two people of the same sex.
However, making that sentiment the law of the land is completely screwed up. It’s pretty much akin to all the arguments against mixed-race marriage a few decades ago, and it’s hard to see anyone coming out and saying THAT’s going to destroy the country.
I’ve no problem if my gay friends in committed relationships want to get all the same legal protections my wife and I do — it’s hard to see much of a reason why they shouldn’t.
And is this going to be an issue in the 2004 election? Much as I’d like to say no, there’s no doubt in my mind a’tall that Karl Rove is going to use this as a wedge in as hard and as long a way as possible (and let’s not get into the implications of THAT phrasing, shall we?).
TWL
SER wrote “Queer Eye and Will & Grace change nothing. America has laughed at gays since the beginning of the century. “Embracing” stereotypes is not the same as recognizing the actual lifestyle (not that you *see* that lifestyle much on Eye or even Will & Grace).”
While I’m not a fan of WILL & GRACE (too shrill), something they do right is present both sides of the gay image. The character of Will is the gay man who could very easily pass for straight. The character of Jack is the “stereotypical” gay man — high voice, casual sex, flamboyant and bìŧçhÿ. Both of these exist in the gay world, but neither is “right” or correct. At least by having both, the show creates a balanced view of what it can mean to be gay. (A couple of years ago, I read an article in THE NEW YORK TIMES complaining that the gay men in movies were indistinguishable from straight men — meaning we’ve gone from complaining that gay men are portrayed too stereotypically to complaining that they’re portrayed too non-stereotypically. Sigh.)
*LONDO SAID: I’m not in favor of gay marriage, since marriage implies something that homosexuals cannot achieve, a family creating and spiritual unit intertwined by some religion.*
Londo, maybe you’re not aware, but there are some religions, even some sects of Christianity, that have no problem with homosexuality and will perform gay ceremony. That being said, I think we can achieve marriage, even under the definition you posted.
Jeff
On gay marriage, I agree that what needs to be done is to separate religious marriage from state recognized unions. I like the idea of removing marriage from tax and insurance laws and simply going with “household” as a standard. That way, committed couples can have legal rights and religions can continue to recognize only those unions that meet it’s definition. Divorce would be a thorny issue though. Perhaps instead of issuing marriage licenses, states could just issue “civil union certificates” that give some form shared or community property rights should the union be dissolved later by death or divorce.
What I find laughable are so-called “defense of marriage” acts that so many states have forced through their legislatures. As an 11-year-and-counting veteran of a heterosexual marriage, I can say unequivocally that the existance of gay couples has yet to have any effect on my marriage. Funny how the heterosexual divorce rate hasn’t plummetted since these “defense of marriage” acts have been passed, isn’t it?
Regarding Will and Grace: Gee, it’s such a daring show what with Jack prancing around every week portraying every gay stereotype known to man. Billy Crystal was funnier at it back in the 70’s. W&G is just a show about four really boring, really shallow people, two of which happen to be gay. I’ll pass.
From the Blue Jackal:
When will a good lesbian show come out?
Well, there was Ellen. Oh wait, you said a good lesbian show.
Never mind.
One of the first arguments that tends to come forth in this issue is “it must be man and woman for the sake of the children”.
What is the divorce rate in this country again?
Heck, a kid having a pair of same-sex parents may be the best thing ever to happen to him/her.
And I must say, Michael Craven’s post is the best thing I’ve read on the subject in a long time.
I wish more were in line with his mode of thought. It would do this country (and the world) a whole lot of good.
I would LOVE to see a proposed “Defense of Marriage” Constitutional amendment that would outlaw divorce just to see what kind of rationale the religious right would create to oppose it…
We fade up to a young man surrounded by what looks to be clouds. A harp is playing in the background. The young man walks up to a gate like structure. What looks too be ST. Peter stands behind a podium in front of the gates. The young man speaks…
“Where Am I?”
“Welcome stranger, to the Pearly Gates.”
“I’m in Heaven!”
“No, you’re at the Pearly Gates. Pay attention. Name?”
“Larry Smith”
“Is that with an E?”
“No, but the K is silent.”
“Cause of death?”
“Corned beef.”
Saint Peter looks at him and shrugs.
“Yeah, those fatty foods.”
“Oh, I work in a butcher shop and a side of frozen beef fell over on my head.”
“Smith without an e you said?”
“Yes.”
“Here you,are! MMMMM…..”
“What?”
“Well, according to the Celestial registry, you’ve been a good man. You may enter the Kingdom of Heaven and live for eternity by His side.”
“Thank you, thank you!”
“Enter and join your fellow Presbyterians.”
(Shocked)”I…I…I’m Catholic, not Presbyterian.”
“Oh. Then go to Hëll.”
“Wait a minute! You just said I could go to Heaven!”
“The Kingdom of Heaven is for those that follow the one, true path.”
“Presbyterians?”
“Presbyterians.”
“But what…what about Catholics, Kaneites and all the others that lived faithfully by the rules of their religions?”
“They blew it. NEXT!”
“Wait! Wait! I attended mass, I took communuon. I went to confession again and again!”
“Waste of time. You just should have stayed at home and watched football.”
“And to think the Jews thought they were God’s chosen ones.”
“Oh, that was years ago. No, the Lords kind of….finicky.”
“Finicky?”
“Well, it was the Jews for a few thousand years. Then God got into muslims becasue he liked the hats. When they started slicing off hands, God went with Zen. Then it was the Aztecs for awhile….”
“Well, what about us Catholics?”
“Oh, he never liked them.”
“You know, God seems awfully indecisive.”
“Yeah. He’s like Ross Perot, only with more money.”
“So anyone who’s not Presbyterian goes to Hëll?”
“No, no. Baptists go to Purgatory.”
“God likes Baptists?”
“No, God likes getting their hopes up. Then, just when they figure their in, BAM! Off to the neither regions. And he’s never really forgiven the Mormons for the Osmonds.”
“But,but WHY Presbyterians?”
“Because they’re nice.”
“Nice?”
“Nice. Look, God’s old. He doesn’t want trouble.”
“Well, Catholics are nice too.”
“Have you ever heard of a Presbyterian Holy war?”
“Well….no.”
“Because Presbyterians don’t go for them. They don”t condem this or that from their firey pulpits.”
“Wait….isn’t their some defense leauge that’s Presbyterian? Like the Oster Defense Leauge?”
“I don’t think so.”
“I think there is. I think there is.”
“I’m not sure, I’ll have to check. We might have to go back to the Aztecs. Why don’t you wait in Purgatory until I find out, o.k?”
“Wait with the baptists? No, I’ll take Limbo.”
“Suit yourself. )(Opens door and calypso music is playing. Smith starts walking through.)
“Get back to me soon about this o.k? I’m really depending on Heavenly salvation!”
“Aren’t we all? (St. Peter turns and walks back to the podium. NEXT! Name?”
A figure steps foward and we see that it is a small Jewish Rabbi
“Saul Rebinowitz.”
“Religion?”
“Uhhhh….Presbyterian.”
“You may enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“Shalom!”
“What did you say?”
“Um…Nothing.”
“The whole idea of ‘legal’ marriages is flawed, and probably should be scrapped in favor of a ‘household’ system instead.”
Define “household”. What about a couple who are legally and religiously married, but their careers have them living on different continents? Are they a ‘household’? Yet no one can deny they’re married.
There are two separate concepts that often color the views of many on the topic of gay marriage (not referring to the posters here, but to the general public).
The first is the ‘ick’ factor involving homosexuality.
There isn’t much the law can do to mollify those feelings or beliefs some carry about homosexuality and homosexual acts, one way or another.
Those feelings and beliefs, though, should not serve as a barrier to unions (there are certainly the same ‘ick’ reactions some may have to some actions performed between some married heterosexuals).
The crux is compartmentalizing those feelings and beliefs that apply to the behavior within the union differently than such feelings and beliefs that apply to the actual contract of union – – the contract in and of itself implies nothing one way or another about condoning or rejecting any actions that result as a consequence of the union being recognized in law.
The second is the terminology and baggage that accompanies the term ‘marriage’ – the actual contract between the two persons.
As it has (in general terms) evolved from ceremonies rooted in religious as well as cultural and social acceptance of the union, perhaps, at least in the short term, it should not be stretched to cover all instances.
Allow me to digress for a moment: I favor gay marriage. Allowing gay mariage does not and will not force nor require any religion to perform such ceremonies.
Perhaps all that is required (for now) is a new coinage – for example, ‘pairage’ – which should be defined so as to include all the rights, qualifications, privileges and responsibilities accompanying marriage in civil and secular law, and also specifically defined to have the same weight, recognition, status and merit as the marriage contract in law, to cover the secularly recognized union of same-sex couples.
If nothing else, it will open up a whole new market for the greeting card industry, catering industry, and so on.
There was an interesting piece on NPR’s All Things Considered just a few days ago about this topic and two very recent polls (IIRC, one showed a slight majority in favor of gay marriage, the other clocked in at just under 50% in favor). The discussion included an analysis of the different questions and methodology of the polls. Audio file link on this page:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1565949
As for online polls – they are strictly for entertainement value and hold no statistical validity whatsoever.
The final nail in Dean’s “unelectability” coffin is probably this: http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/deanside122603_2003.shtml