I don’t understand how anyone–including Bush–can advocate a ban on gay marriage. And Kerry’s no different. “Let’s have civil unions instead.” Because separate but equal is a time honored tradition in bias, and apparently gays are the new Negros.
How can anyone claim they are compassionate and deny people in love?
How cany anyone claim they advocate less government interference in the lives of Americans and yet support the concept of laws banning what two consenting adults may do that hurts nothing and no one?
And for me, most dámņìņg of all…how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do? It is not remotely analogous to a state removing the responsibility for a gravely ill child from Christian Scientist parents because they’re hoping prayer might save their child when the doctors know medicine or an operation surely will. This is the Federal government telling every religion in the country, “We don’t care what you believe: This offends our sensibilities, and we will stop you.”
You’ve heard of the War on drugs? The war on terrorism? Congratulations and welcome to the War on Love.
PAD
• 
The Daily Show (god I love them) did a good little bit on the issue last night (I caught it at ten this morning, though).
Monkeys
My husband was in the military and, like a lot of other military members, was more than a little homophobic. I told him that there is not enough love in the world, so why would you be against 2 people loving each other? That comment stayed with him and several months later he told me that it made a lot of sense. (I had forgotten I’d said it and he had to refresh my memory.) He has since been supportive of gay and lesbian relationships. Many people have many high sounding reasons to discriminate against them, but it all comes down to fear and hatred. We don’t need any more of that in this country. Our government stirs up enough every day.
Welcome to the new civil rights movement. Whatever happened to “all men are born equal” and “the pursuit of happiness” in this culture? This is one reason why a lot of people don’t vote; the candidates don’t have their head out of their @$$.
Matt
Well, the government has always told religious institutions what to do concerning marriage, inasmuch as churches can’t marry brother and sister or threesomes or a man and his dog (which has really strained my relationship with Fido.) And marriage is a state matter as well as a religious matter (one need not enlist the services of a clergyman to get married; a judge will do just fine). So in that respect, I don’t know what you’re going on about.
But I do agree that this is a “war on love” and your broader point about government interference in the private lives of people is well taken. Say, why don’t you vote for the one candidate who has come out in favor of gay marriage: Ralph Nader. I know he’s “unelectable”, but really, isn’t that just a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of liberals who don’t have the guts to step outside the Democratic circle? Well, it’s not *my* dilemma since I have no plans to vote Democrat anyway, but still…
-Dave O’Connell
How about this: If you want to be unioned in the eye of the state, get a license from the state.
If you want to be married in the eyes of God get married by a member of the clergy.
Civil Unions: Two steps. State issues a license then, Ceremony preformed by a member of the state (judge, mayor, clerk)
Married: Two steps Get a license from the state then get ‘married’ by a clergy person.
And for me, most dámņìņg of all…how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do?
Ding!
Ding!
Ding!
That’s just it. Bush doesn’t believe in a separation of church and state. Neither do many members of his inner circle. Remember when Bush the elder said that atheists weren’t real citizens?
I support gay marriage, but I understand a lot of the ambivalence on the part of many, people who really are not bigots but who are not open-minded either.
Traditional religion – just about every stream of ever major faith – has long stated that homosexuality is a sin. That’s something that is deeply ingrained in a lot of people. That’s something that is also not likely to change in a lot of mainstream religions, even if it’s proven beyond a doubt that homosexuality is totally inborn, which is to say placed there by the same God who is seen as having banned such behavior in the first place.
To say that we should just simply ignore such deeply ingrained beliefs is not realistic. It doesn’t mean that over time, people will not change how they regard gays. After all, thirty years ago, the idea of giving gays any rights at all was revolutionary. But saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, or a religious fanatic, or is violating the idea of separation of church and state is oversimplifying the case.
Beyond which, I think that a lot of people’s religious beliefs have never really made room for a church/state separation in the first place. If you truly believe that the devout are obligated by their faith in fighting what they percieve as immoral on all fronts, then you also believe that government must be forced to legislate morality. I don’t like such attitudes, but a lot of people in this nation think that way, and they have to be reckoned with.
I speak from my own experience. I am a religious Jew, and my faith does consider male homosexuality – not the feelings but the sex act – a mortal sin. (It also considers lighting a fire on a Saturday a mortal sin, just for perspective.) For a long time, I was a homophobe. I’m still a bit uncomfortable with gay men. I needed to stop thinking of people who happen to be gay/lesbian as “Sinners” or “Deviants,” and to start thinking of them as People. It took a long time, and it took meeting and becoming friends with people who happen to be gay/lesbian. And it took seeing close friends (who my wife and I introduced) falling in love. (It also took Joss Whedon’s perfect portrayal of Willow and Tara as people and not as political statements.)
So I can understand why so many are not happy about this monumental change, why Kerry cannot come out in support of actual marriage at this point. I would give this nation time. Things will change. But it’s not easy. And I think some allowance has to be made for the difficulty the truly devout have in learning
The only thing I cannnot understand is the out and out contempt that Dubya shows for not only gays but for the Constitution. But he has shown time and again that he is a divider, not an uniter, and will work very hard to divide this nation over something that – when compared with the threat of terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq, the messed-up economy – is not a grand issue or something to keep us up at night.
And I thnk all who read my “rant” through from start to finish for not fleeing.
I agree with you about gay marriage.
BTW, your RSS feed doesn’t seem to be working, i haven’t seen any new messages for several days. Just thought you’d like to know.
This is a clear matter of equality: homosexuals having the same rights as every other American. Bush and the other opponents can stand behind whatever shield (church, morals, wording of the law) they want to, it’s still just bullying others because of something they don’t approve of. Equal rights are being violated and there is already an Amendment prohibiting that. It is disgusting how this country tramples on the very principles it was founded on.
PAD,
You left out a question. Given that gays weren’t going to go into male-female marriages anyway, unless as a ‘beard’, what harm does gay marriages actually _do_ to heterosexual marriage?
Another point to ponder. If people can make marriage work despite physical limitations of one or the other — handicap, disfigurement, etc. — we almost universially wax sentimental and applaud it. If the physical condition is that both members of the couple have the same set of genitalia, schisms erupt.
But since I try not to criticize without making useful suggestions, here’s a couple for the Family Values Faction:
1) Make Valentine’s Day a national holiday. You want to promote and sustain marriages? Let people have the day dedicated to romance _off_.
2) Add computer dating options to the IRS forms. Hey, these services match on age and income anyway…
I’m all for gay America creating their own life-long union between two people. Their own version of marrigage. I would back it and respect it entirely. I do however disagree with gay America deciding that the clasical idea of marriage should change for them.
I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don’t have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don’t like it, don’t use it, but don’t expect everything to change because it works out for you.
Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle. I am not calling it socially deviant, but just that it deviates from the norm. Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans. Union between parents equals solid home for new humans to develop in. For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology.
Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little.
Create your own traditions. Say, “hey, we created this thing called Bayrog and its basically a life long union of love between people of the same gender,” and then fight for the rights of Bayrog but don’t go “hey, change that ancient thing you got because I want to be part of it without meeting the one piece of criteria set out.”
My point (if you could call it that) is you don’t have the right to expect change in something that isn’t yours, but you do have the right to create something that is. I’m all for every person on Earth finding love in anyone, but thats really not what this is a debate about. Straight America (the majority anyway) isn’t mad about gays being coupled together legally. Straight America is upset that Gay America is trying to steal their thing.
Viva Le Bayrog
G
It is an incorrect statement to say that Nader is the only candidate in favor of allowing gay marriage. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton both advocate full marriage — not “civil unions,” but legal marriage.
I’d wager that the Libertarian candidate is in favor of allowing it, too — or at least in favor of the government butting out of the question — though I don’t see a statement on the issue on the party’s Web site.
I’m just sick and tired of hearing the excuses in favor of these laws and amendments banning gay marriage.
“It goes again religion”, “ruins family values”, etc etc etc.
A load of bull if you ask me.
Half the people in this country get divorced. So if we let gays and lesbians get married, and they have more success at it than heteros, all the better.
The line about marriage being a religious thing is about as baseless as saying Gore invented the internet.
Marriage was around long before religion came along to screw it up.
And no, “civil union” will NOT work.
It’s just giving gays and lesbians yet another stamp saying that they are second-class citizens.
novice posted:
I’m all for gay America creating their own life-long union between two people. Their own version of marrigage. I would back it and respect it entirely. I do however disagree with gay America deciding that the clasical idea of marriage should change for them.
Yeah, because “seperate but equal” really held up against, oh, Brown vs. the Board of Education…
novice further posted:
I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don’t have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you.
Except that “under god” wasn’t added to the pledge until (if I recall correctly) the 1950s. “Under god” itself was an alteration to the original Pledge.
just further proof that its all a right wing conspiracy.
I fully supoport gay marriage. I think once gay marriage, gays in the military, and sexuality being protected against job discrimination, there will be gay equality. After that, they’re on the same playing field as the rest of us.
Below is a letter I had published in Newsday against the whole concept of “defense of marriage” being used to ban gay marriage. I’d like to add that if a traditional marriage dissolves because that couple can’t handle the idea of gays being married, that marriage had a lot bigger problems than two men or two women marrying each other.
And here’s the letter:
“With the Massachusetts high court ruling allowing gay marriages to finally take place, critics are once again rallying behind the phrase “defense of marriage,” as if the ruling will end existing marriages and prevent any others from taking place. This is absurd. The most frequent arguments against homosexual marriage — it’s not what God wanted, it’s never been done, it will diminish marriage for the rest of us, it’s not healthy for any children — were used with the first interfaith marriages, and the first interracial marriages; and the institution of marriage didn’t vanish. Allowing gays to marry will evolve the meaning of marriage, recognizing the right of loving, adult couples to create a legal, loving bond with each other.”
I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Considering that “under God” wasn’t in the Pledge in the first place, it’s removal is quite acceptable and should be done immediately.
IIRC, the only reason it’s there was to go against the standard Communist hysteria of the time.
No surprise though that I think the Bush Administration is just modern day McCarthyism on display.
Seems to me that instead of a “war on love”, it’s more a “war on semantics”. Churches have been performing marriage ceremonies longer than a lot of countries (including the US) have been around. Let the people that want to be married by clergy do so and call it marriage. Let people that are non religious or don’t fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.
From President Bush’s speach…
“The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.”
I still don’t believe this proposed constitutional ammendment will ever get close to ratification. But the states can chose their own way to recognize same-sex partners. My guess is that there will be an eventual equity in the states as well.
And what president signed the original Defense of Marriage act? No, it wasn’t G. W. Bush.
There was an episode of Cheers where Woody is trying to get a raise from Rebecca. She is only too happy to give it to him; she was afraid he wanted a title.
Rebecca eventually relents though, and gives Woody the title of Senior Bartender, or something similar.
The point I am not getting to all that well is that this is a little more than just a moral issue. It is indeed a moral issue, but don’t forget that there are tax breaks for married people, and allowing same sex life partners married status would put a further drain on our allready failing insurance system.
I think it is a mistake to forget the financial aspect of this debate.
From a proud Conservative.
Without making any judgments on marriage, civil unions, living together, casually dating, or flirting glances…. I would hesitate to amend the constitution for anything. It’s fine the way it is. Did we learn nothing from prohibition?
Let’s also consider the broader implications of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You have the Constitution being amended to include discrimination, instead of removing it. You have the federal government acting very intrusively in the private lives of its citizens, something Republicans have claimed to be against. (“The government is best which governs least,” I believe.) You have a President lumping all judges who interpret the law differently than him as “activist judges” who are eroding the concept of marriage.
Oh yeah, the economy is still in the toilet, U.S. troops are still dying in Iraq, the defecit is ballooning instead of being cut (as Bush promised), state budgets are being slashed to compensate to tax cuts for the wealthiest, and there are more unemployed, uninsured Americans than ever. So let’s have the President worrying about keeping gay couples from marrying. Otherwise the country could be in *real* trouble.
It seems relevant to add this little article to the discussion, which originated from Gator GSA at http://www.GatorGSA.org/gaymarriage.html:
Why Homosexual Marriage Should Not Be Allowed:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
PAD summed up my thoughts on this subject beautifully.
I don’t get it. I understand the moral arguments, but as a Christian, I don’t agree with them. I don’t understand what Bush and some people are afraid of. Yeah, we hear that the institution of marriage is sacred, but as Jon Stewart alluded to last night, it doesn’t affect the ability of straight persons to marry in front of millions of people for money. 😉 The institution was sacred, at one point in our history. Now, with a divorce rate of around 50% and the institution routinely being disregarded or abused, why not let two people who love one another marry? What are we afraid of?
And if we’re that serious about preserving the sanctity of the institution of marriage, why not make it illegal to obtain divorces?
Honestly, I think it comes down to moral bigotry, and nothing more. I was actually talking to my sister this weekend, and she said that the only reason she opposed it was because it might lead to higher insurance costs because more people would be covered who might not actually “love” one another. I replied, “Um…that can happen now. Two platonic friends of the opposite sex could conceivably marry to receive insurance benefits.” She thought for a second and said, “Well, you’re right. That’s true.” Other than that, she seemed to agree with me.
Bottom line: I’ve heard the arguments, but I think for many people it boils down to moral bigotry. Some people don’t want to acknowledge that homosexuals can have equally fulfilling and lasting and significant relationships with one another as straight people. I’m not saying its malicious or mean-spirited, just that at bottom, it’s what this issue is about for many.
I just hate the role that religion plays in it. I have to sigh when people claiming to provide the “Christian perspective” start talking about the issue and the moral implications. There is no one Christian “perspective,” no one Jewish “perspective,” no single Islamic “perspective.” Yeah, the text of the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran all speak against homosexual acts, but personally, I’m a Christian who lives in more enlightened times and believes in a God of love, and if God is a God of love, why would He want his children to be unhappy? Why would he want to deny them the joy that comes with love?
I just don’t understand. I honestly don’t.
**Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans. Union between parents equals solid home for new humans to develop in. For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology.
Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little.**
This is one my brother tryed on me…gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because marriage is to propogate the species.
So my question is ‘Why do we allow straight people that can’t have children to be married?’
If marriage is just to be egg+sperm=baby, then I have friends that shouldn’t be married because, for various reasons they can’t have kids.
People work really hard to try to act like they aren’t bigots, but in reality what they are saying is ‘those people aren’t like me, they are wrong’.
I don’t understand how anyone–including Bush–can advocate a ban on gay marriage. And Kerry’s no different. “Let’s have civil unions instead.” Because separate but equal is a time honored tradition in bias, and apparently gays are the new Negros.
Americans, as a whole, will be ready for gay marriages when Americans as a whole are ready to eliminate gender-specific bathrooms (Starship Troopers, anyone?).
I well and truly want to take the Declaration of Independance and smack Bush upside the head with it a few dozen times.
This gay marriage ban is ridiculous and an insult to everything our country was founded upon.
And if Bush thinks athiests aren’t true citizens, I tell him to come and do his worst. I stopped believing in gods of any kind way back when… And seeing what’s becoming of the world has only convinced me more than ever. What’s the worst he can do? Declare War Against Non-Believers?
Yeesh, and people wonder why terrorists and other countries hate us. Our own leaders can’t even obey the dictates of our country’s charter.
I read the headline on CNN.com this morning and grew furious. This President…he…I can’t…
AHHHRGG!!!!
Ðámņ, that didn’t make me feel any better.
…still stewing…
I would really like an answer to Mitch’s question myself. How does a gay marriage invalidate a straight marriage? I just don’t understand.
For me, personally, it’s never been a question of ‘the straights have it, so I want it.’ As long as I can remember, I’ve always felt that I would find someone I loved and get married. Why should that be denied to me? Am I not an intelligent, caring, and loving individual, with the same capacity to love, honor, cherish, and obey as any other?
Random Thought #1: I wonder, how much this is a personal thing, versus a political. I mean, how much does the government (and corporations, in general) stand to lose, if another whole group of people in the country become eligible for marriage tax breaks and such…?
Random Thought #2: If marriage is about sperm + egg, as it has been mentioned, should couples who don’t plan to have children be allowed to marry?
Random Thought #3: As to “the Gays” stealing from “the Straights”, ummm, how childish is that?? Not to mention, how is it that marriage belongs solely to them? Have they worked for it, or is it just something that has always been there?
Last random thought… supposedly, this is about protecting the sanctity of marriage, correct? Then why are divorces legal?
There was an episode of Cheers where Woody is trying to get a raise from Rebecca. She is only too happy to give it to him; she was afraid he wanted a title.
The irony here is that Rebecca was scamming Woody. She eventually convinced him to accept a title instead of a raise.
Whew… In between trying to work and pound out the above rant… it looks like quite a few people brought up the same points I was ranting about…
Let people that are non religious or don’t fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.
I’m sorry, does this then mean that my marriage to my wife is null and void?
We didn’t go to any religious official for his “approval” of my marriage.
So, your argument doesn’t hold water – plenty of people are MARRIED without religion being involved whatsoever.
I have no problem with gay marriage but keep in mind that 75% of the US does not support homosexuals at all let alone marriage.
that isn’t the percentage of people burning gays at the stake, its the percentof people who would just not have them exist if they could
Simple solution: eliminate all goverment connections to ALL marriages. After all, a marriage is a religious ceremony. Get rid of the state licenses, the tax breaks, etc for married couples. Leave it to the church only. Then if a particular church want to marry a man to a rock or a fish, whatever, it won’t really matter!!
Now, I’m being sarcastic, of course. Me and my girlfiend plan on getting married and, naturally, want the license, church ordained ceremony, taxes breaks, the whole nine yards. But, the way I see it, if this issue isn’t resolved, then what I said above maybe the only solution.
Novice: Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little. Create your own traditions.
Yeah, because New Coke and Olestra worked out so well… It’s not just that homosexuals want the legal right to wed; they want to share the same prestige a heterosexual union enjoys. Creating their own tradition is tantamount to accepting a second-class citizen status. That’s what this is all about: one group is being excluded from enjoying the rights and privledges of the whole, and the proposed Constitutional Amendment would ensure that exclusion. The Constitution and its amendments currently ennumerate what rights American citizens do have… should we start amending it to ennumerate the rights we don’t have?
And why does it have to be gay America and straight America? Can’t it just be America? You know, ‘with liberty and justice for all?’
-That OTHER John Byrne
“I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don’t have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don’t like it, don’t use it, but don’t expect everything to change because it works out for you.”-novice.
Um, didn’t it come out during that whole stink many months back that the original version of the pledge *didn’t* have that wording until several years later?
“For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology”-novice.
Except that, biologically speaking, a sperm and egg can create new life and be raised happy and healthy regardless of marriage.
Paraphrazing The Daily Show episode I mentioned earlier, Steven Colbert said “My wife and I got out of spite because it’s the one thing gays can’t do”. Or something like that.
And, again referencing the same show, if we make an amendment to ban gay marriage, shouldn’t we make one to ban infidelity/adultery? How about banning married individuals from going to strip clubs?
Monkeys.
How about this: If you want to be unioned in the eye of the state, get a license from the state.
If you want to be married in the eyes of God get married by a member of the clergy.
Makes perfect sense to me — I’ve been thinking for quite a while that separating the legal and religious aspects of marriage would be an ideal way to go.
(Of course, it takes a wedge issue off the table, which is probably why no one would propose doing that…)
Bush doesn’t believe in a separation of church and state. Neither do many members of his inner circle. Remember when Bush the elder said that atheists weren’t real citizens?
I certainly do. I’d only recently become old enough to vote at the time. Made that choice pretty easy.
TWL
I reguard it about the same as people who want to omit “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want to write a new Pledge, go nuts, but you don’t have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you. Don’t like it, don’t use it, but don’t expect everything to change because it works out for you.
Except, of course, that “under God” was ADDED to the Pledge about fifty years ago as a way of separating us from those darned godless commie types. By your logic, those two words should never have been added and Michael Newdow’s suit is only taking things back to the way they were.
I see your point about marriage, though I’m not certain I agree with it — you just picked a fairly bad example in this case.
TWL
Bush’s pronouncement is so not-smart on so many levels that it boggles the mind.
It doesn’t make political sense to me — my guess is that it will cost him more moderate-Republican votes than the Democrats will lose to Nader.
It doesn’t make historical sense; marriage is not the simple equation Bush suggested — not in Islam, not in ancient China or Egypt (or Ireland!), not in Mormon practice.
And it doesn’t make legal sense — the real reason that judges are visiting these issues isn’t activism; it’s that the body of law on equal protection and non-discrimination is colliding with the body of law regulating the legal, social, and economic benefits available to married persons.
There are numerous sound legal and political reasons to better define and distinguish the religious and civil components of marriage — but a Constitutional amendment is the wrong way to go about it.
Scripture teaches that homosexual sex (and all sex outside of marriage) is wrong. But quoting Scripture verses fails to convince secular people and feeds the stereotype that people like myself are Bible-thumping hicks.
Rather I, and many others, try to argue on grounds of the common good. And our case is powerful.
Lets start with a premise everyone agrees upon…Family breakdown is a bad thing. Advocates of same-sex “marriages” don’t disagree but deny that changing the legal definition of marriage and family contributes to family breakdown. Who is harmed, they ask, if the quiet gay couple next door acquires legal rights formerly reserved to husbands and wives? After all, they argue, it is just a matter of civil rights that the same-sex couple should receive the same legal treatment.
But look where expanding the definition leads. Why stop with two gays? How about one man and three women? (Polygamy is now outlawed, but how long could it remain so?) What about a communal group? And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant? Clearly in time, the traditional family declines.
and apparently gays are the new Negros.
It is not a civil-rights issue to deny gays equal rights. Society often confers special benefits in order to achieve a social goal, as with tax incentives for investment or exemptions for nonprofits, which do social good. Does this give other taxpayers grounds to claim discrimination? Of course not.
This is why throughout Western history benefits have been reserved for heterosexual marriage. It serves the public interest to encourage the institution that propagates the human race.
But the gay activists argue that a gay couple can provide just as stable an environment for raising children. They are, however, dead wrong. For one thing, they overlook the predominantly short-term, nonexclusive character of most gay relationships.
But the real flaw in their case is the natural order. Kids have a hard-wired psychological need for two parents, one of each sex. That is not to denigrate single parents; many go to heroic lengths to give stability to children. (Prisoners’ families struggling to keep the family together know this.) But children raised without a father or a mother experience real loss. Robert Knight of the Family Research Council has written of the lesbian activist who told a meeting of the like-minded that her two-year-old son, conceived through artificial insemination, had one day said, out of nowhere: “My daddy is far away.” If he had been raised by two men, he would have missed his mother just as much. Kids need both.
What is really happening here? As in the movements for easier divorce, emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.
Kids need both.
What’s your point?
Kids today aren’t getting both, and it doesn’t have a dámņ thing to do with homosexuals in the world getting married or otherwise.
It’s like some people expect that the banning of homosexual marriages will suddenly fix the problems with heterosexual marriages.
God are they f*cking wrong.
Craig J. Ries, You need to read my post again. I never said that the ban of homosexual marriages would solve the problems with familys today.
In fact I wrote:
As in the movements for easier divorce, emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.
Well, now, hold on there.
1) What IS so wrong about polygamy? “My religion tells me so” isn’t an acceptable answer in my book.
2) What would be wrong with a communal marriage, other than religious objections?
What incentive was there for me and my wife to get married?
For one thing, social approval from our friends and family, which will still be there regardless of what kind of marriages are allowed, for one thing.
Legal rights to property, visitation, health care, etc were part of it, but much of it was both our sets of parents were married, and we both expected to be married at some point. Just as much as we both expected to go to college. NOT getting married once I’d found the One simply wasn’t part of my thinking.
But the thing is, even if there were homosexual or group marriages… what we wanted was a two-person marriage between US. I don’t really care what other units do, as long as they pay their taxes, obey the law, and if they have kids, treat them well and raise them to be good citizens… that’s all I can hope for.
I reject the (in my view unsupported) premise that the traditional family will decline (more than it already has!) due to gay marriage or even polygamy.
Show some actual evidence for that statement, and I might consider it.
If you want to blame anything for the decline of the traditional family, blame economic opportunity for women. That dratted Rosie the Riveter just ruined many marriages!
/sarcasm.
It’s not like polygamy, f’r instance, is some new-off-the-block institution in human society… it’s been around a long time. If it didn’t work to ensure resource allocation and breeding of children, it wouldn’t have ever happened. But it has, in society after society. And I, for one, don’t consider it morally wrong. Who am I to say that? If it’s voluntarily entered into, and actually benefits those in the relationship… why is it my business?
If you’re against the predominantly short-term nonexclusive character of many gay relationships (as if that doesn’t also describe nonmarried heterosexual behavior)… why wouldn’t there be an advantage to legally binding two men or two women together, so that they’d need to go to divorce court (just like us straights) to prove that they really should desolve their union?
Isn’t that a higher standard of togetherness than a purely voluntary relationship?
I come from a Catholic background and have always been more conservative then less. The Catholic church and most other christian chrches preach that marriage between any combination other than man and woman is wrong. That is their right and within the confines of their churches they get to determine who gets married. On the other hand my beliefs are, exactly that, my beliefs – not the beliefs of everone in this country. Those beliefs should NOT be imposed on those who do not believe what I believe. That is the thing with religion if you are a member of a certain faith, in theory, you live by the rules of that faith. So an individul church can and should deny a marriage between a same sex couple if it is against their faith. That is one of many reasons why there are civil wedding ceremonies. People who do want to get married within a particular faith can still be joined together (and have all the legal benefits of being married), not in the eyes of God but under the authority of a state. To me there seems to be no reason other than religious ones to prevent people of the same sex from getting married. The notion of ammending the constitution to preclude gay and lesbian marrianges is simply ludacris. Because when it really comes right down to it other than the couple, their family and friends, who really cares if a couple of the same sex gets married. Does it hurt me? Does it hurt you? No. And that seems to be the reason for the constitution – in one way or another to protect us from being hurt by others, by companies or by the government.
And for me, most dámņìņg of all…how can anyone remotely pretend that there is a separation of church and state in this country when the government is endeavoring to tell religious institutions what they can and cannot do?
Because that’s your interpretation of what the constitution says about seperation of church & state. The other interpretation which could be linked back to the founding father’s version is that the government cannot setup and create it’s own religion — kind of what the settlers were trying to get away from, hmmm?
And it’s not that the government is telling religious institutions what to do, it’s trying. Biiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.
If gay marraige is such a big deal, then why aren’t the gay & lesbian groups trying to CHANGE the law and create their own constitutional amendment that allows gay marraige. It’s only now after laws have been broken by activist judges and rogue mayors that decide breaking the law is ok that this amendment has to be done.
It was Bill Clinton himself that signed the defense of marraige act while he was in office that specifically states that a marraige is between a man and a woman and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON (to this extent) SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS SAYING IT WAS A PROBLEM but by god himself because George Bush is a Republican and he is following the polls in the country, (which he has rarely done to the extent of Clinton who polled people on where he should go on vacation and what he should wear) and his beliefs, it is a problem, it is the harshest thing in the world to do to these people, and he has no business doing this. And most of all, as was posted above, it’s “a right wing conspiracy”.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
Craig J. Ries, You need to read my post again. I never said that the ban of homosexual marriages would solve the problems with familys today.
But you insinuate that it will continue to exasperate the current problems with families today, yet you have little in the way of proof beyond “kids need both parents”.
Which is why I commented on the fact that kids aren’t getting that as it is, so how could it even be a consideration?
Why doesn’t anybody consider the fact that having two parents, regardless of sex, is better than one?
If gay marraige is such a big deal, then why aren’t the gay & lesbian groups trying to CHANGE the law and create their own constitutional amendment that allows gay marraige.
How can you get a law saying yes when there are already existing laws (on the state level) saying no? You can’t.
Which is why they’ve done what they’ve done, and I salute them for it.
“And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant? Clearly in time, the traditional family declines.”-Tichy
I didn’t realize marriage was such a horrible burden that incentive was needed other than love to partake in one. I think traditional families have already declined, and nothing is going to get us back to where they were. Times they are a changin’, we all need to adapt and keep moving forward.
“It serves the public interest to encourage the institution that propagates the human race.” -Tichy
Propagating the human race…don’t we already have an overpopulation problem? Aren’t we rapidly depleting natural resources, let alone running out of spaces to house people? Homosexuality should be encouraged in some ways, because it’s like natural population control. We use science and medicine to prevent diseases from keeping our population in check, and we don’t have any natural predators at this point, and I guarantee there will never be a “human hunting season”. Gay families could adopt all the orphaned children. I do agree to a certain extent that a young child needs the interaction with and influence of a parent of both sexes, but two parents of one sex are better than no parents at all.
And as far as the comment that most gay couplings are short-term and nonexclusive, either/or 1) you don’t know many gay people 2) you haven’t closely examined the heterosexual divorce rate and the growing numbers of infidelity.
Monkeys
I’ll speak only for myself. When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed (in 1996?)… I was paying precisely zero attention to politics. None. It wasn’t relevant to my life at the time.
I sincerely doubt that “not one person” spoke up about it at the time… but … I wasn’t paying attention then.
Why aren’t the gays demanding a Constitutional Amendment? Well, for one thing, legal marriage rights aren’t enshrined in the Constitution, but in state and federal law. Why should there NEED to be a constitutional amendment specifically permitting gay marriage? That’s a weak argument, I have to say.
… I also don’t think anyone arguing for gay marriage is saying that any Church will be either required to recognize or required to perform a marriage ceremony for gay people.
Me and my wife had a civil ceremony, with a civil practitioner. Are we somehow not “really” married because we weren’t married by a priest / rabbi / etc? Y’all can have your own opinions on that matter, but in the eyes of the law, we’re quite married thankyouverymuch… and that’s what I care about. The eyes of the law and our friends and families.
I’m sure there are religious folk who would say that you’re not “really” married if your union wasn’t blessed by the Church, and they’re entitled to their opinion, but I’d suggest they not say such to my face.
Does any Church need to recognize OUR marriage? Nope. Do I care if they don’t? Nope. I care if the IRS recognizes it, I care if hospitals / doctors recognize it, I care if the health insurance industry recognizes it.
Whether any particular Church or religious person recognizes my marriage matters to me not on whit.
Or not “one” whit as the case may be. (grumble grumble lack of editing function grumble grumble)…
James Tichy: It is not a civil-rights issue to deny gays equal rights. Whoa. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the denial of the equal right of a person or group to do something the very definition of a civil rights issue?
But the gay activists argue that a gay couple can provide just as stable an environment for raising children. They are, however, dead wrong. For one thing, they overlook the predominantly short-term, nonexclusive character of most gay relationships. Wow… so then, by that rationale, everyone who was a teenager between 1969 and the closing of Studio 54 shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, either?
…[C]hildren raised without a father or a mother experience real loss. So do people who were raised without brothers and sisters, or people who were born without arms or legs, but that doesn’t automatically prevent them from becoming stable, productive, loving people.
Sorry to pick on you, James, but some of your statements invite criticism.
-tOjb