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
• 
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.
It doesn’t change for them. Marriage is the union between two people, theoretically in love with each other. It means they are recognized as married – they get to file their taxes together, and they recieve tax breaks because of their union.
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.
Dude, no one’s altering ANYTHING. They just want to be married.
Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans.
Uh, no, that’s called “reproduction.” You don’t have to be married to reproduce, you just have to have unprotected sex with a fertile member of the opposite gender.
For all the pomp and circumstance you want to fuel marriage with, its based on biology.
No, marriage is based on love. Sexual attraction is based on biology.
Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little.
You’re the one who wants to change the tradition, not them. Homosexuals want to be able to marry the people they love – just like other people have throughout history. You are the one saying “no, too bad, we’re going to forbid it.” Why? Let’s face it – you’re opposed to it because it creeps you out.
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.
Yeah, what’s next, they’re going to want to drink from the same water fountain as us? Ðámņ them!
It takes courage for you to support something so absurd as banning gay marriages, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s all about changing people’s legal rights because somebody finds it creepy that two guys or girls want to be legally married.
It sounds to me that it could be the same exact thing as marriage – carry the same legal benefits for the couple, entail the same sort of ceremony, but you don’t want to call it “marriage.”
That’s just weird.
Although Balder, if you think Bush doesn’t follow the polls closely… I’d suggest you’re either naive, or have listened to too much propaganda; and it’s rich hearing you complain about “Clinton timing his vacations to polls” when Bush here has taken the most vacation time of any President in US history to my knowledge.
Good thing to complain about.
From Jeff
Let people that are non religious or don’t fall into the churches view get joined by a governmental official.
From Craig J. Ries
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.
My arguement is saying exactly what you and your wife did. It doesn’t mean it’s null and void. It holds the exact same rights as a marriage officiated by the clergy.
My point, since you missed it, is that there should (and I believe will) be the choice for all people to form a union (marriage, bayrog, whatever).
Monkeys,
Yeah, that piece last night was brilliant! I don’t know if Colbert writes his own stuff or not, but eitherway, his delivery on it is awesome
My point, since you missed it, is that there should (and I believe will) be the choice for all people to form a union (marriage, bayrog, whatever).
But some people want to allow gays to marry while calling it something else so it isn’t *quite* marriage.
Becuase, you know, marriage is a religious thing, ya?
Peter wrote:
>How can anyone claim they are compassionate and deny people in love?
I think this firmly puts the nail in the “compassionate conservative” coffin.
In regards to the tax breaks married people supposedly get, what are they? Up until this year, the standard deduction for a married couple was less than twice that of a single person. That seems like a penalty to me. This year the standard deduction for a married couple is exactly twice that of a single person. So were there other tax breaks in other areas?
This will be my longest post ever, but there are so many points to address.
How about this: If you want to be unioned in the eye of the state, get a license from the state.
Except many states are passing laws to PREVENT this from happening, as well as laws being passed that say 1 state will not recognize the marriage from another state. This is what the “defense of marriage” act is about – outlawing one state from recognizing the gay marriage from another state. And the constitutional amendment would make it illegal for any state to allow gay marriages, wether that state wants to or not.
but you don’t have the right, in my opinion, to alter something that existed before you.
So the people who opposed discrimination in the 60’s were wrong to do so because discrimination existed before they were born? Or a hundred years earlier people who opposed slavery were wrong because slavery existed before they were born?
By this logic, The United States should still be a collection of British colonies becausethey were British colonies before the founding fathers were born & they shouldn’t have tried to change that.
Marriage is based on a pretty simple concept: Sperm + Egg = New humans
WRONG! This concept is called procreation. Marriage is not required for procreation, so why should procreation be required for marriage? If procreation were required for marriage, then the elderly, impotent, barren, or anyone else who cannot, or chooses not to have children would not be allowed to marry.
hey, change that ancient thing you got because I want to be part of it without meeting the one piece of criteria set out
So Martin Luther & all members of prostant religions are wrong?
Why gay America would expect or even want age-old traditions to change for them baffles me a little. Create your own traditions.
That’s fine if the new traditions will have the same legal protections & benefits as the old-age traditional ones. Otherwise gays only have what they have now – which is no legal protections for their lifelong partners.
If you want to blame anything for the decline of the traditional family, blame economic opportunity for women.
Actuallt, Pat Robertson already did this a couple of years ago. During the recession of the first Bush, Robertson was talking about the reasons for the shortage of jobs. “Women in the workplace, taking jobs from men” was one of them. Corporate downsizing, factories being moved out of the country were not.
And it’s not that the government is telling religious institutions what to do, it’s trying.
No it’s not. A state sanctioned marriage would not be required to be recognized by the churches. They would be civil marriages, not religious.
If gay marraige is such a big deal, then why aren’t the gay & lesbian groups trying to CHANGE the law
What the hëll do you think they’ve been trying to do?
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
1) So all of a sudden, Clinton did it, so it’s okay?
2) Plenty of people opposed it. But it didn’t get much media coverage because it was still a relatively new issue at the time.
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.
I guess we’d better not encourage them to marry, then, right?
As a gay man, I have to say it just made my day to read so many intelligent, thoughtful comments from a group of mostly straight men. Thank you guys.
I hope everyone here votes on Election Day.
I’m a gay man with a “spouse” of five years. I want marriage because its something concrete that I can announce to all my friends and family. I am married (now give me my wedding gifts). I also want marriage so I can refer to my husband as my “husband” not my life partner or my civil unionized male significant other.
I also want to avoid what happened a year ago when my “spouse” was hospitilied after a car accident and I was not concidered family. The Hospital had to contact his mother hundreds of miles away.
When we enter old age I want to be able to inherit his social security(ha ha like that will be around).
I do feel like a second class citizen sometimes. I wonder if science had a way to correct the gay gene would America look at it as correcting a deviant behavior or genocide.
I have stated how changing the legal definition of marriage and family contributes to family breakdown. Your responses are not deniels but rather “So what? Heterosexual marriages are having their own problems.” This, in your mind, seems to put me in my place.
Rather I’m stating that the selfish emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society. To stretch the word marriage to fit any living situation is to make the word lose all meaning. And to ask the government to comply with such a scheme is to ask it to abdicate one of its most important responsibilities. When the government sanctions marriage, it is recognizing that marriage is the foundational structure of our society. It is not just a “private” institution; it’s a public one. The well-being of children, the emotional and physical health of adults, even the state of the workforce—all of these are tied to the existence of stable marriages and families. Obviously, the government has a legitimate interest in promoting the public good.
Anarchy in the area of marriage, as in any other area, leads to chaos, and the unraveling of society.
Oh, and proof-reading after you post is a bad idea. Please forgive my errors! 🙂
My wife and I have had a great deal of difficulty having children, and have not yet been successful. Are you (novice, for example) saying that we should not be married because of our failure to procreate?
For those against gay marriage because of the PROMISCUITY issue… I believe there is a reason they are called the “bonds of matrimony.” Marriage is a legally binding commitment to the other person. Of course, people break those commitments, but it is much harder to divorce a spouse than it is to “break up with” a boy- or girlfriend.
I know that the fact of my marriage has helped me uphold my commitment in difficult situations when, lacking a solemn vow, I might have left. Instead of leaving, I stayed and honored my commitment. Why should we deny the right to make this legally binding bond available to everyone?
Gay marriage => polygamy, bëšŧìálìŧÿ, etc… Oh, come on. What, is gay marriage a “gateway institution”? Is it the equivalent of marijuana, that famous gateway drug? Gay marriage does not change any of the basic precepts of marriage: Exactly two SENTIENT people legally bound as members of the same family. The idea of dividing up our society based on sex is as bigoted and ridiculous as dividing our society based on race, intelligence, or religion. While individuals can discriminate all they want, the government must not discriminate. Since ONLY the idea of sex-based marriage is being challenged, and not the BASIC STRUCTURE of the legal arrangement itself, there is no reason to believe that gay marriage will lead to bëšŧìálìŧÿ.
This argument is actually based on the notion of homosexuality as “deviant” like polygamy, bëšŧìálìŧÿ, pedophilia, etc. If we allow one form of “deviance,” it follows that we will soon allow others. Notice, however, that while most equal treatment clauses note that a particular institution may not discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, creed, or sexual orientation, they never argue that it is okay to have sex with animals or children. Bëšŧìálìŧÿ and pedophelia involve a NON-CONSENTING participant; gay marriage does not do so any more than straight marriage. Therefore, the main connection mainly comes from religious beliefs, which do not justify legal action.
Wake up. The vast majority of this nation’s fear of homosexuality is based on RELIGIOUS BELIEF, not on a demonstrable danger to the welfare of society. While democracy is based on majority rule, we must also avoid one of the chief pitfalls of democracy, which is majority tyrrany. We must protect the rights of the minority whether we like them or not.
This is a civil rights issue. Period.
Eric
Rather I’m stating that the selfish emotional demands of adults are being elevated over objective needs of children and the welfare of society.
Part of the problem, James, is that you too also automatically associate a marriage as a family that must have children.
I’m married but plan to have no children. So, children is a non-factor.
People seem to forget those little bits of “non-factor” possibilities when discussing this issue.
Maybe people should just get over the fact that marriage isn’t only about adding to the gene pool down the road.
How about we accept the amendment….and then also change the law that there has to be a civil union before any marriage benefits are incurred? Make marriage legally the lesser prospect!
I could really care less about what two consenting adults wish to do. Straight, gay, bi, whatever. Two people are asking for the world to recognize that love is love, and that they’ll be spending the rest of their lives together!
I’m STILL voting for Pat Paulsen.
Oh, yeah. PS and stuff:
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
Oh, boy.
1) Just because the media didn’t hit it hard doesn’t mean no one spoke up.
2) The DOM Act (ha!) didn’t effectively change the status quo. If I pass a law tomorrow making it illegal to murder puppies, would I make news?
3) Clinton, like Kerry, was a politician. To have taken a stand on such an unpopular issue would have seriously hurt his future and his party’s future. I’m not saying that this is a good thing, but it’s the way of the world.
4) YOUR OWN EXAMPLE PROVES THE NEED FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. Working “within the system” when the basic beliefs of the majority are against the minority to which you belong has never been an effective tool. Ever. Should African-Americans have kept working as slaves and “worked the system” on their abundant spare time? Should Rosa Parks have given up her seat and filed a complaint? Should the American colonists have tried to overcome their taxation problems by becoming elected to Parliament?
We are a nation of revolutionaries. That we now try to fight wars without violence whenever possible is a tribute to Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but it does not change the fact that our nation was founded in revolution and protest. We should never forget that it has always been the (officially) voiceless MINORITY that has pushed for the big changes that we now all take for granted.
Sorry for the all caps up there.
Eric
James Tichy: I have stated how changing the legal definition of marriage and family contributes to family breakdown. Your responses are not deniels but rather “So what? Heterosexual marriages are having their own problems.”
I’d say the vast majority to your responses weren’t “so what?”s, but rather “that’s got nothing to do with being homosexual”s. Each of the examples you cited as contributing to the breakdown of families (single parents, short-term relationships) would be there even if homosexuality didn’t exist. Therefore, it stands to reason that forbidding gays to marry for the reasons you enumerated will have little ameliorating impact on the family breakdown phenomenon.
Not that I support families breaking down, or even deny that it’s a problem (because it is), but to my mind, allowing gay marriage doesn’t exacerbate those problems, either. Allowing gays to marry and have families would likely only add to the number of statistical examples without bucking the trend too far in either direction. In fact, I’d postulate that allowing gay families into the sample would show an increase in the number of cohesive families, if only because gays would want have something to prove and be on their ‘best behavior’ with their new-found right.
Which is basically a cold and clinical way to say that homosexual families may turn out to be more cohesive than heterosexual families, statistically, and that their statistics may boost the overall statistic when added into the sample. (Please note that I’m no statistician, so I’m probably misusing my terms and may very well be presenting my case wrong, though I trust you all can see what I’m trying to say.)
In any event, if you can’t prove that allowing gay marriage would result in more family breakdown, rather than just supposing it will, you’re basically just underlining faults that would be there regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.
-tOjb
Check out the Onion web page. Hilarious.
–jay
James said, “Scripture teaches that homosexual sex (and all sex outside of marriage) is wrong.”
That’s right, it does. The same scripture also says that adulterers must be stoned to death, that one should not be a moneylender, and that certain foods should never be eaten, among many other teachings that are not being called for by anyone to be signed into law, much less amended to the Constitution.
This is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion of bigotry and discrimination that uses religion as a means of justification. If Bush was calling for the death penalty for adulterers, I’d believe this was a religious issue.
If you’re going to be holier-than-thou, you don’t get to cherrypick the parts of the Bible that happen to match your own prejudices.
—KRAD
Let’s be brutally honest here. Bush didn’t loudly proclaim his support for a constitutional amendment on marriage because it’s what he truly believes. He did it because his job approval numbers are slipping, he’s getting sniped at from all corners from those dámņëd Democrats (who refuse to play by the rules and be nice while being smacked by Republicans), the war in Iraq is looking more miserable every day, and he had to do something, anything, that might rouse some support from his core followers.
Trouble is, I do believe this is going to backfire on him bigtime. For the first time in a long while, I think Dubya’s hold on the White House is vulnerable. His people aren’t used to playing defense, and it shows. Badly.
I have no problem with gay marriage whatsoever. It’s more than a license, it’s a promise, a committment between two people that whatever may come, they will face it together. Never underestimate the power of a promise.
JSM
Children need love, protection, food, and shelter. What makes you think a gay or lesbian couple cannot provide all of these as well as a heterosexual couple? And your argument that a child needs a parent of each sex does not hold water. Many people have been raised as healthy happy individuals without the benefit of a typical nuclear family. This is the rebuttal, which others have made before me. No one has said so what, but have been denying the validity of your words. It truly angers me that instead of trying to find common ground and allowing people to live with dignity, some of these posters would rather champion the status quo. People should have the right to love and live the life they want, with all the benefits of the majority of society without having the government interfere.
I say screw it. No one gets married.
No one. I don’t care if you’re a straight man, a gay woman, whatever…let’s just get rid of it. I’m tired of hearing people use the arguments James Tichy does above. My mother and father were married for three decades, and all I got out of their marriage was the pain of repeated beatings and psychotic ranting about Jesus. Gay people weren’t to blame for that marriage falling apart…the heterosexual man and heterosexual woman in it (especially the man, who drank, cheated, and abused) were. No one else. Denying gay men and women the right to marry wouldn’t have done squat to protect this particular child from that bad union, or millions of others.
I would have rather had two happy gay parents than two miserable straight ones.
I started writing this two hours ago and had to do real work in my office, so I appologize in advance for its probable appearance as a non-sequitor
Talking about the supposed non-permanence of gay relationships as an arguement against allowing gay marriage is flawed. It pre-supposes that all gay couples will desire to get married. I don’t know how many millions of heterosexual people in this country are living together outside of wedlock, to say nothing of those who are simply “shacking up” on occasion. I’m sure a good many of their relationships lack a high degree of permanence as well. Some of these people go on to get married and contribute to the 50% divorce rate right along with the people who are virgins until their wedding night.
It’s as false to say that every gay couple will desire marriage, as it is to say that every strait couple will. Also, claiming that gay marriages are inherently unstable is just wishful thinking, because noone knows. It hasn’t happened in American Society. You can’t use the current gay couples as a predictor because we don’t know which ones are actually willing to commit to an actual marriage…because we haven’t let them.
One last comment. The huge numbers of people flocking to the places that are currently issuing marriage licenses are not a good predictor either. The lines have the contributing factors that there are very few places that will issue the licenses and it’s entirely unclear how long the practice will continue. Many couples are getting married now because they may never be able to get married at a later date. If I had to choose to get married within the the next month or never…well, it would be never for me because I’m not romantically involved with anyone at the moment but I understand established couples making the decision to marry now.
In case it isn’t obvious by now, I’m in favor of letting gay couples marry and enjoying the same legal rights that strait couples get. I’m not looking forward to the inevitable reality-show of gay marriage elimination (I don’t watch reality tv, but the commercials are annoying enough to evoke dread on this front) or the media frenzy of the first divorce of prominent gay couple, however.
Oh, and by the way, in case it wasn’t obvious: I’m *for* greater economic opportunities for women, and I’m fine with incompatible people getting divorced.
But I do think that the fact that women aren’t effectively stuck with whatever idiot they marry to make sure they and their hypotethetical kids are taken care of has a lot to do with the divorce rate.
And I’m sure not looking to roll back economic opportunites for women to keep the “traditional American family” together.
However, I’m all for people in bad marriages, especially ones without children, severing their union. IF it can be worked out, I believe it should, but at some point, if you’re really incompatible, give it up!
I’m not 100% certain, but I believe people were actually having sex (and heterosexual couples were even having children!) way before there ever were religiously “ordained”/government approved marriages.
The “sacrament” of marriage is not (believe it or not) even a Christian invention, unless you believe the wedding Christ attended was the FIRST marriage (oh, but that would mean that Mary and Joseph were not married, and that would make Jesus a ….!).
Personally, I believe marriage is primarily a legal contract anyway. It’s been used to seal land deals (various royal alliances) for thousands of years.
I am in favor of gay marriage (I am a married heterosexual male myself). This ridiculous ban is nothing more than bigotry and bullying, forcing someone else do do (or not do) something that doesn’t affect them at all, simply because they don’t like it.
And how is a family, gay or otherwise, paying MORE for family insurance coverage supposed to raise the cost of insurance (besides the thieving insurance companies raising prices just because they can)?
The stupidity of the human race just astonishes me!
When I got married, I did so after a life-long lack of a single everlasting relationship. Just like every other person who has ever been married.
BTW, thanks for the well stated assessment, KRAD. I have found myself unable to articulate that with a satisfactory degree of clarity. I’m so glad someone did.
Eric
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.”
All the talk about this so far has been about the gay marriages, but I’ve debated that ad nauseum on the internet against fanatics for it to get me started again. This ethical dilemma, on the other hand, is a peach. I’m all for seperation of church and state, and the freedom to practice whatever religion you want, but in every case the state draws a line where the rights of others are infringed upon ie. no more human sacrifices allowed. In this particular case, the state has decided between the conflicting rights of the parent and the child (to religious freedom and best possible chance to live respectively). It comes down on the side of the child, basically because life is more important than anything else. Putting myself in the child’s shoes, I can’t say that I’m against it in the end- I hope the state would ignore my parents wishes in this case and cure me. And If I was the parents, then sure as hëll no religion would be as important to me as the life of my child.
Just my thinking on the issue. And I hope it wasn’t related to the health of your niece, to whom I wish a speedy recovery.
OK, ignore everything I just said because I just re-read what you wrote, and I seemed to have missed 1 tiny little word last time: “not”
My apologies.
And just one more thing regarding the idea that God said homosexuality is a sin: I have never heard him say it. Oh, I have heard over and over from other people what they say God has said, but until I speak directly to the guy face to face, it’s just heresay. Frankly, I am far less likely to support someone’s idea based on what they believe God said.
Homosexuality may or may not be a sin (most of the passages that I’ve been shown to say it was seem to be coming down on allowing sexual relations to interfere with your relationship with God, which happens as easily for heterosexual relationships as for homosexual); I tend to come down on the side of believing it is, but I also think premarital sex (and any number of other things that I’ve done — that one just seems the most relevant) is a sin, so it’d be pretty hypocritical of me to condemn someone else when I’m far from perfect myself.
Regardless of whether it’s a sin or not, though, the government has no business mandating morality. Honestly, even assuming that homosexual marriages are “immoral,” forcing them to do what is “right” seems pretty counterproductive. Either they’ll end up resenting me for trying, or they’ll obey reluctantly, which isn’t what God wants in the first place.
If it were up to me, I’d do away with the legal construct of a marriage and make all legal unions “civil unions.” I’d allow churches to decide whether or not they want to marry a given couple, and whether they’d ‘acknowledge’ a couple’s marriage by another church (or, even whether they’d consider a unioned couple a married couple or not).
If a couple wanted to get married, and they wanted legal rights, they’d go pick up their license, both of them would sign it (with witnesses or whatever), and then they’d be joined in the eyes of the law (and, most likely, their family and friends). If they also want to be joined in the eyes of their God, they can take that up with Him (or her) in whatever ceremony they feel He (or she) dictates.
Jeff:
My point, since you missed it, is that there should (and I believe will) be the choice for all people to form a union (marriage, bayrog, whatever).
Craig J. Ries:
But some people want to allow gays to marry while calling it something else so it isn’t *quite* marriage.
Becuase, you know, marriage is a religious thing, ya?
Yes, and I believe I said that in my first post. Like I also said originally, the battle seems to be semantics. Work to change the laws to allow both a civil marriage for any couple, and a religious marriage for those that want the blessings of their church. Both would be recognized under the LAW as the same, with the same rights and responsibilities.
I think this firmly puts the nail in the “compassionate conservative” coffin.
I’ve known, virtually since Day One of the Bush Presidency, what “compassionate conservatism” means. It means compassion for conservatives.
Note: In the following, all italicized statements were made by Keith R.A. DeCandido.
This is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion of bigotry and discrimination that uses religion as a means of justification.
Agreed. (Aside: If anyone had told me when we were on Bert’s Spider-Man list that I’d agree with you about anything, I’d’ve never believed it.)
This whole thing kind of makes me sick. First, Bush is arguing that these people don’t have the same legal right to whatever benefits married couples get, which is completely separate from any moral issue at all. If Jane and John can join together and get $X off their taxes, then Jim and John should be able to do the same thing.
The only reason I can see for why one would want to refuse Jim and John that $X is pure and simple bigotry. Coming from anyone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ (whose primary message was pretty much to love everyone), that’s just absurd.
If you’re going to be holier-than-thou, you don’t get to cherrypick the parts of the Bible that happen to match your own prejudices.
I agree again here, at least with the intent, though I’m not sure the examples you gave in your original post apply. At least in the KJV Bible that I use, there are reasons to believe that the laws you listed no longer apply, or have changed significantly.
James Tichy, your arguements are sound, very well thought out, and are correct. Good job!
There are some really stupid arguements on this page and several people clearly don’t think things through before they post.
You know, all I see are people upset and saying they really have problems with both parties stances and Major issues. Along comes a person like Nader that has great ideas alot of people agree with and see as an intelligent possibility but noone wants to vote for him because they would be “throwing away their vote.” If all the people that agreed with Nader would vote with they really believed and not out of fear of what we currently have than their would be real change in this country. All I see is huge disappointments with this country recently. The government is here to serve us, the peoples needs, not the other way around. I am just waiting for the great leader to rise up and lead some kind of revolution for change. That may be me being naive but I believe in this country to much to let the ideals that it strives and claims to be fall to peoples religious beliefs and money making contributors make the decisions for all of us.
My opinion is, the USA is less and less believable already when it preaches about the “land of the free” and US ideals. Should it indeed happen that people like Bush and Schwarzenegger get what they want and it is put into the constitution that same sex marriages are forbidden, this will only make matters worse. Already now, many people outside of the USA say, before Bush tells other countries what is right or wrong, he should look into a mirror.
By now, I don`t think Bush cares about that anyway.
For all the people who say a marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman because that’s what the bible says – The bible says several things about marriage. Here are a pair of lists:
http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp
and
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=4064
I know the first one is a humor site, but the bible quotes are still legitimate.
Please be sure to note #2 on the second list, since pologamy is listed as one of the “what’s next …” items.
Thanks, PAD for saying what needs to be said.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, the president under no circumstances has the right to even attempt a change of the constitution to enshrine his own extremist-religion-based bigotry.
He really must be stopped.
Tichy claimed that no one was addressing the specific points of his original big post, so here goes. Quotes are from him.
“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?”
Well, for a big part of this, that would be a reversal of historical trend. There’s no reason to think it’s going to lead to any of these except in certain paranoid delusions.
“And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant?”
So… you’re arguing that people get married out of societal pressure, not love? My understanding was that most couples don’t get together so they can file joint tax returns. Perhaps you feel differently.
“Clearly in time, the traditional family declines.”
Not clear at all
“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.”
And we’re pretty desperate right now – did you know that this planet’s down to its last six billion people?! (Shamelessly ripped off from the Onion) But in real terms, I don’t see any logic here – your assumption seems to be that if not for marriage, people wouldn’t enter into long term, monogamous relationships for the purposes of raising children. And that’s utterly ludicrous.
“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.”
Well, using that logic, most heterosexual relationships are non-exclusive and short term. People date a lot more partners than they marry, in general. People in a short-term, nonexclusive relationship, gay or straight, don’t generally get married. Unless they’re a celebrity of some sort.
“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.”
This is an argument about gay adoption and lesbians having children. Marriage is a totally seperate issue from this. I’m not going to argue about its accuracy; it’s simply a tangential issue and doesn’t belong in the discussion.
“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.”
Not everything needs to necessarily be about children. Adults have rights too, though some people like to forget this. Every aspect of this that impacts children is a seperate issue from the marriage one – and the two are almost entirely seperate. You’re dragging kids into this to seize the moral high ground – and they aren’t really a part of this.
You know more and more this guy worries me.I personally believe your religious and sexual beliefs are a private matter.The government has no right to interfere with what occurs between consenting adults.No matter how you feel about homosexuality this is wrong.Unfortunately Mr.Bush is going cheap by hitting on a sensitive button with a lot of people thinking he is making a moral stand and instead appears (once again )as a fool.Honestly the over whelming need to force your”christian “beliefs down everyone elses throat is ridiculous.Of course this is nothing new either is it?.Look at all the races and cultures that have been damaged or destroyed by god fearing christians thru out history.Really glad to know this is going to make our country better.Not gun control,stronger economy,better education or better health care .Give me a break
A lot of terrific arguments have already been made on this topic, so I’ll only add a little bit here and there.
James Tichy’s question:
And if society gives no preferential status to heterosexual marriage, what incentive is there for men and women to enter into a lasting covenant?
Um … love? Companionship? A desire to spend one’s life with someone?
I can assure you, James, that when I got married, “society’s preferential status of heterosexual marriage” wasn’t even on the top-20 reasons we had for doing so.
I know of one couple who chose to get married at the time they did because of tax considerations: my father and his second wife. (She also happened to be my wife’s mother, but that’s an entirely different and way too scary story. 🙂
That marriage didn’t last. Seems the “societal benefits” are not really providing sufficient inducement to stay married, despite James’ claims.
The general argument that this is a “threat to the sanctity of marriage”:
1) The government should not be in the business of protecting the SANCTITY of anything. Sanctity is a religious term, not a societal one.
2) More generally, the argument that marriage is somehow devalued by allowing same-sex couples to marry seems hard to defend. We have Britney Spears going off to Vegas and getting married for 48 hours on a bender. We have a “reality” TV show based on the American public voting for the perfect mate for a dwarf.
I find it 100% bugf*ck impossible to believe that those items somehow present less of a threat to marriage than letting my colleague and his partner of 20 years formalize their relationship with a wedding.
Everyone’s god of peace and love, Balder:
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”.
1) Dude, breathe. That’s all one sentence there until the last dozen words or so — if you tried to voice it all aloud you’d die halfway through.
2) DOMA most assuredly drew fire when Clinton first signed it. Read up on history.
It didn’t draw as much attention as this one does, however — that’s true. I see two reasons:
A) Society’s attitudes have slowly changed over time. The prevailing sentiment is far more accepting of same-sex marriage than it used to be. People grow.
B) More crucially for Bush’s initiative, Clinton did not propose irrevocably altering the Constitution for the sake of this issue. Bush is proposing (or at least supporting) exactly that.
To date, we’ve had precisely one amendment to the Constitution that restricted rights rather than expanding them: Prohibition. It didn’t last.
That should do for now, I think.
TWL
Robin said: “(Aside: If anyone had told me when we were on Bert’s Spider-Man list that I’d agree with you about anything, I’d’ve never believed it.)”
*falls over laughing*
Yeah, well, the law of averages was bound to catch up with us sooner or later….. *big grin*
Eric said: “BTW, thanks for the well stated assessment, KRAD. I have found myself unable to articulate that with a satisfactory degree of clarity. I’m so glad someone did.”
No problemo. Glad to be of service. *grin*
—KRAD
Eric – You said:
“This argument is actually based on the notion of homosexuality as “deviant” like polygamy”
How insulting. Polygamy is “deviant”?? On what basis do you declare this. How dare you judge me!! I love two women, and they love me! I’m the new black! Gays and Hetero’s alike are descriminating against me! What gives you a right to say marriage is about TWO people, huh?
/sarcasm off
Because everyone has a moral code, that is just as valid as everyone elses. Everyone has a “line”. So those of you with less “lines” than others can quit acting all “enlightened” that you have some sort of mental superiority over those of us who maybe have a stronger moral character.
The fact of the matter is, society as a whole has always made a call of whats acceptable, and what’s not, based on the majority and community standards. This is why murder is illegal (because honestly, without moral standards, murder is just darwinism, and the purest form of life), and theft, and polygamy, and fraud, and everything else that’s illegal. Society as a whole, or the majority, has decided something is unacceptable. This is why the age of consent is 18 in the US, and is 16 in the UK. Someone made the MORAL decision, based on some sort of framework (ussually religious).
So gay marriage is not supported by the majority of the people in this country, which is why Kerry won’t support it. But civil unions is. And please don’t insult all the black people in this country by comparing that to being placed in the back of the bus. That’s just plain ignorant, and insulting. When gays start getting rounded up and bussed to different schools, and made to use different water fountains, then we can discuss this.
Actually, Jerry, most of the examples you stated — murder, fraud, theft, and so on — are easy things to justify legislating against because there is demonstrable harm being done. That’s a lot harder to say about gay marriage — I don’t think you’re really trying to equate homosexuality with murder, but the statement’s trying really hard to come across that way.
To those saying “wait, polygamy’s next!” … frankly, I tend to say “so what?” If all parties are consenting and fully aware of the situation, I honestly don’t see much of a reason to forbid it. T’ain’t my cup of tea — but neither is golf, and I’m not planning on outlawing that any time soon.
TWL
Webster’s Collegiate Dictonary defines marrage as, “the instution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of foundingand maintaininga family. It says NEN and WOMEN, not man and man or woman and woman.
Right. Because Webster’s is, after all, the absolute arbiter of all that is free and good in a society.
Please.
Dictionaries evolve with time, y’know. As do societies … one can hope.
TWL
So those of you with less “lines” than others can quit acting all “enlightened” that you have some sort of mental superiority over those of us who maybe have a stronger moral character.
Less lines? Acting enlightened? But you have the stronger moral character? I don’t think you can generalize about that. I don’t feel more enlightened, but do feel I know right from wrong. While you may disagree, I don’t believe that gives you the right to feel “more moral” than thou.
To those saying “wait, polygamy’s next!” … frankly, I tend to say “so what?”
Polygamy is another way to treat woman as merchandise. Only there to take care of the man. Now, if it were to go both ways…. 😉
Peter:
I’m afraid I have mixed emotions on this one.
I’m all for national government not playing “big brother” to the country on an issue that at best should be handled by the individual states.
I’m all for the general principles of romance and love, and am still hoping to find my ‘Ms. Right’, or at least my ‘Ms. As Close As Humanly Possible’ someday.
But I have always been raised to believe that an actual marriage (despite the divorce rate in this country) is a sacred and holy union before the eyes of God.
If two of the same sex want to date and actually fall in love, fine. There are plently of couples, regardless of the actual combination, that are just living together.
But if those same two same sex people want an actual marriage, I’m sorry folks, but I just cannot support that idea.
Nothing personal against those who are actually in a same sex relationship or support the idea under any ‘freedom of’ viewpoint, it’s just the way I honestly feel about this issue.
And honest feedback and opinions are a lot of what this website is about and based on, right?
“When gays start getting rounded up and bussed to different schools, and made to use different water fountains, then we can discuss this.” -Jerry.
How about getting beaten up or killed? Can we discuss the situation now?
Monkeys