Rick Warren, Gay Heartbreaker

What to do when your political party is just not that into you

Katherine Mangu-Ward | December 19, 2008

Oh LGBTers. Don't cry. I know President-elect Barack Obama's breaking your heart. It sucks, doesn't it, when you hitch your wagon to a political party, but the party is just not that into you?

Obama's selection of Rick Warren to do the invocation at his inauguration is a tough blow. After all, Pastor Warren is the guy who recently compared gay marriage to incestuous, polygamous, and pedophilic marriage. Sure, he's not as bad as Jerry Falwell, but it's cold comfort to be told that even though homosexuality is "not the natural way" and is a sin, at least "in the hierarchy of evil...homosexuality is not the worst sin."

And all this had to happen so soon after the whole Proposition 8 fiasco in California, too. It's been a rough couple of months hasn't it, gay and lesbian buddies? Everything looked so cheery on November 3. Obama was about to win, and there was all the excitement of a new relationship. He even let you put his face on your buttons.

But you know who your real friends are, LGBTers. And we're going to help you get through this. Besides, who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?

After all, we libertarians have given the Republicans our best years, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. Worse than nothing. Bailouts. For crying out loud, Congress even gave the bailout program a cute nickname (TARP!). It's like they're doing it just to spite us. Sure, opposition to high taxes and regulation brought us together at first. Remember how we used to go red-baiting on dates? It seemed like we had so much in common with the Republicans. But ever since the PATRIOT Act, things just haven't been the same between us.

Those Republicans talk a big game. The bailout is a one-time thing, it means nothing to me, says President George W. Bush. "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." You actually expect us to buy that?

Why do we let ourselves get pulled into these dysfunctional relationships over and over, LGBTers? It's not like Barack and Vice President-elect Joe Biden didn't warn you. It was during Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum that Obama said, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian....it's also a sacred union." But he also said he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and that he'd repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, both of which sounded good. We always hear what we want to hear, don't we?

Anyway, your relationship with the Democratic Party isn't abusive, you just fight sometimes, right? Obama doesn't beat you up, does he? I only ask because of what I heard from that big gossip Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade. He said Warren's "presence on the inauguration stand is a slap in the faces of the millions of GLBT voters who so enthusiastically supported him."

I know what you're thinking, LGBTers. Obama and Warren aren't even right for each other. California gay rights activist Rick Jacobs, who chairs California's Courage Campaign, sounded so right when he said, "It's a huge mistake. He's really the wrong person to lead the president into office."

But I've got to tell it to you straight: For a Bible-thumper, Warren is pretty low key on the whole civil unions thing, plus the issues of visitation and inheritance rights. What if Warren and Obama are both actually just nice Christians who still feel a little squeamish about letting gays go all the way? Obama seems like he's such a nice, liberal guy. He can't really oppose gay marriage, can he? Ugh. Are all relationships plauged with such doubt?

There, there, LGBTers. Remember who was there for you in Florida on the gay adoption thing? Libertarians. Remember who stood by you when Virginia tried to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment? Libertarians. Mainstream political parties may come and go, but we'll always have each other. Sure, we've fought about anti-discrimination and hate speech laws, but you know we just want what's best for you.

Oh, and give Andrew Sullivan my love, OK? I know he had it pretty bad for Obama. "An analyst's mind and a poet's tongue," indeed. Looks like he's seeing Obama in the cold light of inauguration morning now. "If anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."

And then, yesterday, Obama had the nerve to act like this whole Warren thing isn't a big deal. Like inviting Joseph Lowery to do the benediction makes it all better, just because he's a respected civil rights leader.

I know you're probably going to go crawling back to the Democrats, LGBTers. The single life can be tough, and God knows it's not like Republicans are showing that much interest in you. You'd think they'd at least want to take you out to dinner and get to know you better. Oh well. All it's going to take is for Obama to repeal "don't ask don't tell" and adopt a pug and you're going to fly right back into his arms. And I don't blame you for it.

But don't let him treat you so badly, OK? You deserve better. Just don't act surprised when he does it again, either. You know how politicians are. Dogs, all of them.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at reason.

Comments

|12.19.08 @ 3:12PM|#

Because nothing says "I feel your pain" like treating a 2 million+ strong group of people like a bunch of lovesick teenagers! With friends like us, who needs Democrats?

Lefiti|12.19.08 @ 3:33PM|#

"After all, who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?"

Yeah, but nobody chooses to be gay. Of course, you could argue that nobody chooses to be stupid either, but of all the simple-minded, stupid ideologies, why libertarianism? You're just asking to be taken advantage of by the big boys.

|12.19.08 @ 3:40PM|#

Mom, Lefiti is being a dildo!

|12.19.08 @ 3:41PM|#

Everything looked so cheery on November 3.

Yup. The New Gay Millennium was about to be ushered in, Peace and love and safe sex for everyone forever. The Gay Agenda would be realized, and all kindergarteners required to read "Heather Likes Beaver Too". But Obama messed it up by having a paster do an invocation. Aaaargh! If we have to have an invocation in these enlightened times, at least have a Wiccan or Hopi Shaman or Iman doing the praying.

If only the Right Person™ were in charge, none of this would have happened. All praise the Name of the Right Person™.

Joel|12.19.08 @ 3:46PM|#

:-)

Bitter much, there, Katherine?

Zeb|12.19.08 @ 3:50PM|#

There are plenty of Christians who are plenty gay friendly. The UCC (one of whose churches Obama used to attend) is quite openly gay positive, even airing some somewhat controversial TV ads on the subject a few years ago. Why would he pick a guy like Warren? Why is there an invocation at all?

</|12.19.08 @ 3:55PM|#

You Obamatarians won't be able to smoke your medical marijuana at your gay wedding.Go ahead and cry "McCain would have been worse,waaaaaaa!

Turtles|12.19.08 @ 3:56PM|#

The LGBT vote, like the youth vote, are, and always will be, irrelevant. A shame, but the truth.

</|12.19.08 @ 4:06PM|#

Just when I get used to calling them GLBTers NOW they want to be called LGBTers.

Plate-O|12.19.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Just when I get used to calling them GLBTers NOW they want to be called LGBTers.

It's those damn L-first splitters! They're worse than the People's Front of Judea.

|12.19.08 @ 4:19PM|#

Do we have to endure another thread of whiny cosmotarians crying about how the big, bad government won't go away, leave us alone, and shove gay marriage down the throats of a citizenry that clearly doesn't want it?

VM|12.19.08 @ 4:20PM|#

yes.

good guess.

Geotpf|12.19.08 @ 4:25PM|#

| December 19, 2008, 4:19pm | #

Do we have to endure another thread of whiny cosmotarians crying about how the big, bad government won't go away, leave us alone, and shove gay marriage down the throats of a citizenry that clearly doesn't want it?

Nobody is being forced into a gay marriage, you nameless boob.

Zeb|12.19.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Seriously, if you don't want gay marriage, all you have to do is not get gay married. Pretty easy. It's not shoved down anyone's throat. Meat head.

</|12.19.08 @ 4:32PM|#

Would the appropriate term be a gay shotgun wedding or a shotgun gay wedding?

anon for this one...|12.19.08 @ 4:36PM|#

It's not shoved down anyone's throat.

I don't know about that. I woke up this morning with hair on my tongue.

Kolohe|12.19.08 @ 4:47PM|#

"Heather Likes Beaver Too".

To be fair, that's Narnia fan fiction, so people are protesting that it's too religious.

Brian Sorgatz|12.19.08 @ 4:49PM|#

I'm flattered by Katherine's soft plagiarism of my blog. She drew an analogy between romance and politics, as have I. Recently, I compared the American left and the American government to Stella and Stanley Kowalski, respectively.

</|12.19.08 @ 4:53PM|#

I bet she doesn't even read your blog Sorgatz

Brian Sorgatz|12.19.08 @ 4:56PM|#

I bet she doesn't even read your blog Sorgatz

Yes, it's possible, whoever you are. Wouldn't that be ironic?

KipEsquire|12.19.08 @ 5:12PM|#

Let's see whether the Jewish community remains as calm and passionless as gays are being told to remain if/when Warren's anti-Semitic statements become common knowledge. (P.S. And the Mormon's too, at the same link.)

T|12.19.08 @ 5:34PM|#

After all, who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?

I'm baffled. Are there libertarians that have a love affair with either major party? Both of them have sucked as long as I can remember.

DannyK|12.19.08 @ 5:37PM|#

Just now, the U.S. became the only big Western country that didn't sign on to a UN resolution supporting the "decriminalization of homosexuality."

So, yeah, Democrats are still ahead.

The real question is whether the President comes back and does some things for you after the slap. Since Obama's not president yet, we won't know that for a while.

Meanwhile, the Republicans haven't come back to the Libertarians... nope, not after the 2006 election... not after 2008... still waiting...

Erm|12.19.08 @ 5:50PM|#

No, Sorgatz. That would merely be a coincidence.

ed|12.19.08 @ 5:55PM|#

It's hardly news to anyone who watched the debates. Obama stated for the record that he defined "marriage" as the legal union of a man and a woman. For his adoring fans to claim shock and betrayal is disingenuous. Their boss has bigger fish to fry.

Alan|12.19.08 @ 5:55PM|#

Libertarians seem to drop their pants and bend over at the very thought of being promised any sort of reduction in the marginal tax rate. It seems like the only kind of relationship they are interested in.

Gays have been making a lot of progress since the early 70's, and despite the several Republican administrations and the advent of the Religious Right. They don't need Libertarian sell-outs.

Rimfax|12.19.08 @ 5:58PM|#

Are there libertarians that have a love affair with either major party?

She's referring to the paleos who keep telling the cosmos, "I can change them! Really I can!!" by way of explaining their unwavering loyalty to the party of Bush.

Terry Michael|12.19.08 @ 6:01PM|#

We of the drama queen tribe, but not of the left-liberal wing of that identity group, salute you, Katherine, for "Rick Warren, Gay Heartbreaker."

Of course, I say that as a libertarian Democrat who still believes Obama is infinitely better than so many of the alternatives, including the authoritarian, statist, First Amendment-trashing, war-mongering septuagenarian he defeated.

Ain't nothing perfect in life. But Obama's selection of that self-promoting, self-righteous, fat bible-beating pig, that re-incarnation of Jerry Falwell, was beyond outrageous. As payback, I'm looking for an immediate executive order to gay-integrate the military, within the first one hundred daze.

|12.19.08 @ 6:32PM|#

The real question is whether the President comes back and does some things for you after the slap.

Yup. The perils of being reliably, predictably partisan.

|12.19.08 @ 6:48PM|#

Thanks for mentioning Andrew Sullivan, whose fling with Barry was clearly going to end in tears. But I didnt think he'd get dumped so soon; I look forward to reading his million upcoming blog posts attempting to put a face-saving spin on all this.

|12.19.08 @ 7:12PM|#

I agree, we should ally ourselves with the LGBT. In fact, we can tack our L on to be the new LLGBT. Maybe we can go around, like that katamari ball thing, and just tack on more letters to the acronym, eventually engulfing the world! Mwahaha

ed|12.19.08 @ 7:35PM|#

I'm more offended that prayers will be said than by the bloated blow-hard saying them. We were stuck with that old fraud Billy Graham as the de facto State Preacher for 40 years and I didn't hear a peep out of anyone.

|12.19.08 @ 8:29PM|#

Gays have been making a lot of progress since the early 70's, and despite the several Republican administrations

And despite Democrat administrations that were just as hostile. Carter and Clinton. Those are our only choices for non-Republican adminstrations since the early 70s. Neither of them are known for the advocacy of LGBTWE rights. In fact, one of them is known for "don't ask don't tell" rule mandating that gays stay in the closet.

Sam Grove|12.19.08 @ 8:44PM|#

who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?

Speak for yourself, I've never felt the slightest attraction to the GOP.
I seems like necrophilia.

|12.19.08 @ 9:22PM|#

Too many of you are scary rednecks. Sorry, even if I did buy your archaic, incoherent economic philosophy, I somehow doubt the half of you who live in caves in Alabama would welcome us gays. Besides, we have an agenda to take over the country and impose parades on everyone. We can't do that while spending all our time whining about taxes.

fdeblauwe|12.20.08 @ 2:36AM|#

I find my opinion on this matter nicely summarized at the ResaonsToBeCheerful3.blogspot.com blog: "Mega-Rev. Rick Warren in numbers." It quantifies what he is searched in connection with in Google and computes a "progressiveness" (or lack thereof) result. Tongue in cheek statistics of course but revealing/funny for sure.

|12.20.08 @ 3:12AM|#

| December 19, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Do we have to endure another thread of whiny cosmotarians crying about how the big, bad government won't go away, leave us alone, and shove gay marriage down the throats of a citizenry that clearly doesn't want it?

At first I thought you were going to ask if we would have to endure another thread where people make dumb monty python jokes back and forth for an entire day.

edna|12.20.08 @ 8:26AM|#

Just when I get used to calling them GLBTers NOW they want to be called LGBTers.

ladies first.

ed|12.20.08 @ 8:47AM|#

What's wrong with "queer"? It's short, succinct, and has a nice, ironic connotation, like blacks calling each other niggas. Is it still "black", or have we reverted once again to African American? Our new half-black president sure is making things complicated. I don't know which correct is most correct. I think we need a Queer Czar.

PHALKOR THE MIGHTY |12.20.08 @ 10:19AM|#

ed, good point, if I'm white, then black people can be black, and gays can be queers.


We need a one syllable abbreviation for every ethnicity and sexual orientation. However KMW, I think you're misunderstanding why the queers are whining. (haha, it feels good but kinda base to say queers) The queers are whining because they love to do it. Being queer has become fairly acceptable in most urban type areas methinks, so lets they be ignorned the queers howl at the moon for attention (as does any group that doesn't get what it wants).

After looking upthread, are there queer libertarians? queer republicans? is there really a queer movement? a queer agenda? isn't it unreasonable to believe that all queers are extreme leftists as they have been portrayed?

Something queer is going on...

|12.20.08 @ 11:31AM|#

Homosexual marriage, and libertarian issues for that matter, are the province of white people whom in a short time will become statistically insignificant due to their embrace of abortion and minimal or no interest in passing the fruit of their social and political enlightenment via their offspring. Perhaps a more relevant discussion might be the sustainability of their world view of white people in a world that is decidedly nonwhite with markedly different cultural and societal values. My recommendation to the aforementioned constituencies is to enjoy their day in the sunshine because this may be as good as it is going to get.

Brad

ed|12.20.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Phalkor The Mighty,

(if that is indeed your real name)

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, dwarfs, goths, partial-birth abortions, bearded ladies and two-headed goats (or as Rachel Maddow refers to them: GLBTDGP-BABLT-HG) used to be perfectly content with "queer." It was in-your-face identity politics, calculated to offend normal white Christian-folk. Have they gone soft?

Discuss.

|12.20.08 @ 12:56PM|#

Ahahaha.

This is the most condescending piece ever.

|12.20.08 @ 1:03PM|#

Phalkor the Mighty,

Gay men are actually quite conservative. I've known many gay libertarians and Randroids. I find in Europe where the right-wing parties compete with the socialist parties for gay votes, gays choose the right-wing parties because gays generally have more money than other people and will vote for parties who hold more liberal (classically liberal) economic policies. That and there's the whole Islam thing.

Myself, I'm a die hard gun owning radical queer for Jesus.

|12.20.08 @ 1:07PM|#

Alan,

"Gays have been making a lot of progress since the early 70's, and despite the several Republican administrations and the advent of the Religious Right. They don't need Libertarian sell-outs."

Hah! This is even more condescending!

|12.20.08 @ 3:05PM|#

At least Mr. Obama did not emulate the current Bush administration and seek spiritual guidance from the closet queen (former) preacher, Ted Haggard.

bill|12.20.08 @ 3:09PM|#

The real question that needs to be asked about gay marriage is why do you need a license from the state to get married anyway? Think about it. A license makes any marriage polygamous. Why? Because there are 3 entities involved in the marriage, you, your spouse and THE STATE! Licenses weren't issued in this country until the mid 1800's. It wasn't until 1929 that all the states had license laws. It used to be that a marriage recorded in the family Bible, and maybe in a church ledger, made it legal. George Washington got married without a license why can't I?

|12.20.08 @ 3:31PM|#

The reverend is head of a church called the Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif.

Interesting name for this issue.

ed|12.20.08 @ 3:44PM|#

why do you need a license from the state to get married anyway?

It's a contractual thing, "bill". Contractual law is important. It sets objective standards. Otherwise we have chaos--what some "libertarians" call peaceful anarchy. Are you willing to depend on that non-definition when it's time to settle accounts? I'm not.

Yet another pedant|12.20.08 @ 4:42PM|#

Myself, I'm a die hard gun owning radical queer for Jesus.

You need to tidy-up those compound modifiers, "what". Here ya' go, free o' charge:

Myself: I'm a die-hard, gun-owning, radical queer for Jesus.

Feel free to copy & paste it elsewhere, as needed, in keeping with the situation.

bill|12.20.08 @ 4:50PM|#

Well "ed". Why can't you just file a declaration with the state signed by the person who conducted the wedding and two witnesses to make it official. Why do you have to get PERMISSION from the state BEFORE you have the ceremony. That's my point. There are other ways besides licenses for the state to recognize a marriage.

|12.20.08 @ 5:28PM|#

isn't it unreasonable to believe that all queers are extreme leftists as they have been portrayed?

Something queer is going on...

Well, if phrased as "all queers", as in 100%, as in every single one, then yes, that strawman phrase is unreasonable.

If it's phrased as "Democratic politicians average 90% or so of the votes of gays", then to say that gays are overwhelmingly leftist would be an accurate statement.

|12.20.08 @ 5:36PM|#

why do you need a license from the state to get married anyway?

It's a contractual thing, "bill". Contractual law is important. It sets objective standards. Otherwise we have chaos--what some "libertarians" call peaceful anarchy. Are you willing to depend on that non-definition when it's time to settle accounts? I'm not.

You don't need a marriage license to get those contractual rights and obligations. You can get the same thing with a package of rights and obligations -- call it a "civil union" or preferably something even more innocuous -- that any unmarried or married couple can voluntarily agree to abide by. Doesn't need any state sanction at all. No need to give the state any power or discretion at all about who can have those rights. And no need to piss off the fundies with the phrase "gay marriage", thus making it electorally impossible to achieve in the near term.

It's politically stupid to press for something called gay marriage when the same package of rights and obligations can be achieved by less inflammatory legislation.

|12.20.08 @ 6:09PM|#

"who knows better than libertarians what it's like to be in a long-standing lopsided love affair with a mainstream political party?"

Gad, please. When I attained voting age, the Democrats were the party that conducted (bungled) the VietNam war, and brought us the odious socialist Great Society programs. The GOP was still rightly blamed for being the party of disgraced Dick Nixon. Ronnie Raygun eventually rode to victory on a wave of libertarian sentiment under the GOP banner, but I didn't buy that for a moment, and the passage of time has confirmed that Reagan's libertarian facade brought us primarily glittering rhetoric backed by crony-capitalism and more warfare.

Never loved the Demos, never loved the GOP. I jumped directly to the LP and never looked back. In fact, on the several occasions over the years that GOP-lovers have asserted themselves to "reform" (take over?) the Libertarian Party, I have seriously considered registering "decline to state." I do NOT consider the LP as GOP-Lite, libertarians as some offshoot of Republicans, or the libertarian movement as some mutant nephew of conservatism. The LP is for people who love liberty and want to promote it, not for those who want to have a smaller-scale GOP or Democrat party with more of a libertarian focus. Sycophants who maintain an unrequited "love affair" with either major party should stick with those parties. To characterize the LP as a group of the politically jilted is demeaning and says more about the person doing the characterizing than about any Libertarian, I think.

|12.20.08 @ 7:13PM|#

Ha! Very clever. Everybody needs to take one in the ass (no pun intended) from the political party with which they affiliate so that they know exactly where they stand with their chosen saviors.

They sad thing is, everybody that chooses to align with a political party gets screwed by that party on a regular basis. They just pretend that it didn't happen, blame it on the other party, or don't even know that it did happen. It largely depends on how they are told to react by their party's propaganda machine (Fox or MSNBC).

|12.20.08 @ 11:38PM|#

Seriously, if you don't want gay marriage, all you have to do is not get gay married. Pretty easy. It's not shoved down anyone's throat. Meat head.

I know, right! I mean it's not as if GLBT rights groups are trying to use the courts to legislate their definition of marriage(which is now, and has been, defined as the union between a man and a woman whether you want it to be or not) and then flipping out when the democratic process doesn't work out in their favor.

Look, and this is coming from a bisexual whose relationships have been predominantly of the homosexual variety, but it's patently ridiculous to pretend it's not radical to totally redefine marriage. Can we all agree that maybe, just maybe, we should go for civil unions first? And I dunno...avoid using the courts to circumvent the will of the people?

self-promoting, self-righteous, fat bible-beating pig, that re-incarnation of Jerry Falwell

And conservatives are the hateful ones. Riiiight...

ed, not gay (but he used to wo|12.21.08 @ 9:10AM|#

The GLBTDGP-BABLT-HG are every bit as bigoted as the bigots who oppose them. The more extreme amongst them love to get in America's face. When America resents it, the GLBTDGP-BABLT-HG are dismayed, perplexed. They feel betrayed. Everybody hates them. Boo hoo.

It's a delicious irony that blacks overwhelmingly oppose equal marriage rights for the GLBTDGP-BABLT-HG, but that's another story. On a list of 100 very important things America must deal with, I'd place gay marriage at about #62, just above heroin decriminalization.

|12.21.08 @ 10:26AM|#

We are reduced to the id-odic idea that all ______________ go hand in hand to vote?

Fill in the____ with anything, especially if you/me/anyone laugh

Paul|12.21.08 @ 11:23AM|#

They don't need Libertarian sell-outs.

No, they need more political climates like California.

Oh wait...

|12.21.08 @ 12:22PM|#

all this stuff about his gay positions, and nary a word about the other problem with rick warren. he's a stone liar. remember the "cone of silence" that john mccain was supposedly placed under during the saddleback debate with obama, so he couldn't hear the questions propounded to obama, who went first?

rick warren assured the american people, right there on television from his house of the christian god, that john mccain couldn't hear those questions. soon thereafter, we discovered that there was no cone of silence.

rick warren lied to all of us, gays and straights alike.

|12.21.08 @ 2:55PM|#

Have they gone soft?

Yes and no. One could say they got the multiple politically correct titles because they have demanded it. Like they can call themselves queer and that's being tough, but they can also condemn someone using it in a derogative manner. (think "we're here we're queer..etc) I think acting offended (i.e. soft) is a useful weapon to soften up their opposition to whatever they need to change.


Now of course the idea of all LGBT as some kind of single entity with an agenda seems patently ludicrous to me. The in-your-face gay activism exists in small pockets that get an overwhelming amount of coverage and scare the bejeezus out of social conservatives.

I'm visiting my parents right now and I found a children's book entitles "Something Queer at the Lemonade Stand".

ed, not gay (but he used to wo|12.21.08 @ 3:57PM|#

You don't need a marriage license to get those contractual rights and obligations. You can get the same thing with a package of rights and obligations -- call it a "civil union"

I agree wholeheartedly, prolefeed. But The Gays™ seem to crave a moral imprimatur. They want America to view them as the real-life equivalent of the fictional Ward and June Cleaver (who was The Gay, anyway? It had to be The Beav, but Lumpy has my doubts. And don't even get me started on Eddie Haskell).

It seems to me that The Gays™ want to have it both ways: Be officially identified as a Persecuted Minority™ and at the same time be recognized as Normal Folks™. You really can't have it both ways.

|12.21.08 @ 7:01PM|#

"You don't need a marriage license to get those contractual rights and obligations. You can get the same thing with a package of rights and obligations -- call it a "civil union" or preferably something even more innocuous -- that any unmarried or married couple can voluntarily agree to abide by."

no, you cannot get many rights except by the marriage license.

example: one can admit to a spouse past crimes and that person cannot be compelled to testify. it's privileged. this is similar to attorney-client privilege.

this privilege does NOT apply to people who contract outside an actual marriage. if you admit to your "domestic partner" (civil union partner or whatever) that you just killed somebody, they CAN be compelled to testify against you.

that's just one example of rights conferred by marriage license that do not exist outside of marriage.

SIV|12.21.08 @ 7:08PM|#

On a list of 100 very important things America must deal with, I'd place gay marriage at about #62, just above heroin decriminalization.

I'd rank legal heroin much higher as it is a matter of negative liberty.

agolmar|12.21.08 @ 7:39PM|#

Right on the money, Katherine. Gays and libertarians have always seem to me to be a natural coalition, but problem is many gay activists are radical leftwingers who thought the LGTB business would turn more lucrative. It also shows that identity politics is, after all, a chimera. Voting one's sexual orientation, sex or race is rather stupid in places like America.

|12.21.08 @ 7:42PM|#

I think Pat Benatar was looking into a crystal ball when she recorded this tune:

Your love is like a tidal wave, spinning over my head
Drownin' me in your promises, better left unsaid
You're the right kind of sinner, to release my inner fantasy
The invincible winner, and you know that you were born to be...

You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around with me!
You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around - no no no!

Your love has set my soul on fire, burnin' out of control
You taught me the ways of desire, now its takin' its toll
You're the right kind of sinner, to release my inner fantasy
The invincible winner, and you know that you were born to be

You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around with me!
You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around - no no no!

You're the right kind of sinner, to release my inner fantasy
The invincible winner, and you know that you were born to be

You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around with me!
You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around with me!

You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Don't you mess around with me!
You're a heartbreaker
Dream maker, love taker
Heartbreaker!

|12.21.08 @ 8:44PM|#

Look, the bottom line is that gays are to the Democrats what gun owners are the Republicans. During every election cycle Dems/GOP want the money, volunteering, grassroots help, and votes of gays/gun owners. But. Then. As soon as the election is over, the Dems/GOP want gays/gun owners to shut the fuck up, get back in the closet/gun safe, and become invisible because the Dems/GOP aren't going to actually *do* one damned thing for gays/gun owners.

|12.21.08 @ 11:19PM|#

We all have some disappointments involving Obama. Get ready for a ton more.

JB|12.21.08 @ 11:24PM|#

The focus of this whole argument is clearly off. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution; the state cannot recognize this religious institution without violating the very first clause of the bill of rights. Not surprisingly, this situation has been ignored for most of the republic's existence. Through civil marriages, a seemingly religious institution is deemed worthy only by state review and approval.

|12.22.08 @ 2:26AM|#

"The focus of this whole argument is clearly off. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution; the state cannot recognize this religious institution without violating the very first clause of the bill of rights."

*if* it was the case that govt. only recognized the right to marry as belonging to those of a particular (or any) religious persuasion, etc. than you might have a point.

religion is actually an evolved social structure (shades of hayek). nearly every society that has evolved (many in relative isolation) has something close to what we call marriage.

furthermore, in the US differnet religions have somewhat different conceptions of what the obligations, roles, duties and privileges are within a marriage, but the LEGAL aspects of marriage are no different for them.

for example, a southern baptist , if consistent with her religion must "submit" to her husband's authority, but the law does not require her within the contract of marriage.

heck, most religions frown on "open marriages" where spouses can schtup whomever they please, but the GOVERNMENT doesn't care. you still get the same rights and duties as a married couple whether or not you have an open marriage.

the fact that religions have their own concept of what a marriage is doesn't make govt. involvement in marriage a violation of the 1st amendment.

relgions also define the role of parents and their duties towards their children. so does the law. this also does not create a conflict.

just because a civil institution has a religious parallel doesn't make it a violation. plenty of atheists willingly get married. they are not buying into a religion to do so.
iow, your argument is bogus. hth

|12.22.08 @ 11:40AM|#

"Myself, I'm a die hard gun owning radical queer for Jesus."

Awesome! Heh!

I keep getting asked why I, as a transgendered woman, keep spouting libertarian rhetoric about individual freedoms and rights, gun ownership and why I keep quoting some strange English philosopher guy named "Thomas Hobbes" about the fallibility on human nature. I just never seem to get on board with the whole "progressive" bandwagon.

*sigh*

|12.22.08 @ 11:50AM|#

"You don't need a marriage license to get those contractual rights and obligations. You can get the same thing with a package of rights and obligations -- call it a "civil union" or preferably something even more innocuous -- that any unmarried or married couple can voluntarily agree to abide by. Doesn't need any state sanction at all. No need to give the state any power or discretion at all about who can have those rights. And no need to piss off the fundies with the phrase "gay marriage", thus making it electorally impossible to achieve in the near term.

It's politically stupid to press for something called gay marriage when the same package of rights and obligations can be achieved by less inflammatory legislation."



That would be fine if the Federal Government and the States actually recognized such unions AND gave the the SAME legal status as marriages.

I would rather there be no "marriages" in a legal sense in the first place. Marriage is between you and your church, IMO.

|12.22.08 @ 1:11PM|#

"Would the appropriate term be a gay shotgun wedding or a shotgun gay wedding?"

I believe the correct term would be "Medical miracle".

anon|12.22.08 @ 2:42PM|#

"The bailout is a one-time thing, it means nothing to me, "

Obama to the LGBT crowd after Warren (also works for Bush talking to the free market, after the bailout):

Yes, I fucked her, yes.

Is that what you want me to say?
I fucked her? I fucked her.

We fucked, all right?
You happy now? We fucked!

Now, let's talk about the word 'fuck' for a minute.

Because that's a very important word here. Fuck, yes, we did.

Fuck. I fucked her.

I make love to you.

JB|12.23.08 @ 10:44AM|#

Government usurping religious marriage, secularizing it, and then referring to it as a civil marriage is superfluous. I presume in this secular "marriage," government removed the spiritual aspect, which no religion would subscribe to. From their perspective, government's bland and broad definition of "marriage" dilutes the institution so much it loses meaning. They are correct in their anger at this counterfeit institution that serves no purpose that cannot be addressed through other means. Contracts between two parties already provide a means for ensuring the rights that current civil marriages entail.

|12.23.08 @ 5:06PM|#

Pat Benatar is like Nostradamus and Plato all wrapped up in one tough little elfin package in leopardskin tights. Somewhere within her writings is always something appropriate to any political discussion.

You're a real tough cookie
With a long history
Of breaking little hearts
Like the one in me