Queer Corner

National Review's blog has 16 posts and counting about gay marriage … just from today. Never has a 97% majority seemed so fragile.

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

It's pledge week.

[Mark S.]

Sheesh, I wonder if these morons wear their sheets with the pointed hoods (to cover their equally pointed heads)when they're on the computer?

[Mark M]

The whole week's worth of commentary on gay marriage in NRO's Corner has been pretty good reading. Little of it warrants charges of it being moronic or Klanish. Even Kurtz and Derbyshire, who are the most vocal opponents of GM, put forth intelligent points. Your charges underline the point made in a number of Corner posts: that to debate the potential negative effects of GM is to invite the typical (and weak) charges of homophobia, mean-spirited, etc.

[Julian]

I believe that the folks on the Corner may sincerely think they're not homophobes, in the same way that someone can sincerely believe they're not a racist or a sexist because they imagine that it means walking around all day muttering about how much you hate the members of group X. You can harbor racist attitudes without signing up for the Klan, and you can be a homophobe without picketing gay pride marches with "God hates fags" signs. Read some of Derbyshire's older columns, though, and you'll see he's a little more overt about it.

If the arguments advanced against gay marriage were stronger, it might be another story. But the fact is, they ain't. And when otherwise smart people are willing to assert with confidence that these dramatic, preposterous consequences are going to follow from extending basic equality to a small percentage of the population... well, forgive me when I can't take their protestations too seriously. They get accused of prejudice because unless you're already predisposed not to like gay folks much, the arguments they make don't even pass the straight face test.

[Hal E.]

Mark M says: "To debate the potential negative effects of GM is to invite the typical (and weak) charges of homophobia, mean-spirited, etc." Perhaps. But even more so, to claim that your critics are unfairly charging you with being homophobic is the simplest and most disingenuous method of hiding your homophobia. It's like saying we should gas all the Jews, and then complaining that rather than discuss the merits of your idea, people are kee-jerkingly calling you anti-Semitic. Hey, if you're being a biased, prejudiced bastard, what's wrong with pointing that out?

[Ron C]

RE: "Arguments exploring the negative effects of GM"

The NRO guys are or should be smart enough to see that the arguments advanced are thin. They get points for honesty in punditry by printing this email though:

"Don't be so pessimistic. The last great wave of gay activism was followed by the conservative takeover of 1994. A wave of gay-marriage activism in the United States could be yet another wave of political disaster for the Democratic Party. But it won't be if we wave white flags. Now is the not the time to go wobbly!"

There you have it, the real reason the GOP will get behind the DMA, and one more reason to take your vote elsewhere. I recommend Libertarian, but let's see who the Dems put up there.

[Nellie Forbush]

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I take it as a good sign, when NRO shows such interest, and dissent in the ranks, on the subject.

[Anonymous]

The arguments in favor of gay marriage made by the left seem pathetic when squared with their arguments for single mothers (a la Murphy Brown) and parents that co-habitate, rather than marry. Aside from the issue of social acceptance, the matters overcome by the legalization of GM are spousal healthcare provided by employers and the spousal estate tax deduction. There is a simple approach addressing both issues in the tax code, i.e. move the expense deduction to the individual (from the employer), and elimination of the estate tax. The rationale favoring these changes exists without the question of gay marriage (although the left is against the estate tax elimination). Posts that include acusations of homophobia and Klanism suggests an argumenative weakness, more than anything else.

[David 2]

Well maybe this might be a good time for a cheap plug then... I just uploaded my show over at the Talk Liberty website which discussed this very issue.

For those with RealOne or AOL's audio player...
http://www.talkliberty.com/BHL/bhl-past.ram

Fair warning, the volume level is just a tad high...

[Ron C]

RE: the "intelligent points" of Derbyshire

"What proportion of health-care costs in the U.S. go to treating diseases peculiar to male homosexuals?" from http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_06_15_corner-archive.asp#010003

This is an example of a moronic point. I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure there are no diseases peculiar to male homosexuals.

[Mark M.]

I would suggest that the Jew analogy is a bit over the top. I don't recall anyone at NRO advocating the murder of gay people as part of their argument. (It's like that line in "Office Space" about the flair that the Nazis made the Jews wear. When the dude made that analogy, he already knew he had lost the argument)

[david f]

hey Mark M

it's always wonderful to see reference to office space.

What are some of these "negative effects of GM"? isn't the state's ability to sanction and give legal protection to one type of mutually consentual relationship, and not another, a form of state coercion? granted, many of those opposed wouldn't have a problem with that...

cheers! (that would be great...),
drf

[Tom Hynes]

Gene said:
I will agree to allowing someone to marry their dog, as long as coercion is not involved.

If it is their dog, what does it matter if coercion is involved?

[Mark M]

As for the negative effects, I would defer to the folks over at the corner because they have already explored the topic somewhat and are certainly more articulate than I. I am not sold on their analysis, especially that of Kurtz. Kurtz discusses the topic as if legalized gay marriage in the US would signal the end of civilization. Those types of predictions have always been wrong, obviously because we are not wearing bear skins and painting cave walls.

My point in mentioning negative effects earlier was not to state that I feel that GM would cause more harm than good. It was to state that discussion of potential negative effects ought be considered and not merely dismissed. There are consequences good and bad to virtually every policy decision that could be made.

[Mark M]

On the marry the dog issue....

Would it then be appropriate to hand out pamphlets to 3rd graders titled "Why Bobby's mom is a Golden Retriever"? After all, a number of the opponents of GM are chiefly opposed to the socialization efforts. We have seen examples of grade school curricula invaded with "Why Jimmy has two moms" type books and such.

[dhex]

most of the arguments against GM seem to center around these magico-religious notions of the non-local effects of sex practices (i call it Santorum Syndrome - sodomy in texas undermining straight relationships in illinois, etc). the rest seems to lay in the slippery slope of civilization argument, as if sex between two people of the same gender were somehow similar to screwing parakeets and chickens.

maybe the gay rights fringe has gotten so arrogant because their opponents attribute such massive occult powers to their sex lives?

[Gene 6-Pack]

Eliminate the tax free fringe benefits, and I will agree to allowing someone to marry their dog, as long as coercion is not involved.

[JDM]

In this case, the real solution is the libertarian one. The government should have no role in marriage. Since that's not going to happen, why don't they just call it something else? Like maybe a State Enforced Cohabitation and Copulation Contract and let anyone sign it. It might open peoples' eyes to the absurdity of the squabbling on both sides. People who want to get *married* can go to a church or their local wiccan priestess or just keep their promises to each other.

[Jon H]

Does anyone at the Corner address the fact that the Bible Belt of the US has the highest divorce rate?

That suggests to me that there's a more dire threat to marriage than gays getting married.

You'd think that, if gay people have a negative effect on marriage, then the highest rates of divorce would be in areas that have high populations of gay people. Instead, it's areas that likely have low populations of gay people, or at least *out* gay people.

[Jim Bennett]

When I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein, I was struck by the many varieties of marriage practiced by the citizens of Luna. If adults consent -- who has a problem?

If the gay marriage thing is the wedge to open up the legislative, legalistic lock on relationships, then let it wave. Conventional marriage is not faring terribly well right now. If it were, we would not see such reactions as the "Defense of Marriage Act." Rather than let marriage just evanesce, maybe the thing to do is to allow as many different kinds of it as willing individuals wish to take on.

The "man on dog" (Rick Santorum)and "screwing parakeets" kind of arguments are just plain silly: they are efforts similar to the kind of desperation that leads to things like the "Defense of Marriage Act." There's no need to pile up the sandbags unless the levee's crumbling and the river's rising.

[Jon H]

Mark M wrote: "After all, a number of the opponents of GM are chiefly opposed to the socialization efforts. We have seen examples of grade school curricula invaded with "Why Jimmy has two moms" type books and such."

Yeah, the curricula that involves race mixing is bad enough. And do they really have to show blacks in authority roles, instead of in their proper place as common laborers and prisoners? Do students really need to read about Officer Kwame?

[SM]

And Larry Niven's "Ringworld" series has some examples of human on alien miscegenation. Julian Saanchez's fears about conservatives discriminating against "Group X" in the year 2051 ....

[Mark M]

Jon H wrote

Yeah, the curricula that involves race mixing is bad enough. And do they really have to show blacks in authority roles, instead of in their proper place as common laborers and prisoners? Do students really need to read about Officer Kwame?

Funny comment. Silly and off-point, but funny.

[Frenk]

Much like the women in the military arguments from a few years back, I often wonder: why do gay folks WANT to get married? Do they wish for uncomfortable in-law celebrations? Advice from mothers-in-law? Grumpiness? Flagging sex lives? WHAT IS GOING ON?

The fair thing to do would be to eliminate benefits for married couples.

[JenL]

Frenk: Why do they want to get married? Well, why do hetero couples want to get married?

Among other things -- who raises the kids (if one or the other partner has children) if something happens? Who has the right to make life or death decisions in an emergency -- the partner or the family of the injured person?

It's not all about tax benefits or health insurance.

[Adam]

What "tax benefits" are you referring to? There is currently a marriage tax penalty, not a benefit. Unless there is a rash of stay at home non-working gays in these unions, which seems unlikely to me.

[Mark S.]

What do you mean off point? It was spot on if you ask me. How is teaching children that there is nothing wrong with being gay or lesbian somehow different then teaching children that there is nothing wrong with being something other than your particular skin color--it's not as if you really get much choice in either matter.

[Mona]

As several have poined out, gay marriage is a matter of equality before the state: gays already can find ministers and religious officials who will perform a marriage ceremony of the sort heteros seek. What they cannot do, however, is then derive the same state-conferred benefits.

A former very good friend of mine is a gay man who has had the same domestic partner for a decade. This partner is an Austrian national who is under constant threat of losing his Visa, and playing games with the federal government "proving" that he is working as a lawyer in a position no American could fulfill. If my former friend could marry his partner, like his heterosexual counterparts, he would not be at risk of seeing his spouse forced to leave the country.

If the state is going to confer benefits, it is immoral that it not do so equally.

[dhex]

disco fever?

he does appear to be a dingbat. change *is* scary. boo hoo!

[rod boyd]

In the end, though I'm a neocon, I'll support gay marriage. I can see no Federal reason to bar it and there may well be some limited benefit for a segment of the gay community. As many have noted more eloquently than I, I can see no reason for there to be much of any Federal role in marriage, save for the enforcement of broadly accpeted mores, such as marrying an 11-year old, or the aforementioned bridal dog.

As a hetero with four kids, I just can't see that we've done a fantastic job with marriage. Gay or straight, it's not an institution that does very well in a no-fault divorce type zone.

Kurtz and his critics often fail to dwell on the broader moral climate that marriage operates in nowadays. In other words, what the hell is the use of pretending that marriage is something fragile that will shred like paper if touched by Gays, when 40-50% of all hetero marriages fail...and what is the use of pretending that the very real problems of certain parts of the Gay community can be answered by 18K gold bands.....

[fyodor]

rod boyd,

Does anyone really claim that "the very real problems of certain parts of the Gay community can be answered by 18K gold bands?" Besides, of course, the problem that they're not allowed to marry? I think you're using the ol' strawman there. No one thinks gay marriage is some sort of panacea. Gays have problems because all humans have problems, and marriage doesn't solve them all for anyone.

But I'm glad you're supporting gay marriage, anyway!

[speedwell]

Besides, who said all hetero couples want to get married, anyway? My partner of 5+ years and I spend a surprising amount of time training friends and family NOT to refer to us as "practically married" or "common-law married" or even to refer to us as "husband" and "wife." Why? Because if they do, the state of Texas may consider us married... and family law around here is so insane we want absolutely NO part of it. Christ.

We prefer to have a decent relationship with each other, thank you, not with the state (or State), the Church, or any other outside party. We do pretty well that way. As far as survivor benefits et al., that's what estate lawyers are for. Anyone can do that if they try.

Sheesh.

[rod boyd]

Fyodor, I hear you. If I constructed a strawman, I did it unwittingly. I would suggets that Gay activists across the political spectrum have argued that there is vast utility to gay marriage. I'd see most of the writings of Sullivan on this, as well as some of the stuff put out by professioanl screechers like Signorile and his buds over at the Human Rights campaign.

Like I said, to me, that case is overstated and hyperbolic, and frequently wrong. The issue is one of fairness, period. Sound like a lefty, no?

Put cheaply, there is a great deal of political utility to be had by giving the gays this....it takes away a major spear at our backs...."Republicans vs the poor Gays"

It'll never happen. Social conservatives, who have been a declining power in the party truth be told, will make this a Stalingrad type situation. They'll win. Too bad.

[fyodor]

rod boyd,

Thanks for hearing me. Of course one is standing on thin ice to ever say, "No one says that!" unless one does QUITE extensive reading. If some Gay activists do treat gay marriage as a panacea, that's their bad. But for what it's worth, I think most activists on that side of the issue would agree that it's a matter of fairness.

Wow, I wonder what you mean by "a Stalingrad type situation"? I can sorta guess, though, because when a core constituency of a political party in a two party system feels abandoned, they can only fight back with agitation since the other side stands even further away from what they want. And look at all the good voting for Nader did for the Left!!

[Ray Eckhart]

Derby describes it as a Thermopylae moment, although that particular image brings to my mind, the Theban Sacred Band.

[Frenk]

I'm glad Mona got my point! It's just as unfair (although I'm not sure immoral exactly) to deny the benefits given to married people to the single members of society--gay, straight or other.

Better to consider a broad re-consideration of how we approach the matters mentioned (taxes, insurance, etc) than to seek something that only benefits a single group.

[Mike E]

I would encourage all who visit this site to go to NRO more often. While this site from time to time, most likely mistakenly, manages to make sense, NRO has nowhere near the numbers of crack-head, tin foil -wearin' conspiracy theorists as this infected site does.

Give it a try, if you're not afraid!

[Mark M]

My issue claiming a difference between sexual orientation socialization in school and discussion of race issues in school is a simple one. When you are in third grade (the age I mentioned in my original post on the topic), you already are conscious of race. Everywhere you go you see people of different races. Your classmates are likely comprised of many races. Having some of your lessons consist of important lessons about race is a valid issue. It seems a small sacrifice to take a day or two away from multiplication and grammar in order to cover these points.

But in third grade, it is a bit of a stretch to say that you have a sexual identity yet. Having to teach the kids about straight sex just so you can teach them that there is other than straight sex is way off the mark. If a kid in third grade is that conscious of sex, than the child is likely a victim of abuse. In fact, it could be argued that any stranger who wanted to talk to a third grader about sex acts is commiting a crime. Why is a teacher exempt?

I thought this point was so obvious that it didn't need to be made.

[Mark M]

As for the choice comment...

Given how basic and beneath intellectual analysis my "orientation" is, I reach the conclusion that straight or gay isn't a choice. However, moralists and other critics of gay lifestyles could defend their positions by stating that pedophiles claim to have a basic and natural attraction to prepubescents. Yet we as a society do not (and should not) endorse pedophilia.

[Julian]

Sure, third graders aren't conscious of the mechanics of sex; as far as I know, elementary school curricula still don't cover the details of anal lovin'. But third (and first) graders absolutely have a sexual identity, and are aware of romantic pairings. Cf. any psychology text written this century.

As for the relevance of the born/chosen business, obviously something's not being a choice doesn't mean it has to be legally protected, but I don't think anyone had argued that. The reason people have thought that it /is/ relevant is that if gay is something you /are/, then it's a much shorter train of legal reasoning to the conclusion that straights-only marriage laws violate the 14th amendment. I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence by spelling out the obvious ways this is not analogous to pedophilia.

[Corey]

Re: Marrying your dog, it's been done.

[martin]

Mark M.
re: My issue claiming a difference between.....

You still don't seem to get it. The argument is not about teaching sex. It is about teaching tolerance. Why is tolerance toward different races any different than tolerance toward different family arrangements? For kids it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That overworked phrase is worried about far too much by adults.
I'm sure you have heard school kids calling the other "queer" or "faggot" as an insult. No policy I know of forbids that, but it is expressly forbidden to use the N word.
The last part of your comment reveals your real fears: That children might get exposed to anything as dirty as sex. Do you think kids look at their heterosexual parents and think about their sex life? They really don't care how their parents do their loving and that ain't always missionary style either!
And please be a little careful judging children and sex and calling it criminal. We have had enough of a hysteria/witch hunt.

[omnibus bill]

Yeah, what morons. They can't even talk about important issues, like how to score pot while you're touring in Europe...

[Jim N]

Hey, omnibus bill! Way to lower the level of discourse about three levels!

[Mike N]

Wasn't it McNamara who said "What's good for GM is good for America?"

[martin]

Mark S.
You hit on something there. I suspect that most of the people so adamantly against gay marriage are convinced that being gay IS a choice. I wonder if anyone thinking that has ever tried to figure out what makes up his or her attraction to the other sex.

[joe]

Mark M assumes that gay marriage is all about sex, so discussions of gay families will include lesson plans devoted to fisting. Unless Larry Flynt has issued an edition, "Heather Has Two Mommies" has no sexual content.

[Ron C]

RE: "Give it a try, if you're not afraid!"

No comments = teh suq.

[Finstrom Lisa]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-ADVICE.NEt

DATE: 12/10/2003 10:33:42
Please remember that the labels are your own.

[Santiman Linda Diane]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-enlargment-pill.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/21/2003 01:16:32
We are as God made us, and often a great deal worse.

[Hecker Raquel]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 193.251.169.169
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 07:50:42
Fashion exists for women with no taste, etiquette for people with no breeding.