Politics

Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing

Time is on the side of same-sex marriage

|

Opponents of same-sex marriage waxed triumphant recently when voters in Maine rejected a measure allowing gays to wed. Maggie Gallagher, head of the National Organization for Marriage, crowed, "This victory in Maine interrupts the cultural narrative that was being manufactured, that somehow American opinion is shifting on the gay marriage issue."

But she and her allies are the political equivalent of a Minnesota Vikings fan, gazing upon Brett Favre's middle-aged gridiron wizardry. They had better enjoy it now, because it's not going to last.

What got overlooked on Election Day was the victory for gay rights on the other coast, in Washington state—where the electorate extended to homosexual couples all the privileges and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexual couples. That measure, known as "everything but marriage," passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Why did it succeed while the initiative in Maine failed? Simple: Washington calls this new option "domestic partnership" rather than "marriage."

 As it turns out, it's not the idea of treating gay couples equally that bothers most Americans. It's the name of the legal arrangement. Call same-sex marriage by another term—civil union, domestic partnership, everything-but-marriage, Qualcomm Stadium, Death Cab for Cutie—and they're fine with it.

Traditionalists take heart that same-sex marriage has lost every time it's been on the ballot, and that a decisive majority of the public rejects it. The latest poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds 53 percent of Americans are against, with 39 percent in favor.

But anyone who denies that "American opinion is shifting" inhabits a fool's paradise, whose walls are sagging noticeably. Opposition to gay marriage is shrinking. In 1996, 65 percent took a negative view. Since then, support has fallen by about one percentage point a year. Put another way, one out of every eight Americans has gone from opposing the concept to endorsing it.

Time is on the side of gay marriage. The heaviest opposition comes from people over 65. Among those under 30, by contrast, supporters predominate—and by a hefty 58-to-37 percent margin. Ask any actuary where this disparity will lead.

The opponents of same-sex matrimony are in ever-worsening straits. Civil unions and domestic partnerships, which provide some or most of the accouterments of marriage, have been provided to gay couples in nine states and the District of Columbia, according to Lambda Legal. Once radical, these are seen today as the sensible compromise between giving gays the right to sacred matrimony and giving them a sharp stick in the eye.

Offered a middle-of-the-road option between Perez Hilton and Pat Robertson, Americans have flocked to it. Eight years ago, Pew says, only 45 percent were in favor of civil unions. Today, it's 57 percent.

Washingtonians approved the most expansive version, and they knew exactly what they were doing. The ballot said, "This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage."

Why is it not a marriage? Not because it is legally different under Washington state law, but because … well, because it is not called marriage. But it's an identical twin.

The advantage of this bashful euphemism is that it accommodates gays on the most important issues related to family—legal recognition and rights, protection for children, access to pension and insurance benefits—while avoiding the weighty symbolism of calling this arrangement by a name that carries religious connotations.

In time, though, it will be apparent that granting same-sex couples substantive equality has none of the calamitous consequences imagined by gay-rights opponents. At that point, some of them will find themselves saying: Tell me again why we don't let them get married?

Many gay-rights advocates reject anything short of full access to marriage as a disgraceful revival of the old "separate but equal" policy—which was anything but equal for African-Americans. But you don't get across a broad river in a single leap. You get there by building a bridge that allows you to travel across one step at a time.

As a destination, civil unions leave a lot to be desired. But as an avenue, they're hard to beat.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Close Enough for Police Work

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The heaviest opposition comes from people over 65. Among those under 30, by contrast, supporters predominate?and by a hefty 58-to-37 percent margin. Ask any actuary where this disparity will lead.

    Yes, but the under-30s are getting older each year and starting families of their own. People’s views tend to shift right-ward as they age. The old saying that a conservative is just a liberal (or a libertarian) who had kids exists for a reason.

    People in this country still don’t like the idea of uprooting a long-standing tradition (hetero-exclusive marriage) and replacing it with something that codifies in law the very modern, very a-historical idea that gender is nothing more than a social construct and marriage is nothing less than a human right.

    1. Why would a 20 year old who’s fine with gay, think they’re ickey at 40. The you get more conservative as you get older stuff might work might work for thing like taxes, when you end up paying vastly more, but I fail to see any good reason it would apply to gay marriage.

      1. Easy – somebody who’s 20 doesn’t have kids who have a gay teacher or scoutmaster. You’d be surprised how a couple kids changes your perspective.

        1. No, people who are in their 60s didn’t grow up knowing gay people. Young people may get more conservative as they age, but they won’t be creeped out by the gay teacher because it isn’t as much of an unknown. The point of House in the burbs is fundamentally flawed.

          1. Gay teachers aren’t creepy merely because they’re “unknown.” Quite the opposite, in my experience…

            1. You’ve had gay sex with a teacher? It all makes sense now.

            2. I’d disagree. Once you actually know a few gay people, you realize that “gay” doesn’t mean “child molester.”

              1. We do? How many of those Catholic priests we’re always hearing about got busted for fiddling little girls?

                1. Since you brought it up, how many were little girls? Were the priests gay? I’m sure you know that there is a difference between “gay” and “pedophile”….right?

          2. No, people who are in their 60s didn’t grow up knowing gay people.

            Well, no, they definitely grew up knowing gay people — they just didn’t KNOW they were gay.

    2. I disagree, sir, that everyone shifts rightward and I’m offended that you included libertarian. Frankly, I plan to stay libertarian because I’m too intelligent to be a conservative.

      1. I second, Mr. Galt.

    3. gender is nothing more than a social construct and marriage is nothing less than a human right.

      Funny, i thought marriage was a social construct too.

      1. It is.

        So’s the state.

        The point is that it was socially constructed for a reason, namely the stability of offspring. A social construct is something that takes generations to evolve, and it evolves based on biological need. The gay community hasn’t got said need, they just have a silly, Catholic-Guilt? inspired desire to be sanctioned by the rest of us.

        1. “A social construct is something that takes generations to evolve, and it evolves based on biological need.”

          Social constructs are not based on biological need. The use of money is not a biological need. Social hierarchies are not a biological need. That’s why these things are called social constructs.

          1. The use of money may not be a biological need all by itself, but it exists to better serve biological needs (food, shelter, et al) by allowing specialization.

            Can people put money in their asses? Yes. But I don’t want the definition of the word “money” to be changed to mean “money/toilet paper”, because if it is, then the likelihood that people are going to try and pass dung-stained dollars off to me in change will increase. That doesn’t serve any biological purpose at all…

            1. “The use of money may not be a biological need all by itself, but it exists to better serve biological needs (food, shelter, et al) by allowing specialization.”

              Everything can be tied to “biological need” in this same fashion.

              I think the construct of marriage has been evolving away from a child-centric construct since the Romantic period.

              1. Are you sure?

                Sure enough that your opinion on the matter rises to the level of “human rights”? Sure enough to feel safe thinking that everyone who disagrees with your guess about the “direction of society” is a bigot?

                Because in order to vote to redefine the thing, you’d pretty much have to have that certainty, right?

                1. Sure about what? That marriage has evolved? I’ll say that I agree with parse’s comment at 11.16.09 @ 11:40AM.

            2. But I don’t want… people… to try and pass dung-stained dollars off to me

              Eh, most bills under 10 have been up a strippers spam-purse.

              (However, only in the Catholic population have most kids named Bill, under 10, been up a…)

              <flee>

        2. I see a nation of unstable offspring on the horizon!

        3. It may be the case that marriage was originally constructed socially to provide a stable home for offspring. But for several generations, the time you note that it takes for a social construct to evolve, marriage has been constructed to provide a framework for romantic love and domestic partnership. It’s because this new construction is so amenable to use by gay people that the pressure for gay marriage exists in the first place.

          I say this as a gay man opposed to gay marriage.

    4. Actually, I think the saying is that “a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.”

  2. OTOH,

    What backs up your supposition that tomorrows conservatives will look anything like todays conservatives? Pure force of belief? Victorians would probably consider the outgoing baby boomers as unabashably liberal. Conservative and liberal are just relative terms used to define parts of the spectrum that differ from the average in any given time period. I think you fail to realize how dramatically different each generation is from the next or do you still object to that little black boy holding your daughters hand?

    1. So, explain this to me, you race-baiting faggot: why is it wrong for a guy to marry his brother?

      If it’s not wrong for a guy to marry his brother, why is it wrong for him to marry his sister?

      If it’s not wrong for him to marry either one, why would it be wrong for him to marry both?

      If it’s not wrong for him to marry both, why do we have laws against perversions like incest at all?

      Why is pedophilia wrong? Age is just a number and childhood is just a social construct, after all.

      1. This seems pretty lame. I doubt you really think age is a “social construct” (is an 18 year old really not older than a 16 year old, or does society just collectively think so?) so let’s skip this one. As to your incest argument two things can be said:
        1. I’m not sure the state should bar incest between consenting adults. I doubt there is going to be a line for that even were it legal.
        2. It can be argued that incest poses a unique threat to familial discord (wives competing with daughters etc) that same-sex marriage simply does not trigger.

        1. MNG, If you really BELIEVE incest is OK, you are a fool and a disgusting piece of crap.

          1. There’s a difference between “OK” and “legal.”

            I do not think that incest between consenting adults should be against the law.

            Do I think it’s a good idea? Nope.

          2. Why not? It works for royalty!

            1. “Son of God or Son of Man… can’t nothin’ good come from fuckin’ your sister.”

            2. Not to mention the banjo player from “Deliverance.”

          3. Incest is certainly creepy but I don’t think that makes it an offense for government banning.

            Now, having children through incest poses a very direct problem of inbreeding which should certainly be discouraged. And that, of course, is a major component of why we have laws against incest in the first place.

            Believers in the Sky God should have no religious qualms since their Great Book of Myth has incest right and left. Surely the first family must have. And Noah’s at least between first cousins. And Lot. Actually there’s a lot of incest in the Book of the Sky God.

            (and I call the deity of the Abraham Tradition the Sky God to diminish it and put it more on par with, say, Zeus)

            1. There’s actually substantial biological evidence that reproduction with slightly-ditant cousins produces slightly less defective progeny, at least where there isn’t a singular family defect (like hemophilia in the Euro monarchies) that would continue in perpetuity. I believe Iceland is the commonly referenced society for such studies. There is enough bio-diversity to keep things kosher, but a nonetheless considerably amount of (allegedly) beneficial homogeneity. I’d have to dig up the research on teh interwebz and I am too lazy to right now.

            2. Way to pick a witty name and then wow us with your banter.

          4. What’s incest? Siblings? First cousins? Secong cousins? Fourth cousins twice removed? Step siblings? Step parents?

            Between consenting adults, incest (yes, mom and son, brother and sister) is none of your (or my) business.

            People own their own body. Is that concept too difficult to grasp?

            1. If people own their own bodies, but it’s only the incest between adults that’s none of our business, there’s a suggestion that children are not people. Or that the tolerance for incest is based on something than one’s ownership of one’s own body.

              Perhaps your concept needs a little tweeking.

              1. No. The concept needs no “tweeking.”

                We have a long history of recognizing an age of consent. That consent is not merely a consent for sexual purposes, that age of consent is based upon the idea that the very notion of consent must first be “informed” consent. Although 18 years of age might seem like a rather arbitrary barometer for being capable of rendering “informed” consent, it is nonetheless what our society has agreed to. This informed consent is required for all contracts to be considered valid as well (unless one is an emancipated minor, and I have often wondered, merely as an intellectual curiosity I hasten to add, whether consent for sexual activity would be legally permitted for an emancipated minor).

      2. Why do you asshole bigots constantly equate homosexuality with incest?
        It is wrong for a guy to marry his brother because they are related, DUH. Are you implying every homosexual is related or what? Are you dense? Are you retarded? Oh, and Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989, Ohio only targets parental figures, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older. Get your facts straight; just because you think something should be verboten does not mean it is, you cunt.

        1. You know, that’s perhaps the silliest counterargument I’ve ever heard. The raising of the question of incest is to draw an example of relaxing social mores on marriage that people would find FAR more objectionable than gay marriage. The reasoning is that if society has no business forbidding marriage between a same-sex couple (not horrifying), what business does it have forbidding marriage between relatives (horrifying). The presumption of the argument is that same-sex marriage is far less objectionable than incest. In addition, your seeming defense of incest does more to equate the two than GFY’s comment.

          1. Huh? Where did I defend incest? By citing the legal situation? GFY assumed incest would be completely illegal, and I just said that this is not true. I did not make an evaluation of incest at all. For the record, I am against it.

        2. Why do you asshole bigots constantly equate homosexuality with incest?

          Because it shows, Mr. Articulate, that not all couples are equal in the eyes of the law. The alleged right to SSM depends on the concept of equal protection for couples. A couple of men are not equally protected compared to a (non-related) man and woman because the couple of men cannot marry but the man and the woman can marry.

          Equal protection for couples does not exist because there are a lot of couples that are “discriminated” against (father/daughter etc). So the equal protection argument for SSM washes away.

          By the way, equal protection for individuals does not come into it because nobody asks for sexual preference when someone gets a marriage license. They don’t even have any way of knowing if the applicant is gay.

          1. “Because it shows, Mr. Articulate, that not all couples are equal in the eyes of the law. The alleged right to SSM depends on the concept of equal protection for couples.”

            And the concept of equal protection depends on how great the government’s interest in regulating the behavior is. Incest has a long history of producing congenital birth defects. Homosexuality has produced no such issues affecting society as a whole.

            The equal protection argument only washes away for people who don’t really have a clue what equal protection actually means.

            1. That sounds like some “substantive due process” BS, but never mind that. The fact remains that establishing a right to SSM establishes something new that was never there before. Equal protection for couples. If equal protection for couples is established, then prohibiting incestuous marriages has to be positively defended.

              1. You Fail Logic Forever.

                1. If you are speaking to me, you are mistaken. My logic is ironclad.

              2. “That sounds like some “substantive due process” BS”

                The court borrowed the “levels of scrutiny” from a footnote in an early substantive due process case. However, it has been standard of the equal protection analysis since WWII. And I bet you think the first substantive due process case, Lochner v. New York, was correctly decided. But I digress.

                Equal protection for gays does NOT require any defense of incest because equal protection is not a relative analysis. Gay marriage will stand or fall on its own merits, not the merits of an unrelated concept.

                Nobody is establishing “equal protection for [all] couples”. The category “all couples” is meaningless. How can one possibly determine the dangers posed by “all couples”? Or the government interest in regulating “all couples”?

                1. Equal protection for gays does NOT…

                  We are not talking about equal protection for gays. Like I said, nobody is asked if they are gay when they apply for a license, so they have no way of knowing if the applicant is even gay or not.

                  We are talking about equal protection for same-sex couples. There was never any equal protection for couples before so incest marriage prohibitions never had to be defended on a equal protection basis. If SSM is established on equal protection grounds, that opens up incest marriage prohibitions now have to be defended on equal protection grounds.

                  1. “We are not talking about equal protection for gays. Like I said, nobody is asked if they are gay when they apply for a license, so they have no way of knowing if the applicant is even gay or not. “

                    For purposes of equal protection, you can use “equal protection for gays” interchangeably with “equal protection for gay couples”. It doesn’t make a difference.

                    “We are talking about equal protection for same-sex couples.”

                    And equal protection for same sex couples does not depend on or relate to equal protection for incestuous couples (which is a separate and distinct category).

                    You see, the categories are separate. That’s what makes them “categories”.

                    1. For purposes of equal protection, you can use “equal protection for gays” interchangeably with “equal protection for gay couples”. It doesn’t make a difference.

                      Firstly, I assume that by “gay couple” you didn’t mean a gay man and a gay woman, so you really mean “same sex couple”.

                      So no, I do not see how “equal protection for gays” is interchangeable with “equal protection for [same sex] couples” at all. That is your assertion.

                    2. “Firstly, I assume that by ‘gay couple’ you didn’t mean a gay man and a gay woman, so you really mean ‘same sex couple’.”

                      LOL! And forcing blacks to go to substandard black-only schools wasn’t discrimination against those blacks who wanted to go to substandard schools!!!

                    3. Who is mixing their categories now? The administrators knew those kids were black and forced a substandard school for them based on their skin color.

                      Nobody asks if a marriage applicant is gay so nobody knows. Different treatment based on the individual’s sexual preference is impossible.

                    4. “Nobody asks if a marriage applicant is gay so nobody knows.”

                      You keep saying this, but the fact that gay marriages are illegal means that SOMEBODY knows and discriminates based on that knowledge.

                      And be definitive here: according to your logic, can we mix categories or not? If we can, then my black school example shuts you down. If we cannot, then you were shut down from the beginning. Have a nice day.

                    5. “Nobody asks if a marriage applicant is gay so nobody knows.”

                      You keep saying this, but the fact that gay marriages are illegal means that SOMEBODY knows and discriminates based on that knowledge.

                      Not true. No decisions are made based on an applicants’ gayness because nobody asks about the applicants’ gayness.

                      “Gay marriage” is ambiguous. I don’t know exactly what you are talking about. Gays have been known to, for whatever reason, marry a member of the opposite sex.

                    6. “Gay marriage” is ambiguous. I don’t know exactly what you are talking about.

                      Nobody seems to know what I’m talking about. I say “gay marriage” and everybody just gives me a blank stare. They say “I’ve never heard of such a thing”. You’d be surprised how many people are completely lost when the term “gay marriage” comes up. They simply have NO idea what it means. They are well versed on “same sex marriage” or “gender neutral marriage”, but nobody has ever heard of “gay marriage”. wikipedia says that gay marriage is another term for same sex marriage, but you can’t trust Wikipedia to make the concise distinctions when we’re talking about gays. Just because a Google search for “gay marriage” gives about 29 million hits doesn’t mean that gay marriage has any particular meaning.

                      Can anybody help me here? Has anybody heard the term “gay marriage”? Can anybody define what it means? We really have no idea what it could possibly mean!!

                    7. By the way, gay marriage refers to same sex marriage, not opposite sex marriage with gay participants. Clear? Or are you still going to pretend the sky is green?

                    8. Yessir. But if there is ever a gay marriage with straight participants I will be really confused.

                    9. Probably an immigration scam….Or maybe frat boys who say “I love you, man” with a little more aplomb than normal.

                2. Although I support permitting gay marriage (or more accurately, oppose government forbiding the right to contract of two consenting adults in whatever activty they so choose), I must say that equal protection is not a valid legal argument, at least from a homosexual/heterosexual POV. I, heterosexual male, cannot enter a marriage contract with another man, so there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, as a case of gender discrimination, the legal arguments are in the favor of gay marriage supporters. If a woman can marry a man, it seems to me a violation of equal protection to forbid a man from also marrying a man.

                  1. “I, heterosexual male, cannot enter a marriage contract with another man, so there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

                    How do you reconcile this with the rhetorical statement, “I, a white male in 1952, cannot enter a black school, so there is no discrimination based on race.”

                    1. Simply, It is OK for the government to differentiate between the sexes. The Equal Rights Amendment failed. That is to say, it is OK for the government to not willfully pretend men and women are interchangeable.

                      The same cannot be said of skin color. Government should be colorblind. A government that is sex-blind is denying reality.

                    2. “That is to say, it is OK for the government to not willfully pretend men and women are interchangeable.”

                      No, the government still has to show the regulation is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest”.

                    3. That is to say, it is OK for the government to not willfully pretend men and women are interchangeable.”

                      No, the government still has to show the regulation is “substantially related” to an “important” government interest”.

                      Now you are just shifting your argument around. Before it was all about the gays. Now it is about equal protection for men and women. I can’t keep up.

                    4. You can’t keep up? It isn’t that complicated. Even if gay marriage, same sex marriage, queer marriage (or whatever term you want to pretend not to understand) is purely an issue of gender equality, there is STILL an equal protection analysis. And every lawyer in the world knows that offering more than one argument in favor of your position is a good idea. So, really, like all anti-gay marriage people, you’re just being difficult without adding anything.

                    5. Because a black man could enter a black school ergo, discrimination based on race. A homosexual man can marry a woman just like I can and I am similarly forbidding from marrying a man as a homosexual man is. The same restrictions exist on us both, whereas with the black school example (although the argument should be made about a white school since there werent any whites trying to get into woefully underfunded black schools), I cannot enroll while a person of a differnt color could.

                      The equal protection argument needs to be made on the grounds that if a woman is allowed to marry a man, why is a man not allowed to do the same? Two different people, one permitted to do something, the other not. Where with the homosexual/heterosexual thing, I as a heterosexual am bound to the same legal prohibitions against marrying another man as my male homosexual friends are. I know it seems rather semantic, but it is in the truest sense an equal application.

                    6. “although the argument should be made about a white school since there werent any whites trying to get into woefully underfunded black schools”

                      That was my point. I think your analysis is fine, but the SCOTUS has sort of, kind of, not really but kinda treated gays as something more than a non-suspect class. They said emphatically that gays are not a suspect class, but I think Lawrence v. Texas is the only rational basis review to ever turn over legislation. No?

            2. So if the point of government recognition of marriage is ensuring the welfare of children, why stop at outlawing incest? Why not, say, put restrictions on divorce (i.e. limiting divorce to cases where one of the parties can show harm, such as abuse or adultery)?

              And if the government is in the business of regulating marriage by eugenic conditions, why stop at bans on incest? Why not prevent individuals with inheritable diseases such as Down Syndrome, or hemophilia, or Tay-Sachs, from marrying?

              And, bringing it back to the original topic of discussion: Why, if you accept the principle that the purpose of legally recognized marriage is to provide a good home for offspring, would bans on same-sex marriage be unthinkable?

      3. The laws against incest are based on the Old Testament prohibition, which is based on the observable fact that the risk of genetic deformity of offspring of brothers mating with sisters is much higher than average.

    2. First, you’re using a rather unfair AdHom against me (implying racism), and second, the guy with the funny name is a clearly a sockpuppet.

      But you’re right; the goalposts are always moving. I understand that liberal and conservative are relative terms, but I don’t think it necessarily follows that the next generation will be different from the former in just the way you hope.

      Parents see how different boys and girls are. Single people who learn about the differences primarily in the sack or the college lecture hall have far less insight on that, and it is just that sense of difference on which much of what we call “social conservatism” rests.

      1. The difference between boys and girls is something any toddler can appreciate. Assuming wisdom comes with age, so should the fact that sexuality is naturally much more variable than is usually assumed.

  3. “gender is nothing more than a social construct”

    Someone’s been reading the Big Book of Anti-Gay-Marriage Strawmen again.

    1. You’ve obviously been reading NAMBLA’s big book of Pro-Sodomy Talking Points again.

      1. Did you take your meds this morning fella?

      2. Ah, the eternal debate: one side says “marriage,” the other side hears “ZOMG BUTTSECKS!”

        1. ZOMG I LOVE BUTTSEKCS

        2. Seriously, what utter horseshit.

          Everyone knows married people stop having sex.

          So really, if the haters want the icky buttsecks to stop, they’d allow the marriages already.

  4. I have a good way of solving this dilemma. Make it so that the state no longer recognizes marriage, but instead unions or legal unions or whatever you want to call them. You can still get married but it would only be in the eyes of whatever god you worship. The state shouldn’t recognize a religious ceremony anyway.

    1. Furthermore, the government shouldn’t adjust taxation rates based on one’s marital status, nor should one’s citizenship status change based upon it.

      1. But, if the government doesn’t sanction marriage, what reason would anyone have to get married? THE WHOLE FAMILY UNIT WILL BREAK DOWN!

      2. Citizenship status doesn’t change due to marriage now.

        I suspect your thinking of immigrant classification here. Fro immigration purposes immediate family, children, parents, asw well as spouses get are a preferred class. Everyone still has to be naturalized and the only way to shorten the residence requirement for eligibility is to join the Armed Forces.

        1. Yes, that’s it. Thanks.

          FWIW, my auto insurance rate shouldn’t change depending on my marital status either.

          1. Married people statistically drive safer. Insurance companies don’t make the statistics, they just use them.

    2. The ultimate solution is to get government completely out of the social engineering business altogether.

      There is no reason why married/domestic partner/whatever anyone wants to call it should have any state sanctioned material subsidies/advantages over single people.

      And if marriage between two people of opposite gender is merely an “artificial construct” as gay marriage supporters claim in support of their position, then so is the idea that marriage can only be between two people rather than 5, 10 or 20 people.

      Getting government out of the social engineering busisness altogether would take care of all of that – and a lot more besides.

      Because getting government totally out of the social engineering business would impact a lot more than the gay marriage issue. – No more “sin” taxes on smokes and booze, no more telling people what kind of cars to drive, light bulbs to buy, etc, etc, – all across the economic spectrum.

      1. Thread winner.

      2. No doubt I’ll be called a “bigot,” but there is no way I could support same-sex marriage.

        That said, I can support the abolition of state recognition of marriage. There is no reason why people can’t make private contracts that deal with all the issues of marriage.

        It’s just that so long as the state defines it, I can’t throw my support behind a cause I disagree with.

    3. Great! Just what we need. More Unions.

      1. Good one.

    4. I was going to say this, but reading the stuff up to this point made me want to puke- good to know among all of our philosophers and idiots, there’s someone with common sense left.

  5. Maybe the state shouldn’t recognize marriage for anyone, but if it does it should recognize it in a way that respects equal protection of the law. Agreed?

    I mean, maybe the state should not engage in garbage pick up, but would a state garbage pick-up program that did not pick up the garbage of gay citizens be right?

    1. But if you pick up their garbage, you’d have to pick up the garbage of dogfuckers and polygamists and bisexual bigamists and intersexed individualists and–worst of all–art teachers.

      Do you really want your hard-earned tax money going to art teachers? I didn’t think so.

      1. I forgot about the art teachers. I was gonna disagree before that.

        1. How about choir directors? Case closed.

      2. You know, I thought this was funny until you started bashing art teachers. Now I have to call my lawyer.

  6. Go Fuck Yourself, you forgot to call us dogfuckers. I mean, if gay marriage were legal, I’d certainly be fucking dogs; how about you?

    Go fuck yourself.

    1. you left out a some Les Grossman actions:

      “take a step back, and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!”

      then bust out the Ludacris and start dancin.

  7. Then, there is this

    Oh, Sweet Home indeed. Aaaaaak

  8. GAY MARRIAGE LOST, BUT IT’S NOT LOSING
    Opponents of same-sex marriage waxed triumphant recently when voters in Maine rejected a measure allowing gays to wed.

    Wait a minute. Did Mainers vote to prohibit same-sex marriage or “gay” marriage? Or both, as the conflicting language above suggests? Is it homophobic (“gay” marriage) or merely an attempt to thwart the corruption of “traditional” partnerships and the legally recognized benefits of such parterships? Cuz two straight guys could “marry.” For the bennies.

    1. And two straight men should be permitted to marry, for the “bennies,” in the same way that a man and a woman can marry “for the bennies.” Just let those straight men be forwarned, that those “bennies” come with significant risks too. You can try to game the system, but don’t get all butthurt (no pun intended given the context of this thread) if the system games you.

  9. “But you don’t get across a broad river in a single leap. You get there by building a bridge that allows you to travel across one step at a time.”

    I’ve always preferred to caulk the wagons and float, but I suppose you could take the chance and try to ford it.

    1. Samantha has dysentery!

  10. The social conservative authoritarians who think they have the right to control the most private of free associations between consenting adults better have some deep pockets.

    Cost per vote in favor of discrimination: $14

    Cost per vote in favor of equal rights: $10

    Seeing the margin decline even in an off year election: Priceless

    Garfunkel and Oates put it well.

    Scrooge McDuck gonna give it to you
    Dive into your gold until you say Duck Tails!
    WhoooHooo!

    1. A government issued marriage license is not “most private of free associations between consenting adults”, it is a government license.

      1. I think his point is that they’re requiring a license for what SHOULD be the “most private of free associations between consenting adults.”

        1. There is no requirement that you get a marriage license. Simply have the two, three, four or whatever number of people who want to get married to declare themselves married. As long as they are over the age of consent and are considered to be mentally competent then you can marry whoever you want.

          Getting a government marriage license on the other hand requires you to follow government rules.

      2. It’s none of the government’s business, nor is it yours. You do not have the right to prevent Cindy and Tracie from becoming married, calling themselves married, and receiving the same benefits other couples take for granted.

        You are, however, free to be stupid, say stupid things, and give as much of your money as you like to homophopic organizations that are hell bent on continuing this discriminatory practice.

        1. “””””It’s none of the government’s business, nor is it yours.”””

          You are asking for a government license and then declaring that the government has no say in it and then you say that the public has no say in who gets these government granted licences

          “”””and receiving the same benefits other couples take for granted. “””

          What benefits? Do you mean government granted benefits, if so then that is not a private act but a government act.

          If you want to say you are married to someone then say you are married. If you want government granted license and benefits then don’t be surprised that the government and the public has a say in whether or not you get it.

          1. Governments treat unmarried couples very differently in regard to property rights, inheritance, child custody after the death of a spouse and myriad other ways.

            Again, what gives YOU the authoritah to empower the government to treat one couple differently than another?

            Throughout history the results of state interference in this private relationship have been bad. 1000 Years ago it resulted in the perpetuation of a paternalistic society that was unfair to Women. 100 years ago, it kept whites from marrying non-whites. 10 Years ago, civil unions were of rare availability.

            Ultimately, most of the opposition for treating people equally comes from right wing religious nutjobs who believe literally in a second century book of fairy tales. Is that where your justification comes from, or would you prefer to have a rational discussion about the issue?

            1. “””Ultimately, most of the opposition for treating people equally comes from right wing religious nutjobs who believe literally in a second century book of fairy tales. Is that where your justification comes from, or would you prefer to have a rational discussion about the issue? “””‘

              I have not mentioned anything about second century nor any other book.

              You on the other hand seem to want the government to stay out of a government granted license which makes no sense. Your argument has been based on having the government and public get out of your relationships yet you demand that the government give you a marriage license. You also demand that the government give you all sorts of special government issued legal benefits. If you want to change the legal situation regarding property rights, inheritance, child custody etc then go to a lawyer who can write up many of those things in a contract between you and whoever you want to give such things to.

              But I doubt you really want that, what you do want is a nice big fat government license which gives approval to whatever personnel situation you are in.

              1. Uh, NO. I’d prefer that government (and you) mind your own business. I’m not promoting special rights, I’m supporting equal rights under the law.

                Again, and for the third time, from where do you get the authoritah to empower the state to deny rights to Cindy and Tracie that George and Gracie take for granted?

                Frankly, it remains none of your stinkin business, nor theirs, so put up or shut up. State valid reasons for your opposition or say good night, Gracie.

                1. You want a license from the government so it is obviously in the power of the government to decide if you get that license and it is in the power of the voters to decide what the government does. Why do you keep on claiming it has nothing to do with government when you are demanding a license from government? It is a special government issued privilege so I don’t see where you have any argument that it is not. So it is the governments business since they are in the business of issuing marriage licenses.

                  Now if you want to privately marry someone you can marry anyone you want, you can get a lawyer to write up any will or power of attorney as well, it just that getting a marriage license is not private business it is as I explained it is government business so the government and the voters get to decide who gets that license

                  1. You still have not presented any notion for why government should have the power to regulate/define/license marriage in the first place.

                    Your silence there speaks volumes.

                    Are you one of those idiots that think people have only the rights that their government allows them?

                    Again. It’s none of your business. Cindy and Tracie are no threat to you, unless you see freedom and limited government as a threat to your ability to force your small minded authoritarianism on others.

                    Say good night Gracie.

                    1. “”””You still have not presented any notion for why government should have the power to regulate/define/license marriage in the first place. “””

                      Because the special privileges that you get from receiving a government marriage license comes from the government power to impose them on others. The government force is used to impose that some people with marriage licenses get special tax breaks, they get special inheritance rights, etc etc.

                      If you want to have a marriage you can do that right now without getting a government license. But obviously you are not interest in marrying someone, you want the government privileges and the government stamp of approval on your marriage

                      If on the other hand you want to get the special privileges that a government marriage license provides you need to go to the government and the government gets its power from the governed and the voters have decided that they don’t want homosexuals to get those marriage licenses and those special privileges. If you look at the tax laws for example there are all sorts of activities and people who get special privileges and all sorts of other activities and people who don’t.

  11. “You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as ‘married,’ you can be… ‘butt buddies.’

    “Instead of being ‘man and wife,’ you’ll be… ‘butt buddies.’ You won’t be ‘betrothed,’ you’ll be ‘butt buddies.’ Get it? Instead of a ‘bride and groom,’ you’d be ‘butt buddies.’

    “You *are* equal. It’s just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be ‘butt buddies.’ And everyone is happy!”

  12. I know. Let’s ask Glenn Beck about gay marriage. He’s a libertarian. He said so himself.

    1. Yep, I heard him say it, it must be true.

    2. No true? libertarian would say some of the things he says.

      1. I never implied there is a true libertarian. I implied that Glenn Beck isn’t to me a libertarian. You might see him as one. That’s your trip.

  13. gender is nothing more than a social construct

    The same can be said of consent, you know.

    Full disclosure: I’m in the civil unions for all, “marriage” is church, not state, business, camp, myself. So I’m just sayin’, is all.

    1. Agreed. Civil unions for everyone.
      It’s so simple, it’ll take 20 years for the nation to grok it.

      In fact, seems to me that at some level that’s what we’re doing now, but it’s hidden: AFAIK, anyone who acts as an officiant (except certain government officials) has to be registered with… the government. Including clerics. The confusing thing is that the gov’t allows religious wedding rites to stand in for a gov’t officiation. Maybe not such a great idea, as it’s now got everyone all mixed up. People don’t usually think of it that way. (Although I once went to a wedding that included the signing of legal documents off to one side of the altar, immediately after the rites and just before the presentation of the couple. So that church, at least, was consciously keeping the “church” part of the marrying distinct from the “state” part.)


      Sidebar: I submit that for better or worse (heh! that was unintentional, I swear!) “marriage” has always been a state business? the whole point was to codify inheritance/succession, and thereby promote social order. It’s just that for a looong while there, the church was the state (or at least a major arm of it). And for literally ages, they were the only ones who could keep records.

  14. The heaviest opposition in California was among blacks and hispanics. Good thing neither of those groups have any demographic future in the US. And is all those stuff white people like people who wait until the are 40 to get married and have one brat if they are lucky who are going to own the future.

    How many times can the same logical fallacy be repeated? Do they teach this fallacy in journalism school and give out a template of it? Just because people under 30 think a certain way doesn’t mean they will think the same way when they are 60. Maybe the will, but maybe they won’t. We won’t know until they are 60.

    1. It’s not about changing your opinion as you grow older, it’s about a change in cultural norms overall. As culture becomes more accepting fewer people will hold onto their bigoted attitudes into adulthood. You still see blatantly racist old-folk because that was the norm in their time, I truly don’t think you’ll see that as we begin to age because it’s not a social norm in our culture. It doesn’t have to do with a change in age it has to do with what was acceptable as you were growing up…at least that’s my take on it. Also personal rights and freedoms aren’t a matter of opinion anyway. Doesn’t matter if I do turn 60 and become a homophobe, doesn’t mean my jackass opinion counts for beans.

      1. It does when it is a majority of the country. Most of the groups that have a demographic future in this country do not support gay marriage. Support of gay marriage is pretty much confined to upper middle class and rich white people. And those people represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the country.

        The biggest mistake gay marriage advocates made was claiming it was a civil rights issue. In doing that they offended a whole lot of black people.

        Running around insulting everyone who doesn’t agree without you and telling them their opinions don’t matter, doesn’t win many converts to the cause. Gay marriage will never happen in this country. It is probably reached its high water mark in the last few years.

        The Dems value the black vote and the hispanic vote a lot more than they do the gay vote. The Republicans value the religous vote a lot more than they do the gay vote. The gays are screwed.

        1. It is a matter of rights, it’s their right to get married if they so choose, just because a bunch of religious bigots want to impose their version of morality onto the rest of the country does not mean that homosexuality is bad or that they do not deserve access to the same freedoms as the rest of us. The majority opinion doesn’t matter on this issue because the majority are ignorant religious bigots. Gay marriage will happen, it’s just going to take a bit of time. As more people lose their religion, as the trend is going, there will be more acceptance of gay marriage. What other reason is there not to allow two people that love each other not to marry? Oh yeah, God said so in that big book of his filled with contradictions.

          1. Dream on. Gays have throughout history been a small minority of the population. No civilization in history has ever given gay marriage. That is not by accident. Maybe people are just hardwired to object to it. Maybe people just suck from birth. Who knows.

            1. Gays having been and continuing to be a small minority of the population has no bearing on anything. Just because societies haven’t allowed gay marriage in the past is not a reason to continue such a practice into the future. It is a matter of religion. What non-religious reason is there to oppose two consenting adults loving each other and sharing their lives together as everyone else is allowed to do. The less religious upper middle class white are more accepting of gay marriage because they are less religious and more educated. The fact that the population of our country that is least religious is also least bigoted tells you something about what underlies religion.

              1. Thank you for demonstrating (in this post and others) why “gay marriage” proponents so often have a hard time winning votes. By portraying this issue as a contest between “religious bigots” and the “less religious and more educated” you do your cause a good deal of harm. As should be clear from many of the comments above and below, opposition to “gay marriage” is not solely (or even chiefly) due to bigotry and ignorance; by presenting it as such, you turn away many (religious or not) who might otherwise support your cause. Anecdotally, of the people known to me that voted against “gay marriage” in California last year, religious bigotry (or bigotry in general), by and large, did not play a role in their decision.

                The fact that you believe that the “population of our country that is least religious is also least bigoted” rather undermines your argument, as you yourself seem to have a strong prejudice against religion and the religious, which the uncharitable might ascribe to a kind of bigotry.

                Moreover, as others have pointed out already, “gay marriage” is not generally about a negative right to marry, but rather a positive right to the special privileges accorded married couples by the government. There is an argument to be made that so long as those privileges exist, they should be afforded to all. It might be better, however, to question the reasons for such privileges in the first place.

                1. In general I do not agree with the idea of marriage in the first place. It’s a long held tradition that we can’t seem to let go of but if the government is going to be involved and be providing such licenses and special benefits, it had better be provided equally to all consenting adults regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. I would like to hear a legitimate argument for why same-sex couples should not be granted equal marriage rights that doesn’t have to do with the fact that some people think homosexuality is wrong and sinful. What other legitimate concern could there be for allowing two people that love each other to get married? I have yet to hear a logical argument for why gay couples cannot get married that doesn’t rely on judeo-christian morality. As for me, I’m not a bigot just because I don’t agree with bad ideas. I respect my fellow person to hold whatever religious belief they feel fit and will treat them the same as I treat anyone else and think they should be allowed the rights as everyone else, even though I disagree with their stupid ideas. What I don’t agree with is imposing their morals into the personal lives of others.

                  1. Equating all religions with bigotry and ignorance out of hand would seem to be a form of bigotry — as would equating opponents of “gay marriage” with “ignorant religious bigots”…

                    A number of other posters on here have already argued against “gay marriage” on the grounds that the government should not be involved in the business of marriage in the first place. Perhaps you do not see that argument as “legitimate”, but given you yourself have said you do not agree with the idea of marriage, it would be hard to see why not. In fact, it would seem to be more consistent with your own views on marriage. Moreover, that argument is not generally steeped in “Judeo-Christian” morality.

                    There are other arguments that could be made, rightly or wrongly: for instance, that the special benefits you refer to are, by and large, already accorded to those in “civil union” arrangements in a number of places.

                    You may not see such arguments as persuasive (or “legitimate”) — and you may well be right — but their existence would seem to indicate that opposition to “gay marriage” is not always rooted in bigotry — religious or otherwise.

          2. Cearly it is all the fault of religion. That is why they had gay marriage in communist countries. And it is even worse Christianity’s fault. That is why gay marriage is so prevelent in Asia and other non-Christian countries.

            And as far as people becoming less religous, only white middle class and upper class people are less religous. In the rest of the world, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, religion seems to be doing quite well.

        2. There is no evidence that support for gay marriage is doing anything but rising. The fact is there is simply no convincing argument against it. Certainly none of the usual arguments make any sense, and they almost always go back to religious reasons anyway.

          Gay marriage will probably be legal in most places in the western world in the next couple decades. As a strong champion of liberty, you should be happy about that.

          1. Gay marriage ceremonies already are legal. The issue is whether the government recognizes them, or grants equality under the law.

            Me: against any government recognition of any marriage, gay or straight — in favor of equality under the law.

        3. It does when it is a majority of the country. Most of the groups that have a demographic future in this country do not support gay marriage. Support of gay marriage is pretty much confined to upper middle class and rich white people. And those people represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the country.

          I have heard and read about the growing Islamization of Europe, with Muslim immigrants outbreeding natives.

          Here in California, there are immigrants from Roman Catholic countries having lots of anchor babies. Because President Ronald Reagan signed that amnesty for illegal aliens, those anchor babies got to vote in 2008, thus passing Proposition 8.

        4. Someone is going to get the votes of gays. Part of the reason Rs diss them is because they know that 90%+ of the gay vote is going to Democrats. If the vote was split more like 50-50, some of the Rs would try to reach an accommodation.

          1. Of course, gays are a numerically insignificant proportion of the national population.

            Their proportion of the vote only matters in San Francisco and West Hollywood.

    2. Did both the black people in Maine really shift that election?

  15. but can they be forced to testify against their partner about something that happened during their partnership?

  16. We can’t allow gay people to marry, becuase what would happen to our good, Christian government? We have to maintain our Judeo-Christian values, and the only way to do that is to make sure everyone is good and Christian-like (not Judeo, of course).

    Read Levitucus, fools!

    1. Yes! If you are going to be choosy why not make it illegal to wear polyester blends!

      1. What kind of monster favors the legalization of polyester blends?!!

      2. Technically, the Old Testament has been interpreted by rabbis to allow poly blends. It’s the mixture of two kinds of natural fibers that’s not allowed.

        1. What if I do not agree with the Rabbis’ interpretation and what to interpret it to ban polyblends. Join me in the prohibition of polyblends!

  17. Speaking of Beck, here’s a nice video of Penn Jilette about the consequences of appearing on Beck’s show.

  18. The example of many Baby Boomers shows that it’s quite possible for people in their 60s to cling fast to political illusions they had in their adolescence and in their 20s. (Of course, some Baby Boomers outgrew their youthful foolishness.)

    Therefore, it’s possible that the majority of young people will be as gung-ho for gay marriage when they’re in their 60s as they are today.

    It’s also possible that they will be as gung-ho for big government and Obama-ism in their 60s as they are now. Polls show that young people are more likely to be Obamabauts.

    And, of course, today’s young people are more likely than today’s old people to wear midriff-baring shirts and backwards baseball caps. But they may continue those sartorial habits into their 60s, too.

    The Baby Boomer precedent shows that people can continue to follow the habits of youth culture into their Metamucil years.

    Of course, if we’re talking about a majority of today’s young people, we must acknowledge that there’s a *minority* of young people who don’t go in for quasi-socialist politics, gay liberation and dubious fashion choices.

    It would be useful to know which group of young people will have large families, perpetuating their respective cultural and political views into the next generation.

    Because if the uptight minority outbreeds the hip majority, then when today’s young people have become tomorrow’s old people, then tomorrow’s young people will be the ones setting the political tone.

    Will today’s hip youngsters have large enough families to outweigh the influence of the uptight, reactionary young fogies? We know that reactionary fundamentalist types tend to have larger families than hip secularists. Will this trend continue?

    1. Will today’s hip youngsters have large enough families to outweigh the influence of the uptight, reactionary young fogies? We know that reactionary fundamentalist types tend to have larger families than hip secularists. Will this trend continue?

      No.

    2. Kids of reactionary fundamentalists don’t always adopt those views as their own.

      1. Is that why liberals often have conservative children?

        1. Yes. Political views are not genetically inherited (though there have been some studies showing that certain genes would weakly predispose a person one way or the other).

          My parents: two hardcore conservatives. Their offspring: 2 liberals, a left-libertarian, a center-right conservative, and a hardcore libertarian (me).

          And a lot of kids simply rebel against whatever their parents believe in.

  19. Has anybody taken note of the Pats-Colts dandy last night?

    Fact: Peyton Manning and the Colts have now beaten Bellicheck and the Pats 5 out of the last 6.

    1. I watched. I almost bailed several times because it didn’t look like the Colts were going to pull it out, and there are few things I hate more than watching the Patriots win.

      The win coming after a Belicheck decision to go for it on fourth and two was ever so much sweeter. Even though that was probably the right call.

      The Baby Boomer precedent shows that people can continue to follow the habits of youth culture into their Metamucil years.

      It also shows that they can adopt the politics of their elders as they age (see, e.g., the WOD).

  20. There is no state constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage” in Maine.

    The legislature can simply pass a law recognizing same-sex “marriage” next year.

  21. I find it weird that some libertarians are arguing for same sex marriage/rights, etc. Why do we want the government defining anything and/or protecting anything? Furthermore, for the spiritually inclined, just because there is a penis and vagina in the union does that really fulfill the obligation and sum of what your worldview says the marriage relationship should be? and why would you entrust that definition to any government?

    1. Getting government out of marriage altogether is certainly the ideal. However, this realistically won’t happen in my lifetime so as long as it’s around I think gays should be allowed to marry. Sure, granting marriage to more and more groups may make it even more entrenched in government, but it could also make marriage so meaningless if you can marry everyone and your dog that eventually (as in, a couple hundred years) marriage will be obsolete. Either way, on my list of things I’m upset about the government being involved in, marriage ranks pretty low on my list.

  22. Now, I’m no predictamancer, but rather than time being on gay marriage’s side, I see a very small window for gay marriage to be accepted and passed into law. The majority of young people may support gay marriage, but there are a couple of factors that should be considered.

    One is that support for gay marriage is comparatively low among ethnic minorities as opposed to their white peers. Another is that most people agree America is going to have a major demographic shift in the next 30-40 years. Specifically, Latinos are expected to become a majority. Latinos tend to be very Catholic and Catholics tend to be very… not for gay marriage.

    Gay marriage supporters are just setting themselves up for disaster if they attempt to “wait it out” now. Getting gay marriage passed is still a very uphill battle and it’s unlikely the battlefield is going to level out much more than it is now.

    1. Everyone squawks that support among minorities is low, but Asians supported gay marriage in California, and the support for Prop 8 among Hispanics while there, was NOT that overwhelming and follows the same age trends. Minorities will vote for gay marriage in the future. Bank on it.

    2. Also.. Spain is very Catholic: gay marriage.

      Ireland is Catholic: considering gay marriage.

      Argentina is Catholic: just got gay marriage in Buenos Aries.

      Massachusetts is Catholic: gay marriage.

      1. But are most Catholics entering the US coming from Ireland, Spain and Argentina? No.

        Are they coming from countries like Mexico, where abortion is prohibited by law because it contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church? Yes.

        1. and let’s not forget that the fasest growing religion in Latin America is Pentecostal– not exactly gay friendly. I know there’s a snake handler joke in here somewhere.

      2. Massachusetts did not get same sex marriage because a broad popular movement. It got it because the state supreme court gave an ultimatum to the legislature to do it or else. The Catholicness of the population was not a factor as they were not consulted in any real way.

        Furthermore, gay activism has run Catholic Charities out of the adoption business in Massachusetts over it refusal to place children with homosexual couples. Freedom of conscience has become a dead letter in MA due to the gay political agenda.

  23. Why is the government in the business of sanctioning interpersonal relationships, anyway?

    Individuals should be free to define the terms of their relationships, straight or gay, as matters of contract enforceable at law. Those desiring the sanction of the Almighty should be free to seek that from willing purveyors of same, on their own dime.

    Similarly, no private entity should be forced to trade with or offer services or benefits to anyone. But how long do you think some large publicly-traded company could get away with denying same-sex partner benefits to its employees? The pressures of a free marketplace, such as it is, will win out eventually.

    Frankly, this just doesn’t seem as important an issue as, say, the impending government takeover of a sixth of the economy.

  24. I think (as a slightly more conservative person) that one of the big problems many people have with gay marriage, over say civil unions, is that with gay marriage, you are saying “this is ok”. Worse, it usually leaks into the pubilic indocrination camps, I mean schools. With books like “Prince and Prince”.

    This really rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

    Thus, you will have some peopel that are willing to allow most of the same legal benefits, but still don’t want to change the social instituions.

    1. As it turns out, gay marriage is okay. Two people in love wanting to get married…okay.

  25. As it turns out, it’s not the idea of treating gay couples equally that bothers most Americans. It’s the name of the legal arrangement.

    Ha, ha . . . no. The problem is seeing gay couples beign married at your local church after some gay organization bullied the Church to do it, through anti-discrimination litigation.

    Understand once and for all, this issue has NOTHING to do with allowing people to live together as they see fit – it is about making (i.e. FORCING) people into accepting gay marriage.

    People have the right to choose the people they want to be around with, that is we have Freedom of Association. Gay organizations do not simply want the freedom to associate with whomever they wish (they can perfectly set up their own churches to marry them). They want the power that anti-discrimination laws can provide to bully non-compliant organizations (like the Catholic or Mormon churches) to make them perform gay marriages.

    This is not about allowing their marriages legal status – that part is easy. It’s about the bullying.

    1. “The problem is seeing gay couples beign married at your local church after some gay organization bullied the Church to do it, through anti-discrimination litigation.”

      This is a common fear mongering technique used by the mainly religious right, the same group of power hungry, politically motivated whack jobs like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, who created the notion of Teh Gay Agenda in the first place.

      In the 1950s, the supreme court finally ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Today, are any Churches “forced” to conduct mixed race marriages?

      It’s all a made up B.S. argument from a group of conservative authoritarian nut jobs who like to scare people out of their money. In reality, people have nothing to fear from Cindy and Tracie having the same rights as every other couple.

      1. Re: Bob,

        This is a common fear mongering technique used by the mainly religious right

        I’m Agnostic, Bob. My argument is based on principles, not religion.

        Today, are any Churches “forced” to conduct mixed race marriages?

        You mean besides those that have suffered disruptions by gay activists during marriage ceremonies or homily? No, I cannot think of any, Bob…

        In reality, people have nothing to fear from Cindy and Tracie having the same rights as every other couple.

        I have NOTHING to fear from any gay couple enjoying the same rights I enjoy – that’s not the argument. The problem stems from gay activists wanting as a right something that is not THEIRS to have, which is a ceremony performed by a specific but currently non-compliant church – if the activist can achieve this by making use of the State’s monopoly of force, they will certainly do it. This is IMMORAL as it is egregious.

        1. Old Mexican has a point.

          1. too bad its on the top of his hat…

        2. Gay marriage is about gays wanting validation for their behaviour from government and celebration of being gay by society.

          In CA civil unions provide all the legal protections that marriage does.
          So equal treatment under the law is clearly not what this is about.

          1. Indeed, I have no opposition to same-sex couples having equal rights in a separate institution, and I have stated this repeatedly on many web sites.

    2. No one is bullying or FORCING churches into performing gay marriages. It has to do with government sanctioned marriages and the benefits that go along with such a status. The government can provide equal rights to gay and straight couples and the church can continue to opt out of performing gay marriages. Like bob said, it’s fear mongering. No one is forcing the church to do anything by allowing two adults to get married in the eyes of the state.

      1. Re: Engywook21,

        No one is bullying or FORCING churches into performing gay marriages. It has to do with government sanctioned marriages and the benefits that go along with such a status.

        You do not seem to understand – this issue does not limit itself to State-sanctioned marriages (something that, in my opinion, is absurd: the State should not be in the business of marrying anyone). Once States pass laws that define marriage in a way that includes marriage between two gay people, any activist group can then go ahead and SUE the “non compliant” organizations for discrimination against gay couples, the organization’s Freedom of Association notwithstanding.

        Having the State accept marriages between gay people is easy – but that is NOT what Gay Activist groups want, otherwise this discussion would have become old news by now.

    3. Oh yeah because Jews are forcing Catholic priests to marry them all the time.

      And because there’s gays trying to get married in Catholic churches in Massachusetts right now.

      Nice strawman, retard.

  26. I see no reason to change the tax status of two consenting adults. I am single and have no interest in my own sex, but I see no reason that a couple who cannot produce children should have any legal status different from my own. I resent the fact that same sex couples without children are treated differently. Why make it more unfair.

  27. The funny thing is that for tax purposes it MUCH better to be single and living together rather than married. Especially if you are a high earner.

    1. The funny thing is that the differences in tax treatment arise because of the inherent injustice of the progressive income tax.

  28. I think Gays should be allowed to be just as miserable as everyone else. Let them get married. I don’t understand the far Rights opposition to gays wedding? Are they afraid they will have a better reception?

    How is it an attack to ” families” Aren’t they teaching and preaching hate in return?

    Damn no I remember why I am an Atheist. Religion fucks everything up.

    Let them suffer like the rest of the nation. You’d think these folks would be leaping at the chance to TAX people further.

    This country has lost its mind. Worries more about whats going on in my neighbors pants rather then the nations we have destroyed,and the trillions we’ve flushed down the big commode.

  29. But of course when it comes to marriage, it’s moved far past the point where you are just worrying about who people are skrewing.

    As far as I am aware sodomy laws etc are already illegal in all 50 states.

    And in many states, they already have civil unions that grant the same legal rights as marriage.

    but…

    But they want more, they want the word marriage. They want to say that hetero and same sex marriages are the same. However, the majority of people don’t agree (not that majorities make things right).

    I think there are a decent amount of people that would say live and let live, but that doesn’t seem to be enough.

    I would imagine this will be like abortion, and probably never be solved.

    1. It’s been solved in several other countries already. Sorry.

  30. Oh you mean liberal Europe?, lol

  31. It is really no surprise that Americans are ok with name changes. It seems obvious. When polled, less Americans liked “health care reform” than liked “health insurance reform.” Although they are the same thing. Americans are stupid and don’t ask the right questions. Generally speaking of course. I hope gays get the same rights as everyone else, mostly because nobody should be denied rights for something they have no control over, and because it doesn’t matter. In the grand scheme of the American eco-political state, gay marriage should be about the last thing we think about, so legalize it and move on to something that actually matters.

  32. a word of caution though… people are being bullied by the gay agenda… just not in America. I am not one for discrimination but it seems weird that everyone’s beliefs have to be respected unless of course they don’t like gay people. Is it free speech or not? I point to the case in Canada, in Alberta, where the government was going to charge a minister with a hate crime because he preached from his own pulpit, in his own congregation, to his own people, that he believed homosexuality was wrong. I don’t think anyone should get discriminated against but if/when the government starts monitoring the content of speeches, associations, meetings, and violence is not being advocated, then it is time to shudder. Also the Knights of Columbus, a private group, in southern British Columbia got sued because they would not rent their own hall to a lesbian wedding reception. And that is in Canada right next door. It is plausible we could end up in a similar predicament. Church people should just agree to disagree, be exempt from performing services they don’t want to, use their property how they want and live and let live.

  33. to clarify… I just think if it is ok to be gay and be verbal about it, it should be ok to have an adverse opinion and not be persecuted for it either. Why make them conduct services, etc?

  34. I have no problem with same-sex couples having equal rights in a separate institution.

  35. Chapman, you remind me of that great passage from Mark Twain on blind extrapolation of trends:

    In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.

    Here are a couple of obvious points you overlook, whether purposefully or idiotically I don’t know:

    (1) The opinion of people changes with age. Do you suppose people age 17 are in favor of lowering the drinking age to 17? Now how about those same people when they are middle-age parents of 17-year-olds? Seeing the light, yet?

    It’s not at all surprising that young people are all happy with a live ‘n’ let live anything-goes approach to sex ‘n’ marriage. And not very surprising that those same people will have different attitudes when they’re middle-aged farts.

    Your dumb mistake is thinking that the opinions will stay the same, frozen in time, as the people age. No one’s going to learn from experience, hmm? Or change their opinions based on their situation in life? Geez that’s a dumb assumption.

    Your other silly assumption is that just because a trend has been going in one way for a while, say 10 years, it will continue that way forever. Did you lose a lot of money in the real-estate bubble, I wonder?

    Indeed, trends over the past 20 years have favored gay marriage. But that trend could quite easily hit a high-water mark and reverse. It’s happened before: trends in liberalizing divorce or criminal law went the same way from the late 50s through 60s to early 70s, and then reversed. Rates of smoking went up and up — and are now going down and down. The age of marriage goes up, then it goes down. People were once so gung-ho about alcoholism they passed Prohibition. Then came the 70s and drinking ages were lowered to 18. Then came MADD and back up they went to 21.

    And so on. Draw a straight line through any volative social trend and extend it out a full generation, as you do, and you risk looking like a fool.

  36. I’d like to add a pertinent piece of information that seems to be missing both from the original post and the ensuing comment thread.

    The Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Portland, ME, recorded an address to be aired in all Catholic parishes several weeks prior to election day. In that address the bishop specifically states that if this referendum used any other term except “marriage,” it would be not only permissible for Catholics to vote in favor of equal rights for homosexuals, but a duty in terms of fighting for social justice. The only objection of the Catholic church is a semantic one. While most outsiders consider the marriage v. domestic partnership debate a silly matter of words, in Catholicism, marriage is one of only seven sacred sacraments that are defined very clearly in church literature. So if we Mainers had had the same bill as the residents of Washington did, even if every Catholic voted in a way the Church deems correct, we would have also passed that bill.

    The link to the text of the bishop’s speech is here: http://www.portlanddiocese.net….._id=100218

    Also, a note: None of the above is commentary on any personal position or an attempt to justify the resolution of the vote, but just further information on the issue at hand.

  37. What does the government have to do with “marriage” anyway? Especially if it’s a “sacred” union.

    The crux of the matter is that what one believes to be a “marriage” is dependent on what one believes about “god”. For example, a catholic (or a conservative protestant) might not recognize a union between two divorced people, but other denominations and religions will have no problem with this.

    I think government should get out of the “marriage” business completely, as a church-state issue. All the government *should* provide to *anyone* is a civil document attesting to a household union- like any other contract people can make between each other.

  38. The polls of “people < 20” have changed over the years, as have other categories. It is unreasonable to believe that today’s 20-year-olds will have attitudes much like today’s 60-year-olds. You may think your attitudes at 60 reflect your having children and grandchildren, but how do you explain the fact that other parents and great grandparents are OK with gay marriage? The world is changing, get used to it.

    Now, is this a one-way sort of change? Will there be a backlash? It does happen. Berlin in the pre-Hitler days was reputedly very “open” about homosexuality; afterward, very repressive. A major financial crisis – which seems to be on the horizon – could bring out a repressive culture.

    But I notice that young people today are far more likely to support Austrian economists and Ron Paul than folks in my generation were. I grew up in an era of protest against the Vietnam War, against the lying Establishment, and against the anti-Drug culture. You could say that we failed to win on all three fronts. If my generation had any ideological underpinning, it was socialism, if anything. “Imagine a world without property.”

    Today’s youth seem to have a much healthier respect for property and individual rights. Libertarian ideas just might gain traction in this environment.

  39. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  40. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

  41. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane.

  42. General observation shows that the couples in a successful belong to a similar cultural group. By cultural group in American context refers to refers to Italian, Cuban, Mexican and Irish American groups. The other groups include Chinese, West European and Hispanic American.

  43. General observation shows that the couples in a successful belong to a similar cultural group. By cultural group in American context refers to refers to Italian, Cuban, Mexican and Irish American groups. The other groups include Chinese, West European and Hispanic American.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.