This issue is one of many battles between those who believe in biblical inerrancy and those who don't; those who want to maintain our "sacred" secular republic and those who want to transform it into a theocracy.
Even those who believe in the Bibles inerrancy are forced to cheery pick the gospels in order to justify their prejudices and phobias.
As for Bush, his decision had nothing to do with beliefs but was entirely political.

What is there to discuss that won't look ridiculous/bigoted/obvious in 20 years?

To label this a religious issue is a mistake. I recognize it's fashionable to be anti-religious these days, but consider that in poll after poll, 75-85% of people asked, are strongly against it.

Yet, only 50% call themselves religious.

Clearly something else is at work.

And sorry, no, it's not bigotry. Even at the height of slavery, you couldn't get 80% of people in this country who agreed with it.

The article was an eloquent advocacy of gay marriage. It's always good to see good writing. But the article does not say much that's new. Perhaps because the basic issue itself is not all that complicated. You either (i) believe that gay marriage is a right and commitment the government should honor, (ii) you don't believe in it, or (iii) you are a politician afraid of antagonizing group (i) and (ii), and favor civil unions without calling it marriage.

The concept of "civil unions" is just pernicious. If you are Kerry, who promises government benefits to the civil-ly united equal to those available to the married, I guess you figure that this is just "marriage that dare not speak its name." If you are Bush, you figure civil unions are just a scrap of paper to keep those San Fransisco types happy that some states can come up with if they like. In both cases, you have created a separate institution with uncertain, untested rules that is not going to have the social committment that comes with marriage.

I would have thought that this nation would have learned by now that separate institutions allegedly accomplishing the same end are not equal. It's funny -- but the real radicals who are promoting social change withoput regard for the consequences are probably not the ones for Gay Marriage -- but the little politicians with little imaginations scrambling to get a handle on this whole gay marriage thing.

MattS has it right. There is an amazingly large generational difference in public opinion polls on this subject. It's just a question of waiting for the opponents of gay marriage to die of old age. This looks mighty like a paradigm shift.

And the GOP has sided with the dinosaurs, as usual.

BitHead
I'm not sure where you got your 75%-80% figure opposed, a quick google search seem to come up with 55%-62%. It is a case of institutionalized bigotry/phobia, it's dificult to separate the two. It is also a religious argument since the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is the only reason given.
I'm sure that at the height of slavery 55%-65% would have been in favor of it.

Bithead, Ron,
People are opposed to this for all sorts of reasons, not just religion. Though a lot of the opposition is coming from religious groups. I don't know that its 75-85% of the country opposed to this though. Whats your source for those figures? Ron, where did you find your figures of 55-65%?

Of course, there is not one single thing a person cannot do for another who is "exhausted and in need" that they can magically do with a marriage certificate in hand. Marriage is the privileging of committed relationships that can reliably lead to children and are uniquely well-suited for their upbringing. It has never, anywhere, been about two androgynous souls helping one another in times of ill health. Why in God's name would every society in the history of the human race, by some cosmic coincidence, collectively fail to notice that two women can care for each other as well as a man and a woman? The better explanation, obviously, is that marriage has never meant what you say it means. It's up to you to show why the change is in order.

That doesn't mean we CAN'T simply reconceptualize marriage to mean something else, obliterating the word from any meaningful connection to what it is "about." We can, and most people who comment here think we ought to, reconceptualize it in such a way as to erase whatever connection it once held to parenthood or stable families. But assuming we already have done so, or that it is obvious that we should do so, is a classic case of question-begging.

It begins the argument, as was the case in the Massachusetts majorty's opinion, by saying "We concieve of marriage as X. Therefore, it is clear that gay marriage is a permissible concept." Well, the problem is that the initial premise--the definition of marriage--can't simply be assumed for the sake of argument, since it is in fact the very thing at issue. It's circular reasoning. Your task is to establish why it is reasonable to conceptualize marriage in a particular way and, having done so, THEN demonstrate why gay relationships can logically be construed as eligible under that definition.

I'm reminded of Inigo Montoya's famous "Why do you keep using that word? I don't think it mean what you think it means."

Incidentally, "society benefits" when children and parents care for one another too. "Helping each other is nice and benefits lots of people cuz helping people is all about l-u-v" is a stupid foundation for an argument against preserving the traditional idea of marriage, unless we are to begin thinking of mothers and children as legitimate marriage partners simply because they help and love each other. He's right to say that marriage creates kin, but not out of thin freaking air it doesn't. We think of married couples as "family" ONLY because of the connection between sex and children. It's what distinguishes the love I have for my best friend, for whom I would lay down my life and against whom I have never had any grudge, from the love I have for my wife, who on many days drives me completely nuts. In the absence of sexual procreation marriage would be a completely pointless and unintelligible concept, and anyone who suggested it would be thought crazy. Trying to divorce marriage from sex is about like trying to divorce government from competing interests. Can we really say that either institution would have developed in the absence of the complications to which it attends?

Sage:

Of course legally accepted Gay Marriage is a social change. I believe it is a recognition of social change that has alrady occurred, and channeling it into structures already recognized and understood under current law. Society has abandoned the idea that the prime mission of marriage is child-bearing and child rearing. Otherwise,why would we have abortion and birth control, and so many childless marriages?

The Mass. court overreached itself, as there is no way anybody who wrote the Mass constitution had any thought of approving marital relationships other than the standard man/woman variety. It is the job of elected legislators,not courts to define marriage, in accordance with the demands of constituents.

Appalled, I suppose we'll find out just how far this social transformation has gone if the people are ever given the chance to express it. The fact that California--CALIFRONIA--passed a referendum banning gay marriage indicates that we certainly aren't being held back by some tiny but vocal minority of religious extremists. Yours is a rare instance of good sense, A.M.

The basic mistake is construing marriage as anything but a simple contract between two individuals as far as the government is concerned. I dont want the government involved in the 'social' much less the 'religious' aspects of marriage. That, I believe is where the generational gap exists. Younger generations tend to scoff at concept of the 'institution' of marriage being destroyed. The 'latch key', divorced parents generation tend to look at that claim with a rather jaundiced eye. If gays can screw up marriage more than straights have it would be impressive. Personally, I look at marriage as a legal contract. Forcing citizens to parse their marriage contract by gender is no different from my pov than making a law that forbids any other same gender contract. Can you imagine if Congress forbid a woman from giving power of attorney to another woman? Or forbid a man from signing a management contract with another man?

Sage
I did a google search for "polls gay marriage" and there were several in that range including CBS snd ABC.

Mark, I was a latch-key kid myself, and I think the way I do not in spite of, but because of that fact. Marriage predates this Lockean idea of the social contract by a heck of a long time, so my earlier critique indirectly applies here as well.

Sage:

The fact that California--CALIFRONIA--passed a referendum banning gay marriage indicates that we certainly aren't being held back by some tiny but vocal minority of religious extremists.

And there, I think, is the line that expresses the whole situation.... How can suporters of this claim that there's already been a social change and the law's just catching up, when even California voters, arguably the most liberal in the nation, both socially and fiscally, can't bring themseves to support it?

sam;

Sorry, I don't have the links to hand, here at work. If I get to it tonight, I'll post the data. But for the moment, let's stipulate to the lower figure presented by Ron. Even assuming those numbers, my point still remains, particularly in light of the point about California. (If I recall rightly, that Californa situation was interesting in that the polling data missed the actual vote tallies, over-estimating by several percent the support the proposal had.)

Sage, that is true to some extent but lets look at the whole story. Marriage as we know it is a modern contrivance. Marriage was a property issue (as in the man owning the woman) until the 20th century. Polygamy has been more common in history than monogamy. Arranged marriages more common still. The idea of romantic marriage for life between one man and one woman was a quaint Athenian idea adopted by the Romans and folded into Christianity. The ancient Hebrews practiced polygamy as well. So lets not pretend this is some sort of radical departure from a basic human tenant. Marriage has been evolving since the dawn of the human age, and it took until 50 years ago just to make interracial marriage legal, at least here in AMerica.

Bithead:

The referendum passed 4 years ago, and there was not much of a peep from the gay community indicating that there was any support for such an animal.

Now, you have der Governator having no problem with Gay Marriage, and a lot more discussion around the issue. Think you might find that a pro-Gay Marriage initiative would pass in California now.

In the not-so-long-ago (1950s, 1960s) past, you never would have found a gay couple pronouncing itself as committed forever before the world, and buying a house together and acting, for all intents and purposes, like a married couple. If there were a couple of,um "bachelors" or "older ladies" sharing a place", it was not assumed the two were carrying on as married. Now, we have Commitment Ceremonies,gays sharing houses,and carrying on openly as a couple, combining their finances, getting domestic partnership benefits from their jobs, and adopting children.

This is a societal change, Bithead, whether you want to see it that way or not. It's happening with or without enab;ing legislation establishing rights and responsibilities. And, the laws governing this situation are either going to be messy, because folks never dreamed of this state of affairs 40 or 50 or 75 years ago, or they are going to address the situation on the ground, because folks looked around them and saw what was going on, even if they did not like it much. The danger I see in the situation is the development of a whole separate body of law that will be less than marriage, particularly in terms of the responsibilities assumed by the partners. Just as bad money drives out good, so will bad "partnership law" drive out "good marriage law", as straight folk quickly find a weaker form of marriage that appeals to their sense that their marriage, gulp, might not last forever, and they'd better have contingency plans.

I know I am odd, but I find Gay Marriage to be profoundly conservative approach to where Society finds itself.

Bithead, Ron, Sam, Sage:

Do your percentages reflect those against gay marriage, or those supporting a Constitutional change banning gay marriage?

How would granting legal recognition to gay marriages make gay relationships stronger?
Gay marriages are already happening. How is a piece of paper from the government supposed to change their relationship?

"Can you imagine if Congress forbid [SIC] a woman from giving power of attorney to another woman? Or forbid a man from signing a management contract with another man?"

I'm wondering what constraints our governing system can place on social contracts between consenting adults? Really, can it set any arbitrary restrictions?

I've seen a number of commentators scoff at queries on multiparty marriages or intra family marriages. One commentator suggested that we can obviously see the difference. I'm sorry but I cannot see the difference. Logically there appears to be no difference.

If marriage is merely a contract between consenting adults, then any two consenting adults wishing to establish this contract seem to have as relevant a claim as any other couples. Each event will be the same instance of a contract between two consenting adults. As our society "evolved" why I couldn't rewrite this entire passage substituting every instance of same sex with intra family?

If government can set restraints, why is biological sex more arbitrary than any other restriction? It seems to me that if I'm married and I wish to establish a marriage contract with another man or women, any attempt to prevent us will be as arbitrary as biological sex is now. I cannot see a logical break between the two. It will again be a contract between two consenting adults and only arbitrary rules will make the preceding contract meaningful for consideration.

This is NOT a slippery slope argument. It is an attempt to accurately define the topic of discussion. Can the government set arbitrary constraints on social contracts? If so, why is X better than Y?

Society can be as arbitrary as it wants to be, and I haven't noticed a great groundswell of support for allowing you to marry your cousin,or your pretty sister.

Think of it as the distinction between the law permitting you to drink vodka, and smoke crack. That distinction is arbitrary, by any logical standard. But nobody is seriously looking to repeal it.

"Profoundly conservative," AM, compared to what?

The issue being discussed is changing the accepted legal definition of marriage vs. maintaining the status quo. The issue not being discussed, though you were good enough to at least mention it, is imposing a change desired by a minority of Americans on the country by means of a court decision in one state vs. letting Americans decide the matter themselves, either through their elected representatives or (as in California) directly through referendum. In neither case can the former option be described as "conservative" without twisting the accepted meaning of that word beyond all recognition. Perhaps under the circumstances twisting the accepted meaning of words is just another one of those profound social changes we will all get used to given enough time.

It's actually the issue not being discussed that I am more concerned with. I am happy to entertain arguments such as Rauch makes as part of a debate over changing laws pertaining to marriage in a state legislature. But he and other supporters of gay marriage want no part of that. They regard democracy with contempt when it stands in the way of something they want and think an arbitrary court ruling can give them right away. Nor does the sight of various mayors acting in open defiance of the law under the pressure of one interest group trouble them.

It may not trouble them now, but it will trouble them later when other courts and other executives respond to different interest groups on issues other than gay marriage, making up the law as they go and justifying their actions by a lot of brazen dishonest talk about what they think is right and how what a state or federal constitution has been thought to mean for centuries isn't what it means at all. Democracy matters, and it is democracy that is at stake here.

Sage wrote:

"The fact that California ... passed a referendum banning gay marriage indicates that we certainly aren't being held back by some tiny but vocal minority of religious extremists. Yours is a rare instance of good sense, A.M"

Referendums do not pass by a minority vote.

In the civil rights days, and in the Vietnam Protest days, people chained themselves to fences and let themselves be carried off to jail for their beliefs. That was true civil disobedience, and it led to changes in the law in the civil rights case. I don't see anybody doing that today. Rosie O'Donnell would certainly scream bloody murder if she were arrested for breaking the law.

What annoys opponents of same-sex marriage is not so much that we don't think it's a good thing (and my opposition has nothing to do with religious beliefs), but rather that it is something than is being rammed down our throats, with a "the heck with the law, the heck with what you think, we're going to do what we want and you don't count" campaign.

"I'm sorry but I cannot see the difference. Logically there appears to be no difference."

You're absolutely right about incest. Its on very shaky legal ground. Multiparty is not. Government can certainly confine the _number_ of parties in a contact. For instance many states confine power of attorney to only one individual. The equal protection argument is that government must treat citizens as integers. Laws cant parse people into blacks, whites, men, women, christians, jews, etc. A person is a person is a person. But that doesnt effect the number of people allowed in a contract. There is no equal protection argument there.

"Can the government set arbitrary constraints on social contracts? "
Im not sure I understand you argument. Certainly government can set arbitrary constraints, it does it all the time. But it cannot violate equal protection for each individual. As far as government is concerned, every person is just a blank slate, and they must be treated as such.

"Democracy matters, and it is democracy that is at stake here. "

And the law matters. As a matter of law there is a strong argument that the Protection of Marriage act is a clear violation of the 18th amendment, specifically equal protection. Votes cannot outweigh the law, until enough votes are gathered to change it. In this case a constitutional amendment will probably be required to do so.

Think of it as the distinction between the law permitting you to drink vodka, and smoke crack. That distinction is arbitrary, by any logical standard. But nobody is seriously looking to repeal it.

Posted by Appalled Moderate at March 8, 2004 04:44 PM

Appalled Moderate, you make my point very well...

Zathras is correct here, there is a process issue at stake about Constitutional governance. I'm pretty sure that both sides of the advocacy issues here are going about it the wrong way. The Massachusetts decision was a split 4-3 with strong dissent. This type of court splitting is symbolic of the lack of national consensus on this issue. However, imposing a Consitutional ammendemt to deal with this issue is wrong as well.

Personally, if you assume that (i) homosexuality is a private consensual activity (ii) private consensual activity should neither be incentivized or disincentivized by government (iii) that government has an obligation in order to extend equal rights before the law to "equivalent" situations and that (iv) homosexuality is neither criminal nor deviant before the law ...

Then I think there is no legal argument to bar the instituion of 'gay marriage'. HOWEVER, this is not the way things work in real life. People are probably not ready for this.

The question is that can we craft a compromise agreement that while manifestly not equal represents a progressive improvement that avoid extremes. One extreme would be court rulings imposing gay marriage around the country. The other extreme would be a Constitutional ammendment barring gay marriage and a social pogrom in order to roll back social acceptance of gays.

Sometimes society needs prodding in order make social progress, but the change imposed cannot be so violent or so egregious to popular values that it provokes a backlash that prevents eventual full normalization of the practice. Abortion and affirmative rights cases show that while courts can impose legal rules upon the populace when aided by Federal mandates, that this will not generate long term social normalization.

There has to be the willingness to craft a compromise that let's this plays out in the social majority, while improving and protecting the rights of the minority until that day happens. Civil unions are not an ideal solution, however they would represent a possibly acceptable compromise for perhaps enough people to make political and eventual social normalization possible.

The States have to be allowed to fight this out, from city to city and from region to region. In the meantime we should not forget that perfection can be the enemy of the good. An attempt to force civil rights legislation or court rulings down the throat of the populace may create a backlash that turns back even the acceptance won so far.

As Holsinger points out, there is a time when social acceptance of gays is coming. When the torch passes, if we only have patience it will be. In the meantime, I am sorry for the gays who cannot live with the full rights of other citizens ... but this has happened to other groups as well - women, ethnic minorities, HIV-infectees, etc. It takes time for society to compensate for social change. Trying to force this only reduces the chances of eventual success. Sad, but true. So take what you can and be greatful that the argument seems to be shifting to whether to allow marriage and civil unions, and not whether or not to reinstate sodomy laws!

"Government can certainly confine the _number_ of parties in a contact."

Mark, each contract is between two consenting adults. The presence of another contract is only cogent if we choose to make it so. Choosing to consider a previous contract is as arbitrary as choosing to consider biological sex.

Let me restate that: Choosing to consider a previous contract appears to me to be as arbitrary as choosing to consider biological sex.

Zathras:

Gay marriage,which is simply an extension of existing law to same-sex arrangements, is less radical, in my mind, than "Civil Unions",which is a creation of a separate animal with different rights and unknown results.

If you create a rival to marriage, you are likely subvert marriage as an institution. If you expand the tent, you build support for marriage in a group otherwise disinclined to care about it.

"Let me restate that: Choosing to consider a previous contract appears to me to be as arbitrary as choosing to consider biological sex. "

A.Its clearly not arbitrary, its pragmatic. Giving, for instance, power of attorney to 2 different individuals could create all kinds of headaches.
B.Even if it is arbitrary, as I've stated before, the government can pass arbitrary laws so long as every citizens is treated identically. Congress could pass a law tomorrow mandating every house be painted bright pink. But they cannot pass a law saying every Catholics must be pink, or homosexual, or guys with mustaches, or people with red hair.

Choosing to consider a previous contract appears to me to be as arbitrary as choosing to consider biological sex.

Doesn't seem arbitrary to me -- I can picture a number of potential practical problems with permitting multiple valid marriage contracts, including inheritance law, tax law, end-of-life decisions, etc.

“Democracy matters, and it is democracy that is at stake here.”

This is exactly the argument made by Sustani and the Shia in Iraq. Democracy like that is good for one, and only one, election, unless there is a strong tradition of limited government like in Britain. Robert Mugabi was elected in such a manner, and what has the result been?

Of course democracy matters, but we don’t have pure democracy in this country, we have constitutional democracy - which is democracy with limits to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Judicial review/activism is part and parcel of that system. As was pointed out in the last gay marriage thread, there is no better example of judicial activism in recent history than Bush v Gore.

It seems to me that the best solution would be for the state to grant only civil unions – leaving “marriage” between the individuals and not cramming anything down anyone’s throat. It is equally unfair for the government to deny equal rights to gay relationships as it is to permit gays to use the government to force the society to accept their definition of what a marriage is.

PS Five bucks to the first person who can tell me what “is” is.

AM, I see your point with respect to civil unions, and think I agree with it up to a point. The point, I guess, is the question of whether extending marriage to homosexuals bolsters the institution in any meaningful way. I'm not sure I see how denying marriage to homosexuals is responsible for whatever problems the institution of marriage has now. If your argument is just that gay marriage is not as threatening as civil unions you may well be right, but I don't see compelling reason to change the status quo.

KenB, look on the bright side -- all those "practical problems" are not anything you need to worry your head about. We have wise courts to decide such matters, as long as they treat each person equally. And they get to decide what "equal" means! All you and I need to do is await their decision, and obey it. That's the wonderful thing about turning our backs on democracy; it's so much less work.

My thougths on a couple posts:

"There is an amazingly large generational difference in public opinion polls on this subject. It's just a question of waiting for the opponents of gay marriage to die of old age. This looks mighty like a paradigm shift."

- I agree with TT, but only in part. I personally think it's both generation and education. None of the polls have done it yet, but do a breakdown of "pro" and "con" by level of formal education attained, but I'll lay dollars to donuts that there's a correlation. Just a bit of ad homineum based on personal experience. Why do I think that - well, college is still seen as an experimental place for American youth to do things their parents wouldn't approve. As a result, unless you're at a very unusual insitution (like, say Bob Jones) you will live among and see the lives of gay people, and people experimented with sexuality. I think the exposure coupled with increasing American rationality when it comes to sex is making people more tolerant, and more likely to believe that "gayness" isn't deviant behavior, but natural. Tie that to the civil rights rhetoric that my generation (X) accepts as normal (vs. our parent's generation), and you have acceptance of gay marriage by the majority of that population.

Mind you, I've found my younger siblings (by blood and marriage) to be a lot more conservative then I am - which is why I don't think its a universal paradigm shift in American's youth.

Carolina

VIZZINI,
stunned, turning to the others, looking down.

VIZZINI
"He didn't fall? Inconceivable!!"
INIGO
(whirling on Vizzini)
"You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means."
(looks down again)

ANother favorite:

FEZZIK,
-who goes to Inigo

FEZZIK
"You be careful.
(gravely)
-- people in masks cannot be trusted."

Well, even in this lame old retread, there is some joy, eh Sage? - Great film...

That said, the word that your antagonists are grasping at is 'deviate'.

That's the reason why the general public are having a hard time with this topic.

Appalled Moderate,

Respectfully, your argument about civil unions undermining marriage by drawing in straights who only want to commit a little--I find it pretty unconvincing. If all those Britney Spearses tying the knot drunkenly before Elvis impersonators were getting "civil unioned" instead of married, marriage as an institution would be infinitely strengthened. Besides, in addition to formal marriage we continue to have common law unions (seven years cohabiting in most states, I believe) like my brother-in-law's, and no one I know cares a fig.

I find the premise underlying many gay marriage proponents--that marriage is finished as an institution today, so gay marriage cannot but HELP resuscitate it--ridiculous on its face. Yes, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, but that means tens of millions survive MAKE it to the end! We don't say that since some CEOs turn out to be world-record-setting theives, the office should be abolished. We don't say that since some parents abuse their children all children should be raised in government-run orphanages (at least not yet). But marriage is to be judged exclusively by its failures and those it "fails" to admit to its ranks? C'mon.

The half of society that declares marriage so "over" is telling the half of society that actually tries to live up to its wedding vows that those are now about to "updated" in gender neutral language and you'll just have to accept it. Have a nice day.

I have gone, in relatively short order, from being sympathetic toward gay rights activists (though I disagreed with the objective) to being absolutely opposed to them because they seem willing to stop at nothing to get their own way. I've decided to make my stand here, rather than further down the road, when polygamists insist their right to happiness and societal acceptance is but a couple of words away (change "two persons" to "two OR MORE persons", et voila), or when gay activists try to "queer" my children's school.

My husband says he sees nothing wrong with gay marriage, and that if any of these other issues creep up he will make his stands there. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine there'll be a good case against "queering" a school's curriculum once gay parents stand on equal footing as married, straight ones. And, judging by arguments I have read in other posts on this subject, gay married couples are not going to (at least not universally) stand with their straight peers against multiple marriages. This, of course, raises real questions about what gay activists mean by "marriage", but we don't have time to ask that do we? I mean, this has to happen NOW, right?

Every day I get pushed a little farther to the right. Yech. But so be it.

Oldman,

You say
"Abortion and affirmative rights cases show that while courts can impose legal rules upon the populace when aided by Federal mandates, that this will not generate long term social normalization."

The counterarguement, of course, are Loving vs. Virigina, Brown vs. the Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade. I admit, I wasn't alive then, but I was born in the 1970s and I can tell you that in my very short life time, the effects of those court imposed decisions are profound.
- I never saw my parents marriage (which would have falled under the old miscengeny laws) as unnatural. It tooks years for me to understand why my grandparents and aunts and uncles on both sides did.
- I didn't grow up believeing I was a second class citizen. My dad will tell you how militant I was about my rights, how I never doubted I had them as much as the blond haired kids in class - and that I had as much right to take any class I could test into.
- I didn't grow up expecting my husband to make my reproductive decisions, muchless expecting to marry before having sex. Having control over you body is pretty much a given for men. Let me tell you - the my familial matriarchy is still having heart attacks over it...but they all conceed I've had a much better youth then them.

These three decisions have had long term socialization effects - they've made it perfectly normal for a jewish/wasp/mexican woman to run her life just like any other fully enfranchised citizen of the United states. Sure I've been discriminated against, and I've discriminated against other people in response. But I have a good job, a loving family, many friends, and social acceptance just about everywhere - including with the relatives who can't stand me.

I firmly believe that my life, and lifestyle, wouldn't have been possible without those three decisions. They did make a difference. They did force change. And that's why so many people are up in arms about this issue. The courts have amazing normative powers. We shouldn't underestimate them.

You said "An attempt to force civil rights legislation or court rulings down the throat of the populace may create a backlash that turns back even the acceptance won so far...[snipage]...It takes time for society to compensate for social change. Trying to force this only reduces the chances of eventual success.". Sorry to say, but I think US history proves you wrong. You might have been right for non-democratic Europe, but not for our democratic republic.

Carolina

Kelli -

You're not a Heinlein fan, are you?

Seriously let's back up a minute. The assumption your argument makes is that once you open the "marriage door" then all sexual liasons needs to be approved by the state. I think your concern has to do with the equal protection clause and how it might be pushed to mean anything and everything.

Someone had an argument here (I think) about equality meaning different things at different times. If we look to the last time the marriage door was opened to allow preivously disallowed marriages to occur (legally, between races), we can see that the Justices argued

"In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race."

Loving V. Virginia talked specifically about race. I think it's safe to say that if San Francisco's case goes to the Supremes, it will talk specifically about marriage between two people of the same sex.

As the Supremes said then (and mainly people believe now):

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

If it goes to the Supremes, and the judges agree with the logic of Loving v. Virgina (and they should - the 14th Amendment is not race specific with the exception of its mention of Indians) then I think you can neatly replace "race" or "racial" with "sex", and "another race" with "same sex". The polygamous relationships that the Mormons, the Muslims, and Heinlein's Methusaleh's engage in won't be part or parcel of that decision. It's too much for the court to take on at once.

So I'm with your husband on this, and I think you're worrying too much.

Carolina

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

“I've decided to make my stand here, rather than further down the road, when polygamists insist their right to happiness and societal acceptance is but a couple of words away (change "two persons" to "two OR MORE persons"

This is one of my concerns. I am a theological modernist and my views regarding gay marriage have nothing to do with Pat Robertson and the Religious Right. A purely secular society is still compelled to protect the institution of marriage. David Frum seems to agree with me:

“But what about civil unions for homosexuals only? Won’t those obviate the problem? Hardly. The moment civil unions are offered to homosexuals, we will discover demand for them from all sorts of same-sex couples, many of them not homosexual at all.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary030804.asp

Oldman,

IMO, benign neglect and masterly inactivity are the way to go here.

"Main Entry: benign neglect
Function: noun
: an attitude or policy of ignoring an often undesirable situation that one is held to be responsible for dealing with"

"masterly inactivity
AUTHOR: Sir James Mackintosh (1765–1832)
QUOTATION: The commons, faithful to their system, remained in a wise and masterly inactivity.
ATTRIBUTION: SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH, Vindiciae Gallicae, section 1, p. 14 (1838). Originally published in 1791."

“The polygamous relationships that the Mormons, the Muslims, and Heinlein's Methusaleh's engage in won't be part or parcel of that decision.”

I’m not buying that for a split second. Almost immediately, some Mormon is going to campaign for polygamy.

“It's too much for the court to take on at once.”

Yeah, but the polygamists can afford to be patient. There’s always tomorrow.

David Thomson,

When some Mormons asked Mark Twain to show them where the Bible prohibited polygamy, he instantly replied, "Matthew 6:24". The Mormons cracked up. "No man shall serve two masters."

Carolina,

Apart from a brief fascination with Ursula LeGuin in junior high, sci fi is a genre that has always left me cold. I'll just have to take your word on Heinlein.

As far as the racial analogy goes, however, I'm not inclined to agree. "Miscegenation" may have been feared and legislated against for centuries, but it was undoubtedly a fact of life here and elsewhere; moreover, there were numerous examples of societies that dealt with the moral and legal ramifications of it differently than our own (the Caribbean especially leaps to mind, but we could also point to Portuguese colonies, where so long as everyone was Catholic, no one was fussed about it). In short, because the biological issues (man + woman =baby) were the same regardless of race, giving state blessings to mixed race marriage was most definitely a case of acknowledging the facts on the ground, rather than overturning the order of the cosmos from a jurist's bench. The same cannot be said of gay marriage. Gay partnerships exist, true, even some gay families (though the numbers are way smaller than one might think to see all the pictures of babies waiting for their mommies to be married in San Fran! Heavens!). But gay "marriages" do not exist anywhere but Belgium and (sort of) Canada, and those are about 5 minutes old. Not much of a record to draw on, is it?

All I'm saying here is, why do we need to rush this? Why does it need to happen overnight? Because it's not about "rights" so much as poking the eye of the rightwingers. Now THAT's fun. Only, as Oldman points out, it doesn't get us where we want to go. In fact, it loses ground. Bad strategy...but FUN.

But I would really beware of an argument that begins with the presumption that higher educational attainments usually (you are careful to point out, as per the good liberal's mantra, not always!) correlate to the more enlightened, less traditional position here. Dumb people are bigots, smart people are "open-minded" is not the road you want to go down, is it? Because that would be confrontational, unnecessarily confrontational. And that would be bad. Because this is a democracy, right? Or are we troglodytes (can a troglodyte spell "troglodyte"?)supposed to just keep quiet and let evolution take its course?

Kelli

I am troubled by and sympathetic to your position. I fell pulled in two different directions as well. I guess the “wedge issue” goes right through me.

I don’t think that polygamy and gay marriage present the same issues because I believe that homosexual preference is a fact and not a choice. Marriage is a sociological construct and one cannot be born a polygamist or a monogamist. I believe that one can be born gay. So the slippery slope fails for that reason.

I am also troubled that the law defaults to straight marriage in inheritance, health decisions, guardianship decisions, etc. An estranged family will have a good chance of defeating a gay person’s last wishes in a will contest if the will leaves property to the gay person’s lifetime companion, even if the family has not seen the gay person in 20 years. That is not just. That is not right.

On the other hand, I am troubled by the gay community's overreach and I oppose the attempt to use the imprimatur of the state to sanctify a gay union or to somehow tell you that your wedding vows have little meaning. The state should not sanctify anything nor should it determine the meaning of marriage. That is a job for the church and is between you, your partner and your god.

Zathras

My apologies for the Mugabe comparison. There is no comparison between a society like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and the US. Your position that democracy matters is, of course, the correct one in the final analysis.

Still, judicial “activism” is a perfectly valid method in our system of governance for dealing with changes in societal attitudes over time. Judges, in a similar if not in exactly the same way of legislatures, are a product of our society and reflect our society’s values and mores just as authentically. The advantage is that judges can do it, for the most part, out of the rough and tumble of day to day politics and they can make the hard, long term decisions that legislatures simply cannot. Brown v Board of Education was 50 years ago, and in many ways was the first step to equality of the races before the law. The legislature did not act for 10 years following that decision, and in many ways, Brown made the legislature’s acts possible.

Judges cannot long stand against the will of the people, as the Roosevelt era Supreme Court learned to its detriment. In the end, the “consent of the governed” will trump any judicial “activist”. That’s the way it should be.

Everyone says the marriage contract is almost broken and gay marriages will be the final nail in the coffin. Rather than create a dual system of civil unions and marriage, I propose creating a system of civil unions that fixes all the problems we've created with marriage. Require pre-union counselling and don't allow no-fault divorces. Make adultery for civilly united couples a criminal offense. Take away the tax credits for dependent children from couples that divorce.

I am legitimately worried about the unintended consequences of legalizing gay marriage. Many elected officials are appalled to observe how their laws are later implemented. Steve Gillon wrote a perspicacious book which I highly recommend, "'That’s Not What We Meant To Do”: Reforms and Its Unintended Consequences in the Twentieth Century.'"

Also, why are the gay activists pushing the envelope during a presidential election year? This seems insane to me. I suspect that this issue alone may turn California into a viable opportunity for President Bush. If so, John Kerry will have to spend significant time and money to make sure it remains a blue state. Why not wait until 2005?

“The state should not sanctify anything nor should it determine the meaning of marriage. That is a job for the church and is between you, your partner and your god.”

Nope, religious institutions have nothing to do with this discussion. The government does have legitimate secular interest in the marriage contract. We could be an atheist society and still worry about how to best raise children. A infant brought into this world ultimately imposes obligations upon the total society.

Hey Dan

Are you raising this on the board again so we can argue about it and hammer the wedge deeper?

Are you an agent of the VRWC ("Vast ...")?????

David Thomson,

"Gay activists" are driving this? I thought it was the Massachusetts Supreme Court interpreting the equality clause of their state's constitution on gays just as they did about 1790 when they ruled slavery unconsitutional based on that very same equality clause.

And I thought it was also San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom securing his re-election against the man who almost beat him, Green candidate Matthew Gonzalez.

It's always "them" for you isn't it?

"And so we must say to every American: look beyond the stereotypes that blind us. We need each other. All of us, we need each other. We don't have a person to waste. And yet, for too long, politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what's really wrong with America is the rest of us. Them. Them the minorities. Them the liberals. Them the poor. Them the homeless. Them the people with disabilities. Them the gays. We've gotten to where we've nearly them'd ourselves to death. Them, and them, and them. But this is America. There is no them; there is only us. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all."

William Jefferson Clinton, 1992 acceptance speech at the Democratic National convention.

"I’m not buying that for a split second. Almost immediately, some Mormon is going to campaign for polygamy. "

They can campaign all want, it isnt going to change the fact that they have no equal protection argument.

"All I'm saying here is, why do we need to rush this? Why does it need to happen overnight"

A.There is a legitimate tension in the law that the courts have no choice but to address soon. The Massechussetts supreme court has forced this to a head.
B.Easy for you to say.
C.At least we are having the debate in earnest now. No matter what happens that is a good thing.

As I tell my students, marriage means "attachments". Attachments get straight men off the street and out of the bars. It will do the same for gays and lesbians. Attachments, generally, are good. I respect Rauch from my reading him at National Journal, when I could get in free.

thelrd in TEXAS

I am uneasy about gay marriages. My true concern, however, is the eagerness of liberal judges (like those in Massachusetts) to shove their “anointed” views down the throats of the majority. What will I do if the voters opt for gay marriage? I will simply shrug my shoulders and hope for the best. What is the most compelling issue of our current era? The war on terror. Everything else is of secondary importance.

David Thomson,

Lots of people were concerned at the time by the judicial activism of the Massachusetts "Supreme Judicial Court" in ruling slavery unconsitutional in the April 1783 case of Commonwealth v. Jennison.

“Lots of people were concerned at the time by the judicial activism of the Massachusetts "Supreme Judicial Court" in ruling slavery...”

This is what I think regarding the principle of “judicial activism”: Do you really need to go down this road? You better think long and hard about this. In no way, shape, or form, should this option be taken lightly. The repercussions could literally threaten the very viability of our democratic society. It should be your last option, and not your first. I’m sorry but these illegal marriages occurring in some parts of this country do not seem to pass this ruthlessly unavoidable test.

David

"Facts on the Ground" is one of the most effective political strategies in the face of an opponent not willing to use extreme measures.

SEE

Gandi, Mahatma
King, Jr., Martin Luther

Kelli said: "Because it's not about "rights" so much as poking the eye of the rightwingers."

What a shocking, hateful and bigoted thing to say!

IF state-sponsored marriage conveyed benefits only to actively fertile couples, and IF marriage were otherwise purely a religious affair, THEN Kelli might have a point. But it's not, and she doesn't.

As the friend of a happily newly-married gay couple, I can tell you without doubt that they really don't give a damn about how rightwingers feel. They just want the equal protection of the law.

The opposition to gay marriage on this thread fundamentally breaks down into three themes:

a. gays are moving too fast.
b. gays should use the legislature.
c. what about the kids?

As to a, my question is when, then? It's been 40 years since the Stonewall Riots; how much longer should gays be denied?

b. Oh, please. This is just a way of asking the problem to go away and not bother you anymore. Name ONE legislature that was willing to give full marriage or even civil unions, before the judicial actions in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts. Here's a tip--virtually all legislators are cowards.

c. If its all about the kids, why did the GAO find over 1,000 code sections in FEDERAL law alone which distinguish based on marital status? Why can octegenarians marry? Why can the infertile marry?

Here's the real point: marriage breeds happiness. Why is the anti-gay-marriage so eager to deny the happiness conveyed by the access to that symbol, simply due to the sex of the individuals? gays are not freaks; they're not attacking your marriage.

i've read the anti posts here and elsewhere and i just don't get it. through all the rationalizations, slippery slopes and misunderstanding of the legal process, i've come to the conclusion that for most people it's still the "ick factor". The anti's can say they're not bigots, but they certainly haven't proved it to me.

cheers

Francis

Zathras,

A couple of quick rejoinders. You say there's no necessary link between gay marriage and polygamy. But there is: both are precluded by the "traditional" western form of marriage, between one man and one woman. Rewrite the formula, it sets a precedent for rewriting again. You say there is a biological underpinning for homosexuality. I don't dispute that. But I could also point you to many prominent behavioral psychologists, anthropologists and evolutionary theorists who argue that man (and I mean man, not "humankind") is not naturally monogamous. Were I a polygamist, I could cite these works to demonstrate the "unnaturalness" even oppressive nature of monogamy ("yes, Judge, I want to be a responsible father and husband but I have NEEDS--were I legally able to have three wives, I would be able to live within the bounds of marriage AND provide for my family"). This kind of evidence cuts many ways.

Again, I do not wish to deny anyone the right to live together openly and with dignity. If there are legal questions, let us deal with these calmly and justly. Just don't open to endless interpretation and reinvention an ancient state (matrimony) which is no picnic (believe me) but serves a laudable purpose: keeping couples together at least long enough to ensure the survival of the next generation.

Francis,

I must admit, you're probably onto something with the "ick factor" comment. You lose me completely, however, when you say "marriage breeds happiness." Whoa! As if it were such a simple causal relation. Heck, all you miserable people out there--just get married, it BREEDS happiness!

I appreciate your candor, and I will repay you in kind. Your comments reveal the truth of what I said earlier: this is not about marriage, it is about a misguided attempt to force straights to confront head-on the "ick" factor they are now told is wrong, wrong, wrong. Nevermind that it may be just as deeply ingrained in us as the desire to have sex with another man is in you. We must be reprogrammed, gay marriage is the way to do it.

And I find it interesting that legislators are all "cowards" when they cannot find it in themselves to exceed their mandate and create gay marriage rights out of thin air (except, of course, where they accede to the wishes of their constituents and create civil unions, but that's not good enough because they don't, apparently, breed happiness). Yet now, when legislators, mayors and even governors are scared to enforce the law lest they be branded bigots--now, I suppose politicians are brave souls, right? It's all how you look at it, isn't it?

David Thomson,

I can beat you no matter how many times you move the goal posts.

First you said the problem was caused by gay activists.

So I pointed out that the current fuss was started by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, as fostered by the very straight mayor of San Francisco (his wife worked her way through law school as a lingerie model) out to get himself re-elected.

Then you said the Massachusetts Supreme Court were judicial activists, to which I replied that they were simply doing the same thing they did more than 200 years ago - ruling that discrimination violated the equal protection of the laws clause of the state constitution (which pre-dated the federal Constitution).

Now you are sputtering.

Want to see my fast draw?

Want to see it again?

Kelli

Your argument amounts to:

Man has been socialized to Monogamy, but for Woman, it is a natural state. Monogamy is attractive, (no, almost vital) for a woman, because it insures that her offspring (i.e. genes) will receive maximum support while polygamy is attractive for a man because it maximizes the chance that his offspring (i.e. genes) will receive maximum dispersion.

To this way of thinking, male homosexuality is a real threat, almost an anathema, as male homosexuals will not be biologically driven to support the woman’s offspring because they don’t buy in to the male imperative, as they have no desire to create them in the first place.

To which the response is:

Are we as a society bound to instinctual thinking? What about the “higher” brain functions? It is a fiction that homosexuality leads to promiscuity. Some of the most committed people I know are homosexuals. Further, they do not affect the polygamy issue because a woman in today’s society would simply not continence polygamy. It’s a red herring.

I am really at a loss as to why denial of civil union status threatens the institution of marriage. I have two kids, my wife has three, and we are eaten up with the biological imperative. (I’ve bought two transmission fluid pans for my son in the past two weeks! : ) I don’t see how recognition of Tom and Dan’s relationship for legal purposes changes this.

Dear Carolina,

I've done some soul searching, and it still seems to me that there are some serious problems with all the gay rights-right now argument.

With all due respect to your rather eloquent description of your clearly admirable life, I think you are mistaking legalization with normalization and effect for cause. It is true that legal cases desegregated schools, and that now it would be unthinkable for a minority child to be banned from a school or minority buyers refused a house on the basis of ethnicity or refused a job.

However, the facts on the ground say that African Americans the ethnicity these legal cases were enacted for still suffer disproportionately from unemployment, crime ridden neighborhoods, crumbling inner city schools, and social gentrification that led to white flight when they moved into the neighborhood. So all that school bussing really came to not much in the end. Ditto for affirmative action that undercuts real achievements by minorities, by killing their credibility - and hasn't "token minority" become part of the American lexicon?

RoevWade made abortion legal in America, however the facts on the ground say that it is progressively getting more difficult to get an abortion in America. Some women have to travel for hours. This is not the high tide of abortion. It is becoming socially stigmatized again and increasingly difficult to obtain.

And you confuse women's suffrage which was a long standing broadly motivated social movement that took place over many many decades with court imposed social mandates.

Again and again we see that court action forces nominal legal acceptance that allows a handful of social minorities like yourself to succeed while stagnating or even reversing social normalization gains by the larger portion of that group. If you don't believe it yourself, just look at the backlash against Mexican Americans going on now with the anti-Immigration sentiment. Right now things aren't too bad. But too much too fast like Gray's issuance of driver's licenses incites a backlash.

Full normalization is not possible by imposition of court mandates. Who among us here had their kids or relative's kids or friend's kids taught Sex Ed in public school? Who among those kids learned about abortion as a medical procedure available to them? See the difference?

Who among us here thinks blacks are equal to hispanics, whites, or asians? Who among us here has a black man for a boss? Of course there will always be a few. There will always be the Colin Powells or Condeleeza Rice's. But how many?

You can't force these things, and I say that as someone who twice over has been penalized by these entrenched social norms. You can't demand people rewrite all of society's rules overnight by court fiat and make them feel gracious about it. They may have to obey the law, but they will turn their backs on you and shut you out. Because no court can mandate social acceptance. I say that as someone who cannot get what they want, quite unfairly, by the present social rules. Yet, it cannot be revised by the courts. It just can't.

The courts used to recognize this and it used to be a principle guiding justice, that rulings out to respect the prevailing cultural sentiment and that they could lead it ... but not by too much. Courts have departed from this more and more, but in doing so have undermined the very causes they have sought to support.

Gays are moving too fast. Now it is utterly wrong to be targeted by a Constitutional Ammendment singling gays out. However, if they like what they have, if they like it better than anti-sodomy laws, and widespread social censure, if they try for too much and make general society feel coerced or threatened ... they may lose it all or have it rolled back gradually or quickly so that they face a net loss. And I speak as someone who at least in one arena and partly in two faces some of the same challenges.

I sympathize dearly, but this can't be forced, and that cannot be underestimated. The optimal solution is a slow piecemeal social evolution and an eventual quiet normalization. A good start would be to allow local compromises and to pass a Federal law both establishing and limiting to what extent marriage/civil-union contracts are enforceable in non-complying states and locales. Then let it work itself out. Trust me it's for the better.

Oldman, I take your point about legalization not being directly equivalent to normalization. I would say, simply, it's a first step.

Are you suggesting that any of the problems you list would be any different (if the situation in the US would be better) if desegregation had never been forced on white people from 1948 on?

Offering some concrete examples: Colin Powell wouldn't be a general: Condoleeza Rice wouldn't be a lawyer: neither of them would be in the administration: Clarence Thomas wouldn't be a Supreme Court justice. I wouldn't miss Powell, Rice, or Thomas if they weren't in power, but I would think it shameful if, as you suggest, they should have been denied their rights on the basis of the colour of their skin, until white people were ready to accept them.

Equality is a long, slow, fight. At every stage it looks like we're not getting anywhere. You virtually have to look back a quarter-century and say "But look where we were then, and look where we are now" to see that things have been getting better, all along.

No opponent to gay marriage has been able to offer any reason why gay marriage will damage straight marriage (mere assertions that it will, it will, are not reason).

There exist people today who think that interracial marriage is unnatural and never works. But from a majority they are becoming a minority, because most people went from "I've never seen it happen so it'll never work" to "Oh. It does happen, and it does work, and the sky isn't falling: what was all the fuss about?" Make gay marriage legal, and the same thing will happen.

Before anyone else can point it out to me: Condoleeza Rice is many things, but not a lawyer. I blush for myself, and apologize to Ms Rice. (Not that there's anything wrong with being a lawyer...)

My main point is still the same, though: Without desegregation and the civil rights movement, Ms Rice would never have accomplished what she did: and I mean that as no slur on Ms Rice. Legalized inequality can, and has, held people back from what they were capable of.

Jesurgislac,

Your argument (which is widely espoused by gay marriage advocates) equating civil rights with their cause is based on a false premise. The struggle for civil rights in this country was about breaking down barriers at every level of society (schools, law courts, employment offices, etc.) that denied full citizenship rights based on skin color. Gay marriage is actually much more radical. It is not about the rights of citizenship (these could be addressed by civil unions) but about redefining "normal" vs. "deviant" sexuality.

As the Oldman argues, this question gets to the very core of individual beliefs and values. They are ingrained within us, and efforts to change them meet with stiff resistance. The more outsiders attempt to change our minds, the more we resist.

And when it comes to perceived attempts to indoctrinate our children in the new forward thinking, watch out. There will be a massive backlash.

Long ago, before I had children, I believed public schools were a great forum for social reengineering. Now I find myself exasperated by the literature my kids bring home in their backpacks--stuff I might even have picked up myself to share with them looks very different when it is "imposed" on them by teachers and school administrators. It's an ancient rule of salesmanship--bring the buyer along to the edge, then let him or her reach out for the product voluntarily. If, instead you stand there screaming, "take it, take it, you moron" the deal does not get closed and you're right back where you started.

Gay marriage is actually much more radical. It is not about the rights of citizenship (these could be addressed by civil unions) but about redefining "normal" vs. "deviant" sexuality.

So (forgive me if I have misunderstood you) you are arguing that it's okay for gay people to have full citizenship rights, but not okay for straight people to stop thinking of gay people as deviants?

Texastoast,

My point about the relationship between biology and sexuality is not that one causes the other, but that research exists to bolster all kinds of arguments about human behavior. I fully agree that humans are capable of higher order thinking, self-restraint and moral judgment. That, in fact, is precisely what marriage was invented to help bring about.

I disagree, however, with much of the rest of your post. Scientists have pretty much proven that men are indeed more naturally promiscuous than women. Does that mean they are incapable of monogamy? No, it just means they have to try harder.

I don't get your argument that male homosexuality is a "threat" to women and their children. Male homosexuals, unless they beat straight guys over the head with a club and steal them away, hardly pose a threat to straight women. However, a culture in which ALL men screw around indiscriminately and fail to take care of their biological children IS a threat, not just to women but society as a whole.

As for women refusing to countenance polygamy in this day and age--I wish it were true. Women put up with all kinds of compromising situations that aren't in their own or their children's best interest. Why should polygamy be any different?

Finally, I gotta agree with Dave Thomson; in the grand scheme of things, gay marriage is not something I'm likely to take to the streets to oppose. There are too many serious issues out there. I don't know anyone who plans to cast his or her vote based on the position of a politician on the subject. I suspect we will get gay marriage soon, and I suspect furthermore, that it will just open more and more cans of worms in the years to come.

And in the end, straight people are still going to say "ick" when they see two men kissing, and their children are still going to call each other "fag" on the playground and nothing much will have changed, except that Crate and Barrell will rake it in and conservatives will seethe quietly and move further and further away from the "mainstream." Oh, and I'll probably join the growing ranks of people who homeschool their kids.

Kelli, again, because I find this an interesting question: Your argument appears to be that (a) It's fine for gays to have full civil rights (b) It's wrong for straights to think gay people are normal.

It appears that you are the one supporting thought control, not the supporters of gay marriage, if you really can't bear the idea that your children might grow up not sharing your opinions.

At the risk of being obvious....(Who, me???) a point or two.

Carolina, you say to Kelli:

The assumption your argument makes is that once you open the "marriage door" then all sexual liasons needs to be approved by the state.

I don't think so. You're forgetting that large portion of sexual experence which takes place outisde of marriage.

I think your concern has to do with the equal protection clause and how it might be pushed to mean anything and everything.

And isn't it? This seems to me one of the central issues, as you will see.

Someone had an argument here (I think) about equality meaning different things at different times.

I would argue, rather that this is a culturally driven issue; that rights, themselves and therefore, as a logical extension, what constitutes *equal* rights, are cultural concepts.

I'm at work and I don't really have time today to explore this idea fully... But here's a quick stab at it:

Marriage, as such, has always been defined first by the culture... and the laws regarding it were to the greatest degree possible in our imperfect legal system, a reflection of those cultural values, to the end of reinforcing it.. and giving our legal system a means to work with the cultural aspects of marriage.

This move of homosexuals is among many other things, an attempt to turn this whole process on it's ear; to drive the process not by the culture, but by govenrment.

Oldman,

That is a good point about the distinction between decriminalization (aka legalization) and normalization.

I don't view gay marriage as being as important a right as full civil rights for non-whites and women, or other rights for homosexuals (employment discrimination, etc.).

This is why I favor letting the states decide when to permit gay marriage. The problems caused by it being legal in some states and not others are something lawyers routinely deal with. Conflict of laws is taught in every law school.

If Massachusetts voters don't like their Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage by judicial act, they can dump their Supreme Court. California voted out 3 of 7 Supreme Court justices in 1986 when they tried to abolish the death penalty. The others got the message.

If this is not that important to Massachusetts voters, that's their choice.

But eventually gay marriage will be legal in most states. MattS suspects that will happen in about 20 years and I agree.

In the meantime we should do as little as possible. Politicians and preachers will use the subject as an opportunity for hyperventilation, posturing and fund-raising. I recommend we use such as our own opportunities for ridicule.

Bithead says: This move of homosexuals is among many other things, an attempt to turn this whole process on it's ear; to drive the process not by the culture, but by govenrment.

Bithead, are you really so ignorant of the campaigning for an end to discrimination against gay people, and the changing cultural attitudes towards gay people, that has been going on for the past fifty years?

The process has been driven by cultural change, as always. Kelli may want to keep her children from growing up knowing gay people are normal, but soon or late this backfires: if none of her children turn out to be gay, one of their children might be. And there is a limit to how long children can be kept from cultural change.

Gay people have been getting married in religious ceremonies for years. (As others have noted, it's a lot easier to find a Reform Jewish rabbi who will marry two nice Jewish boys to each other, than to find any rabbi anywhere who will marry a Jew to a non-Jew.)

Allowing same-sex couples equal access to the benefits and rights and obligations of civil marriage will (a) not affect anyone else's marriage, past or future (b) does not require any major change in the law, unlike setting up separate-but-equal "civil unions" (c) be the right thing to do: equality under the law is a basic principle by which the US has (attempted) to live through most of its history.

This is not "turning the process on its ear", Bithead. It's a natural next step in the normal process of civil rights. And as you know, same-sex marriage is even in the dictionary.

Kelli

My point regarding instinct was that the “ick” factor arises from that instinct – nothing more. Men seem to have a lot less “ick” factor about female homosexuality than the male variety because of men’s insecurity about their own sexuality. Just ask Sally Jesse. Women, OTOH, are more self-secure, but have a biological imperative to enlist support for their offspring - which is at cross-purposes with homosexuality. That is the “threat” of homosexuality, not a club wielding gay he-man.

I guess, in the final analysis, this issue turns on whether or not one buys into the notion that homosexuality is a choice. If it were, the question then becomes, in the face of nearly universal disapproval, ranging from “ick” to downright hatred, why on earth would anyone choose it?

"It is not about the rights of citizenship (these could be addressed by civil unions) but about redefining "normal" vs. "deviant" sexuality."

I find it ironic that those supposedly defending the integrity of marriage are happy to equate marriage with sexuality. And we wonder why marriage is so screwed up already.

Bithead, are you really so ignorant of the campaigning for an end to discrimination against gay people, and the changing cultural attitudes towards gay people, that has been going on for the past fifty years?

Of course I am; More, apparently than your testy self, since I am aware of it's lack of success when presented as such.

Okay, boys. Let's get down to business.

Jesurgislac (sounds like a resort town in Bulgaria, don't it?),

If you pull 100 people off the street and asked them to define "deviant" and "normal" sexual behavior you'd probably get 100 different answers. I don't have a problem with that. I'm a modern American, and what people do in their bedrooms, provided it is legal (and very little isn't, even acts involving small furry creatures) is your business. For the record, I don't even define gay sex as deviant. I just don't really want to see it or hear about it, though I know it goes on all the time and I know and like people who, I presume, are doing it. Maybe even as we speak!

If you and the other largely reasonable, mostly logical debaters on the other side of the issue are unable to convince people like me, Bithead, and Oldman (pretty secular, broad-minded folk) how the hell are you going to convince Gary Bauer's people? And if you cannot convince the majority of the country that this social experiment is the right way to go, then it should not proceed. Or are you going to use the Crate and Barrel registry argument with them?

Texastoast,

Certainly women need help in the raising of children. Despite all the new reproductive technologies, we are still the ones who give birth, still the ones who tend to take the lead in their day to day care, still the ones likely to sink into poverty if help is not forthcoming. Judging by the studies I've read, lesbians are the most inclined of all groups to remain committed to one partner long-term. Perhaps we should cede all childraising duties to them ;)

Mark Buehner,

You mean this isn't about sexuality? And here I was, thinking the entire purpose of marriage has always been to contain and channel sexual energy for the good of families and society as a whole. Guess I was wrong. It's really all about getting to register at Crate and Barrel. Tradition vs. place settings--it's a no-brainer.

"Let me restate that: Choosing to consider a previous contract appears to me to be as arbitrary as choosing to consider biological sex."

1.A.Its clearly not arbitrary, its pragmatic. Giving, for instance, power of attorney to 2 different individuals could create all kinds of headaches.
B.Even if it is arbitrary, as I've stated before, the government can pass arbitrary laws so long as every citizens is treated identically. Congress could pass a law tomorrow mandating every house be painted bright pink. But they cannot pass a law saying every Catholics must be pink, or homosexual, or guys with mustaches, or people with red hair.

Posted by Mark Buehner at March 8, 2004 05:26 PM

Doesn't seem arbitrary to me -- I can picture a number of potential practical problems with permitting multiple valid marriage contracts, including inheritance law, tax law, end-of-life decisions, etc.

Posted by KenB at March 8, 2004 05:27 PM

Mark, KenB, it is arbitrary. Preference for Power of Attorney can be established, inheritance law and tax law ramifications can be sorted out. Just as most of the legal issues being used as cover for this effort can be addressed another way (and have been to this point).

____

I don’t think that polygamy and gay marriage present the same issues because I believe that homosexual preference is a fact and not a choice. Marriage is a sociological construct and one cannot be born a polygamist or a monogamist. I believe that one can be born gay. So the slippery slope fails for that reason.

Posted by TexasToast at March 8, 2004 08:32 PM

Kelli, again, because I find this an interesting question: Your argument appears to be that (a) It's fine for gays to have full civil rights (b) It's wrong for straights to think gay people are normal.

Posted by Jesurgislac at March 9, 2004 10:10 AM

Jesurgislac, TexasToast, I see continual avowels of evidence that homosexuality is normal. The avowels seem to be quite unsupported. Two female humans cannot reproduce. Two male humans cannot reproduce. Sexual attraction to the same sex is biologically deviant for humans.

From my admittedly untrained eye it appears that the mental health profession has simply declared homosexuality "normal." The reasoning appears to be the stellar proclamation "otherwise they are happy." It seems to be a ridiculus assertion.

If somebody is sexually attacted to porpoises are we expected to believe their behavior is normal because they are otherwise happy? The genetic material in an expressed male gene makes males and female humans very different animals. In the case of homosexuality, we are not only to believe that they are normal but that they are simply engaged in an "alternate lifestyle." Not only that we are now asked to redefine marriage for purposes of actively accomodating that alternative lifestyle.

Contrary to assertions otherwise, I do not believe the evidence supports a genetic basis to homosexuality. The limited research I have read is at best inconclusive. At worst it uses warped logic to try to arrive at predetermined outcomes. I am not an expert however, so I demure to others on this subject. Heredity doesn't matter for the consideration before us anyhow though. Genetic heretity does not make something normal. There are plenty of hereditary mental diseases. The behavioral traits of the disease remain abnormal regardless of the way they are transmitted.

I believe the evidence points to homosexuality as a mental problem. That trait does not make denial of rights of an American citizen OK, nor does it mean that those afflicted by it are incapable of contributing as citizens otherwise. It does matter if we are trying to determine if we really are denying them their rights though.

I am not convinced about the arguments I've read suggesting that we redefine marriage to accomodate homosexual monogamy. I believe the Oldman has correctly defined the basic political effort. It is not in my estimation an attempt at gaining a civil right but instead an ongoing campaign to redefine deviant. I stand accused of being both uneducated and a mean-spirited bigot for believing all of this.

Kelli,

Growing up is not a social experiment.

Calling gay marriage a social experiment does not make it so.

But feel free to call it whatever you like if that makes you feel better. That won't change the outcome, or even delay it, in the least.

Those who are uneasy about homosexuality have lost the younger generation on this issue. Note that no one, repeat, no one, has challenged this point or asked why it is so. There is a reason for this.

Kelli -

I'll tackle your comments first before I move down to the rest of the emails.

First, on education, it occured to me the in shower this morning (yes, I'm serious) that I used the wrong word. I should have said that there was a correlation between education and exposure to gay and gay life styles. I'm not calling everyone who didn't go to a liberal ivy (after all I didn't) a moron and a bigot. I was trying to avoid that very thing, and I appologize if I didn't make my point clear.

What I was trying to say that in American colleges (usually non-religious, secular ones) people tend to be exposed to different sexual lifestyles and this seems (emphasis on seems) to encourage tolerance of gay lifestyles. That's why I'd like to see poll to see if my observation is supported by data.

This has, btw, absolutely nothing to do with evolution and multilegged organisms from the Jurassic age.

Second, you wrote "In short, because the biological issues (man + woman = baby) were the same regardless of race, giving state blessings to mixed race marriage was most definitely a case of acknowledging the facts on the ground, rather than overturning the order of the cosmos from a jurist's bench. The same cannot be said of gay marriage." Other people tackled the biological vs. other reasons for marriage, so I won't go there. Nonetheless, I think you raise a good point here. With the exception of some very different cultures, marriage in Western civilization has been heterosexual, not homosexual. Marriage has also been a social mechanism designed to enforce/encourage certain behaviors. Is your concern that approving marriages between homosexuals equivalent to encouraging/abetting homosexuality?

Third, you seem exasperated with the pace of change. I'm not sure what "pace" you are referring to. Oldman is taling about general social acceptance. I'm not sure what pace you're talking about. Is it that the courts (after years of legislation) decided to push the issue in an election year? Is is because a mayor (who needed to shore up a key constiutency) decided to jump on the bandwaggon? Sure Seattle, San Jose, and possible Chicago are signing up to authorized gay marriages but they are not most of the country; they are not even 10% of the states of the Union. Heck, I'm not even sure what you mean about poking rightwingers in the eye. Are you suggesting because a couple celebrities decide to give a couple political speeches that everyone who supports this is trying to prank the american right wing? You seem to imply that gays are less sincere about marriage then hetreosexual people...and that they're pushing this issue now to annoy the rest of us.

Fourth, I think you're mising out on the Sci-FI bit. Not all of it is good, but I have a feeling you'd enjoy reading the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.

Carolina

Stan,

Homosexuality is most definitely inate in humans, not a preference. I have no idea what causes it. One of my identical twin sons is gay and the other definitely isn't.

The mechanism causing various human traits is not understood. I know a fair amount about twins, having been the chairman of my county's chapter of the Parents of Twins Association for years. While there are genetic components to some twin patterns (double-clutching), notably fraternal twins skipping a generation and "twins don't have twins but their sisters do" (my wife's family pattern), there is not believed to any genetic cause of identical twins. It is known that identical twins are caused by delayed splitting of a fertilized ovum.

Only tell that to my wife, her mother, her mother's mother, etc. My sons are the seventh set of identical twins in four straight maternal generations. Seven of 22 successful pregnancies in four maternal generations have resulted in twins. It would have been eight in 23 but my mother-in-law miscarried her second set of identical twins. Her own mother had two sets of identical twins.

My daughter knows she is doomed - at least a one in three chance per pregnancy of carrying twins.

So don't be too sure that there isn't a genetic component to homosexuality.

"It is not about the rights of citizenship (these could be addressed by civil unions) but about redefining "normal" vs. "deviant" sexuality."

I find it ironic that those supposedly defending the integrity of marriage are happy to equate marriage with sexuality. And we wonder why marriage is so screwed up already.

Posted by Mark Buehner at March 9, 2004 11:29 AM

Mark, I believe the question is whether two people of the same sex can marry. If so, people aren't defending marriage by denying that same sex marriage isn't possible. Likewise, it is assaulting marriage by asserting that sexuality isn't part of marriage's basis. (Oldman doesn't equate them as suggested.) There is no difference between my relationship with my mother, father, brother, sister, etc. and same sex marriage under a sexuality free construct.

The financial angle of gay marriage occurred to me a while ago.

It'd result in a small but permanent boost in spending in wedding-related industries. There'd probably be a larger boost at first as pent-up demand was satisfied, later dropping back to a fairly stable number.

Most of this money would go into local economies through small local service businesses - limos, catering, florists, reception hall rental, hotels, tailors, bands/DJs, etc.

Carolina,

Thinking about your blog postings in the shower, huh? We obviously suffer from the same disorder (overanalysis). But your response is very thoughtful and deserves a thoughtful reply. You ask if I think recognition of gay marriage amounts to a state and societal endorsement of homosexuality. The short answer is yes. But that is really not my principal concern, which has always been and continues to be a classically "conservative" one--that is, while you can create parallel family structures to accommodate changing social mores, I don't believe you can or should mess around with the institution of marriage itself and expect that this will be the end of it.

As for your point about young, well-educated people being more positive about gay marriage than old fogeys like myself (a point echoed by Tom), I certainly concede its validity, though I wonder if it is a permanent shift or a reflection of a stage of life. I don't know. I never thought I would be leaning Republican, but here I am.

As for the sci-fi, well I did like the Russian original "Solaris" (forgot about that one) which I understand derived from Stanislaw Lem novel. Maybe there's hope.

Tom,

A social experiment is something that has never been tried before (yes, I realize, Denmark 1989--such a long time ago). It is not necessarily a good thing, nor a bad thing, just a novel thing. Gay marriage is such a thing. Sorry.

Just a general note: they're doing a story right now on NPR's Talk of the Nation. The pollster just announced that support for gay marriage has been slipping precipitously over the past few months. Two to one Americans now oppose. Just FYI.

Kelli,

Gradual abolition of originally near-universal state laws against miscegenatious marriages was called a social experiment too. That did not make it so.

Try again.

Oldman,

Thank you for your nuanced comments.

I recognize that legalization does not lead to overnight normalization behaviors by the majority of the population. It may never lead to full normalization. Has there ever been a majority didn't discriminate against a minority? No, but I'll be happy to see increasing levels of normalization with the understanding it takes generations to enact change.

Your point about African Americans is well taken. I trust you don't believe that all African Americans live in inner city ghettos, and that some of them might enjoy living in cities. They are, after all, 70% of our urban population.
At one time, where you lived and how you lived was not a choice. Our ghettos are getting torn down as people realize how poverty reinforces poverty. A black man can leave the innercity and in rural and suburban places find work compensurate to his skills. Yes, racism is pernicious, and yes there's a glass ceiling...but it's slowly being broken. Some of us are succeeding - a lot more then there used to be. How many more people would be denied the American dream if it wasn't for l