Wed, July 14, 2004
My toothless gay marriage amendment update—8:51 PM
I know a lot of people have objections to gay marriage. In my opinion, these objections are silly, but people are allowed to have opinions that I think are silly. (If not, the world would be quite bizarre.)
At any rate, none are sillier than the clip of Rick Santorum arguing in favor of amending the U.S. Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage that I saw tonight on The Daily Show. Santorum's point was that once we allow gay marriage, it will cause children to be born out of wedlock. Out of wedlock? The entire point of gay marriage is more wedlock! Besides, gay couples don't have kids. So, is he saying that more children will be born out of wedlock because homosexuals will mischievously impregnate women before they go off to marry their gay lovers? Or that the rising tide of same-sex couples will create a surging black market demand for adoptions, forcing women who would otherwise not have babies to conceive them out of wedlock just to sell them to gay couples?
I'm not attempting to characterize the entire objection to gay marriage as this silly. (It's silly, but not this silly.) Still, it's a shame – if you actually oppose gay marriage, people like Senator Rick Santorum do more to damage your argument than support it.
Brandon — Wed, 7/14/04 11:43pm
You gotta love Rick Santorum - he just can't keep the idiocy clammed up inside his piehole:
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said, referring to a landmark gay rights case before the high court that pits a Texas sodomy ban against privacy rights.
"All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family," Santorum said.
The people that rushed to his defense on this said that he was simply making a "slippery slope" argument about a judicial ruling; okay, I may not agree with it, but I can see where they're coming from. But come on, there are ways to make your point without making links - even tertiary ones - between homosexuality and incest. That's sensationalistic and way out of line, and either you're trying to be hurtful or you're completely oblivious to the power of your own words.
"...I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions."
Oooooooookay. So it's okay for a person to be gay, but they should just never have sex. Gotcha. Good plan, Rick. Aces!
The whole idea of homosexuality as a lifestyle "choice" just burns me up. So at some point in our lives, we all just sit down and decide who were attracted to? Ahh yes, I remember the night I sat down with my parents at the dinner table, and after much contemplation, said "Mom... Dad... I've thought it over, weight the pros and cons, and you know what? I dig chicks. I'm going to devote my life to having sex with women. Aces!"
"...Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
Man on dog?? (Pauses to have a little fit of frustration like Steve Martin in the first hotel scene from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles") MAN ON DOG?? Seriously, Rick, what color is the sky in your world? Or better yet, what kind of crazy sex is going on in that fevered imagination of yours? Can we sneak a peek at the history record of your web browser? Because this whole "deviant sex" thing is starting to look less like a crusade and more like an obsession.
Don't worry, Rick. It's okay to fantasize; just don't act on it, you know? Aces!
Bee Boy — Thu, 7/15/04 12:23am
Ah, yes... we all remember the earlier Santorum quote well. Which is why I was kind of hesitant to hold him up as an argument against the argument against gay marriage – he's obviously crazy, so it's hard to get anyone to take him seriously as a representative of the crowd that wants this new amendment.
I do get a kick out of the whole "the future of the society. And that's what? Children" argument. Which is hard for me to understand because, as a species, I think we're past the point where procreation is on the top of our list of survival needs. (In fact, at this point, I believe the opposite.) Besides, gay couples can – and should – adopt kids, and that's the same if not better because it replaces an extra person (that the planet already has too many of) with an existing person who was just going to rot in an orphanage.
Way to look out for the children, Santorum. (Aces!)
Joe Mulder — Thu, 7/15/04 1:08am
"Santorum's point was that once we allow gay marriage, it will cause children to be born out of wedlock."
I'd like to hear the exact quote, but, I don't imagine this summation is too far off.
He might mean that gay marriage would devalue marriage even more than it already is, causing people to have more children out of wedlock, because they wouldn't consider marriage an important part of the "screw, bear, raise" equation vis a vis kids.
That makes maybe a tiny bit more sense than the other offered interpretations, but it's still pretty ridiculous.
I don't support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, incidentally. Nor do I support courts imposing gay marriage on the population. I support the radical notion, one so crazy it just might work, of letting the people – or, perhaps, the people's elected representatives – vote on the issue.
Aces.
"michwagn" — Thu, 7/15/04 11:30am
I don't see the courts as "imposing" gay marriage on the "population." No one has to marry a homosexual, whereas, say integration was imposed on the population as public school whites had to go to school with public school blacks if the public school whites and blacks lived close to each other. Even then though, I guess you could send your kid to an all-white or all-black school that was private, but you take my point...maybe.
I do think that allowing the people's elected representatives to vote on the issue would be of use, but keep in mind one of the reasons we have constitutional separation of powers. One reason is that the founders, who thought the people were exceptional idiots, felt that the nation needed to be protected from the whims of the people. Thus, the House gets elected every two years (whims full throttle!), the Senate every six (step off, whims!), and federal judges are appointed for life (whims away!). The courts are supposed to protect the Constitution and rule in ways that are consistent with the general principles found within it. There is a useful debate that will likely never end that discusses whether judges should read the Constitution narrowly (not narrow-mindedly, but with a strict focus on the exact language, etc) or broadly (not willy-nilly, but with an eye toward the spirit of Constitution), but I think I'll not worry about that in the context of gay marriage.
I believe that the state has a compelling interest to keep family members from sleeping together and from marrying. I also believe the state has a compelling interest to keep humans from marrying animals. I do not believe the state has a compelling interest to keep one person from marrying one other person. I think the state does have a compelling interest to protect against multiple spouses.
I do not believe these opinions to ethically relative. I believe there is a fundamental difference between two humans marrying only each other and a human marrying a close family member, more than one human, or (in Rick Santorum's worst nightmares) some kind of goat.
Marriage, in the eyes of the state is a formal contract, not a religious ceremony. If any church wants to deny marrying anyone for any reason, I may disagree with their decision, but not their right to do it. The state does not have that luxury (see the 14th, among other, amendments).
But back to the people voting on it: the people didn't vote to end slavery and the people didn't vote to integrate civic life. A president did one of those things and the courts did another. The elected representatives of districts and states are more beholden to popular opinion than they are to do what they believe to be right (though often, from a district perspective representatives do vote on what the majority of their district says they want). I think the majority of the country is wrong here and it is up to the courts to carry out the founders' wishes of stepping in and doing the right thing when the people are being swayed by poor argument, fear, some hate, some bigotry, but mostly lack of understanding.
"michwagn" — Thu, 7/15/04 11:36am
Well, while I share Brandon's opinion of Rick Santorum, I do think that his "love the homosexual, hate the act" schtick is somewhat defendable. First, I don't personally defend it, I support gay marriage. I think it is ridiculous that we are even debating whether this is allowed under the Constitution. Of course it is...sigh. But that's for another time.
Ok, Santorum is just saying love the sinner, hate the sin. It's like saying that I have no problem with my wife occasionally thinking that the person who just jogged past her is hot, but I do have a problem with her running to catch up with him and then go home and sleep with him. he is saying (though I think he is lying, I think he has a huge problem with homosexuality) that he has no problem if someone is born gay or chooses to be gay, he has a problem with acting on it. So, while I detest Rick Santorum and totally disagree with his arguments, some of what he says is not certifiably insane...but then again..."It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Man on dog?
Bee Boy — Thu, 7/15/04 12:34pm
By the way, the exact quote is something along the lines of: "allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out of wedlock." I really didn't spin this one. I deleted TDS off of TiVo, but I'll see if I can get the rerun this afternoon.
However, upon slogging through the giant transcript of the debate in the Senate, it appears that the footage I saw was from a press gaggle later on. On the Senate floor, Santorum only refers to the wedlock situation (over, and over, and over again) in the terms Joe surmised: that "devaluing" marriage would cause more people to have kids without marrying. (He backs this up with a lot of data from Scandinavian countries that allow gay marriage.) I agree with Joe that this is slightly less silly than my original reading of the quote, but it's still preposterous.
And I think the honest, non-sensationalist way for Santorum to present this to the press is, "if you devalue marriage by allowing gays to marry, more couples will have children out of wedlock" instead of, "allowing gay marriage will cause children to be born out of wedlock." He tried to make his argument into a more dramatic sound bite, and made it much sillier in the process. (I do like "screw, bear, raise," by the way.)
Brandon — Thu, 7/15/04 1:00pm
He is saying (though I think he is lying, I think he has a huge problem with homosexuality) that he has no problem if someone is born gay or chooses to be gay, he has a problem with acting on it.
But again, how exactly does that work? It's okay to be a man who is attracted to other men, or a woman who is attracted to other women, that's great, good for you, but you now need to spend the rest of your life being celibate. Excellent plan. Very well thought out.
People who give that line are lying. You can't say that you are okay with someone being homosexual but not okay with them acting on it, because sex is the defining act of sexual orientation. You can't separate the two like that.
And the idea that letting gays marry will somehow devalue marriage is ridiculous. You know what devalues marriage? Adultery. Spousal abuse. A huge, ever-rising divorce rate. Heterosexuals have done plenty to devalue marriage all on their own; allowing two people of the same sex who love each other to make a lifelong commitment that's acknowledged by the state and federal government doesn't belong on that list.
Family is family, and rather than expending energy on persecuting those who wish to create a loving family, we should be encouraging them, especially when it comes to adopting children. I have a female friend from college who recently adopted a Guatemalan baby boy with her partner, and I've seen what a difference that has made in that little boy's life. There is nothing "sinful" about it.
Mike - nice work on "imposing on the public question" and the comparisons to integration and slavery.
Bee Boy — Thu, 7/15/04 1:21pm
Seconded! Nice work, indeed. I almost feel bad posting sarcastic vitriol and Olsen twin jokes on this site any more, so much has the level of discourse been elevated by others.
And, yeah, I have to agree that celibacy should not be the penalty for being gay. And the "devaluing marriage" argument just sounds like those exclusive golf clubs. "Oh, blacks can play here? I don't want to play here any more." That's so dopey. Any heterosexual who would decide not to get married just because homosexuals can is crazy. Start a new club, if it's such a big deal. Call it "smarriage."
Brandon — Thu, 7/15/04 1:31pm
LOL, smarriage...
"Lousy Smarch weather!"
And please don't stop posting sarcastic vitriol and Olsen twin jokes. It can't all be big issues and serious discourse, or we'd go nuts.
***
Moe: Oh, everybody is going to family restaurants these days, tsk. Seems nobody wants to hang out in a dank pit no more.
Carl: You ain't thinking of getting rid of the dank, are you, Moe?
Moe: Ehh, maybe I am.
Carl: Oh, but Moe - the dank! The dank!
"michwagn" — Thu, 7/15/04 7:16pm
Don't stop the vitriol! I can do vitriol too, dammit (I just want to make sure I don't leave myself open to a Mulder smackdown)
I agree, Brandon, that I think Santorum is lying when he says, "Hey, gay people is cool, now don't have the gay sex!" I give him a C for effort, trying to be tolerant. C is for average, which seems to be his intellectual speed.
Also, all those scandanavian facts Santorum touts are bogus. If we need to get into why, I can do that. Sigh.
Also, I bet Mary-Kate and Ashley have made out with each other.
Joe Mulder — Tue, 7/20/04 4:15am
Fear not, Wagner, your smackdown is coming (I was hoping, PRAYING, that someone would take the "courts ended slavery/segregation" bait.
Of course, though, now I'll have to go and read the 14th Amendment. Lousy Constitution.
So, I wasn't going to, but, ten comments so far; that deserves my best efforts. It might take a while, since I'm not jury duty right now. That's right, jury duty! What have you yahoos been doing the last couple of days while I've been out administering justice, L.A. County style?
So, my response is (maybe, probably) forthcoming, but, I'll be busy for a while, with the jury duty. Plus, all the extra masturbating, now that Wagner put the image of Mary-Kate and Ashley making out with each other into my head.
(don't tell my mom about this site, by the way)
"michwagn" — Tue, 7/20/04 10:37am
The courts didn't end slavery, a presidential document, an executive order from Lincoln, did.
If you are going to go all "the court has made its decision, now let them try and enforce it" on me, I expected more from you.
Also, when you do the smackdown, be gentle, then rough, then gentle again.
Joe Mulder — Wed, 7/21/04 11:35pm
"The courts didn't end slavery, a presidential document, an executive order from Lincoln, did."
Ah, yes, so you mentioned.
Cheerfully withdrawn.
But I'll be back.
"michwagn" — Thu, 7/22/04 12:42pm
How goes the jury duty? I had it for a month last year, but never got called. Sigh, I just don't have the right stuff. Maybe, when under group memberships, I put down "NAMBLA" that turned off some lawyers...
Joe Mulder — Thu, 7/22/04 7:51pm
"Maybe, when under group memberships, I put down "NAMBLA" that turned off some lawyers..."
... and turned on some others.
A month? Damn. We have to go in for one day, and if we don't get called, we're done.
But I got called, got put on a jury the next day (last Wednesday), and the trial lasted until today (Thursday). Now, we're deliberating, and that could take until tomorrow or, God forbid, next week.
Bee Boy — Fri, 3/18/05 12:38am
I happened across this post and skimmed through the comments again. (Man, that was fun! I was clearly out of my depth by the time the debate began, so I just sat on the sidelines watching the Onebee Comment Pool Powerhouses of Rhetoric have at each other!)
Anyway, it reminded me that John ("Catwoman Man") Rogers has been commenting on the issue lately over at his blog (my new favorite) Kung Fu Monkey – in response to the recent California ruling. Very good stuff.
Activist Judges
"Will of the People"
Brandon — Wed, 6/7/06 2:59am
So maybe you were planning to post on this and I'm blatantly stealing your thunder, Jameson, but I just finished watching Bill Bennett on The Daily Show, where he and Jon Stewart spent the bulk of the program arguing over gay marriage, and I felt compelled to dig up this old conversation (older than I thought, actually, though I should've realized it was back in 2004; as Stewart said [I'm paraphrasing], "Funny how gay marriage only becomes a national threat in even-numbered years.").
Anyway, I was struck by a comment from Bennett - at one point, he said "If we allow gay marriage, what do we tell the polygamists?", trying to make the slippery slope argument that many opponents like to make (along with Santorum's belief that allowing consensual gay sex leads not just to the right to bigamy or polygamy, but to the right to incest and apparently even bestiality).
But by overplaying this card, I think they've actually hurt their own argument. If they're so worried about bigamists/polygamists, then argue for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between two humans (that one also protects against bestiality). If they're worried about incest, then define it as being between "two humans of legal age unrelated by blood" (or something along those lines). As for adultery, people already do have the legal right to it; and any congressman or woman who wants to start a push for a law against that is likely going to find a lot of their colleagues suddenly not returning their phone calls.
But it isn't really about the slippery slope for most amendment supporters, is it? And if someone would just have the balls to initiate a "two humans of legal age unrelated by blood" amendment bill, I think we'd get confirmation of that right quick.
Anonymous Coward — Wed, 6/7/06 8:13am
The bigamists/polygamists/beastyboys/rednecks/etc. would disagree strongly. Afterall, they are born that way, why should we have the right to tell them how to live. They aren't hurting anyone. Leave them alone.
Bee Boy — Wed, 6/7/06 9:59am
A number of things disappointed me about the Bennett appearance. (And no, I wasn't going to post on it, because I get exhausted just thinking about it. Two years ago, I'd have been running for the keyboard; these days, I just sigh and flip on a nice, non-confrontational episode of Without a Trace. They've won.)
I've insisted that The Daily Show should get rid of its live audience from the first day it had one. One good point about Stewart's interviews is that he sometimes (apparently, on his whim) attempts to have a fair debate, allowing the guest to rebut his arguments. In those occasions, the audience goes crazy with applause whenever Stewart scores a rhetorical point against the guest – entirely undermining the fair discussion. (Paraphrasing Conan O'Brien) Vote at your polling places, people. Not here.
This entire marriage issue was such a monstrously successful "get out the vote" campaign for the right-wing psychos in '04; I'll be inconsolably depressed if it works again this year. The fact that it's being debated again just terrifies me.
I thought Jon made a good point about Mary Cheney – you get a pass on defending against America's moral backslide if you're related to a gay – and I thought Bennett made a good point about why that shouldn't be a keystone in the argument for gay marriage. (Most right-wing psychos are not politically prevented from disowning their children; most gays are not self-destructively stupid enough to work for the Cheney campaign.)
I don't think you hear the slippery slope argument often: only when someone is backed into a corner by reasonable logic and has to come up with something that sounds more normal than "Freedom is for people who don't freak me out." (Did you see the oil industry lobbyist in Ed Helms's piece Monday? That guy was backed into a corner – disavowed all reason and started worrying about coyote attacks.) Behind closed doors, the argument is, "Your values are under attack, and this is your chance to put a stop to it." If any part of the conservative base feels like gay marriage isn't in direct opposition to its particular values, the argument is to prove how gay marriage is related to other nearby values. ("We'll tell you what your values are, goddammit.") If that doesn't work, the last resort is, "But someone could force you to marry a dog."
It's kind of like intelligent design: you can make an emotional plea in most cases, but on the Senate floor, you have to cook up some pseudoscience to make your point sound legitimate. "Gays are icky" works off the record, but on TV you need a bunch of Norwegian statistics. (Mike said he was going to tear those apart for us. I still look forward to it, but first I want to know if he thought Earl was better than Scrubs.)
Of course, there's a tiny faction of the right-wing marriagestapo that comes by its objection honestly. Our own beloved gay marriage opponent certainly does. For them, it's not about a slippery slope or a culture war, it's just an honest opinion that only one family structure is more effective at raising children than all the rest. I happen to disagree. The only solution I can think of is: try gay marriage and gay adoption for a decade and evaluate the data. If it turns out that kids of gays are really so much more wacked out than the rest of the kids, then fine – outlaw gay marriage at that point. Outlaw homosexuality in general, if you want to. Children are our future.
Joe Mulder — Wed, 6/7/06 1:34pm
First of all, it's easier to make the slippery slope argument when that's exactly what's happening.
Second of all, I don't lump Onebee's esteemed pro-same-sex-marriage readership into this group, but most same-sex-marriage proponents honestly believe that the only reason one could possibly oppose state sanctioned same sex marriage is if one were a bigot. I've claimed this for a while, but I never expected anyone to come right out and say it, since "you can't possibly have an honest difference of opinion with me on this issue; if you disagree with me you must necessarily be a bigot" seems like a shameful position. But Ted Kennedy came right out and said it, in regards to the recently defeated constitutional amendment upholding the definition of marriage:
I don't happen to favor the amendment (and thank God; I wouldn't want to be a bigot); I agree with Kennedy in theory that voters in each state should decide the issue. It's easy for me to say, of course, since even in the most liberal of states voter support for same sex marriage has never topped 43%. Proponents of the amendment would argue that it is necessary because judges have forced gay marriage upon populations that haven't been given the chance to vote on it; even if that's true, I don't think that's worth taking the gay marriage choice away from future generations of voters with an amendment.
Anyway. As I've said before, it's nice to have a place to come where we can all acknowledge, whether or not Ted Kennedy is willing to, that reasonable people can have honest differences of opinion about an issue.
And that's what it comes down to (for reasonable people); I – along with a sizeable majority of the American public – believe that the institution of marriage, as presently constituted, is uniquely valuabe as the basis of the family unit and, by extention, our society, and the government is right to recognize it as such. Same sex marriage proponents, by definition, do not believe this. I think they're wrong; not evil, not stupid, not mean... just wrong. And not even objectively wrong, like you'd be if you said that the Kansas City Royals won the 2002 World Series; just mistaken about the value of marriage. And, naturally, they think I'm wrong.
So how should we settle it? Why not vote on it?
Bee Boy — Wed, 6/7/06 2:10pm
It is nice. And I think Ted Kennedy would agree. I just think he's referring to unreasonable people in his quote, because he thinks most people who are really up in arms on the anti-gay-marriage side of the debate are unreasonable.
And I happen to agree with him. I'm betting if you asked everyone who opposes gay marriage why, fewer than 10% would honestly respond with an answer as reasoned as yours (i.e., a "non-bigot" answer). Maybe they just have a squeamish feeling about homosexuals interacting with children (they'd never pull their kid out of a gay teacher's class, but they'd anonymously petition for his termination) or maybe they really do have a deep aversion to homosexuality. But very, very few of them are thinking about it in terms of whether two mommies are as good for Heather as a mommy and a daddy, sociologically speaking.
And, you can forgive me if I'm a little opposed to putting any issue before this country's voters right now.
Bee Boy — Wed, 6/7/06 2:25pm
Oh, I just thought of this, too. Maybe Kennedy's point is that anyone who would vote for the amendment is a bigot, not just anyone who would oppose gay marriage.
His point being (something along the lines of): sure, you can oppose gay marriage, but if you believe in the Constitution, you will leave it up to the courts to decide whether or not it's good for our country. If you'd consider pre-emptively slamming the door on an entire segment of the population just to cut off the judicial angle, then... bigot!
I'm with Kennedy. You just can't argue with a face that large.
Brandon — Wed, 6/7/06 3:02pm
First of all, it's easier to make the slippery slope argument when that's exactly what's happening.
Your examples that the slippery slope effect is taking place are that another country (one generally more liberal about these kind of things that we've ever been or will likely ever be) is simply hearing recommendations about legalizing polygamy, and that polygamists in this country are pushing for their own marriage rights (in an article that acknowledges they have little to no public support beyond themselves)? You're going to need a lot of grease to make that slope slippery.
Bee Boy — Wed, 6/7/06 3:07pm
hehe! Somebody check the ratings on Big Love!
Joe Mulder — Wed, 6/7/06 5:41pm
I assumed that was Kennedy's point. He's saying you can't possibly support this amendment unless you're a bigot ("pure and simple"). While I don't support the amendment, I can see how an honorable person's estimation of the value of marriage vs. the value of leaving the question of marriage open to future voters might be different from mine. It doesn't necessarily make them a bigot.
As for the slippery slope thing, I suppose it's ultimately a pointless argument, because: we'll see. It's not like we won't find out whether redefining marriage leads to further redefinition; we'll see. I'll either be demonstrably right or demonstrably wrong.
I think Ted Kennedy would agree that I rule.
"Mike" — Wed, 6/7/06 9:27pm
Here's what I don't like about the slippery slope argument: those who got into heterosexual marriage started it. If those crazy men and women hadn't got the government to legally sanction their unions, then the ball wouldn't have gotten rolling in the first place.
For me, this is a really challenging issue. I am for gay marriage, and I do think that people who do not support gay marriage are actively denying rights to people. Indeed, the dictionary definition of a bigot is, "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." People who oppose gay marriage are intolerant of those who support it. Meanwhile, those who support it are not bigoted, by this definition, because they would allow those they do not agree with, the pro-hetero-only marriage folks, to get married.
As for allowing polygamy. This is a tough question in regards to dealing with the slippery slope. In some ways, it is a slippery slope. However, in other ways, ways where the U.S. government has historically involved itself, it is not a slippery slope.
The government has long gotten in the business of public health. Polygamy increases the chance that a particular genetic code is present in people (For this very reason, sperm donors are limited in many states to how many "pops" they donate). Since a reasonable percentage of people end up near, or get married to people close to where they are from, polygamy (over a few generations) has the chance to create public health risks with genetic defects, sick kids, etc. as people unknowingly marry into relationships with genetic codes that put children at risk (i.e. the British Royal Family...)
Gay marriage doesn't do that. Heterosexual marriage doesn't do that either. Legally sanctioned polygamy accelerates the genetic risk to children of parents that may not know how much they share genetically. So to me, there is a good sized hill in the slippery slope that is unrelated to how we might feel about polygamy morally that still requires us to legislate against it for public health reasons.
So, why else would someone oppose gay marriage (as sanctioned by the government, not a church)?
"KOTC" — Wed, 6/7/06 10:35pm
sigh...
Joe Mulder — Thu, 6/8/06 1:08am
I don't think disagreement is synonymous with intolerance.
I don't think that's true (well, it's true that you think it, but false that it's the case); the institution of marriage as presently constituted is seen by (as most votes bear out) at least 70% of Americans as, like I said earlier,
Same-sex marriage proponents obviously do not share this view. Nevertheless, people wishing to enter into the institution of marriage as presently (and historically) constituted are afforded privileges in accordance with the institution's unique value. That's the deal. Nobody is denying anybody anything; the opposite is true.
I think we've gotten turned around 180 degrees; the government has no business and, as far as I can tell, no interest in telling churches what to do; nor do I. The secular, rationalistic reason to oppose state sanctioned same-sex marriage is (and if I have to keep cut-and-pasting it I will):
By all means, feel free to disagree with this statement (and Lord knows you don't need my permission to do so). Just please, please, so I don't have to keep cut-and-pasting it, understand that this is my argument in favor of marriage as presently constituted.
Well, okay then.
In completely unrelated news, I finally went and found Jorge Garcia's Jack in the Box commercial (easily one of the top five commercials of all time). Enjoy.
Brandon — Thu, 6/8/06 2:32am
[T]he institution of marriage, as presently constituted, is uniquely valuable as the basis of the family unit and, by extention, our society, and the government is right to recognize it as such.
But I guess what I'm not understanding is, how does allowing gay marriage take away from that? I mean, I understand that it changes the constitution (not to be confused with The Constitution) of marriage as we now know it, but heterosexual marriage retains its unique value (due to its inherent advantage in reproduction), and remains the basis of an overwhelming majority of family units.
Is gay marriage going to suddenly cause heterosexuals to stop getting married? Or to stop having children? If someone's decision to marry or procreate is so easily shattered, perhaps it's best they didn't do either in the first place.
The other thing that I really want an answer on from Republicans (and I like getting that answer from you, Joe, because I know you'll give a reasoned, thoughtful response) is how they reconcile denying abortion with simultaneously denying a source of potential parents for all the kids who are likely to be given up for adoption by parents who didn't want to have them in the first place. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that allowing gay marriage would lead to many gay adoptions, and while I know there's questions from many on the right about the whether homosexuals are fit to be parents, do they really believe letting children spend their lives in an orphanage is a better option? I just don't see how those two particular opinions do anything but contradict each other.
"Mike" — Thu, 6/8/06 11:12am
Yeah, Joe is right. I was (sadly, knowingly) being categorically unfair on the tolerance/bigot stuff..
On the other had, Joe is wrong to say that most same-sex marriage proponents do not see marriage as "...uniquely valuable as the basis of the family unit and, by extention, our society."
This is precisely why we support same-sex marriage. Marriage is the basis of the family unit. Why can't homosexuals who want to have a role in the basis of society have one? Why is it ok for the government to actively deny the right to participate in the basic unit, or building block, of society? I think if a church wants to deny marriage to people on moral grounds, I respect their right do so (though I still disagree on my interpretation of moral grounds). But a government, in my view, has no justifiable reason to do this.
The phrase you keep cutting and pasting in favor of your position is a fine, reasonable argument. In regards to my own viewpoint, though, it would be even better if you eliminate the phrase, "as presently constituted." Why couldn't the exact same phrase (sans "as presently constituted") be used in a definition of marriage that merely changed "man and a woman" to "two humans of legal age and equal consent to the partnership?" How does this do anything to eliminate all of the wonderfully positive effects marriage has on people, families, communities, and societies?
To me, the real question for opponents of same-sex marriage who carry with them the same reason for opposing it as Joe does is this: how is a homosexual marriage antithetical to being "uniquely valuable as the basis of the family unit?"
From a scholarly perspective, it is my interpretation of the evidence that two-parent homes, regardless of the couple's sexuality, produce offspring that are better adjusted, more likely to graduate high school and college, and less likely to be imprisioned. So, the reserach seems to demonstrate that there is no "unique" value in a heterosexual marriage. The unique value is merely in marriage.
Bee Boy — Thu, 6/8/06 11:41am
Yeah, I agree. I mean, I understand why Joe doesn't and I absolutely respect that. But sexual preference seems like an arbitrary way to separate potential parents. Our personal biases may say that straight people make better parents, or whites, or rich people. But the government (and the law) should show no such bias.
Some single-parent households are bad for raising kids. Some are excellent. Some hetero pairs are great; some are terrible. Some gay parents will be awful; others will be fantastic. Teasing those apart and trying to say we know beforehand that the percentages of bad parents will be higher among homosexual couples – absent any credible research, which there can't be until we've tried it – is biased.
(And – if it's really all about the family unit business – legalize gay marriage and devote your crazy rants to criminalizing gay adoption. Then at least people can enjoy the benefits of insurance, property ownership, and – perhaps most importantly – divorce.)
Thanks to Brandon (and, to a lesser extent, Bill Bennett) for reviving this debate. Circular as it sometimes is, it's very enjoyable to have the discussion.
"KOTC" — Thu, 6/8/06 12:26pm
Your guys are so missing the point... but I do see that you find the discussion enjoyable as you ramble on and on about fringe issues, I'll leave you to it. Note to BeeBoy. Edit or delete as needed...
Brandon — Thu, 6/8/06 12:57pm
KOTC, if you've got something to say, say it - explain to us how we're missing the point, contribute to the discussion intelligently. Don't just leave a condescending post that wastes our time.
Bee Boy — Thu, 6/8/06 2:39pm
Amen to that.
Bee Boy — Thu, 6/8/06 3:44pm
Quickie update: my favorite cute arch-liberal Hollywood blogger John Rogers posts his take on the Bennett interview. I agree that Stewart has a great ability to make a very resonant point, although I admit it's often through oversimplifying the opposing argument.
In this case, though, I think Jon is helped by being on the side of reason and logic. (Hear me out.) For me and viewers like Rogers, the arguments for an amendment banning gay marriage are tenuous at best and deeply, deeply absurd at worst. Before an audience like us, it's going to be very, very easy to shred a guy who's there to support that amendment. (Same for an audience like the live one at the show, with their hooting and over-clapping.)
But, it definitely helps that Jon has a great style, and a freedom to be more casual and colloquial than his "news"-pundit counterparts can.
"KOTC" — Fri, 6/9/06 12:04pm
Sorry about that, I'm reluctant to comment as my views are often far askew to most members of this blog. I generally enjoy the discourse but was frustrated that beeboy deleted my "sigh". Such a little thing.
It is also my opinion that the issue of homosexuality in our society is a grudgematch at this point. Many religious types (on the right left and in the middle) feel that it is a "sin" (based on their interpretation of various religious documents) not a lifestyle or race/class. On the other side many homosexuals are seeking further "legitimacy" in our society. The marriage issue brings these two a head. All the arguments about good parents, bad parents, future of society, cats sleeping with dogs, Slippery slope, etc. are fringe issues. And,I'll say it again, you can be sure that there are plenty of "crazy" people on both sides of the issue.
Bee Boy — Fri, 6/9/06 2:01pm
Sorry to frustrate you – comments are always welcome, no matter how far askew. That's Mulder's point, and I think it's a good one: we try our best to disagree respectfully.
For precisely those reasons, I'm extremely reluctant to delete a comment. If it's not spam, it had better be damn disruptive or inconsiderate. "sigh..." reached that threshold and then some.
In a free society, particularly a nation like ours that was founded on religious freedom, the concept of what some people consider "sinful" doesn't have a place in deciding policy. As Mike and others have deftly illustrated, practices like polygamy and incest have genetic consequences and the state has a responsibility to address those. Homosexuality, whether it's a lifestyle choice or an inborn trait, should not be the basis for excluding someone from legal arrangements like those that marriage affords. Whether or not this grants homosexuals "legitimacy" is also irrelevant. They exist, and it takes a supreme level of ignorance to think they might be eradicated (or, someday all change their minds and go straight). So, it isn't a question of whether or not they're legitimate. It's just a matter of when our society is going to stop excluding them from certain inalienable rights. It might not be soon, but it'll happen.
Both sides may have people who say crazy things, but there's a substantial imbalance in the craziness of their aims.
"KOTC" — Fri, 6/9/06 4:54pm
Whether you like it our not, religion has a substantial place in determining policy. You have openly complained about it in this column.
And I think legitimacy is a big issue, however I can only base that on the feedback I get from homosexuals I count as my friends (several), (noted, that is a statistically insignificant sample).
You mention exclusion of inalienable rights, but you and I disagree on the definition of the issue at hand.
I don't accept your arguments and I will agree to disagree... (sort of a microcosm) and I'm not about eradication... for example, I don't think adultery (a much more common sin) will ever be eradicated, or any of the other sins for that matter. The sins have been here and will be here for the duration.
If you don't worship a god, or if your god approves of or defines sin differently, then maybe that will work for you... good luck with that. (speaking figuratively of course, not you specifically).
Back on the marriage issue, if it is just the "rights and privleges at issue" maybe the civil union route or the lovely "smarriage" idea. Let's get smarried honey :)
"KOTC" — Tue, 6/13/06 9:27am
USA Today... a few differnt views. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-06-12-god-gays-cover_x.htm