Thanks to SP for sending me the below thought provoking blog from rottenindenmark:
Why the American Left Drags Its Feet on Gay Rights
By: Mike Babb
One thing I couldn't get over when I first moved here was how politically diverse the gays are. Some of them are left-wing, some of them are right-wing. Some of them are racist, some of them are patronizingly inclusive. 'Jesus,' I remember saying on one of my first weekends, 'It's like being gay doesn't even mean anything.'
And it doesn't, really. Gay marriage has been legal in Denmark for 20 years, and gayness has been a political non-starter so long that politicians have to be asked about it, and then they all give pretty much the same answer. Anti-gay sentiment isn't completely banished, but you hear it come up about as much as you hear about, say, the flat tax in America. It's there, but it's not a divisive issue in many races or party manifestos.
In other words, gays have no built-in incentive to be left-wing. In America, gays are mainly limited to the blue end of the spectrum because the right-wing wants to actively curtail their rights and reduce their quality of life. For gays, self-preservation trumps the economic and social issues that most other citizens vote on.
If gay marriage gets legalized in the States, after a few political aftershocks, I think a lot of gays would start to migrate rightward. It would be slow, but in the long-term gays might even be a reliable Republican voting bloc. Gays tend to be affluent, and eventually, the dimensions of self-preservation would warp to exclude Oppressed Minority and include Yuppie Wealth Preserver.
I wonder if American left-wing politicians know this, and this is part of why they don't grant full civil rights to homosexuals. As long as we're second-class citizens and one of the parties is slightly better than the other, they can take us for granted. Giving us full marriage rights would effectively put both parties back at Go, and they would have to compete for our votes.
I've been wondering that this year, as the promises made during the presidential campaign haven't materialized, and as the Democrats face the loss of the majority that would have made pro-gay legislation reasonably easy to enact. It's about time we started asking whether it wasn't the opportunity that passed, but the politicians.
Mike Babb graduated from Nathan Hale High School in Seattle and Western Washington University. He holds masters degrees from University College London and Aarhus University in Denmark. He is employed by Danish Institute for Human Rights.
If Mr. Babb is right, Republicans are missing an opportunity to pick up support currently conceded to the Democrats. Capitalizing on that may be a ways off. Polls show a steady trend toward favoring gay marriage, but broken down by political leanings, religious affiliation and section of the country, there is still strong opposition. Conservatives, church attendees, and southerners are against while liberals, over half of independents, less religious and northeasterners tend to favor.
Gays are not excluded from the party as evidenced by existence of the Log Cabin Republicans, a vocal pro-gay group, the "outing" of known Republican operatives such as the former national GOP chair, Ken Mehlman and the Cheney's support for their lesbian daughter, Mary. But party platform planks defining marriage as between one man and one woman do reflect the general view of the majority. People will have to decide for themselves if the same-sex marriage issue trumps Republican positions on the economy, runaway deficits, taxes, smaller less intrusive government and national defense. The latter should be the prime voter consideration in 2010 and 2012. The former can wait.
Posted by warrenpeterson at September 07, 2010
09:16 PM | Email This
And as Michael Medved points out: If you have gay marriage, then what if a brother and sister want to get married? What's to stop that? What if they promise to get sterilized to prevent expected birth defects of any babies? Well....??
Posted by: Michele on September 7, 2010 10:52 PMI have yet to figure out how any of this is even any of my business. What difference should it make to anyone who someone else marries?
No matter which side of the aisle you are on, it is still big government screwing around with peoples lives. I would think the government would have better things to deal with than poking their noses into who is shacking up with whom.
Posted by: Vince on September 8, 2010 04:38 AMThe only complications seem to arise from things like income-tax categorization and medical benefits/authority. This could be mitigated in the tax category by simply registering a household for tax purposes and saying that a 'household' cannot consist of more than 2 (or N) adults - basically dependency or joint ownership. In the medical arena, I imagine the situation would be similar - if I have benefits, then a competitive health plan will allow me to register others in my household for that plan, possibly at a cost (depending on the market, etc...). And finally, where medical authority is concerned, I should be able to say WHO has the authority to make medical decisions on my behalf, not on the basis of some ceremony I went through, but because I am a citizen with the rights of self-determination.
I find this whole argument to just be stupid. The slippery-slope argument is predicated on the faulty assumption that the government has a vested interest in caring about What Marriage Means. I use the Bible for that, and think the government has no real place to be part of that conversation.
Posted by: erich on September 8, 2010 07:09 AMWe need more transgendered, Nambla-affiliated school teachers and scout masters.
While we're at it, let's shore up the polygamy vote by supporting legalization of polygamy.
Let's also secure more hispanic votes by ignoring border security and supporting amnesty for all who enter our country illegally. It works for the marx-libs.
There's a huge meth-head vote out there for the tapping. Let's decriminalize meth so we can gain some meth head votes!
Posted by: Attila on September 8, 2010 07:29 AMInstead just go with civil unions and leave the churches to marraige. HOWEVER, when they do that, they will need to allow civil unions (basically a business partnership) between two of anybody, whether it's incestual, homosexual, or whatever, it's just a legal union. They also will need to allow corporate civil unions between multiple people.
Those unions will have all the tax privileges, health, pension, social security, etc. of current marraiges. However, as long as they call it 'marraige', there is no way in heck that the government can allow it for anything other than a man and woman. The whole purpose of the govt. having the control was to do what's best for societal norms and when they give up that reasoning they really don't belong controlling it anymore.
Posted by: doug on September 8, 2010 08:08 AMYour personal love or faith is none of society's business as long as you're all above the age of consent. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't believe in American ideals.
Posted by: Seafarer on September 8, 2010 08:50 AM"Gays want to get married, live in suburbia and have their kids join the boyscouts. For pete's sake, why are we stopping them? They want to become republicans."
I break from my friends on the conservative/right wing side on few issues, but letting people make their own decision on who they love is certainly one of them.
We have no business telling anyone what they can do in their bedroom or their boardroom. If we can't be consistant on that, we deserve the "hypocrite" moniker the left loves to hang on us.
Yes, I know there are a few "chaps wearing" flamoyant and in your face gay people we'd rather not have our children around - and having walked through a gay pride parade on the hill I can understand that religious conservatives can find that kind of behavior pretty revolting - but frankly, I'd rather not have my kids around a lot of straight people either. (Paris Hilton comes to mind - as does .)
Infringing on the rights of gay people is simply wrong. If it's a religious issue with you, then just remember there are those on the left that call whole your moral code abusive and would have the state remove your children if they could.
Judge not lest you be judged.
Posted by: johnny on September 8, 2010 09:04 AMTaxes: whatever, keep it like it is. You +1 for 'benefits'. The +1 can be any person of legal age. Done.
Marriage: state term for a legal contract that grants power of medical, attorney, and the aforementioned +1. You get it from City Hall. If 3 really all love each other and want to do a 3-way marriage, more power to you. You still only get the +1, but all three can share your Powers of attorney, medical, child raising, et al. Your private life; go crazy.
Work benefits: work can decide subject to whatever laws govern non-discrimination policies. If I have 3 wives I can pay my fare share for 3 sets of extra coverage.
Religion: churches have no say on government rites and governments have no say on religious rites. If a Catholic church won't perform a church marriage on gays, that's their right, and the state can't do a damn thing about it. At the same time, Churches have no right to extend their laws to the state.
Freedom of and from religion has to cut both ways.
Posted by: Seafarer on September 8, 2010 09:16 AMEverything else I wrote is valid.
Posted by: Seafarer on September 8, 2010 09:21 AMI am against government recognition of heterosexual marriage.
I am in favor of government recognition of any union between two people, regardless of the specific nature of the relationship, where the people have opted to share their lives and their resources, such that it makes sense to have a legal framework in regards to the rights and privileges of the parties.
Can't call it "marriage." That's a loaded term. It will not fly politically. It is a dumb, bad, stupid, idea ... almost as bad as saying "we have to allow gays to marry because of equal protection" while maintaining that incestous partners do not have equal protection (or, more cowardly, refusing to express an opinion on that).
Let marriage be defined by social institutions, and "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" be defined by government. It'd be the same as now, except a. we change government's name for it, and b. we remove all government restrictions on who can participate (as long as the person is legally able to enter into a contract).
The only two outstanding piece to consider is partnerships of more than two people, or whether someone can enter into more than one partnership at a time. The rest takes care of itself.
Is it ideal, from the perspective of someone who wants government to recognize their gay marriage? Nope, but why should I care whether government recognizes you? Or from the perpsective of someone who wants government to encourage certain types of good, moral, relationships? Nope, but government cannot force such morality on us, it needs to come from ourselves.
". But suggesting that Democrats are deliberately preventing that is questionable."
No it is not quesitonable. Obama could eliminate "don't ask don't tell" with oe swipe of his pen and an executive order. Truman desgragated the military in the 1940's with just such an executive order.
What is stopping Obama from doing this??
Posted by: Not so fast Bruce on September 8, 2010 10:06 AMI work with a gay woman who was married and had kids, then divorced and moved in with a woman later. Should she not be allowed to see her kids anymore?
(I met her ex-husband - and the woman she's living with now is a huge step up for her.)
In my case, should my wife and I ever die and our children survive, our wishes would be that her gay sister raise the children. (Her sister and her partner are two of the greatest people I know.) Should that be illegal too?
I think Pudge and the other posters here have nailed it. This is a legal issue.
"I met her ex-husband - and the woman she's living with now is a huge step up for her."
That is a setup for some really bad mental images.
Posted by: James on September 8, 2010 11:01 AMSimply put, we need some legal structure to encompass inheritance, social security death benefits, etc. Which could/should be a legal union by the state. A contract if you will. I believe that New York has a system in place, where you get your marriage license by the State, have a judge or justice authorize it and you are done, as far as the State goes. Now, if you want to go to church and have your Minister officiate over a “Wedding” ceremony, you can. Seems pretty simple to me.
I do find the original hypothesis of this stream interesting. Why didn’t the D’s “fix” marriage? Why hasn’t Obama killed don’t ask don’t tell? For that matter, why haven’t the D’s legalized pot? Do they believe that they would be reaching too far and alienate the voters? Already did that with health care. No, I believe as someone else wrote that they need these issues to fight against, or for. They need their demon to galvanize their forces. It would be pretty boring to just have to argue about balancing the budget.
#9 -- Certainly it seems counter-intuitive to not act in the interests of a group that makes up your voting block. But this is different than, say, Republicans wanting to keep taxes high so that they can just have a compelling platform. The Dems have proven that their 'platform' is about increasing the size and scope of the Federal government through both massive entitlements and economy-crippling regulations. If they can get a group that may not agree with that platform to vote for that platform consistently on the premise of a message that has basically NOTHING to do with said platform, then it is a win for them.
Posted by: erich on September 8, 2010 11:49 AMThe democrats in WA are particularly vulnerable on this because of the jim-crow-like separate-but-(un)equal domestic partnership law they passed. I know they think it looks like progress to them, just like separate-but-equal looked like progress on race issues to southern Democrats in the middle of the last century. But the problem with laws like that is they ossify a social stratification. It pacifies the people enough that it slows down the agitation for equal rights. And it ultimately preserves the status quo they were trying to fix. I hate to think they are so cynical that all they wanted to do was keep gay people on their plantation, but they seem to work so hard at convincing people of that, it just may be true.
This is an issue that the GOP/Tea Party could completely strip from the Democrats, and in the short term, boost their electoral successes. The largest hurdle is the totalitarian Christian element in the GOP. There is a 'third option' solution to gay marriage that may pacify the totalitarian Christians enough to get it done. Here's how the GOP can own this issue:
Deregulate marriage. End the licensure of marriage. Replace it with a simple form for establishing the secular union rights we currently intermingle with the religious practice of marriage. I envision the new universal civil union contract as a form that says "check all that apply" at the top and then lists all of the different civil union rights:
- Shared child custody
- Shared assets and tax/legal liability
- Power of attorney
- Next of kin inheritance
(there are probably more...)
And optionally, it could contain a petition to change the names of one or both people forming the union.
Here's why this approach is a third way:
1. It separates the religious institution of marriage from the legitimate secular interests of the state. We don't intermingle bat mitzfah/confirmation with the secular right to drive or vote. So why do we intermingle the community property rights with marraige? By separating the religious from the secular, we are preserving the religious institution by returning it firmly into the hands of the church while providing a legal framework that treats all couples equally. This is not a foreign idea, in our recent past, it was very common in Europe to be married twice, once civilly and once religiously. If the government no longer issues "marriage licenses", it can no longer define or redefine what marriage is.
2. It puts the idea of a legal union between two people firmly into the realm of contract law. It makes all people entering into unions subject to all of the laws and protections governing the provisions of the civil union contract. In a way, this would clean up our marriage laws and child custody issues a bit. Also, by being a standard contract, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution will apply. Since it isn't a "marriage", the DOMA (signed by Clinton!) would not apply. WA would have reason to sue the federal government for recognition of the civil union contracts for things related to federal taxes, immigration status, and interstate custody battles. I would hope that we wouldn't have dimwitted senators forever and eventually the WA senators would pull a massive Mr. Smith Goes to Washington hijack until some movement is made to recognize the legal rights of WA citizens.
3. This increases individual liberty. And with that liberty we will get a de-escalation of this aspect of the culture war. It would be forcefully re-asserting our live and let live social heritage.
If the GOP came out in favor of this, they would have to carefully manage the totalitarian Christians in their ranks. It would be a matter of meeting with church groups and explaining to them that if we do not go the libertarian route, the government will redefine religious marriage. And the next time the left has the opportunity, they will force all institutions that perform marriages to marry everybody who can legally marry. They will use the threat of losing tax exempt status to force their social agenda into the churches. It is a frontal assault. The only way to make sure that neither side loses is to form a truce through deregulation. It's the equivalent of agreeing to disagree just to end the argument.
I have often flirted with the idea of running a statewide initiative to do this. I'd slam the Democrats for setting up a separate-but-equal system to deal with it just like they did with race issues in the south last century. I'd show the Republicans that this is the way to own the issue. I'd remind them that it is in the party's blood to propose liberty as a solution. And even if the initiative failed to pass, it would surely launch it onto the national stage where the idea has been all but ignored by the two sides of the culture war.
Posted by: blindman on September 8, 2010 12:30 PM"Why didn't the R's 'fix' Social Security..?"
Because W saw that privatization was unpopular with a slim majority of Americans and backed off. Now why didn't Obama? Ah, that's right, he's blindly ideological.
Posted by: blindman on September 8, 2010 12:35 PMWhat about their rights?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on September 8, 2010 12:46 PMYour characterization of social conservatives is about as broad-sweeping and ignorant as when Democrats call members of the tea-party racists.
Posted by: eyago on September 8, 2010 12:57 PMI've been arguing this idea with Christian conservative GOP members for about four years now. This characterization is from the, albeit small (~50 people), sample of the broader party I've talked with.
It is a fair generalization that neither side wants a peace, they both want victory in the culture war.
Posted by: blindman on September 8, 2010 01:38 PMI could go on and on....the point is that the 'same' rights don't have to be given equally to everyone. The governments allow some of those rights to be restrained if it is in the best interest of the country or state. The constitution allows for that to happen, it has been proven again and again.
At issue, much like the marijuana debate, the future cocaine debate, and the future beastiality debate, is whether or not homosexual 'marraige' is still a detriment to society. We have numbed ourselves to that being a detriment, though it still can easily be so. Just like we will in the future numb ourselves to legalizing marijuana, allowing cellphone use in cars, beastiality, incest, and many other issues.
Just because some people want the freedom to choose to do something, doesn't mean that freedom has to be allowed if it is not good for society as a whole.
Posted by: Doug on September 8, 2010 03:35 PMGood point. But Judge Walker, in finding California's Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, did a masterful job of examining every possible way that gay marriage could hurt society, and showing how there was no evidence that any of it was true. If you haven't read his decision, I strongly recommend it.
Posted by: Bruce on September 8, 2010 04:47 PMMedic/ Vet at #28: I mentioned NAMBLA in #7.
Messing with institutions such as marriage in order to buy votes is wrong.
Posted by: Attila on September 8, 2010 04:56 PMNAMBLA is not a gay/lesbian thing. NAMBLA is a rape thing.
Posted by: Countryside on September 8, 2010 05:12 PMWashington State Republicans believe that good government is based on respect for, and trust in, the ability of individuals to chart the course of their own lives. We believe that respect for each person's ability, dignity, and liberty is the foundation for a free and prosperous civic body politic. Good citizenship begins with protected rights and ends with accompanying responsibilities.
SECTION 7: We believe the FAMILY is the first and most important institution which preserves a free society.
The family unit is the cornerstone of a free and moral society. It is the responsibility of parents, not the state, to guide their children to be good citizens. GOVERNMENT's RESPONSIBILITY is to uphold and respect traditional institutions, such as marriage between one man and one woman, protect the elderly and children from the harmful elements of society, and defend the unalienable right of human life from conception to natural death.
Maybe I missed the post on (un)SP by any of its Front Pagers who attended the 2010 Republican State convention as delegates or distinguished lecturers and found this position of the WA Republican party to be an abomination. . . the path to . . . SOCIALISM!!
B. So do I understand this correctly: gays can't choose their sexual orientation, so two men or two women should now be allowed to get married?
And why is it any of your business what people do with their own lives and how they manage their property?
The philosophy of those in this country who feel they have the right, nay the responsibility, to regulate personal relationships and property rights between people in relationships based on gender is only different by degrees from those who attacked us on 9-11-2001.
You 'hate us because of our freedom'.
Nice hyperbole re: 9-11.
Nice one, Mike. About as goofy as "if you don't agree with us you must be racist!!!"
Posted by: Michele on September 8, 2010 06:53 PMReally? Guarantee?
From this post "Gay marriage has been legal in Denmark for 20 years..." So you can refer to actual data regarding that guarantee, right?
I'm old enough to remember when the Virginia Supreme Court justified a ban on interracial marriages in 1967 on the grounds that it violated natural order and would lead to unhealthy children; probably mentally retarded or a mongrel breed.
Somehow they missed guaranteeing a mongrel would be elected president.
I suspect that in due time we'll elect a president who was adopted from an orphanage by a same sex couple or triple. And that will be just fine for all of us.
I've only read excerpts and it's really quite funny to me. I don't consider Judge Walker's opinion masterful, I only consider the Prop 8's court intellect to be greatly lacking.
That court case was a huge judicial travesty - not because of the outcome - but because of the way it was carried out.
The decision would have gone the other way, easily, if the State of California would have put the case on. In my opinion, Attorney General and the Gov. should be executed for treason for not defending a duly voted on law of their people in court. And I'm not hyperboling...it is their responsibility.
The Prop 8 proponents really never put on a case in so much as they didn't have their evidence lined up in the way that the Attorney General would have - complete with citations and the like.
It would have been a different outcome. I mean, golly, the basic principle that the judge stood on was similar to: Yeah, we gave nuclear bombs to every terrorist organization in the world last year and not a single one of them used them, therefore it was okay to do it because there is no evidence that it was wrong to. (Govt. reacts: but it's bad to give nukes to terrorists - Judge responds, "but you don't show any evidence that it is.")
I think that pretty much was the case in a nutshell.
Posted by: Doug on September 8, 2010 06:58 PM@46 Michele
Totally
No. Not that you have ever demonstrated in any of your comments that you are capable of reading comprehension, but I compared the philosophy of two groups of people and did not either say or intend that the behavior of one is the same as the other.
Those who adhere to a philosophy of hate and contempt of homosexuals and terrorize them are terrorists.
Um. It CAN actually happen. It's very simple. It may take another generation, but it can happen.
is it totally unreasonable to at least not deny gays the same rights given to heterosexuals?
They are not denied equal rights. First, they can marry as well as anyone else: they just can't marry their own gender, just as I cannot. You may not like this answer, but ... tough. That is what separates anti-gay-marriage laws from anti-miscegenation laws: the latter said that a man could not marry a woman depending on the race of the man and woman; the former, however, treats all men and all women equally.
You may think that's wrong, but there's not a strong equal rights claim to be made here. In order to treat it as a violation of equal rights, you must do one of two things.
The first is very, very hard to logically claim: that homosexuality is something that government should recognize and protect, because of equal rights. But equal rights usually means IGNORING differences, not highlighting them. So equal rights means making special exceptions for gays, and no other groups (like siblings). The second, however, is very, very simple: government should not take sides at all, as I described @16.
Second, in this state, gay couples literally do have all the same rights as heterosexual couples already. The legislature passed it, and the voters affirmed it in R-71. To say they are denied rights is to claim "separate but equal is not equal," but that is a nonsensical aphorism in this context. In this state we don't have separate water fountains, insurance, housing, lunch counters, and so on for gay couples. They really ARE equal (especially when our civil union law is combined with our ill-advised anti-discrimination laws).
So no, you cannot make the claim that gays do not have the same rights, not in this state. Gay marriage will give them no additional rights, only the privilege of getting a certain label that our law already says has no special meaning.
All I am saying is we should take it to its logical conclusion.
"my guarantee stands"
Word salad.
Guarantees don't stand, they are a pledge by a responsible party.
You can guarantee to wave the hypothetical bloody shirt on this issue, as you do already.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 8, 2010 07:48 PMps. Newt's sister is teh gay.
:-o
Translation: "This is a total non-answer, but ... it's the best I can do to defend my indefensible anti-gay position."
Posted by: Bruce Terence Burger on September 8, 2010 09:37 PMGosh, I heard once that the moon was made of green cheese, but it's still nonsense. And one can list any number of behaviors that fail your test. Live in American cities? Live in American suburbs? Choose a white-collar career?
Anyway, being gay is not a behavior, it is a characteristic. If that fails your test, so would, say, being female.
Posted by: Bruce on September 8, 2010 11:19 PMOne final point: gays (males) make up maybe 2.5% to 2.8% of the male adult population. Lesbians are estimated at around 1.8%. They are concentrated in certain urban centers like Seattle and constitute a strong special interest group in those areas. However, on a national scale, they are a rather small minority and the number desiring to "marry" is miniscule in percentage terms. In addition, according to a study in San Francisco, about half of the gays wanting to marry have a radically different understanding of the term than society as a whole. Fidelity is a minor value. I don't think the GOP would gain all that much politically by catering to this pressure group and thereby alienating many more millions than gay voters the party would gain over time.
Posted by: Arnold on September 8, 2010 11:30 PMOne final point: gays (males) make up maybe 2.5% to 2.8% of the male adult population. Lesbians are estimated at around 1.8%. They are concentrated in certain urban centers like Seattle and constitute a strong special interest group in those areas. However, on a national scale, they are a rather small minority and the number desiring to "marry" is miniscule in percentage terms. In addition, according to a study in San Francisco, about half of the gays wanting to marry have a radically different understanding of the term than society as a whole. Fidelity is a minor value. I don't think the GOP would gain all that much politically by catering to this pressure group and thereby alienating many more millions than gay voters the party would gain over time.
Posted by: Arnold on September 8, 2010 11:31 PMAs for "they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender", come on, seriously? Is that kind of like how you had the same rights as anyone else to marry your own race, therefore it wasn't discriminatory? Jesus Christ.
Posted by: jstar on September 9, 2010 01:20 AMJust you queers feel that awesomely compassionate conservatism!!1!!
That is what separates anti-gay-marriage laws from anti-miscegenation laws: the latter said that a man could not marry a woman depending on the race of the man and woman; the former, however, treats all men and all women equally.
Under the racist anti-marriage laws, we were all free to marry persons of the opposite sex with the same (arbitrarily-defined) skin tone; under our current bigoted anti-marriage laws, we are all free to marry only those persons of the opposite gender. (Those fundamentalist Muslims hate us for our freedoms!) Freedom always means meekly and uncritically accepting whatever the government arbitrarily defines as the absolute outer limits of our rights.
(How did "miscegenation" become legal? Was it from a groundswell of popular democracy across the South, or from a federal Supreme Court decision? Discuss.)
The first is very, very hard to logically claim: that homosexuality is something that government should recognize and protect, because of equal rights.
Actually, it means the government should stop making arbitrary distinctions, like claiming ONLY a contract between one man and one woman is valid.
In this state we don't have separate water fountains, insurance, housing, lunch counters, and so on for gay couples. They really ARE equal (especially when our civil union law is combined with our ill-advised anti-discrimination laws).
Except that gays' property-transfer rights at death, expressed via contracts, are not recognized. (But, since when did self-described conservatives ever care about property or contract rights?)
The governments allow some of those rights to be restrained if it is in the best interest of the country or state. The constitution allows for that to happen, it has been proven again and again.
Cf. Romer vs. Evans for more discussion of this point as it pertains to homosexuals.
Posted by: tensor on September 9, 2010 02:05 AMPosted by Countryside at September 8, 2010 05:12 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We agree. But as we have seen all to often. What many may see as bad, well others may not.
Once you've opened the door, you know the rest.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on September 9, 2010 06:45 AMYou have not explained why it is unlikely. You continue to merely assert it. Try again.
The thing that is more LIKELY to happen, however, is that gays will eventually gain the right to marriage, which appears to be how the tide is slowly turning
That would be unfortunate for those who care about liberty, and I will continue to fight against it. Expanding government classes is not the path to liberty: REMOVING those classes is the correct path.
and conservatives will sorely regret firmly establishing themselves in a camp that will be seen in the same light as those who so fiercely defended anti-miscegenation laws
Shrug. You're not talking to me with that comment, so I have no reply.
And you know as well as I do that "government should not interfere in marriage at all" is NOT the actual reasoning behind the vast majority of opposition to this.
I am speaking for myself, and not to the motives of others.
As for "they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender", come on, seriously? Is that kind of like how you had the same rights as anyone else to marry your own race, therefore it wasn't discriminatory?
No, it's not "kind of like" that. I explained how it was different; can you not read?
If you can't engage in a legal discussion of the 14th Amendment without getting emotional, then perhaps this discussion is not for you.
Bruce Terence Berger: Translation: "This is a total non-answer"
Incorrect. It is absolutely a reasonable answer in regards to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which is mostly what we're talking about here when we talk about "equal rights."
it's the best I can do to defend my indefensible anti-gay position.
Did you actually read my comments? I described my position in some detail, and it is a position which would give -- by ANY standard -- entirely equal status to gay couples. You simply cannot back up your insipid claim that my position is "anti-gay."
tensor: Under the racist anti-marriage laws, we were all free to marry persons of the opposite sex with the same (arbitrarily-defined) skin tone
Under those laws, *I* was not free to marry the same women that some of my male friends were free to marry. That's simply not the case with our current laws.
under our current bigoted anti-marriage laws, we are all free to marry only those persons of the opposite gender
Under those laws, *I* am free to marry the same women that my male friends are free to marry. Big difference.
See, the point is that you are expressing the belief that there's no difference between man and woman, such that restricting partnerships to heterosexual couples is therefore a violation of equal rights. But there's no legal case to be made there: that is simply your opinion, and there's no basis for it in the law or its history.
Freedom always means meekly and uncritically accepting whatever the government arbitrarily defines as the absolute outer limits of our rights.
I cannot agree with your foul statement, which is why my position is that the government should have no say in the matter at all. But that's irrespective of what the 14th Amendment requires of us, and what it cannot require is that government recognize gay marriage. There's no basis for this, because -- unlike with race -- there's no basis for the notion that distinctions between genders are arbitrary.
(How did "miscegenation" become legal? Was it from a groundswell of popular democracy across the South, or from a federal Supreme Court decision? Discuss.)
There's nothing to discuss. As a society, we came to understand that the lines between the races are arbitrary and that legal distinctions between them were fundamentally immoral, unfair, and -- due to changes in the Constitution -- illegal. Only from that change did the Court then recognize that such laws were unconstitutional.
We have had no such change in understanding for lines between the genders. We certainly have moved in that direction, but an overwhelming majority of Americans still believe there are important differences between the genders.
Actually, it means the government should stop making arbitrary distinctions, like claiming ONLY a contract between one man and one woman is valid.
First, it is merely your OPINION that the distinction is arbitrary. It is not possible for you to demonstrate it. Second, you are lying when you say that government only recognizes valid contracts between one man and one woman. Gay couples can enter into their own contracts, and have always been able to.
Except that gays' property-transfer rights at death, expressed via contracts, are not recognized.
Not true. They, in this state, are so recognized, and even in states without strong civil union laws like ours, they are sometimes recognized. In some cases, they are not, and that should be fixed.
But, since when did self-described conservatives ever care about property or contract rights?
You mean "liberals." Conservatives always do. Liberals rarely do. But misrepresenting conservatives does not help your argument in the least bit, even if people believe it: you're just demonstrating, at most, that contracts should be respected, not that government should recognized those couples as married.
Finding prominent examples of people who do not live up to an ideal does not discredit the the validity of an ideal.
In addition, the very fact that people like Newt Gingrich and others have serial marriages is as much an argument for having a more rigid defense of the marriage ideal as it is not. Most people forget that conservatives, rather than embracing no-fault divorce have been against it - not because they are hypocrites and think that OTHER people should not get divorced but because they understand that when you strip away the foundations of marriage, you also strip away the support for it so that people are able to "run away" when things get "tough".
The marriage institution is helpful for protecting the vulnerable. In times past, it was very beneficial for the woman because of societal constraints on her ability to care and protect herself outside of marriage. That is not so true now. However, it is still the case that children suffer under liberal divorce standard and out of wedlock birth rates. The more we liberalize single motherhood, divorce and marriage, the greater the consequences for society. There is no denying the negative impact to children in the forms of crime, poverty and opportunities for betterment due to the lack of two-parents in the home, and more specifically mother and father.
To focus on gay marriage is to focus on a small group (and I mean not the 2% population but the small subset OF that population that desires marriage) to the detriment of a much larger population and of society as a whole. The personal and economic costs of liberalized relationships is very high, and each step toward liberalization of marriage adds to that cost.
To be anti-gay marriage is not necessarily to be anti-gay. Traditional one man and one woman marriage is simply the ideal that we should aspire to for the benefit of society which is a sacrifice in many ways; however, the consequences of not making that sacrifice is very high.
I do understand that there are outliers and exceptions in every instance, but to argue from exception is to be intellectually dishonest. There are children raised up in divorce that come out fine, there are children in single parent families that come out fine, there are children in gay households that come out fine, and there are children in two-parent families that come out poorly. None of those are arguments against the fact that children raised in two-parent families are, in aggregate, better off than all other arrangements. It is irresponsible to foster the poorer alternative over the better alternative for the sake of hedonism.
I don't mean just gay and lesbian, but all forms of hedonism, from out of wedlock relationships, serial divorce, whatever. Humans can easily devolve into these less than ideal interactions that might seem to personally satisfy a person (though I would argue against that as well), but ultimately harm society. To cater to our more base natures does not result in a better society but a worse one in the long run, and liberalism tends to result in self-oriented behavior that runs counter to the benefit of the whole society.
The fact that one person is denied access to something that others have is not a sufficient basis for granting them access. I have a daughter who is legally blind. She will never be able to drive a car. In our society and especially in the area where I live, this is a significant restriction on her freedom of movement. I would think that no one would want her driving a car even though her condition is simply due to a totally natural circumstance of birth that was no fault of her own and is totally untreatable. The consequences of this action is considered too risky for both my daughter and people in our community, so we restrict her liberties. Other risks are not quite so recognizable, but that does not mean they are not there.
So, I do not deny that homosexuality naturally occurs in the human species any more than I deny that MS exists, blindness, brown hair, and polydactylism. When possible, we attempt to correct some conditions (e.g. cleft lip), in others we make allowances (e.g. wheel chair access), and in some cases the person simply has to live within the restrictions life has dealt them.
The problem with homosexual marriage is that it is more than just a rights issue, it also an attempt to enforce normalcy of homosexuality. As I said before, homosexuality may be "natural" but that does not mean it is normal any more than other conditions of birth can be construed as normal. From a Darwinian perspective, homosexuality is non-preferred and will not "propagate" itself. But if homosexuality is to be given normal status, why not other sexual interests such as interest in child sex, animals, rubber dolls, whatever? Can you make an argument that they are any less valid than desire for the same sex? SO the question is not whether it is natural but whether is deserves the stamp of equal validity with heterosexuality. And by granting it without granting the same for all other forms of "desire", you have only changed one type of bigotry for another.
Posted by: Eyago on September 9, 2010 07:52 AMBDSM folks, transvestites, transexuals, swingers, etc. may all feel very strongly that their sexual identity requires public acceptence and protected expression. Shall we redefine what is publically acceptable to include required public acceptance of BDSM expression, cross dressing, etc. at the workplace, public schools, public employment? I suspect that's where the push for homosexual "marriage" is ultimately taking us.
A marriage is a union between one man and one woman. To change it's definition makes as much sense as re-defining what constitutes a Bird so we can include Hippos in the Bird category.
Tolerance dictates that civil unions be allowed or creation of a homosexual version of traditional marriage.
The folks who push for a fundamental redefinition of marriage seek nothing less than mandatory acceptance (as opposed to mere tolerance) for all deviant lifestyles.
When the pride parade folks, Enumclaw horse guy, swingers, incest people, etc. get done with "marriage", it will lose a little bit of its shine and meaning.
Those words are true but irrelevant. Being free to marry only people who you have no interest in marrying is not freedom.
And he writes, "Expanding government classes is not the path to liberty: REMOVING those classes is the correct path."
Even if it's possible that the US will abandon government-sanctioned marriage within a few decades, don't you support eliminating discrimination in the meantime? If this were the 60s, would you be opposing interracial marriage because it would expand government classes and therefore reduce liberty?
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 10:02 AMOMG, Michele, you're right! We must ban opposite-sex marriage immediately because otherwise, any day now, brothers and sisters will demand to get married!!!
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 11:45 AMThe point is that heterosexual marriage and the actual promotion of such has been considered throughout our nation's history to be important for the proper development of society as a whole. In order to change to allow homosexual marriage, then it is not a constitutional issue, it is simply an issue of whether or not it is in society's best interest.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2010 12:14 PMBTW, I don't buy the argument that Conservative Homosexuals would vote and support Republicans more if we allowed for gay marriage. If they truly are conservative, then the issue of gay marriage couldn't possibly be enough to have them vote for democrats. You need to remember that most of the population of this demographic are located in liberal strongholds, where the Republican candidates no doubt already support their position. The choice between a social, political and economic liberal for them vs. a socially liberal, political and economic conservative is so vast that they would either support the R, or aren't really conservative.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2010 12:18 PMThere are legitimate government interests in preventing marriage to immediate family, multiple partners, and minors. At least I think so, and no US court has found otherwise (at least in modern times; polygamy was once practiced in some places). But if you don't think there is a legitimate government interest in banning those types of marriage, then why are you so afraid of them?
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 12:53 PMBanning gay marriage is NOT different than banning other types of marriages, other than the peculiars. Banning polygamy is different than banning incestual marriage, yes, they are all different, however, historically the societal benefits and costs of allowing each of those wasn't worth allowing them...that is way banning gay marriage is not different, they are all banned for the same reason - because the government has assumed the authority to regulate marriage and those marriages were not allowed.
Like I commented at #48, the defenders of proposition 8 in California did a horribly lousy job in the court, a patheticness that would not have been done had the State of California defended their law like they should have. Judge Walker had a great excuse to rule the way he did, however, that ruling really rings hollow. Much like having a Super Bowl where one team loses their whole starting lineup the day before in a plane wreck, them losing the Super Bowl doesn't mean anything, except their competition got Super Bowl rings.
THEREFORE, it is GOVERNMENT's RESPONSIBILITY to regulate and adjudicate on behavior in every bedroom.
Also too the uterus of every woman unless she is a governor and wants to travel for hours on a plane with her water broken.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 9, 2010 05:35 PMYou are right that the Prop 8 defense did a lousy job in court, but frankly I think they did the best they could to defend the indefensible. They did haul out some of the standard arguments against gay marriage, but there is no evidence behind those arguments and Judge Walker did the thorough analysis to show that. In an effort to be thorough, Walker even addressed arguments that other anti-gay marriage groups have made over the years.
I suspect that if the state of CA had defended Prop 8 in court, the trial would have ended the same way, except afterward Prop 8 defenders would have blamed the state for not making a good faith effort to defend something they didn't believe in.
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 06:28 PMHistorically (again, I will refer to historic norms because I can allow that times may change to render conditions obsolete for the regulation), governments have used marriage between men and women in an effort to calm down the combative spirit that is naturally in the male species. The domestication of the male in the manner of heterosexual marriage does wonders for society in this manner. It CREATES a norm where people are willing to sacrifice for the better of the family and offspring (before you reply about this, I will say that I don't think it rises any where near that level in homosexual relationships). It creates a norm for monogamous relationships which has always been better for society, psychologically, disease wise, etc....sorry have to go now, but I could go on and on, the point is that there is sufficient reasoning for them to have had regulated thusly, and I would contend one could easily prove that most of those reasons are still there today, though maybe someday they won't be.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2010 07:08 PMJudge: Military's ban on gays is unconstitutional
RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
Do you know who brought the law suit and made the claim that the judge found compelling enough to rule DADT unconstitutional?
Or is being uninformed before issuing your opinion your SOP?
:-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 9, 2010 09:36 PMMatthew Wayne Shepard was a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming who was tortured and murdered near Laramie, Wyoming, in October 1998. During the trial, witnesses stated that Shepard was targeted because he was homosexual.
For example.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 9, 2010 09:50 PMIt seems to be this is the new democratic party. If they don't like a law, the best way to get rid of it is to become the defenders of it in court, then don't defend it so that the courts can throw it out.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2010 10:03 PMDoug, make up your mind. In #72 you lament that California's govt didn't defend a law they disagreed with; in #82 you complain that the feds did defend a law they disagreed with. The problem you have is that judges are starting to go beyond stereotypes and require defenders of anti-gay laws to meet the normal judicial rules of evidence. And the evidence just isn't there, no matter who mounts the defense. I strongly recommend reading the decisions in these cases so you know what you're up against.
Doug, I do appreciate that in #75 you actually tried to answer my question about what legitimate interest the govt has in preventing gay marriage. However, "domestication of the male" is laughably unsupported by the history of marriage or (more important) any evidence. When you complain that the defense of Prop 8 was pathetic, do you really think it would have gone better if they'd brought up "domestication of the male"?
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 11:10 PMAdolf Hitler was married. Saddam Hussein was married. Osama bin laden was/is married. Hmmmm....
Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2010 11:19 PMDisbarrment: In both cases the judges should have ruled they way they did, then ordered disbarrment for the Fed attorneys and CA attorney general.
And, yes, on the 'domestication of the male'. But it would have only been one piece of the puzzle. The court could not have said there was no evidence to counter like they were able to in the Prop 8 case. It would have been flipped around because that type of case would have had the presumption on the defendants evidence, the plaintiffs would have had to met a higher standard.
Posted by: Doug on September 9, 2010 11:35 PMThose words are true but irrelevant. You DO have the freedom to marry anyone you want. You just don't have the "freedom" to have government recognize that AS a marriage ... which is also true but irrelevant, since gov't recognizes gay unions as entirely equivalent to marriage. The question is not about "freedom," it's about equal protection, and you have not -- no one has -- made a strong case that restricting marriage by gender violates equal protection.
Comparing it to anti-miscegenation laws is an exercise in question-begging, because our history, culture, society, laws, and Constitution all strongly imply that race does not matter. You CANNOT make the same case that those things imply gender does not matter.
Even if it's possible that the US will abandon government-sanctioned marriage within a few decades, don't you support eliminating discrimination in the meantime?
First, it's possible much sooner than that. And the answer to your question is: of course not. That's like saying we should have legalized marriages between blacks and whites, while still keeping marriage illegal between Hispanics and Asians.
(You might ask: what other group is there, other than gays and straights? Answer is: I don't know and don't care. The point is government shouldn't be defining it at all, and surely people will come up with unions I've never thought of. Although I do have some answers: college friends who want to keep living together and sharing their resources; siblings who never married; and all sorts of other non-romantic unions. And, yes, romantic unions between siblings or other close relatives that are currently illegal. Government has no business here, even if I find it to be pretty damned gross.)
If this were the 60s, would you be opposing interracial marriage because it would expand government classes and therefore reduce liberty?
I cannot say. If this were the 60s, I might have different thoughts than I do now, and society was certainly different. I can only say government has no business defining "marriage" based on the nature of anyone's relationship to their partner, and I will oppose efforts that EXPAND that definition rather than eliminating it, because expanding it will only make it take longer to eliminate it.
And there's no crisis here. In Washington, gay couples literally DO have equal rights. Period, end of story. So there is literally no need for gay marriage. You cannot give me a single example of how it would do anything other than cause further political divide between various people in our state, and further an agenda of trying to force people to accept homosexuality as valid.
So let's take a step back and work on solutions that do not push social agendas on society, and that can bring us together more than separate us. Again: there is no crisis. There's no need for govt recognition of gay marriage at all, except for the "feeling" people get from it. So let's take our time and do it right.
Doug, you're basically arguing the liberal point of view: that because something may be beneficial, therefore government can, or should, do it. Liberty-minded conservatives reject this way of thinking.
If you are liberty-minded conservative then you must reject the following that the government can or should do because it is better for society as a whole:
1) Make it illegal to drive while intoxicated.
2) Make it a crime to deface public property
3) Require parents to be legally responsible for their minors actions.
4) A well regulated militia, being necessary.....
Well, I'm not doing any more.
Liberty minded conservatives would agree that there are many, hundreds of things that can and should be regulated for the benefit of the long term stability of our society.
Posted by: Doug on September 10, 2010 09:02 AMWhat do you mean by "valid"? Homosexuality is a characteristic and behavior, not a logical statement. Do you mean "moral"? I hope not, because surely no self-proclaimed "liberty-minded conservative" would confuse morality with legality.
Posted by: Bruce on September 10, 2010 10:36 AMThose who seek legal (government) recognition of their relationship do so under the specific legal term "Marriage".
Being married without that legal recognition is like calling yourself or having all your friends call you a millionaire when you don't have a nickel.
Side Note: I have often castigated Republicans on this board (e.g. the WA Republican 2010 platform cite above), but credit where credit is due.
While the implications of yesterday's ruling throwing out DADT are not yet known, let's credit Republicans for introducing the complaint to the court and working it for 4 years so that a reasonable judge could finally rule DADT as unconstitutional.
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America
Being White, being female, being male, being Asian, etc. are characteristics but not a behavior.
Mike, what good is a judge's decision that was not based on evidence? What value can be placed on a court decision where one side did not bring a case? The decision is the decision, however, there was no valid argument in order to make the proper decision....Here is $10, tell me what you will buy?.....
Did you choose 10 cans of Pork and Beans? If not, then you must pay me $1000. See, you didn't have enough information to make the right choice, does that mean your decision on what to buy stands - yes, it does, however, you weren't able in your decision making to consider the repercussions, because you didn't have enough information to start with.
Posted by: Doug on September 10, 2010 12:57 PMI've not read the transcripts of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, nor do I intend to.
I've no way of knowing if your assertion of a defense not being presented by USA is true or not.
But assuming it is, it would have been stupid for the USA to enter a trial with such an approach.
Bad legal advice for such a strategy.
But then again, as a veteran, I never saw the evidence that DADT could withstand legal scrutiny, so maybe there just isn't any evidence.
You should be happy. Republicans showed yesterday that the Democrat shepherded law of DADT was unconstitutional and that government interference in the personal lives of citizens' families has no constitutional authority.
Funny how that escapes our original intent freedom loving teabagging types.
We're in a weird time where lawyers aren't necessarily trying to win. CA Attorney General doesn't want to defend a state law, the Feds don't want to defend DADT, so what do they do? Make sure they lose in court.
Posted by: Doug on September 10, 2010 03:34 PMIf your hypothesis is correct, then I think Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America may prove to be the example of how an administration led by Democrats can work together with Republicans for the benefit of the nation.
There should be a separation of marriage and state, and for the same reasons that the first amendment works to create a separation of church and state.
I'm a free market fan, but one of the reasons I do not consider myself a Republican is the anti-marriage equality position of the GOP.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 14, 2010 02:16 AMBullied Greensburg student takes his own life
The 15-year-old never told anyone he was gay but students at Greensburg High School thought he was and so they picked on him. "People would call him 'fag' and stuff like that, just make fun of him because he's different basically,"Posted by: MikeBoyScout on September 14, 2010 12:09 PM