The comment thread here has me wondering how many conservatives we actually have reading Secular Right.
• The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. The idea of gay marriage emerged from the lunatic fringe around 10 years ago, I think. So for 130 years it occurred to practically nobody that the 14th implied gay marriage — surely not, I’ll wager, to anyone whose opinion carried jurisprudential weight. Now suddenly it’s clear as daylight to all but a minority of mentally-diseased reactionaries.
That’s a point of view, but I’ll be damned if it’s a conservative point of view.
• I can’t see the parallel with inter-racial marriage, which has been proscribed by law only spottily through history. (It obviously didn’t seem outrageous to Shakespeare and his audience.) Same-sex marriage has never, so far as I know, been proscribed by law anywhere, because it never occurred to lawmakers that it was a thing anyone would want to do! The human prejudice against same-sex marriage is far, far deeper-rooted than that against inter-racial marriage, a picayune thing by comparison, as witness the fact that legislatures had to draw up statutes about it. There are no laws against eating rocks.
(And I must say, I don’t actually see why communities shouldn’t prohibit inter-racial marriage if they want to. I’d prefer not to live in such a community — given my domestic circumstances, in fact, I wouldn’t be able to! — but this doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or immoral restriction for a state or country to impose on its citizens. But perhaps that’s just me. I simply don’t “get” the hysterical race panic that’s consumed so much rational thought in the modern West.)
• Hospital visiting. Still not getting it. If your hospital’s rules won’t allow gay lovers to visit, agitate to get the rules changed. What does this have to do with gay marriage? Sledgehammer, nut.
@Lex
Lex,
I wasn’t jumping to conclusions – you were making sweeping statements about the nature of committed gay couples. At most, perhaps I should have said “things you know very, very little about” rather than “nothing about.”
I think your casual assurity that you could conscientiously make an enormously ignorant statement like you did (that long-term gay commitment is necessarily humiliating to the “one who plays the woman”) might give you pause about how well thought-out the rest of your ideas are along these lines. You seem to be unable, in a deep way, to think about gay marriage apart from your own problem with the idea of a man being the receptive partner in sexual intercourse.
Do you honestly not find it to be a little bit self-revealing that, instead of the 5 points you made above, the idea that motivated your first comment on this article was a multi-paragraph meditation on how humiliating it must be for one partner in a longer term relationship to ‘play the part of the woman’ – and further, that such a notion, by itself, is a worthy argument against gay marriage?
I just don’t understand this. It never made sense to me why straight men or women would want to do anything but subsidize the gay rights movement, for purely selfish reasons. Even if I hated gays and would revel with delight at their suffering, it’s still an idiotic move. Here’s why.
1.) As a straight person seeking an opposite sexed mate you do not want the increased competition from gay men and lesbians masquerading as straight men and straight women.
If I’m a straight man and I’m at a cocktail party, I do not want competition taking home phone numbers and getting dates from the likes of an afraid-to-be-out Lance Bass or an afraid-to-be-out Neil Patrick Harris. Do I think that gay men put more time, money and energy into looking good compared to straight men? Yes, and marketing research shows this clearly. Do I think that women notice good looking men? Yes. Is there a reason so many straight women are best friends with gay guys, aside from the fact that they’re gay? Yes. Do friendships often lead to romances? Yes. From the straight man’s perspective every new gay guy should be viewed as a one less competitor for the woman of his dreams. As a straight man if I see two gay guys wanting to commit to their lives to not wooing any of my potential mates, I really couldn’t be happier for them.
Even if you think that adding gays and lesbians together is a macro zero sum game in this regard, it still doesn’t help with #2.
2.) An increased risk that the person they fall in love with may actually be gay or lesbian and are entering a relationship with you for the wrong reasons (usually family pressure to marry). Have you been divorced? There are no winners when a gay person finally throws in the towel on a sham straight marriage. Read ‘The other side of the closet’ for some case studies. That’s something everyone wants to avoid, yes? If you could eliminate a big risk that happens infrequently yet costs you nothing why wouldn’t you want that? The only people unhappy with this arrangement would be the divorce attorneys who stand to profit from all these tragedies.
Lex,
Your major qualm with the same-sex marriage movement seems to mainly rest on the cultural (and legal and political) divisions that the debate creates within society, rather than the concrete costs and benefits that might arise from enacting such a policy. This, at least, is an argument I can respect, although I disagree vehemently.
First of all, I think you’re still insufficiently sympathetic to the very real discriminatory harm that gay and lesbian couples face. Conservatives argue that a loving, stable monogamous marriage is an ideal that people should to aspire to. I agree, I very much would like to be married someday, and as a gay man, it is an ideal that I cannot attain (unless I move to, say, Iowa). I am not currently allowed to stand before family and friends, and pledge to be married to the man that I love, and have that commitment, with all the attendant rights and obligations enjoyed by straight couples, recognized by the government. The very real implication of this is that I am not a full and equal member of society, not allowed to enter into one of its most cherished and celebrated institutions, in a way that the vast majority of people around me take for granted.
If you could fully appreciate this very real discrimination that we face, then you might understand why some degree of social division is a fairly small price for us to pay in order to attain full equality with our peers. All of the great progressive changes in history, from the establishment of free speech and religion, to the abolition of slavery, to women’s suffrage, to the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws, all have come with a great degree of social division and rancor, not to mention war and bloodshed in many cases. This may be unfortunate, but I assure you that all of these causes were indeed worth fighting for. Throughout most of history gays and lesbians have been marginalized, our existence threatened with violence, our private behavior illegal, our relationships unmentionable, as if we were less than human, as if society would rather that we didn’t exist. So much of that has changed in recent decades, in large part because as individuals and as a community we came out of the closet, we demanded to be respected and recognized, in spite of the great fear and hate that we have faced as a result (and you accuse US of being divisive?!). Full equality, and let’s face it, equality is all we really want, is now almost within our grasp; why on earth should we stop now?
Lex:
“(4) If it still is seen as a burning issue in 2030, I can see some sort of compromise, where civil unions receive all the formal legal benefits of marriage after a same-sex couple has been together 5 or 10 years.”
This is nothing but an outrageous willingness for inequality. After 5 or 10 years?! Britney Spears had a 55-hour sham of a marriage based on a whim, but in those 55 hours she was entitled to all of the formal legal benefits that all other heterosexual married couples face. You expect us to earn it after 5-10 years of commitment, starting 20 years from now?! What other hoops would you like us to jump through, sir? And for what possible reason should we concede to such an absurdly insulting request, other than that you not feel so bad that people in a free society are disagreeing with each other?
“But when homosexual activists say, “We’ll tear the country apart to show that we must be respected!” and when civil liberties fanatics say “We’ll tear the country apart for the sake of an abstract principle that affects a small number of people in a minor way!”… well, I’m not down with that, as the kids say.”
It’s that phrase “in a minor way”, that tells us all we need to know about how little you understand our plight or our cause. Families are unnecessarily burdened, destroyed, or in some cases unable to even exist, because so many of us lack the most basic protections under the law that you readily enjoy. Frankly, I feel sorry for your close male relative, to have such an uncaring person in his family.
To appeal to doctrinaire notions of what conservatism “was” will only drive us right back in the rhetorical cross hairs of those who continue to delight in painting conservatives as racist, evidenced by their disingenuous opposition to the continuing Federalization of government and economy.
Even if there was a really good traditionalist case for gay marriage, is worth that fighting that fight to spite the much more salient issues of Government Motors and the alleged Mexican gun smuggler?
“And I must say, I don’t actually see why communities shouldn’t prohibit inter-racial marriage if they want to. I’d prefer not to live in such a community — given my domestic circumstances, in fact, I wouldn’t be able to! — but this doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or immoral restriction for a state or country to impose on its citizens. But perhaps that’s just me. I simply don’t “get” the hysterical race panic that’s consumed so much rational thought in the modern West.)”
Well thank God SOMEONE said it.
Look I’m gay and I support gay marriage. I also support interracial marriage, and have one person in my life who is like a daughter to me and is the product of a black-white union.
But for Christ’s sake, marriage ISN’T A RIGHT. People have the RIGHT to enter into any consenting relationship they want, but no one has the RIGHT to demand the government recognize or afford benefits to said relationship.
Again, I think both gay marriage and interracial marriage should be recognized – but only if that’s what the people want. If most people don’t want to afford marriage benefits to long-term gay or interracial couples – if they feel that there is something inherent to male-female or same-race couplings that deserves government promotion and support – then that’s the way it should be.
Restricting marriage to certain couples doesn’t deprive anyone of any rights. It deprives them of a multitude of privileges – privileges which I would, again, extend to gay and mixed-race couplings – but those are different from rights.
It’s disturbing to me that people don’t seem to understand this. The extent to which arguments for gay marriage stem from an unthinking sense of entitlement speaks very poorly of the state of our culture.
@Mark
Mark,
You are either confused or chose your words badly: “no one has the RIGHT to demand the government recognize or afford benefits to said relationship.” Actually people do have exactly that right – free speech means everyone has the right to demand whatever they want. I think what you meant is that “no one has the right to have their marriage recognized or afforded benefits” – a statement which may be true according to a particular Theory of Rights but is, in fact, false according to American law. Marriage is a right for any consenting adult who wants to marry a person of the opposite sex (who isn’t already married or close kin). Some of us homos are demanding that this existing, legally-recognized right be extended to us.
Perhaps you also meant to argue with the idea of “Natural Rights” – ie, rights that exist apart and prior to a given governmental or constitutional guarantee do not exist. On that score I tend to agree. As for my own Theory of Rights goes, rights are really just whatever people decide to grant each other. But my theory (nor yours) is not the theory that underlies our government and its constitution. That theory presupposes that certain rights are inalienable and we just happen to recognize, rather than create, those rights in the constitution. That theory has the interesting consequence that we can, in fact, discover new rights that Founding Fathers or 14th Amendment drafters did not recognize or foresee.
We can certainly have theoretical arguments about a “proper” Theory of Rights – but maybe we can get around to that after gay marriage is legalized.
From what I can make out the pro-homosexual marraige argument has at its core the following:if homosexual marriage causes no harm to Heterosexuals who oppose homosexual marriage, the heterosexual argument against homosexual marriage has no merit.
If you want to call this an argument, there are some things to consider. Supporters just assume that they are in some priveleged postion to determine what is considered legitimately harmful to hetrosexuals who oppose legalizing homosexual marriage. Why should heterosexuals who oppose legalizing homosexual marriage allow supporters of homosexual marriage what is harmfull to heterosexuals? We all know why a large number of heterosexuals oppose homosexual marriage? they find abnormal and disgusting for two men to be married. If homosexual is legalized, this thing that disgust a maority of heterosexuals will be daily experience. Their moral sensibilities will be constantly violated. The psychological consequences of this will be devastating. The only recourse of course woul be a revolt, a backlash that could be quite nasty. If enough heterosexuals revolted against legalized gay marriage, The state would have to step in and use force against a very large population of Heterosexuals. This would be additional harm to Heterosexuals. The Goverment that forces this upon millions of heterosexuals could fall out of legitimacy.
It is not up to homosexuals to determine what is harmful and ot harmfull for heterosexuals. Anyone who doesn’t understand this point, is missing somethng very important. Also, there are very likely to be slippery slope issues if gay marriage is legalized. Just take a look at what is happening in Britain. The state is openly trying to indoctrinate childen it the acceptance of gay marriage.
The relevant question here, of course – the very thing that is being contested!- is whether or not there actually is such a pre-existing “right” to be discovered.
Mark:
Adding to what Kipp said, even if one concedes that there isn’t any inherent right to marriage (I’m not sure I agree, but I’m willing to concede it for the sake of argument), everyone DOES have the right to equal treatment under the law. When certain couples are permitted the benefits and obligations of a legally sanctioned marriage while other couples aren’t, AND those couples experience real discriminatory harm as a result, AND that discrimination cannot be justified by any legitimate government purpose, then what you have is a clear violation of a constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
This is why that tired argument of getting government out of the marriage business entirely (government grants civil unions, churches decide who they’ll allow to marry), is often presented as a fair and rational resolution to the entire same-sex marriage issue. At least with that policy, everyone is treated equally under the law and religious rights and traditions are protected. (I don’t agree that it’s the best solution, but it’s better than simply denying same-sex marriage entirely).
Kipp,
Yes, I ought to have said “no one has the right to government recognition of their relationship,” not “no one has the right to demand government recognition of their relationship.”
I agree with the idea of natural rights; I just don’t see that government recognition of a relationship is in the same category as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“Adding to what Kipp said, even if one concedes that there isn’t any inherent right to marriage (I’m not sure I agree, but I’m willing to concede it for the sake of argument), everyone DOES have the right to equal treatment under the law. When certain couples are permitted the benefits and obligations of a legally sanctioned marriage while other couples aren’t, AND those couples experience real discriminatory harm as a result, AND that discrimination cannot be justified by any legitimate government purpose, then what you have is a clear violation of a constitutional right to equal protection under the law.”
I think the counterarguments to your three points would be 1) that individuals have a right to equal treatment under the law as individuals specifically, not as couples, 2) no counterargument and 3) discrimination against homosexuals in this regard helps to solidify the connection between marriage and procreation in the minds of the populace and thus contributes to a pro-family culture.
Personally, I feel that marriage should be about raising children, not expressing your love and commitment for someone. Yes, society benefits from people entering into monogamous relationships, but society benefits more from people raising the next generation in a stable and responsible fashion, so the latter area is where the focus would be. So I would limit marriage to two people who are raising children together.
Mark:
The existence of fundamental rights are decided based on whether they can be found deeply rooted in American history, law, and traditions. The California Supreme Court, in their landmark decision “In re: Marriage Cases” that was overturned by Prop 8, decided that the right to marry is in fact a fundamental constitutional right embodied in the California Constitution, and cite quite a bit of case law supporting this. Now granted, this doesn’t necessarily extend to the rest of the US, but interestingly, they note on page 49 that the “federal high court additionally identified the right to marry as a component of the ‘right of privacy’ protected by the federal Constitution.” They base this on Griswold v Connecticut, the landmark case establishing a right to privacy.
On a less legalistic level, I’d like to argue that the right to marry is an inherent component the right to the pursuit of happiness. This is simply because, to many people, love/marriage and happiness are inextricably intertwined. Think of how many newlyweds refer to their wedding day as the happiest day of their life. Or think of how many people seek a partner in life so they can avoid growing old sad and alone. This doesn’t necessarily mean that any such pursuit of marital happiness should be recognized by the government, but this goes back to my earlier argument: if SOME couples enjoy this privilege, then ALL couples should.
From In re MARRIAGE CASES:
(apologies for the long quote)
“Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal
protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
@Mark
Mark,
I doubt this will come as a suprise reply, but then I guess you don’t think the infertile should be allowed to marry? So it’s a conservative position you’re arguing here – that women over 55 (or so, ie postmenopausal) shouldn’t be allowed to marry? Likewise men who don’t produce sperm also shouldn’t be allowed to get married?
Or to come at it in the obvious other direction: Then this means that same-sex couples who are raising children should be allowed to marry?
What are you arguing against, again?
Mark:
Again, adding to what kipp said, even if one grants that the government has a duty to encourage the rearing of children, discriminating against those couples who cannot have children is not NECESSARY in order to do this. Granting same-sex couples (or postmenopausal, or sterile) couples the right to marry does not in any way take away the obligations or privileges of those oh-so-special couples that can have children. (I’ll also add that, even among fertile, heterosexual couples, many choose not to have children. Should those marriages be annulled?)
Without having had the time to slog through all these comments, I do have a few thoughts…
1.) If STDs are a problem amongst the gay community, then it stands to reason that some encouragement of monogamous relationships amongst that community would have the very positive effect over the medium-to-long term of lowering transmission rates. It seems to me that this would lessen the need to use public health resources here where they could be used elsewhere.
2.) I’m a big believer in federalism, and to that end I’m happy to see that several states seem to be voting to allow gays to marry one another. (Or at least it seems like the last few weren’t court-ordered. But I could have missed something.) Let the individual states determine how they each define marriage, see if any of these dire effects that the religious right predicts come to pass in New England.
3.) Marriage is supposed to be something special. I contend that Las Vegas is a bigger threat to marriage than gays. If we want some state-mandated effort to save marriage, I’d recommend requiring some minimal amount of pre-marital counseling to plan for financial issues–the cause of something like 75% of all marital discord–and sex–the cause of about 10% in one report I heard a few years back.
Checking in for the third time today. . . this is an interesting discussion. . .
Just wanted to note that I am a heterosexual married dude who has absolutely NO intention of ever having kids. Don’t want ’em. Do I deserve to stay married?
Seriously.
That argument makes no sense unless one is inclined to believe in a rather mystical version of natural law (we COULD breed, so we should be able to marry. . .).
That just logical if you are gonna be secular. A lot of the anti-marriage equality arguments here don’t make any sense without some pretty weird assumptions about the relationship between civil rights and nature.
I haven’t read all the comments on the two treads, so pardon me if someone else has addressed any of this this already.
I often wonder how many people have actually spent time thinking about just exactly how one would go about claiming membership for themselves ( or certifying it for others), in the class of folks called “homosexuals”, were that to legally exist and have special privileges for club members? If I ask for a free beer at Ladies Night at the local pub, I would not be able to prove I was female, if challenged, though my wife could certainly prove she was.
But what makes a person officially “gay”? Do you have to have done the act, and be able to produce the partner? Or perhaps is it enough to be able to contemplate the act without disgust, and attest so? Surely there must be gay virgins, who then go on to remain celibate their whole lives. What’s THAT all about then, and how would you go about claiming status in that category? You’re still “gay”, right?
Sesame Street, and children’s text books, often teach the lesson of “what thing doesn’t belong with the others”, and they’ll, say, show a chair, a bed, a table, and a banana. Furniture versus food. I feel the same way about adding “gay” into protected classes like gender and Race ( yeah, I know there are blends). “Gay”, it seems to me, is much more like a behavior ( or an inclination to one ), that I assume could even come and go throughout life, and it is almost impossible to pin down, or prove, when you really, really think about it.
It just doesn’t “belong” as a grouping category for “rights”. I submit that it is ultimately undefinable, and undetectable – though I suppose those who are it, would claim to know it for certain, from within. But how would they propose to convince us others? Just take their word for it?
My what a slippery slope.
Forgot to add one thing that helps illustrate the difficulty of all this. Contemplate this for a minute. What is the difference between a heterosexual man , and a “lesbian trapped in a man’s body”? Ha.
I’m gonna have to dash this off quickly…
I don’t know if “gay marriage” will have any effect whatsoever on any PARTICULAR traditional style marriage, and anyone claiming that it would, needs to provide some specifics.
My concern is that this is the beginning of a process that will inevitably suck the life out of the very concept of marriage.
I can’t say for sure this will happen. It is just a rumbling suspicion.
If the word “marriage” loses meaning, then it ceases to exist…to be respected…to be acknowledged, except as a quaint obsolete custom practiced by our primitive former selves.
Only those strange but somehow charming people who wear bonnets and black overalls and ride horses and live in those really super picturesque farms will bother with it (and we can observe and take pictures), and the rest of society won’t be bothered, and we just may fnid ourselves in the situation that our very distant ancesters found them in – with large numbers of children of uncertain parentage causing all kinds of social problems that the government will be beseeched to solve.
Once again, to belabor the point, I am not saying, I’m certain this will happen. I am just trying to inject a little skepticism into this debate.
One more thing…
I am not convinced that there really is any point in people who are absolutely convinced they will never have kids getting married.
In fact, they may be parasites, sucking up advantages that were intended to be extended to the wageless, care-giving partner of a bread-winner.
Just a thought…
Maybe we should have a new tradition called, “Child-Rearing-Committment” that you promise to enter into until the youngest child pays off his college loands.
This whole blog, and especially this topic, reminds of how illogical conservative social arguments are without the aid of the Bible. Even though some people use the Bible to say things that it doesn’t, there are moral absolutes contained in it that help to structure the way its readers look at life.
There is absolutely no good reason why someone who does not believe it is morally wrong to be gay should be against gay marriage. And many people, like myself, who do think homosexuality is wrong, understand that the world is full of sin and it is not the government’s job to police it unless that sin infringes on someone else’s right (for instance, abortion infringing on the basic right to live). This blogger’s arguments are extremely weak. The reason they are weak is the same reason liberals’ arguments are weak…his ideas are not shaped by moral absolutes, rather by prejudices and arbitrary opinions. I mean, gimme a break if you really think there is nothing wrong with a state forbidding inter-racial marriage! The state needs to stay out of people’s private lives, unless there is an extremely good reason to enter into them. I’m not advocating gay marriage, but I personally don’t care! I just wanted to point out that this blogger’s arguments are very weak.
With the legalization of homosexual marriage…there will come, with very high probability, the passage of oppressive hate crime bils. There can be no doubt that we are moving in this direction as a society. Look at what happened recently in England. At a church run social service organization, a worker there expressed to a co-worker his oppostion to legalized homosexual marriage. His co-worker rated him out to the police. The next day, the police made a visit to him. In England, it is only a matter of time. The day will arrive when it will be illegal to publicly oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage. If you publicly express oppostion to homosexual marriage you will do jail time. In Ireland, if you make fun of gays publicly, you will be fined or possibly imprisoned. The point is this:not only is the legalaization of homosexual marriage so offensive to millions of Americans to the point of causing great emotional and psychiological distress, the legalization of homosexual marriage could very easily usher in a repressive police state.
Homosexauls are being dishinest when the claim that there wil be no harm.
Also, the claim that homosexual marriage should be legalized because it is discriminatory is very far from obvious. An argument would have to made that all discriimnation is morally and socially wrong. This would be a very difficult argument to make. I have never seen it argued for successfully anywhere.
@Susan Hospitals throughout the United States regularly refuse to allow gay men and women the be with their loved ones. This is something that regularly is reported in the GLBT press and sometimes in particularly notable cases has gotten attention in the mainstream media. I personally have experienced such refusals a couple of times at different hospitals in different cities. (The emergency room of one hospital refused my partners rights to be with me despite my demands and our having a power of attorney. When I had a surgery 6 years ago in Baltimore, I had to bring copies multiple legal documents to the hospital’s general counsel to prove that I had a relationship with my partner (and threaten to bring the wrath of God on the hospital if they ignored them), so he could visit and enforce my medical power of attorney. People should stop and imagine having to worry about finding copies of legal documents as you rush to the emergency room. When you face such a situation it is anything but trivial, so it is really sad to see straight people treat our lives so glibly. (“Oh, a small minority of people have been ‘inconvenienced’? That too bad for them.”) Being able to use the word “married,” is the golden ticket that fixes this and thousands of other injustices. I must infer from your secular arguments against sharing these rights that you at least are indifferent and probably are hostile to the happy lives of GLBT citizens.
Carlo and Kip,
Regarding the right to marry, if a State court says that there is such a right in the state constitution, then so be it. I’d be wading in over my head if I were to argue otherwise. My protest, here, is not based on law or tradition but the fact that I just don’t intuitively grasp it.
Regarding the argument that the right to marry is part of the right to pursue happiness, I think you’re missing my point. Of course people have the right to enter into a committed relationship, and to throw whatever joy-inducing ceremony (i.e. a wedding) they want to mark or celebrate that commitment. I would like to meet my husband one day as much as the next (gay) guy (though I’ll pass on the $-eating wedding, to be frank). But how is government recognition of that relationship necessary to the happiness that relationship provides? I don’t see that it is. I could give a fig what the government thinks about me living and loving another man, to be frank, and I have trouble imagining a situation where government non-recognition of my relationship would somehow interfere with the joy that relationship brought me.
Regarding infertile couples or couples that choose to not have children, I think I was pretty clear in my original post, but to reiterate, everyone has the right to get married in the sense described above. But, in my opinion, the privileges afforded to married couples should be reserved for those raising children. So to answer your question, no, I would not extend government privileges to childless heterosexuals. Not to be crass, but they aren’t raising the next generation, so what makes their relationship so special or important to society? Nothing. Their relationship is important to THEM, obviously, and I would never imply otherwise, but that’s not the same thing.
Anyway, this isn’t something I feel strongly about, mind you. It’s just how I would fix it if, by some miracle, I was asked to start my own society from scratch.
Precisely – and it doesn’t belong as a grouping category for “unrights”, either.
I fail to see why two heterosexual men or women, who have absolutely no intention of having sex, cannot be married. Or civilly unified, or whatever. It’s a legal contract state, period. If we’re not willing to extend legal marriage to whomever wants it and can legally enter contracts, then the government should get out of marriage alltogether, and leave the concept for religious groups to define for themselves.
Perhaps it would be best if justices of the peace dispensed only civil union licenses and witnessed only civil unions. Let marriages take place in churches, synagogues, mosques, places of worship, etc., and be of concern only to religious organizations.
Well, if they want to take advantage of the social construct that was primarily designed to give some assistance to those who could/would produce the next generation, and keep mankind going, we can’t stop them.
But they would be clearly be exploiting, and that’s not good or honorable thing, right?
There are lots of unavoidable unintended consequences in society. I’m barred from handing out towels in the girls shower/locker room, but a gay woman isn’t (but should be, if I am ) , while a gay man is also barred, but shouldn’t be. Quite the mess.
This is why don’t ask don’t tell is the only workable policy, despite the “invisibility ring” powers it gives some.
Fair straight people should stop and consider if it’s right that gay men and women regularly in many jurisdictions (even in traditionally blue states where some of these issues fall to the whims of individual companies, school administrators and judges) face any number of problems because they cannot marry. We’re often told that we can get the same protections with a few legal documents, but that’s simply not true.
Of course, we’re not eligible for Social Security, tax or any of the other benefits afforded to every other citizen.
If a gay man or women has the luxury of being offered the opportunity to share their health insurance with their partner, it is treated as taxable income (straight partners get this tax free).
Gay men and women regularly lose their homes after their partners die, because their relationships are not recognized by the probate process, sometimes even if they have properly executed wills, and even if they are allowed to inherit the property, they face huge tax burdens that don’t hit straight people.
In many jurisdictions its difficult (sometimes even impossible) for gay men and women to share custody of children.
International gay or lesbian couples who are separated because DOMA makes it illegal for the government to acknowledge a same-sex relationship, whereas a straight international couple can meet and marry the same day and get preference for immigration.
Every time we travel overseas, we face the same awkwardness when going through customs…The airlines direct you to fill out “one customs form per family.” When my partner and I have filled out one form, we’ve gotten humiliating lectures from customs agents, telling us that we’re “not a family!” and ordering us to fill out separate forms…When we’ve filled out separate forms and approached lines separately, we’ve gotten suspicious looks asking us, “why if we’re traveling together and sharing luggage, we’re trying to ‘hide’ that fact”.
Try sharing a car and getting a joint registration and insurance plan without being married…How about getting a family gym membership or a mobile telephone plan? Everything is harder when you have to explain your relationship each and every time.
It’s really shocking how often marital status or the lack thereof can be a benefit or hindrance. Groups have identified thousands of rights and responsibilities conferred through marriage.
Marriage wasn’t designed. It evolved. And it evolved for the purpose of keeping property in bloodlines.
Yeesh, you people are worse than Catholics trying to demonstrate that clerical celibacy rules were instituted to “honor God” instead of their actual purpose.
Hospitals throughout the United States regularly refuse to allow gay men and women to be with their loved ones. This is something that regularly is reported in the GLBT press and sometimes in particularly notable cases has gotten attention in the mainstream media.
I personally have experienced such refusals a couple of times at different hospitals in different cities. (The emergency room of one hospital refused my partners rights to be with me despite my demands and our having a power of attorney.) When I had a surgery 6 years ago in Baltimore, I had to bring copies multiple legal documents to the hospital’s general counsel to prove that I had a relationship with my partner (and threaten to bring the wrath of God on the hospital if they ignored them), so he could visit and enforce my medical power of attorney.
People should stop and imagine having to worry about finding copies of legal documents as you rush to the emergency room. When you face such a situation it is anything but trivial, so it is really sad to see straight people treat our lives so glibly. (”Oh, a small minority of people have been ‘inconvenienced’? That too bad for them.”)
And gay men and women face any number of other problems because they cannot marry. We’re often told that we can get the same protections with a few legal documents, but that’s simply not true.
Of course, we’re not eligible for Social Security, tax or any of the other benefits afforded to every other citizen.
If a gay man or women has the luxury of being offered the opportunity to share their health insurance with their partner, it is treated as taxable income (straight partners get this tax free).
Gay men and women regularly lose their homes after their partners die, because their relationships are not recognized by the probate process, sometimes even if they have properly executed wills, and even if they are allowed to inherit the property, they face huge tax burdens that don’t hit straight people.
In many jurisdictions its difficult (sometimes even impossible) for gay men and women to share custody of children.
International gay or lesbian couples who are separated because DOMA makes it illegal for the government to acknowledge a same-sex relationship, whereas a straight international couple can meet and marry the same day and get preference for immigration.
Every time we travel overseas, we face the same awkwardness when going through customs…The airlines direct you to fill out “one customs form per family.” When my partner and I have filled out one form, we’ve gotten humiliating lectures from customs agents, telling us that we’re “not a family!” and ordering us to fill out separate forms…When we’ve filled out separate forms and approached lines separately, we’ve gotten suspicious looks asking us, “why if we’re traveling together and sharing luggage, we’re trying to ‘hide’ that fact”.
Try sharing a car and getting a joint registration and insurance plan without being married…How about getting a family gym membership or a mobile telephone plan? Everything is harder when you have to explain your relationship each and every time.
It’s really shocking how often marital status or the lack thereof can be a benefit or hindrance. Groups have identified thousands of rights and responsibilities conferred through marriage.
Being able to use the word “married,” is the golden ticket that fixes this and thousands of other injustices. I must infer from your secular arguments against sharing these rights that you at least are indifferent and probably are hostile to the happy lives of GLBT citizens.
@Mark
Markk,
I can help but notice how you’ve failed to aknowledge that there are homoesexual couples who are “raising the next generation”. They are not hypothetical constructs and they are a significant part of the justification for gay marriage in the states where it exists. Why are two men or two women, raising a family, not entitled to the same protections given to a straight couple in the same situation? You seem to want to argue that child rearing is the gold standard yet you don’t take that to it’s obvious conclusion: Marriage should only be for couples raising children – you know, they people for whom kids are not “like a daughter to me” but are actual daughters (and sons). Why are you excluding same-sex couples who qualify?
You, and John Derbyshire among many others, seem to be confusing a conservative position with a personally intuitive one.
One small, off topic point: Many here have referred to slavery in the past tense. Actually slavery is alive and well outside of western culture. It was only a couple of years ago that Scientific American devoted an issue to the continuing prevalence of slavery worldwide.
@Kipp
“I can help but notice how you’ve failed to aknowledge that there are homoesexual couples who are “raising the next generation”. They are not hypothetical constructs and they are a significant part of the justification for gay marriage in the states where it exists. Why are two men or two women, raising a family, not entitled to the same protections given to a straight couple in the same situation? You seem to want to argue that child rearing is the gold standard yet you don’t take that to it’s obvious conclusion: Marriage should only be for couples raising children – you know, they people for whom kids are not “like a daughter to me” but are actual daughters (and sons). Why are you excluding same-sex couples who qualify?”
Kipp,
I’m NOT excluding homosexual couples who are raising children from marrying in my hypothetical scenario. I said, “So I would limit marriage to two people who are raising children together.” That statement includes same-sex couples.
In other words, I think two gay guys raising responsible, decent kids together are doing more for society than a man and a woman living together without children, and that the gay couple in this example is more deserving of those benefits and privileges associated with marriage than is the straight couple.
Mark,
Just because …. oh, I don’t know … It’s Friday.
What is the justification for limiting marriage to two individuals?
The two individuals thing for heterosexual marriage (temporarily setting aside the whole harem thing, which results in roving bands of sexually frustrated beta males wandering around causing trouble and feeling less than highly motivated to contribute to society) is that those are the two who created the kid(s).
Just a question. I’ll be gosh darned to heck if this isn’t an interesting discussion.
Mark:
I’m glad that you’ve taken a position that’s far more coherent than most anti-SSM conservatives: that privilege should be given to child-rearing couples regardless of sexual orientation. But I’m sure you realize that the situation we’re currently in is the farthest thing from that. As it is, heterosexual couples are allowed to marry regardless of ability, intent, or competence in having and raising children, while same-sex couples are not. So as it stands, by your own reasoning, gays and lesbians are clearly discriminated against. How would you propose rectifying that? We’re proposing to expand the institution of marriage to gays and lesbians. It will still (unfairly, by your standards) privilege those couples that cannot or won’t have children, but it at least removes the discrimination against a minority. Limiting the institution again, to exclude non-child-rearing couples, would be an entirely different legislative task to undertake, and would itself be extremely controversial (and probably impossible), but it would have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
So do you see why, by and large, we support same-sex marriage? And by your own reasoning, you would support us in this goal? If so then I’m glad (and this would be one of this extremely rare instances on the Internet where people with opposing views come to an agreement on a comment thread!)
A secular case against gay marriage to me uses a very Utilitarian argument. It presupposes that since gays cannot contribute life into the gene pool that they should automatically have one of their civil liberties taken away from them. I think it can be a very slippery slope to determine morality solely by practicality and it’s consequences and alone.
If there is one basic property that distinguishes conservatives from liberals outside of religion it is the ability to make distinctions. At The Brussels Journal, a brilliant writer named Takuan Seiyo has written 10 essays on the West’s loss of that vital ability to distinguish the moral from the immoral, the beautiful from the ugly, the truly great from the mediocre, and the talented from the banal.Secular conservatives lost in an America fast losing its former capacity for distinctions, cannot rely on the simple Christian proscription re the Biblical view of gays. Instead, we must find better arguments.
As a biologist I cannot imagine not distinguishing between heterosexual marriage and gay or homosexual unions. Whatever else it is, homsexuality was a deviant pattern 1000 years ago and the biology of it has not changed one iota. Evolution’s goal is reproduction and species maintenance so our sexual mechanism is well-understood and accepted as normal in all societies.Homosexuality, as well as many genetic and chromosomal abberations, used to be judged “abnormal” in the texts I once used many years ago.Is Turner’s Syndrome normal today?
In an egalitarian society driven by propaganda to deny “distinctions” we are on the defensive against militant gays who have, like all “victims,” the government and various elites and lobbies on their side. In a culture crippled by its fear of independent thinking about important distinctions, Beethoven is equal to hip-hop stars, porn is an acceptable art-form, and black children can be evaluated in school by criteria far removed from linguistic or mathematical ability.Such a society is well on its way to fruition.Gays are among the beneficiaries of this morass of liberal levelling.
In the first thread Jim referred us to a defense of traditional marriage by Noah Millman (see #99) This is a powerful defense that should appeal to all of us who question the value of gay marriage.
Lastly, I rarely met gays growing up but for several parties of artistic types in New York and about 12 sexual assaults in a variety of settings.In the fifties gays were not at all militant and yet they did not hesitate to prowl around looking for young boys and were willing to physically assault men they were attracted to.My encounters ranged from a “minister” on the train to NYC grabbing me under a New York Times edition to a “priest” picking me up outside of Pittsburgh and pointing a gun at me to “persuade” me to join him that night at a hotel.At the first light I jumped out, but hitch-hiking out to Arizona was a nerve-wreaking experience from that point on.At age 19 I visited two friends in Shawano, Wisconsin, and was “picked up” at the county fair by a guy they apparently knew quite well. He insisted on paying for a feature wresting event and I stupidly went along.My friends left earlier and acted as if this guy was normal. He drove me back to town and sped up as we took a dark highway to nowhere. That night I fought as hard as I ever had against a cursing, crying nutcase who ripped my shirt practically off and cut my arm and face.I told my friends that their ignorance of his condition was highly improbable in a town of 25,000, but they pled innocence!They were ashamed and dumbfounded.
Generally I found that they were devious and often unstable.Perhaps today I would have not had those experiences, but before “liberation” they were surely often aggressive and disrespectful of the rights of others.Since I was not hurt seriously I did not sue any of these predators, but perhaps I should have. After age 25 or so I never again had such an encounter.
In an age of “equality” by fiat and disinformation it is no wonder gays are pushing to overturn our most sacred institutions.Even today’s pychology texts would not dare make distinctions, as they once did with impunity. If what was abnormal is now normal we lose that terribly precious if elitist capacity to appreciate vital differences in many aspects of life, including marriage.False “equality” will perhaps make the militants feel better but it is false nonetheless.
I think we’re better off giving up the gay marriage issue in order to save our political capital for more important issues. We should support gay marriage becuase we should support freedom of association. People should be able to live among who they wish AND marry who they wish. People should merry who they want and hire who they want if the own a company. If they want to send their kids to an all Jewish school, then people should be able to send their kids to an all gay school. They key to making a diverse America work is freedom of association.
The comparisons of sodomy and miscegenation statutes, and corresponding social attitude changes towards inter-racial and gay marriage, are interesting and instructive.
When the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation statutes in 1967 (Loving v Virginia), there were still 16 states where these laws were in force; in 2003 when sodomy laws were finally struck down in Lawrence v Texas, 14 states still had such laws on the books. In the first half of the 20th century, 30 of 48 states actively enforced miscegenation laws; in the second half of the 20th century about the same proportion actively enforced sodomy and related statutes.
To say:
simply shows Mr Derbyshire is as ignorant of the history of US racial politics as he is of the history of gay partnerships and their persecution. The public rhetoric against inter-racial marriage from the 18th century onwards was every bit as vehement and visceral as the ungliest anti-gay tirades of today.
Marriage is a key instituation of social regulation; but what it regulates, and how, changes over time in all societies (property, women, children, etc). It is no longer socially acceptable in the US to regulate “race relations” via marriage, and the notion that it is the principal means of demarcating valid sexual relations between adults (ie sex only permissible between legally married persons, and then only vaginal intercourse) has also lost its social consensus, though there are still (largely Christian) pockets who will not yet accept this change.
The repugnance that the majority of Americans once felt at the very thought of a black man and white woman sharing the marriage bed, is directly paralleled by much of the distate that currently underwrites the dwindling popular opposition to gay marriage. (Note that in the last referendum to remove miscegenation laws in Alabama the proposition only garnered 59% support — and that was in 2000.)
If a binding case against miscegenation laws could be extracted out of the 14th amendment, I have no doubt the same will happen, eventually, with gay marriage. Enough states, enough people, enough time … it will happen.
The point I made about distinctions depends upon the “small” issue of knowledge. The decline of America is greatly enhanced by our widespread ignorance and easy acceptance of liberal propaganda. The previous comment on race is a case in point.While interracial marriage is historically taboo due to a natural “other detector” in the brain, modern genetics and neuroscience are finding many interesting racial differences behind the obvious ones we see every day. At NFL draft time we accept that 98% of the best players will be black. Why?? In math classes we “know” that Ashkenazi Jews and Asians will dominate the class. Why?? Thirty years of vigorous liberal prosylytizing for “equality” has confused blacks and many others into assuming that liberal elites are right. Originally, liberals only meant equality of opportunity but the distinction was lost as affirmative action and the “cult of the victim” went mainstream.Obama and his minions will add billions more toward”equalizing” the unequal.
Distinctions do require legwork with one’s mind, especially in a society that lost its earlier capacity to value important distinctions.It is not a crime-nor should it be- for white women to find a black man attractive, but our PC culture dangerously intrudes by surrounding whites with the false idea that distinctions are always racist. A white woman who feels more comfortable with her own kind is perfectly normal.Decent black women spend years trying to locate good, reliable black men. There aren’t many. Furthermore, genetic differences involve dozens of real differences, including intelligence and character, that could spell real trouble for the white woman. Freer than ever before in history, white women now face the threat of social censure for being normal and preferring white men.How many white men prefer black women? See Larry Auster’s classic piece on rape (by blacks against whites) in Front Page Magazine.Food for thought!
Dr Troost, my point was that the questions of inter-racial and gay marriage are historically, socially and legally homologous in the US, and similar outcomes are likely, though the changes are time-shifted by about 40 years. Derbyshire doesn’t have a problem (in principle, at least) with the reintroduction of miscegenation laws — which at least makes him consistent. You appear to be arguing down the same track. If so, let’s make that explicit, so that we can clearly understand the nexus between racism and homophobia in this alleged “secular conservative” case against gay marriage.
(Your musings on genetic determinants of race are somewhat off-topic, though consistent with the published views of Derb. However, they are not consistent with current data, which show maximal genetic variation exists among Africans rather than between races, but that’s another story.)
Another story indeed, but not in the way you expect, I bet. Your “musing” that the quantity of (intra-racial) genetic variation is more impressive than the quality of the (intra-racial) variation, is amusing. If you cared to look for it, you can easily find the refutation to your “muse”, and learn something in the process. Generally, you need to think a little deeper, and follow the data a little further. Don’t fall into the pit most liberals do, when they stop their analysis as soon as it appears to show what they already want to be true, and especially if that stopping point also makes them able to feel good about themselves ( in their own minds and echo chambers), as people.
Ivan, I suggest you pick up the latest issue of Science and read the largest genetic study of its kind ever done.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1172257
This is not new (first raised in 1972), but the confirmatory evidence keeps on piling up. Now, can we get back on-topic?
Ivan, I am not unfamiliar with the literature, including the critique of the so-called “Lewontin Fallacy”. However, I suggest we try to stay on-topic (and if you have nothing useful to add on gay marriage, you could fill in your time by reading the latest issue of Science, which sheds some powerful light on this other issue).
JohnC: Ivan is really not off topic if one thinks about the nexus of the two types of “conditions.” Gay brains are not the same as straight brains and the genetic basis for those differences will soon be known.Gays are right about the disposition they experience because it is very likely not entirely learned. Race is a larger aspect of human nature but has a genetic basis that is gradually emerging from research labs. In The 10,000 Year Explosion you can learn more about these differences.We already know about IQ differences but cannot stomach them because of the “feel-good” consensus resulting from massive selling of the liberal “blank slate” dogma(read we are all equally great).In my own book called Apes or Angels? I discuss this perversion at length.Once most people believed in a “flat earth,” the ether, and certain humans as divine. Indeed, a black minster paraded around New Jersey in the fifties with a harem of white, blond women and the lofty accolade Father Divine. While we no longer believe such idiocies today, there are millions who find Obama almost divine in his charisma and wondrous “intelligence.” Misguided beliefs are a dime a dozen. Gays have imbibed the cool aid of liberalism because it magically erases their unique traits and treats them as “normals.” While they deserve equal rights in our democracy they ask too much when they discard their unique traits in demanding the legal rights attendant to historically heterosexual marriage.The meaning of that great tradition would be destroyed irretrieveably.Despite the fact that they exist because of heterosexual marriages, they seem not to have reflected upon that reality.
Dr Troost, I am also not unfamiliar with your own pet theories (having entertained myself with your little YouTube series), however when it comes to the question at hand, these seem to have little logical connection to what is little more than a bald assertion:
Surely, the “destruction of marriage” as a result of extending this institutional right to same-sex couples is not at all an obvious consequence. And is not supported in the slightest by asserting (or denying) the existence of “gay brains”, with or without a genetic component. I also have no idea what “discarding their unique traits” means in this context. Which traits?
I repeat: the gay marriage issue is a close homologue of the miscegenation debate of 50 years ago. Has permitting inter-racial marriage damaged the institution of marriage? Why would same-sex marriage do so? Once one discards religion, there seems little on which to hang this proposition.
I really have to thank Mr. Derbyshire and Dr. Troost for what are officially the creepiest essays I have yet seen against gay marriage. Gay brains? Unique characteristics? Races as meaningful biological categories? A cognitive underclass? Wow. I’ll take the religious right over you guys any day. At least religious people are trying to follow their beliefs, however mistaken. I’d always wondered what it would have been like to debate the “good Germans” of the 1930s, now I know. And I am Dr. Danilo too so I know the difference between empirical science and prejudice boosted with pseudo-scientific arguments and fallacies.
The “gay brains” thing brings up an equally important point which also relates to my earlier point regarding political capital. We should support gay marriage becuase gay people can’t help who they were born to have sexual relations with. We can use our acceptance of this human bio-diversity reality to support other human bio-diversity realities. We on the Right need to support social policy based on biological and genetic science. Since the current Zeitgeist claims that homo-sex is natural, we’ll support it, just as we’ll support future social policy based on other natural human characteristics.
You guys against gay marriage need to think strategically. In the next ten years, science is going to destroy the major premise that left-wing ideology is based upon: that being the myth of equality. Let us tactically retreat from the gay marriage battle to win the war for social policy.