August 4, 2012

A kiss-in should be a love-in or it shouldn't be done at all.

Protests express opposition and therefore usually anger. Expressing love is inconsistent with anger. So if you're going to use a gesture of love for protest, you've got a special problem. Appropriating an expression of love for hostile purposes is a dangerous matter. It's what makes rape so horrible.

Think about it. Most of us love sex but if we were beset by a hostile assailant, we would prefer a punch in the face to sexual intercourse.

I'm looking at pictures from the Chick-fil-A kiss-in. These were people who wanted to demonstrate support for same-sex marriage. (I agree with them on that issue, by the way.) As their form of protest, they chose kissing — individuals of the same sex, kissing in restaurants that are associated with opposition to same-sex marriage. So the idea was, go where you think you are not loved — even though there's no evidence that Chick-fil-A treats gay customers with less respect and friendliness than straight customers — and do something you think will upset them.

Now, restaurants generally don't want anybody making out, so you've chosen behavior that would be disruptive to a restaurant's business whether the kissing couples are same or opposite sex. The form of expression is offensive and not like the old civil rights demonstrations where black people sat at lunch counters and were not served. They simply acted like customers — good customers — and the only reason it worked as a demonstration was that the store only served food to white people, the policy the protesters very successfully demonstrated was wrong. Kissing at Chick-fil-A does nothing to show what's wrong about anything Chick-fil-A is doing. It's just displaying hostility to the place.

And it's displaying hostility with kissing. So what have they done? They've perverted kissing, which should be an expression of love. Ironic, considering that the gay rights movement seeks to dispel the belief that homosexuality is perverted.

It's a challenge to protest with gestures of love. It can be done, but it can't be done with hate or love is not love. We think of hippies and their love-ins (and be-ins). I don't remember those demonstrations involving targeting any person or business. Yes, those hippies upset the squares — the straight people — and through what they claimed was love they made themselves dislikable to people they knew would be bothered by the way they acted, but that just goes to show how hard it is to use love to express something other than love.

ADDED: Here's a sign in a photograph chosen to top a favorable presentation of the kiss-in: "We're Here/We're Queer/& We're Not Eating." See how different that is from the old lunch-counter sit-ins? These 2 men are flaunting their taking up space in a commercial establishment without being customers. They are kissing as a way of saying: We're hostile to you.

The second sign says "I [heart] my boyfriend just as much as you love your spouse!," but the man is failing to demonstrate the equivalence between him and his boyfriend and "you" and your spouse because unlike the black sit-in protesters, they are not behaving like the people they want to say they are equal to.

The civil rights sitters-in behaved like ordinary customers, causing the store to behave in a way that onlookers could see was ugly. But since a straight couple doesn't go to a restaurant and stand around kissing without buying anything, the 2 men are not demonstrating sameness, but difference. An onlooker's reaction could be: No, you are not like me and my spouse because we only go to restaurants to buy food, and when we do, we treat everyone around us with respect, and when we kiss we do it in an appropriate setting and only to express love. Again, I see a terrible irony: They've sent the message of perverted love.

IN THE COMMENTS: As my whimsy leads me reminds us: "Judas perverted kissing when he betrayed Jesus."

I was thinking about Jesus when I wrote this post. Not in the context of Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, but Jesus telling us to love our enemy. If someone strikes you on the face, instead of striking back, turn the other cheek, an invitation to the assailant to strike you a second time. That's how much love Jesus expects from you. That's a demonstration of love to the onlooker, who receives the message, the kind of demonstration that was made — to brilliant effect — in the civil rights era.

138 comments:

kentuckyliz said...

Catholics (and formerly ALL Christians) teach that contracepted sex is wrong.

Starting in 1929 with the Anglicans, Protestant denominations gradually started accepting contracepted sex as OK.

So when devout Christians accept sterile sex (the procreative stripped from the unitive), the acceptance of homosexuality and SSM is inevitable.

Because you've already accepted that sex is for fun and love and doesn't have to be open to life.

So, I think the Catholics should show up at the kiss-in and have conjugal uncontracepted sex that is married, faithful, loving, and open to life, and show 'em how it's really done.

kentuckyliz said...

Hot lesbians making out and a tasty chicken sandwich?! Count me in!

--A tweet by a straight male.

pm317 said...

a very good commentary. Why aren't there this kind of thoughtful writing from the professionals in MSM? (no need to answer that.)

As my whimsy leads me.. said...

It isn't without precedent. Judas perverted kissing when he betrayed Jesus. Things didn't turn out well for Judas, either.

Toy

Jay said...

I find it comical that gay people have nothing better to do at 8PM on a Friday night other than to go to the local Chick-Fil-A and kiss.

I thought gays were so cool!

Squares.

PS: Isn't it funny how the media played up this story but ignored the appreciation day on Wednesday?

Don't worry, gay marriage is popular! In your silly little echo chamber...

chickelit said...

kentuckyliz said...
Hot lesbians making out and a tasty chicken sandwich?! Count me in!

Except it's never like that, Liz. It's always some classic narcissist, yelling "look at me, look at me" a line which even this comment crosses. The vast majority of people just want them to STFU and eat their chicken. That ain't gonna change.

Mick said...

There's no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is only sponsored and encouraged by the government as a precept of natural law, which is the basis of inalienable rights. Society cannot exist, except by the propagation of citizens, by its citizens. "Gay marriage" is anathema to the Declaration of Independence, that our law is based on the "law of nature and nature's god". As society cannot sustain itself by "gay marriage" then "gay marriage" will not be sponsored by the government. Duh. Marriage is not a right. But then the "law prof" never was very logical.

Imagine a "law prof" voting for an illegal non natural born foreigner for President!!! She mewls on from her Ivory Tower in academia, among her left wing contemporaries who are too cowardly to tell the truth, while that British subject in the White House does his best to destroy the fabric of American society. What kind of "logical law prof" supports an illegitimate "cause" just because her son is gay?

JohnBoy said...

The left, gripped in a frenzy of hate since at least Bush-Gore, has passed the point where they 1) have any self-awareness about how they look to the 75% of the country that's not them, and 2) pretend not to embrace blatant double standards.

McCarthy smearing people with anonymously-sourced assertions = bad. Harry Reid doing it= good.

Liberals trying to ban businesses if the owners use their business profits to support Christian values = good. Conservatives banning gay-owned businesses = bad.

At least the ACLU doesn't think that free speech is only available to certain groups.

Titus said...

I don't see any kissing in those pics?

Where is the fucking kissing.

tits.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

PS: Isn't it funny how the media played up this story but ignored the appreciation day on Wednesday?

Wednesday was way off script. They didn't know how to handle it. Even my local "conservative libertarian" talk radio host ended up rolling his eyes (figuratively) at it. IMO, the media has no capacity for thinking on it's feet.

Sorun said...

This whole story says a lot about how much gays are oppressed in America: Not at all.

edutcher said...

All that fuss and it apparently fizzled - except, of course, for the vandalism, threats, and arrests.

If this is a measure of the real on-the-ground support it has, Hatman needs to review his talking points.

PS Hi, KY Liz

YoungHegelian said...

...even though there's no evidence that Chick-fil-A treats gay customers with less respect and friendliness than straight customers..

Oh, yeah? Then why does my local Chik-fil-A have a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to any guy who listens to Barbra Streisand"?

techsan said...

Wednesday's Eat In was a love in. Love for free speech. Love for the bullied.

Richard Dolan said...

This is an interesting post, even if the premise is preposterous. "Appropriating an expression of love" is what makes rape so horrible? I guess that makes rape a crime against semiotics.

What's interesting about this blog is the inventive way it applies criteria from literary criticism to a protest -- the kiss-in at Chick-fil-A -- that badly missed the mark. The protest was transgressive, but failed in its attempt to deconstruct the intertextuality of Chick-fil-A's inversion of (literal degustatory) good taste for (politico-literary) bad taste.

If English is your native tongue and you have an ear for its cadences, you could have shortened that by saying that the protesters did not understand and probably cared less about how their protest was perceived. It was all their tone-deaf 'song of myself' without any of Whitman's breadth of heart or inclusive vision of America.

David said...

Be grateful.

At least all they are doing is kissing.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wyo sis said...

It's been said before, but I fel a little sorry for gay people who just want to live their lives and be left alone. Everything has to be a big deal. I'm not so much opposed to gay marriage as I am opposed to the tactics of gay activists. They demand pushback, then try to turn it to their advantage. I guess it's just the way it's done. But, sometimes I long for the days when people gained acceptance by being decent and silenced people's prejudices by demonstrating good will.

kentuckyliz said...

@chickelit - no, it's just turning the protestor's methods against them in a light-hearted way, showing that intention is often different than result. Gosh, it sounds so boring when I have to explain it like that.

Pix prove once again, the only hot lesbians you're going to find are in the pornos.

FleetUSA said...

Well said pm317.

I think the MSM looks at everything through their special set of glasses which only can understand new events after several days of reflection (i.e. waiting for orders from ultra-liberal thinkers).

p.s. Did the kiss-in people order and eat normally or did they just sit around smooching?

Big Mike said...

Kissing at Chick-fil-A does nothing to show what's wrong about anything Chick-fil-A is doing.

Ya think? Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone bright enough to come in out of the rain?

Indeed, might behavior such as was exhibited yesterday, not to mention the vandalism and threats, reinforce the perception that Mr. Cathy is on the right side of the gay marriage argument?

Just askin'

Skyler said...

They've perverted kissing, which should be an expression of love. Ironic, considering that the gay rights movement seeks to dispel the belief that homosexuality is perverted.

Yeah. How about that?

Reminds me of the story about the frog giving a scorpion a ride across the river.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Writ Small said...

In the minds of the protesters, opposition to same sex marriage equals hate.

A lot of pointless behavior can flow from bad starting assumptions.

Palladian said...

Who wants to kiss someone who just chewed up a bite of sandwich?

The Godfather said...

Most people are missing all these nuances if they get their news from the MSM. I've seen two stories about the CFA controversy on ABC News. Neither one mentioned the threat by several big city mayors to bar CFA from their cities because the mayors disagree with the politic/social/religious opinions of CFA's owner. Both said that the crowds at CFAs around the country were there to show support for Cathy's anti-Gay marriage stance. The whole First Amendment/ free speech aspect was ignored. Like Ann, I support Gay marriage, but I think the government has no business punishing people who think otherwise.

Unrelated point: Do the Gay people who participated in the kiss-in really think that this is an effective way to persuade some of those who now oppose Gay marriage to change their minds?

Jay said...

They've perverted kissing, which should be an expression of love

You know what else they're perverting Ann?

Marriage.

Palladian said...

Indeed, might behavior such as was exhibited yesterday, not to mention the vandalism and threats, reinforce the perception that Mr. Cathy is on the right side of the gay marriage argument?

By all means, let's make our decisions based on the actions of the loudest, stupidest and most vulgar exemplars of an issue!

This is one of those trumped-up "issues" where I hate everyone, on both "sides".

Palladian said...

Jay here perverts the notion that we're an intelligent, evolved species.

kentuckyliz said...

The people who aren't boycotting Chick Fil A will not be convinced that SSM is good by being forced to watch gays making out in public as they try and grab a bite of lunch.

Way to sabotage your own cause.

Palladian said...

I preferred when the only Cathy in the newspaper was trying on a bathing suit in front of a mirror and saying "Ack!"...

alan markus said...

Don't understand the "Chick-Fil-A" name. Seems rather gay to me. The kiss-in conjured up a mental image of older gay guys showing up to find some "chicken" (young gay boys) whose "A"'s they hoped to "Fil".

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Splendid analysis. What they're doing is theater to epater les bourgoises, and it's not unfair to rate those antics disgusting - in all the senses of that word.

Palladian said...

The people who aren't boycotting Chick Fil A will not be convinced that SSM is good by being forced to watch gays making out in public as they try and grab a bite of lunch.

I don't like watching people chew and i don't like watching people kiss, so no one in a Chik-Fil-A is going to convince me of anything.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Who wants to kiss someone who just chewed up a bite of sandwich?


Who said the CFA-haters would squander their precious resources on an un-PC sandwich?

Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ndspinelli said...

I saw one photo of two quite hot lesbos kissing. This, along w/ the viral Adam Smith video is showing the dark side of homosexuality. Being a libertairian, I don't care if you fuck chickens, "whatever gets you through the night, it's alright." But I don't want to see you kissing your chicken while I eat mine.

Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Levi Starks said...

I find it interesting that you focus on the expression of love. especially since the clarion call from the pro-gay side is anybody should be able to love anyone they want. Taking the biblical view I would say they are correct. King David and Jonathan were described as having their hearts knit together, and that David loved Jonathan as his own soul. And that his love for him exceeded the love of a woman. So the question is not who loves who, but how that love is expressed. Having carefully searched the scripture I find no evidence that their relationship was ever sexual. In fact by the time David became king of all Israel he had sons by at least 6 wives. It is in fact the gay community that has degraded love by essentially reducing it to an act of physical intercourse between 2 people.

Palladian said...

alan markus said... "The kiss-in conjured up a mental image of older gay guys showing up to find some "chicken" (young gay boys) whose "A"'s they hoped to "Fil".

Why do you think Chik-Fil-A sandwiches have a pickle between the buns?

What a perfect opportunity to inflict this on Althouse readers!

Goju said...

CFA CEO says he opposes SSM and it gives every leftie a soapbox to condemn Christians.

Not a word about the good ole religion of Peace. Islam has a real permanent solution to SSM. Kill all GLBT people. So.....will there be a kiss-in at the restaurant owned and operated the the Fruit of Islam in Chicago? Yeah, I thought not. That would require courage and a real commitment to a cause.

Jason said...

There was a big "kiss-in" at my local Chick-fil-A.

The herd of wildebeests outside protesting was way, fatter, on average, than the people inside eating.

I got there a little bit before the "kiss-in" was supposed to happen. The place was pretty crowded inside but we did get a table.

The protesters started coming in right on time. By the time we left there were maybe 50 people outside protesting. Maybe 10 of them were photographers. They were the only disruptive people I saw, mostly because they were blocking the driveway and stepping into traffic trying to get a shot.

The franchise owner stopped by the table with his wife, thanked us for coming. Whenever I see a senior exec I try to think of something good to say about what a great job the junior staff is doing. I told him "Half those folks out there look like photojournalists! You call that a protest? You guys need to ramp it up!"

He laughed and said "Yeah, it's fine. This is great publicity for us. I just hope the spell the name right, with a "C" in "Chick" and a lowercase "L!"

Michael Haz said...

I am tired of it.

The intolerant left will demonize and lie about anyone who does not say, think and do precisely and exactly what the leftist ideologues believe should be said, thought and done.

Sorry, but wearing a shirt that says "Jesus is a Cun*", or trotting out some minor celebrity who proclaims her hopes that people eating Chick-fil-A sandwiches will choke to death are simply acts of PC fascism.

When the leftists become tolerant of my beliefs, I'll become tolerant of theirs. Until then, no deal.

The Crack Emcee said...

So what have they done? They've perverted kissing, which should be an expression of love. Ironic, considering that the gay rights movement seeks to dispel the belief that homosexuality is perverted.

Yeah, sure, they're working real hard at that one. Or, as Skyler said, "How about that?"

It's funny how Ann will run right up to the line of cogent thought, and then retreat, only to do it again. (Is breaking out of the mediated bubble that hard?) I can't wait until she decides to be "Not Politically Correct (Just Correct)" because her writing - and the debates they inspire - will be lots more fun.

I've got a Mormon friend, who I served in the military with, who reads my blog ("religiously") with his oldest son and they howl with laughter. Why? Because it breaks them out of their comfort zone and gives them food for thought. It provides them with information, and a perspective, they can't get otherwise. And, of course, they trust me - they know I won't lie to them or shade my views for either reasons of public consumption, personal animus, or political correctness. I say Mormonism is a cult - and that's a charge worth pursuing - rather than batting it away because it's upsetting to anyone's sensibilities.

They are more "open-minded" than Ann, and many of her readers, seem to be,...

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madAsHell said...

Hot lesbians making out and a tasty chicken sandwich?!

All the hot lesbians are busy making movies in the San Fernando Valley. For a price, I'm sure they can accommodate your chicken sandwich issues.

Phil 3:14 said...

The second sign says "I [heart] my boyfriend just as much as your love your spouse!,"

Do these guys realize the whole matter when the head of CFA was asked about MARRIAGE not about love relationships?

madAsHell said...

AP
I'm pretty sure you're not employed for your writing skills.

Is there another reason for you to hang out with politicians??

madAsHell said...

Well...that didn't take long.
America's Politico deleted his comment.

Phil 3:14 said...

Crack, you've become Mick.


Mick comment: blah, blah, blah NATURAL BORN CITIZEN blah blah blah NATURAL BORN...


Crack comment: blah blah blah MORMON NEW AGE blah blah blah MORMON ROMNEY blah blah...

tiresome

Brent said...

WOW, Ann!

Best post and explanation of this issue ever! And I do not support same sex marriage. This is just really thoughtful.

That said, palladian is on fire today! Still at the top of Althouse commenters (with apologies to Meade).

traditionalguy said...

Since the mid 1990s the gay political activists have been fighting a traditional social morality which had made their conduct illegal, at least until the SCOTUS discovered new law that all sex is a private matter except for child sex. That has caused a needed liberalization of attitudes. Really no one cares how anyone else has sex anymore.

But the fighters for equal rights are not ready to let the barely there opposition surrender without taking a public triumph over them on the Christian Marriage identity.

The trouble is most Christians are not anti-gay. They are only saying that Christian marriage is so basic that it is unchangeable. So to fight them on that is to fight them on protecting their children.

That is a bridge too far.

cassandra lite said...

In the Mafia, kissing the hand is a sign of respect. Kissing the lips means you sleep with Luca Brasi.

Jim in St Louis said...

Wasn't there something equally silly earlier about 'glitter bombs' ? If the protest action is not clear and to the point, then its wasted.

p.s. have you tried the waffle fries? they are really good

Sorun said...

I think all the lesbian fatasses should eat mor chikin.

ndspinelli said...

AndyR must be combing homeless shelters trying to find someone who will kiss him for a free chicken sandwich.

Palladian said...

Phil 3:14, Crack Emcee was like Mick before Mick even existed.

Dr Weevil said...

I was just disappointed that the guy wearing the "Jesus is a cunt" T-shirt wasn't punched out by a Mexican. A recent immigrant not up to speed on the ins and outs of contemporary anti-Christian bigotry might naturally assume that the T-shirt couldn't possibly refer to the Son of God, so it must be referring to some guy who pronounces his name Hey-Zoose. I can imagine such a man suddenly thinking "Hey, that's my name!" and beating the crap out of the foul-minded bigot.

ricpic said...

One of the wondrous queers protesting at a Chick-Fil-A brought a server to tears by haranguing her as if she was personally responsible for Chik-Fil-A's "hateful" policy. Where's the hatefulness, huh?

virgil xenophon said...

pm317@9:02/

"...thoughtful writing from the professionals in the MSM?"

"PROFESSIONALS????"

BWAAHAAHAHAHAhahahaha!!!!!!!!

jimbino said...

I'm for the kissing gays.

Religion has been forcing its perverted views of "proper" relationships on us for centuries. It is high time for its insidious invasion of our privacy to be contested by any means.

Ann should know better. People enjoy friendship, companionship, sex, cohabitation, rearing kids, love, marriage and divorce.

Nowadays, all of those are independent, except for marriage and divorce, the two negative and perverted modes of relationship.

Dust Bunny Queen said...


The civil rights sitters-in behaved like ordinary customers, causing the store to behave in a way that onlookers could see was ugly. But since a straight couple doesn't go to a restaurant and stand around kissing without buying anything, the 2 men are not demonstrating sameness, but difference.


This is a very important point and very well stated.

Most people are really ambivalent about same sex marriage. The in your face hatred, violence, vandalism, childish acting out and disrespect for basic civility from the gay community is a turn off for those who previously didn't care.

The unfair and ugly treatment that was exposed by the civil rights movement, is now coming from the gay movement and the left. There is NO EVIDENCE of discrimination on the part of the employees of the company, the managers of the individual stores or even on the part of the company as an entity. YET, the ugliness directed at innocent people because an owner of the company holds a personal opinion that they don't like.

The Chick fil A support showing on Wednesday was not about being anti-gay or anti same sex marriage. It was about supporting the First Amendment rights to have free speech and hold opposing opinions without being subjected to the HATE that oozes from the left and from the gays.

I previously didn't care one way or the other about same sex marriage. Now I am adamantly opposed to it. See. Your protests ARE effective.

Quaestor said...

"We reserve the right to refuse service to any guy who listens to Barbra Streisand"?

Merely common sense. Anyone who listens to Babs ought to be racked.

Mark O said...

I think you completely misunderstand the power inherent in the principle taught by turning the other cheek. It's not about love at all.

Levi Starks said...

As it currently stands the Left is not looking for acceptance of GLBT behavior, it is looking for endorsement. It's easy for me to accept that there exist's a code of moral conduct that differs from my own, and that it's neither within my power or desire to inflict my moral code on others. But I will not be forced to celebrate behavior that I personally find wrong. And nothing less will satisfy the Left. Therefore we are at an impasse.

Paddy O said...

The tricky part here is that there's actually nothing to protest.

What is being sought is not civil rights but acceptance and celebration.

Everyone gets served food. They hire people regardless of sexual orientation. There's no actual degree of discrimination between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

It's a protest for validation rights, which isn't actually a right we can expect from others let alone demand from others.

We can mandate people treat us fairly but not that they love us.

furious_a said...

Because you've already accepted that sex is for fun and love and doesn't have to be open to life.

"The future belongs to those who show up for it." -- Mark Steyn.

Jason (the commenter) said...

I don't think any of the people protesting Chick-fil-A ever ate there or ever would eat there. So what would be the point of the company changing its stance?

Maybe if customers sent thoughtful letters of disagreement to the company, along with receipts for meals, they might get somewhere. But these sorts of protesters are more interested in photo-ops and getting famous than changing people's minds.

Sad!

P. S. I've eaten at Chick-fil-A twice this week, and I support marriage equality.

furious_a said...

The protest was transgressive...

/yawn/ The Village People were transgressive...like, you know, 30 years ago.

furious_a said...

By all means, let's make our decisions based on the actions of the loudest, stupidest and most vulgar exemplars of an issue!

And why not -- the loudest and stupidest are usually the ones who own (or eventually hijack) the agenda.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Actually, I'm still all ambivalent about same sex marriage. What I am not ambivalent about is having someone's agenda shoved into my face, uncivil, rude, hateful actions and being threatened and coerced. Called names and being told that disagreement is hate. Being told that you are not 'allowed' to have a difference of opinion.

Seriously. Most people are all MEH about same sex marriage. Actions like those above are going to change that. Classic...shooting yourself in the foot. Sabotaging your own cause.
I don't think any of the people protesting Chick-fil-A ever ate there or ever would eat there. So what would be the point of the company changing its stance?

The COMPANY doesn't have a stance. The OWNER of the company has a personal opinion. The government decided to use the power of government to punish the company, by denying the ability to do business and discriminating against the company, for the personal opinions of the owner. If this isn't fascism and/or the actions of a totalitarian society.....what is?

furious_a said...

The civil rights sitters-in behaved like ordinary customers...

...because the segregationists wouldn't treat them like ordinary customers. The Kisser-inners don't have that moral claim, so they have to resort to exhibitionism. Which seems to be their first, last and only resort, come to think of it.

Darleen said...

every time I see the phrase "marriage equality" I want to giggle. It's like "pro-choice" as a euphemism for unrestricted abortion.

same-sex marriage advocates want to be able to co-opt the "equality" word so if anyone dares to disagree they can stand on their soapbox, shake a finger & scream "See? See? That h8tr over there is against equality!!"

They know they have no foundational argument except an emotional appeal, so they need to demonize everyone who dares even question the wisdom of a radical redefinition of a basic human institution.

Charles said...

Why can't a single gay leader stand up and say:

"We disagree with the president of Chick-Fil-A, but we believe that good people can disagree. The attempts by Chicago and Boston to ban a private business because of the deeply-held - but in our opinion, misguided - beliefs of its president go against the First Amendment and everything we stand for."

That simple statement would be retweeted, blogged about and posted on Facebook by activists across the political spectrum and do more to foster goodwill than anything else.

But then again, I'm assuming that they want to convince their opposition and not bully them into submission (or perpetuate their noble victimhood.)

Christy said...

In the words of the marvelous actress Mrs. Patrick Campbell, probably the great love of the probably homosexual George Bernard Shaw's life - "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do – so long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses?"

Does the kiss-in qualify as frightening the horses? I think it does.

BarryD said...

As someone who supports getting the government out of the business of defining marriage, I think that gay couples holding hands and conducting themselves respectfully would have the most positive impact.

Pride weekend in my city is a time when a lot of people have pre-parties and go out downtown and join in the festivities -- people of all ages, gay and straight. The culture here, in general, is friendly and accepting.

The atmosphere of Pride parades in some other places, though, tends to make it easier, not harder, to see gay people as the strange and even hostile "other". This can't be all that good for, say, mainstream support for gay marriage.

Don't get me wrong: gay people have the same right to have their own wild, obnoxious, exclusive bacchanals as fraternities and sororities, sports fans, or any other group. If that's the point, then have at it! I'm not telling gay people they don't have the same right to obnoxiousness that all Americans share, and most Americans exercise at least once in a while.

But when or if the point of such a gathering is to make a statement and to show people that gay couples are just people like everyone else, then the atmosphere is an important consideration.

Quaestor said...

Darlene wrote:
[Every] time I see the phrase "marriage equality" I want to giggle. It's like "pro-choice" as a euphemism for unrestricted abortion.

I don't so much giggle as weep. Unrestricted abortion is a euphemism itself, no. What's really meant is "abortion up to and including infanticide", but that's neither here nor there. Does marriage equality include polygamy? Does the image of a Muslim chieftain strolling an American street followed by a train of burhka-clad wives sit well with the feminists? Ann? How about polyandry? Does the prospect of wealthy and attractive women devouring the supply available men thrill the lonely empty-nest career woman? If you admit that a man can "marry" a man, where and, more importantly how can you draw a line?

Gay marriage is bullshit. The intent is not to make the culture more justice, the intent is to render marriage into a parody of itself, to further cheapen marriage to point of worthlessness.

sydney said...

And you know this whole controversy had to be cooked up by the LGBT activits. Who really believes that any of those big city mayors or aldermen who started this thing reads the Baptist Press? Some activist group has to be monitoring everything said in public about traditional marriage to find fodder for attacks. The truly disturbing thing about this is how easily those politicians were manipulated into participating in it, to the point of acting unconstituionally.

Alex said...

Ann is right on this one, but she is biased.

Chip Ahoy said...

There used to be a lesbian bar a few blocks from here that turned out to be my brother's favorite place to go. It was also a restaurant that served decent food. The birds were wild. Get a few drinks in 'em and anything could happen.

Once we were sitting there slurping our spaghetti, looked up, the girls playing pool decided somehow they needed to exchange shirts so they did right there while playing. Now where are you going to get dinner entertainment like that? The Detour, sadly, it's gone now. But. Here's a helpful lifetime hint. If there is a lesbian bar that serves food in your town, you should go there even if you're a guy who is not a lesbian for a dose of passive observational entertainment to the eleventies.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Darleen: every time I see the phrase "marriage equality" I want to giggle. It's like "pro-choice" as a euphemism for unrestricted abortion.

Gay people can get married, in churches, in all 50 states right now. The thing people who use the term "marriage equality" want is for these religious ceremonies to be given the same legal consequences and protections as other marriages. Hence the use of the word "equality".

virgil xenophon said...

Levi Starks @1112 puts the present state-of-play pretty much in a nutshell. I would go even further, however. The LGBT Stalinist leftists are not seeking mere "tolerance" nor even "condoning" homosexuality as "normal," (although they demand both) nay, their ultimate goal is to ensconce their lifestyle at the TOP of the sociocultural Totem-Pole as the morally and culturallysuperiorlifestyle--and the lifestyle and the politics that it engenders held to be not only to be above criticism, but to be actively promoted. As the old saying about social mores goes: "That which is not made illegal by the State will inevitability, eventually be actively promoted." (The latest evidence for conformation of this saying/belief is the fact of the DOD OFFICIALLY breaking their own rules about allowing active duty personnel to participate in political activities while in uniform by publishing official orders allowing uniformed gays/lesbians to march openly in "Gay Pride" parades--parades drenched in political overtones.)

Darleen said...

Quaestor

It's much more than redefining marriage out of existence. It's about getting any and all private institutions out of the way of The State, which in its glorious benevolence and run by self-less, fabulous and so much superior to the hoi polloi Leftists. As that wonderful little Life of Julia sideshow from the Obama campaign demonstrated, The Most Important Relationship you must have in your life, is not with your spouse, your children or with that icky bitter-clinger church/temple, let alone with some sky-residing myth, but with The State.

Early gay activist literature was quite open in this regard. Infiltrate marriage in order to destroy it.

Lem said...

Excellent post..

I look foward to a Best of the Web mention.. at the very least.

Nick Carter M. said...

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

The only problem with the gay community isn't so much that it is wrong - it is that they can not realize their behavior is an offense to God. I've done plenty of sinful things, but I repented and was born again. You won't be born again if you can not recognize what your faults are.

Nick Carter M. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darleen said...

Jason

There are polygamous commitment ceremonies, too. There is many the married man who then marries another woman - wedding dress, guests, alter and all.

Is it "inequality" that these marriages do not qualify to be included in the Gov supported institution?

I love my gay friends and family members dearly. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them against any discrimination based on their being gay instead of judging them on their skills, talent, principles or behavior. But it doesn't follow I must also pretend that men and women are fungible and that same-sex couples are as fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples as a man is different from a woman.

I've always supported civil unions or domestic partnerships. That allows for gay couples, or ANY other couple that doesn't qualify for marriage to make sure their legal affairs are in order without setting up an inevitable Constitutional conflict via the 1st amendment rights of churches and temples to opt out of solemnizing and celebrating these relationships as interchangeable with marriage.

Darleen said...

whoops typo!

and that same-sex couples are as fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples as a man is different from a woman

should be

because same-sex couples are as fundamentally different from opposite-sex couples as a man is different from a woman

Alex said...

Honestly I don't get the left-wing bigotry towards polygamy. Where do they get off on judging?

Nick Carter M. said...

Making out in public also grosses a lot of people out - really wasn't a good tactic. It's bad when it's a straight couple but when it's two bearded men...it really awakens the natural, visceral feelings of disgust.

Fen said...

I'm happy to live in a country where gay douchebags can gross out the public as a form of protest.

Enjoy it while it lasts, because there will be no singing and dancing under Sharia.

Fen said...

Hey Gay Activist PR peeps: you want to impress me? Speak truth to Islam. Hell, I'll even join you at the mosque to swap spit.

Revenant said...

Because you've already accepted that sex is for fun and love and doesn't have to be open to life.

Here's the obvious flaw in your reasoning:

Christianity has never been against non-procreative sex. If it had been, sex with pregnant women, sterile men, and post-menopausal women would have been classified as sinful. It never has been; Christians -- not being entirely devoid of common sense -- have always recognized that non-procreative sex has a vital role in strengthening loving relationships.

Chef Mojo said...

I'm willing to bet that the Chick-fil-a event on Wednesday marks the high water mark for Gay civil rights for this generation. Apres le deluge, comes the backlash.

The mayors of Chicago and Boston committed own goals that clearly set their causes back. Having turned this into an argument over the 1st Amendment, Traditionalists have seized the moral high ground, and from there, it's clear firing. To have fucked up this badly 100 days before an election when gay rights had been effectively neutralized is nothing short of disastrous for the gay rights crowd.

America is primed and ready for the latest in a series of historical Revivals. The last one was in the 70's & 80's with the Born Again phenomenon. The country is long overdue for it's latest Revival. That it is making its stand with chicken sandwiches is not absurd in the least.

Gay rights advocates made a good try at it for this generation, but this is about as far as they're gonna get. They've managed to piss off a lot of formerly ambivalent people who couldn't care one way or another. Now those people are paying attention and they're seeing it as a 1st Amendment issue. When it comes down to that, it's very easy to go with the chicken.

I say this as an atheist straight who has advocated gay marriage rights since at least 1981, when I was in college. In terms of tactics, I'm embarrassed by what I've seen gays do in the last couple of weeks, with wholesale condemnations of Christianity, forgetting that it was ofttimes those same Christians who quietly supported their cause.

To sum up, Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Menino have done more to set back the cause of gay civil liberties than all the bigots could have ever hoped for. Gays should ponder that, and figure out how to go on from here. It's gonna be a tough road to follow, and it's not going to happen in their lifetime. Time for the long game.

elkh1 said...

"If someone strikes you on the face, instead of striking back, turn the other cheek, an invitation to the assailant to strike you a second time."

To paraphrase our 21st century Dear Leader: Punch back twice as hard, or bring a gun when the other guy uses a knife.

Andy R. said...

I'm willing to bet that the Chick-fil-a event on Wednesday marks the high water mark for Gay civil rights for this generation. Apres le deluge, comes the backlash.

How much would you like to bet?

Alex said...

Andy is right - all recent polling data shows young people are 80% pro-gay. As the old farts die out, the overall population becomes more pro-gay.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Gay people can get married, in churches, in all 50 states right now. The thing people who use the term "marriage equality" want is for these religious ceremonies to be given the same legal consequences and protections as other marriages. Hence the use of the word "equality".

Then why bash Christians? Target politicians. Granted, it's going to be up to the voters, and some of them will never agree. But did it never occur to anyone that bashing the Fundies by condemning Christianity in general might turn off the nominally Christian but not especially religious?

Andy R. said...

As the old farts die out, the overall population becomes more pro-gay.

That's not a very nice thing to say about Jay and edutcher.

Alex said...

But Andy - remember one day you'll be an old fart and what goes around comes around.

shiloh said...

A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh ...

Apologies to Dooley Wilson.

Darleen said...

As the old farts die out, the overall population becomes more pro-gay.

Alex, many of us old farts are "pro-gay". Supporting the radical redefinition of marriage is separate.

It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Alex said...

Darleen - there is no intellectual honesty in saying you are pro-gay but anti-dignity for gays. For gays, official marriage is a requirement for dignity and you want to deny them that. You are a hater, no matter what you say.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Darleen: There are polygamous commitment ceremonies, too. There is many the married man who then marries another woman - wedding dress, guests, alter and all.

Is it "inequality" that these marriages do not qualify to be included in the Gov supported institution?


Yes!

PatCA said...

If they really wanted a love-in, they should have invited all straight people to lunch there and mixed and mingled with them.

But of course they don't, and they didn't. They want to "shock the bourgeoisie" because they despise them. That trope is now, what, 300 years stale?

cassandra lite said...

@Blogger Lem said...

"Excellent post..I look foward to a Best of the Web mention.. at the very least."

I agree. It was excellent and deserving, but Taranto's abroad, it appears, for a few weeks.

Chef Mojo said...

How much would you like to bet?

Assuming the predicted Revival happens, how much are you willing to bet?

You assume, hatboy, that history is "progressive."

Assume, for a moment, that it isn't. Given that, how much are you willing to bet on the good will of your fellow citizens?

Read my last in detail. I was arguing for gay marriage in 1981 or so. Were you even born then?

Can you even seriously argue that this wasn't a huge mistake on the part of gay rights activists?

Can you not conceive of the backlash?

And if you can, what the living fuck can you do about it? Where are your armies?

Jim S. said...

I think most people would be incapable of discriminating against gays on a personal level for the simple reason that most people can't identify a gay person from a straight person. Unless the gay person were making a spectacle of him/herself by kissing his/her same-sex partner in public.

Chef Mojo said...

I think most people would be incapable of discriminating against gays on a personal level for the simple reason that most people can't identify a gay person from a straight person.

Hypothetically speaking, how did the Nazis identify the Jews? Or homosexuals, for that matter? It's not a "personal" matter we're concerned with, here. I'm talking about societal backlash. How can you discount that?

I'm not saying that we're entering a dark age for gay rights, but what if we were?

Hatboy? Got some answers to that? Where are your armies?

jr565 said...

Jason the commenter wrote:
Is it "inequality" that these marriages do not qualify to be included in the Gov supported institution?

Yes!


Is it also true when it comes to bigamy, polyandry, harems, incestual marriages, underage marriages, marriages to pets and/or inanimate objects etc ad infinitum?

Would there be ANY form of coupling you could imagine where it would be right for the state to impose some form of restriction on the institution of marriage.
And woudn't that be "discrimination" and wouldn't that determination be an example of "inequality"?

Fen said...

Alex, many of us old farts are "pro-gay". Supporting the radical redefinition of marriage is separate.

Ah but even that will not be enough.

I'm reminded of an article re a European town that had just legalized gay marriage.

The first gay couple to be married sued the Justice of the Peace because they had a painting up of straight newlyweds that the gays found "offensive and hateful"

This is your reward for being "tolerant". You must adhere to the entire gay agenda or be sued, run out of business and hectored into a heart attack.

furious_a said...

Can you not conceive of the backlash?

...of what -- 'EEUUUWS'? Rolled eyes?

Reads like projection to me.

PatCA said...

Sorry, Alex, but "anti-dignity" is a made up, non-intellectual word as well. It's pretty close to a classic tautology.

If a million dollars is a requirement for gay dignity, and no one will give gay people a million dollars, are they haters too?

Jason (the commenter) said...

jr565: Would there be ANY form of coupling you could imagine where it would be right for the state to impose some form of restriction on the institution of marriage.

Many of the things you listed would involve non-consent based of one or more of the parties involved and would therefore be illegal anyway.

And let's say some guy wants to marry a tree. What would even be the point of legal recognition? There aren't any tax benefits, no inheritance rights, no children.

We don't base our gun laws on the possible actions of a crazy person, there's no reason to do so for our laws involving marriage.

jr565 said...

Jason wrote:
Many of the things you listed would involve non-consent based of one or more of the parties involved and would therefore be illegal anyway.

And let's say some guy wants to marry a tree. What would even be the point of legal recognition? There aren't any tax benefits, no inheritance rights, no children.

We don't base our gun laws on the possible actions of a crazy person, there's no reason to do so for our laws involving marriage.

How about the ones then that DO involve consent? Rather than dodge, discuss those.


And I'll note in France you can marry dead people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_marriage

and around the world people have married goats

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

and inanimate objects

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2010/03/love-thing-a-history-of-people-who-married-inanimate-objects

jr565 said...

So for example, bigamy. What's wrong with someone being involved in more than one marriage at a time. Why should that be a restriction?
Or what about a father marrying his son?
or how about child brides? or adults marrying kids? Do you set a line anywhere, or is all allowed?

jr565 said...

And this is not saying waht is done behind closed doors between say a father and his kids (even though I'm sure society would have something to say about such behavior there too, just ask Jerry Sandusky), but what society, in effect validates through lifting various restrictions on marriage.
And also, since I know you're going to go there - Children CAN consent to anything. There is nothing in a child that prevents them from saying "I consent". (unless they are mute, though even there hand gestures coudl suffice) The only thing preventing society's recognition of men marrying kids is that we refuse to do so. In other words, you shouldn't argue that there is a restriction becuase there is a restriction.
I thought you were in the camp that says there can be no restrictions. Would you acknowledge that we are discriminating against those under age who want to get married?And you're ok with that?

jr565 said...

One of the most famous examples of a man marrying a child is Mohammad, the primary prophet in the Islamic religion, a religion which is worshipped by billions of people.
He married Aisha, one of his wives, when she was 6, and consumated the marriage when she was 9 (i.e. around the time she started ovulating). Are you going to tell 2 billion people that their prophet is a child molester? Or, that they should be jailed because they happen to view when you should marry kids differently than you might or our society might?

For many, the idea that you COULND"T marry a kid is as prejudicial as you saying gays MUST be allowed to marry, and society can't discriminate.

And note even there the idea of when a child becomes an adult is largely a cultural one. Society COULD view children the way we do, or the way Mohammad does, or the way NAMBLA does.

jr565 said...

So if Darleen said:
Darleen: There are underage ceremonies, too. There a man can marry a child and consumate the marriage as soon as she ovulates (or in the case of a boy ejaculates)

Is it "inequality" that these marriages do not qualify to be included in the Gov supported institution?

Would your answer still be "Yes!"?

jr565 said...

And what is an age of consent anyway? Is that something fixed, or is it an arbitrary designation. We could argue "16 will get you 20" (i.e. if you have sex with a 16 year old you can go to jail for 20 years) , but it could just as eaisly be 14 will get you 20, right? Or 20 will get you 15. Totally arbitrary. Same with the voting age. Do you think that 17 year olds are incapable of voting? THey go to the voting booth and can't figure out how to vote for their candidate? NO, WE DECIDE THAT, and in effect tell people what they can or can't do. Do you have a problem with setting an age restriction at all?
Because if you don't then you HAVE to recognize that those under the age requirement are being discriminated against, and not necessarily because they are incapable of doing things, but simply because we set a restriction somewhere that determines proper behavior.
Is 18 the proper voting age? Many could argue that it should be 14, some argue that it should be 21. But whatever the limit is set to, it means that society can set the standard.
If you want to argue that there should be no standard, then if I said, "You mean you think 3 year olds should be able to vote?" you'd have to answer in the affirmative. No restriction means no restriction. But if you set any restriction, it would mean that you are discriminating against people, and creating an inequality.
So too with marriage.

leslyn said...

Well aren't we pissed off because we're not included and no one asked our opinion first.

Quaestor said...

askewhatgut wrote:
How much would you like to bet?

Don't bet the farm, hatboy. This is about to go mega-viral. Too, bad about the movement. Died of crib death, evidently.

I wouldn't envy anyone trying to defend this butt-fucked barbarian. Tell me he isn't representative of his ilk... come on, make your case.

cassandra lite said...

@Blogger jr565 said...

"One of the most famous examples of a man marrying a child is Mohammad...married Aisha, one of his wives, when she was 6, and consumated the marriage when she was 9 (i.e. around the time she started ovulating)."

Sorry, but average age of menarche until the beginning of 20th century was about 17/18. Not 9 1300 years ago. Even with our nutrition, few American girls ovulate at that age.

(Menarche proof: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/06/good-news-and-bad-news-about-breast-cancer/7788/))

AndyN said...

The only thing preventing society's recognition of men marrying kids is that we refuse to do so.

In a few states boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can marry with parental consent. To the extent that people are even aware of that, most people already think it's creepy. Want to see social conservative really lose their shit? Point out the fact that if we ever do get full marriage equality, parents would be able to marry off their 14-year-old sons to grown men. Then try to get a rational explanation as to why that will be worse than parents marrying off their 12-year-old girls to grown men.

As my whimsy leads me.. said...

Oh, my goodness! I've got my own tag! You've made my day, Althouse!

(Does this mean you're going to be expecting more of me now?)

Toy

wildswan said...

Suppose that the partners in every gay marriage agreed to support a poor family, spending just the same amount of money and time that the average parent spends - 200,000 dollars by the time the kid is eighteen plus two hours on weekdays and twelve hours on weekends - on that poor family. And divorce did not remove the financial obligation. Then I would say that the state should work to hold gay marriage together. But when gay "marriage" is just people saying they are entitled to family rights without family obligations, then I think the state should stay out of the relationship because that relationship is just a friendship.

DADvocate said...

Well aren't we pissed off because we're not included and no one asked our opinion first.

You're pissed off because no one asked your opinion? If we want your opinion, we'll give it to you.

Jason (the commenter) said...

As I said already:

We don't base our gun laws on the possible actions of a crazy person, there's no reason to do so for our laws involving marriage.

We let people buy weapons they can use to kill dozens of their fellow citizens, and our society thrives. It can certainly stand a few extra people having a piece of paper.

Jason (the commenter) said...

wildswan: But when gay "marriage" is just people saying they are entitled to family rights without family obligations...

Gay people raise children. How do you not know this?

Andy R. said...

Don't bet the farm, hatboy. This is about to go mega-viral. Too, bad about the movement. Died of crib death, evidently.

You're so cute.

jr565 said...

AndyN wrote:
In a few states boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 can marry with parental consent. To the extent that people are even aware of that, most people already think it's creepy. Want to see social conservative really lose their shit? Point out the fact that if we ever do get full marriage equality, parents would be able to marry off their 14-year-old sons to grown men. Then try to get a rational explanation as to why that will be worse than parents marrying off their 12-year-old girls to grown men.

well, whether it's creepy or not to allow 14 year olds to marry adults (with parental consent) is not exactly the point. There is in fact an age restriction in place, meaning those under the age requirement are necessarily discriminated against. would those saying there should be no restrictions say that those age requirements are discrimatory and bigoted. Would Andy for example make a comparison between banning of interracial marriage and banning of marriage for kids under 14? Why not?

jr565 said...

Cassandra lite wrote:
Sorry, but average age of menarche until the beginning of 20th century was about 17/18. Not 9 1300 years ago. Even with our nutrition, few American girls ovulate at that age.

women generally start ovulating at the age of 12 or so. Maybe Aisha started ovulating earlier than usual, or maybe Mohammad decided he couldn't wait till she started ovulating to do the deed. In any case, it doesn't matter. As already mentioned, in some states kids can marry before 16 sometimes as early as 12-14. But why stop there? Why not 11 or 10? Maybe we should take Palladians view and say that society should not restrict marriage in any way and thus remove even those restrictions and allow people like Mohammad to marry 7 year olds?

PatHMV said...

It should be remembered that for the most part, the sit-ins were carefully orchestrated by leaders of the black community. There was a coherent, crafted image they sought to (and did!) portray. It was not just a bunch of folks sharing a twitter message thinking "hey, that'd be so kewl!

Few, if any, protests in the past few decades have been so well thought-out or carefully crafted.

Palladian said...

Maybe we should take Palladians view and say that society should not restrict marriage in any way and thus remove even those restrictions and allow people like Mohammad to marry 7 year olds?

Do not misrepresent my opinion. I have always held that government has no business regulating civil marriage. I haven't expressed an opinion on what is best for society. I know it's difficult for statists on the right and left to comprehend, but government is not the same as society.

Removing government's role in civil marriage would not affect its role in enforcing a legislated age of sexual consent; those laws are in place to protect the natural rights of minors. Civil marriage laws, as they are enforced by the State have nothing to do with protecting natural rights.

TMink said...

"If someone strikes you on the face, instead of striking back, turn the other cheek, an invitation to the assailant to strike you a second time. That's how much love Jesus expects from you. That's a demonstration of love to the onlooker, who receives the message, the kind of demonstration that was made — to brilliant effect — in the civil rights era."

Exactly!

Well written, and perfectly understood.

Trey

jr565 said...

Palladian wrote:
Do not misrepresent my opinion. I have always held that government has no business regulating civil marriage. I haven't expressed an opinion on what is best for society. I know it's difficult for statists on the right and left to comprehend, but government is not the same as society.

Removing government's role in civil marriage would not affect its role in enforcing a legislated age of sexual consent; those laws are in place to protect the natural rights of minors. Civil marriage laws, as they are enforced by the State have nothing to do with protecting natural rights.

the natural right of minors is legislated into a legal framework, based largely on cultural decisions and enacted through statute, and then enforced by law. But how those laws are written determine the protections afforded a child. And its different around the world. All laws as their basis protect natural rights, but they become legal rights once enforced by law. Marriage is a civil institution, not a natural right. If you get divorced, you have legal rights, and are often required to battle with your spouse over assets. How then would you not expect a marriage to be regulated by govt or civil society?
Civil society and govt have EVERY reason to regulate marriage and determine what it means.

Methadras said...

If someone strikes you on the face, instead of striking back, turn the other cheek, an invitation to the assailant to strike you a second time.

And Jesus never told you what to do if they do strike you on the other cheek. I know what to do to not invite a first strike to begin with.

jr565 said...

And Jesus never told you what to do if they do strike you on the other cheek. I know what to do to not invite a first strike to begin with.


If they strike you on the other cheek and are still in your face, that's when you pull out the can of whoop ass and beat them within an inch of their lives.
Or, alternatively, you enact the scene from Chinatown where you keep giving your cheek to be slapped. "She's my sister" SLAP "she's my daughter" SLAP "she's my sister" SLAP "She's my daughter" SLAP "SHe's my sister AND my daughter!"

jr565 said...

Palladian wrote:
Removing government's role in civil marriage would not affect its role in enforcing a legislated age of sexual consent; those laws are in place to protect the natural rights of minors. Civil marriage laws, as they are enforced by the State have nothing to do with protecting natural rights.

Sure they do. There is a restriction against children marrying because we've determined as a society that children can't get married until a certain age. The restriction to marriage refers to those laws, and are similarly enforced by the state, and as such do protect natural rights. Only, those natural rights are societies interpretation of those rights. The age of consent or the age where one can marry could just as easily be set to 9 or 18.
If you think that society can protect children based on their natural rights, it means that society has to step in and regulate their activity. SO where is that cutoff point and who determines that, other than society ? And wont it make it's way into any rules we have that determine who can or can't get married?
However, if you are someone who falls below the age requirement to get married, but feel you are capable of getitng married, are you not necessarily being discriminated against, based on the social considerations enacted by the state? How are they necessarily right that the age requirement HAS to be whatever it's set to. Does a kid who is 13 1/2 somehow not have the capacity physically to make a decision that they are ready for marriage, but a 14 year old somehow does? (in states where you are allowed to marry at 14). The cutoff point is not based on the actual capacity of the child to make decisions for themselves. WE, the society make such decisions for them based on our own cultural perogatives.And society makes those kinds of decisions all the time.
Do you think 17 year olds somehow can't pull a lever in a voting booth? Is a 20 year old incapable of drinking a beer? IF there, why not marriage?

Now, you can be in whatever relationship you want individually. If you want to live in a polygamous relationship you can do so. But why should you get a license from the govt to do so?

As Joni Mitchell said "We don't need a paper from the city hall keeping us tried and true". And you don't. There the govt shouldn't regulate your behavior since its private (providing of course that you are not breaking the law when engaging in your particular brand of love. But if you are petititioning City hall for a marriage certificate, what's wrong with them saying if you want to get married and have that marriage legaly recognized you have to do x,y,and z, or have to meet these requirements?