Of course, same-sex marriage started out as a conservative idea, and lefties resisted. That was back in the day when marriage was patriarchy and oppression.
Here's a prediction: Once gay marriage becomes the norm, the left can get back to critiquing marriage. That topic got backburnered.
ADDED: Recommendation: Conservatives should get on the side of same-sex marriage now, make it part of what is traditional, and embrace the "marriage" ideal generally (and for all) going forward. The left will go off in another direction, and good old marriage will be yours once again.
AND: If you don't remember when lefties called it right-wing to support gay marriage and gays in the military, read "Richard Goldstein’s Heresy Hunt," and article from 2001, referring to a Village Voice writer who despised that notorious right-winger, Andrew Sullivan::
... Goldstein decried the so-called "gay right" because he says that they bring the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military to the forefront, making them more prominent, while they should be arguing for an end to workplace, housing and public accommodation discrimination. "They believe in civil equality, not equal opportunity," he said....And watch "The Great Gay Debate" from 2002, with Andrew Sullivan, attacked from the left, at his fiery best. Conservatives missed a great opportunity a decade ago.
... Goldstein said we should revile the gay right because they are "a masculinist group of gay writers." They are men and women who worship and aspire to traditional masculinity and "cannot see beyond their privilege." He then equated masculinism with marriage-and-military advocates: "In times of war, masculinist values come to the forefront and feminist values recede.... If these people prevail.... the masculinist version of homosexuality will come to dominate the movement. ... It is the most dangerous thing we face today, I believe."
Posts
145 comments:
The inevitable Republican compromise with their principles after losing an election.
It's rather obscene for a Republican to criticize single moms while she has nothing to say about abortion.
Do Republicans sign a pledge that they will say nothing pro-life while on Pravda media? Are you pro-abortion, Mary Matalin, or just a moron? How is it that you manage to criticize one choice, while you manage to say nothing at all about the silent and far uglier choice?
And followed by the inevitable push from the left for even more.
Gay marriage will be the norm except for rural America. Judgemental looks work better in a confined space.
Preachers can generate lots of donations with a wink and a nod, or just outright accusations of blasphemy.
The left can decry these folks while also reverting to the general critique of marriage, a Twofer.
My staff assistant has a cousin that is a snake handler near the West Virginia border. He'll be doing very well after next June.
BTW, the snakes need sunlight once in a while, he 'walks' them in the park.
Belmont Club has a really interesting post as to what's going on in Sweden.
...The Daily Telegraph explains how it works. “The tough approach taken by Mr van der Laan appears to jar with Amsterdam’s famous tolerance for prostitution and soft drugs but reflects hardening attitudes to routine anti-social behaviour that falls short of criminality.”
There are already several small-scale trial projects in the Netherlands, including in Amsterdam, where 10 shipping container homes have been set aside for persistent offenders, living under 24-hour supervision from social workers and police.
Under the new policy, from January next year, victims will no longer have to move to escape their tormentors, who will be moved to the new units.
A team of district “harassment directors” have already been appointed to spot signals of problems and to gather reports of nuisance tenants.
Of course City Hall’s powers will be used only in the most necessary cases. UPI reports: “A City Hall team has already begun identifying the worst offenders, The Irish Times reported … The new rules will be enforced only in extreme cases, such as for violence against gay people or intimidating police witnesses, officials said....”
And the Professor recently linked to the perfect containers.....
Why is it that the same people who like gay marriage also like abortion? And why is it they are never libertarian on any other subject?
Why is it that Obama made birth control such a fundamental issue in the 2012 campaign, when that's not an issue at all?
I think the left has a subliminal hostility to human reproduction. It's either feminist (having babies denies young women career opportunities) or it's environmentalist (people are polluting the earth) or it's stupid liberal economics based on scarcity (more people means more unemployment and food shortages).
So when childless Mary Matalin says that homosexual marriage is good, and single moms are bad, I think it's fair to comment on her lack of children, and how that anti-child bias pervades and corrupts the feminist mind.
ahhh, she has children.
never mind.
Amsterdam is in Sweden?
You learn something new every day.
I hope the outcome proves to be what you expect and hope for, Althouse.
The scorched earth tactics used to achieve this, i.e., the constant attempt to link opposition to gay marriage as akin to supporting Jim Crow and slavery, do not encourage me to believe that this will happen.
The phony martyrdom campaign that the left used to win this battle does not leave me with the same feelings of hope you obviously have, Althouse. The great martyrdom of the gays never happened in the U.S. That shit was lie after lie after lie.
The worst of these lies has been the savage attempt to dump the catastrophe of the AIDS epidemic at the feet of hetero men, as exemplified in vicious martyrdom propaganda flicks like "Brokeback Mountain" and "The Band Played On." That propaganda effort has succeeded in somehow convincing the public that gay men died in droves at the hands of roving hordes of homophobes, instead of as a result of their own actions.
I don't have an opinion on gay marriage. I try not to have opinions on issues that don't really affect me personally.
The way this campaign was conducted did affect me. This campaign was built on a false and vicious martyrdom story, with hetero men falsely portrayed as the villains. I'm hard pressed to see something good coming out of that, but life is full of surprises.
I wish that conservatives had gotten behind this earlier. As AA implies, marriage is great for social conservativism. A society with a high marriage rate is a society of stability, low crime, higher health, higher wealth and lower dependancy; it is a society we want to build. Let liberals be the anti-social stabilty party, the party of non-families and death by abortion and the crimes that come from instability.
Of course, same-sex marriage started out as a conservative idea, and lefties resisted.
I must have missed that?
"Why is it that the same people who like gay marriage also like abortion?"
You don't have to "like" it. You just have to believe in individual autonomy over the personal, intimate part of life.
"And why is it they are never libertarian on any other subject?"
They see the commercial sphere as different from private life. For example, it's okay to discriminate racially in who you date or invite to your dinner parties, but not in deciding who to hire to work in your business or who can sit in your restaurant.
Is that really so hard to get your mind around?
So, my question for you, Althouse is...
Do the means justify the ends?
Feminism was also build on a phony martyrdom story. You posts lead me to believe that you have some regrets over that.
I'm an artist. I understand the propaganda technique of creating these stark stories of martyrs suffering at the hands of the murderous, hateful hetero men. Boiling complex issues down to simple tear jerker soap operas is very effective propaganda technique.
Being on the receiving end of that vicious pack of lies hasn't been a pleasant experience, Althouse.
"I must have missed that?"
Were you an adult in the 1980s? Are you aware of the early career of Andrew Sullivan, when gay rights activists excoriated him?
Look it up! This history has gotten stuffed down the memory hole. That's what lefties do with the things that embarrass them. Which is a lot.
"Feminism was also build on a phony martyrdom story. You posts lead me to believe that you have some regrets over that."
I bought into the feminist critique of marriage -- marriage as oppression, a plot by the oppressors to subjugate women.
It's a complex subject, the use of marriage.
Gay people wanting in on it upgraded its image. You social conservatives ought to thank them. Women backed off the critique, in the interest of gay rights. It was a very funny phenomenon, and I have been watching it since the beginning of the women's movement, so I'm able to use my own memory to keep grounded amidst all these revisions. Young people have no awareness of the real story.
Let me guess. She's a RINO.
You social conservatives ought to thank them.
Oddly, I don't see myself as a "social conservative," Althouse.
You know a lot about my life. I challenge you to square that with that title.
I see myself as a realist. I started out, fresh out of college, as a PC idealist.
The push for same-sex marriage came from outside the traditional LGBT activist organizations. Groups like HRC were very late in announcing their support for same-sex marriage efforts.
Oh sure. I can see that. We can bring back prosecutions for sodomy but only if you're *unmarried*.
That would be an awesome conservative compromise. Any takers?
I do agree, though, that the history of Andrew Sullivan on this, and the reaction to him, is fascinating to remember. It's like a light switch was turned on in -- I'm guessing 1990? -- and suddenly the Gay Rights people switched to wanting marriage vs. lambasting Sullivan for wanting marriage. It seems to me that once the HIV/AIDS monster was somewhat tamed, suddenly energy could be put towards something else, and that was getting marriage rights. (I think some of the blowback against Sullivan was blowback for not being 100% anti-AIDS/pro AIDS research 100% of the time).
It's rather like the end of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, a long-time foe is gone, and your energy can be turned elsewhere.
Yep, RINO bitch boinking James Carville.
One gay conservative represents all conservatives? Ok.
Andrew Sullivan was openly appreciative of the efforts of the pharmaceutical companies when that wasn't cool. I remember this clearly as I was leading the commercial start-up of an anti-HIV agent at the time. The activists were all whine, whine, whine, bitch, bitch, bitch, why can't you do it faster, why does it have to be expensive.
garage mahal said...
One gay conservative represents all conservatives? Ok.
Perhaps Sullivan is Althouse's notion of what a "true conservative" should be?
Curious about how the more recent push for more promiscuity from certain gay marriage advocates affects Althouse's views.
Madison Man, I don't think it was as early as 1990. The Hawaii court decision happened in 1993. Through the 1990s, and even into the early 200s, there were plenty of gay rights activists who thought that the push for marriage was misguided.
@Peter, yeah, my timeline probably isn't right. I blame my kids for destroying my previously pretty okay memory :)
On my blog I finished a post on this topic thus:
"Christians did not fail to make the case against same sex marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage".
But what are the mmores for same sex marriage? I think it is critical that fidelity be a commitment in a same sex marriage for it to be "equal" to a heterosexual marriage. I know that lesbians will commit to monogamy and fidelity but what about gay men? If gay men can't commit to monogamy and fidelity then their unions should be something other than marriage.
AA said (regarding the idea that SSM was first a conservative idea): Were you an adult in the 1980s? Are you aware of the early career of Andrew Sullivan, when gay rights activists excoriated him?
Look it up! This history has gotten stuffed down the memory hole. That's what lefties do with the things that embarrass them.
I was not an adult in the 80's or in any way aware of this sort of thing at the time - I would be very interested to read more about this idea. Does anyone have any good sources? I know that the professor rarely goes historical on us, but I'm sure that she could write a very interesting post on it.
Carrie, what would it take for gay marriages to be equal to straight ones? How about a 40 to 40 percent failure rate?
I saw lefty lawprofs argue intensely and seriously that there should be a way for the majority of gay people to prevent the minority from litigating in pursuit of marriage rights -- a procedural mechanism that would allow liberals to prevent conservatives from changing the agenda. It was viewed as a big problem that deserved legal repression by some weird new procedure preventing individuals from suing for their own rights, so that the left could exclude the marriage rights issue from going forward. This was very real. I was there and I heard it.
"I was not an adult in the 80's or in any way aware of this sort of thing at the time - I would be very interested to read more about this idea. Does anyone have any good sources? I know that the professor rarely goes historical on us, but I'm sure that she could write a very interesting post on it."
My resource here is my own memory. I don't have time right now, but I'll look up some of the inconvenient material that I'm talking about.
Also there is some great video on YouTube with Andrew Sullivan defending himself against lefty gay rights people. I've linked to it before.
I'll try again later.
Sullivan's original book on the subject "Virtually Normal" was hated by gay rights people who thought that gay people belonged to the left.
What a shame that conservatives didn't see the good in all this at the time!
As I've said, this is an insurance dodge in response to AIDS.
And justifying this on the strength of polls or, particularly, the "election results" is really a dumb (to quote somebody) idea.
The Lefties want to destroy marriage because, if you destroy family, faith, and community, all people have left to lean on is government.
PS Right about being married to the Ragin' Cajun.
PPS It struck me Ann is more Libertarian than Liberal on these issues.
A Liberal wants it either because he wants government funding or sanction for something he does or because he wants to curry support from a particular group.
A Libertarian is more theoretical about it, "I don't do it, but I might want to someday".
Professor, was this argued primarily among law professors, or was it in any way a topic of interest to the general public?
Were there topics of interest to the general public like this? I feel as if I have completely forgotten what it was like to live in a world without blogs and the internet, much less a world without cable news and talk radio. Letters to newspaper editors, perhaps?
Yep...keep moving left GOP.
What a shame that conservatives didn't see the good in all this at the time!
Given that, at the time, a not insignificant portion of the Conservative Movement had very recently been calling AIDS Divine Retribution, it's not surprising that the entire Conservative Movement was unable to pivot on this topic. It would have served them well in the long run, but short-term myopia is a problem everywhere.
To a certain degree, it's too late. Marriage has already been redefined from "an institution for raising children" to "a means of declaring love, getting social recognition, and collecting government benefits where applicable." Now gay men are redefining it further -- at least, I've read multiple times that "married" gay men are pretty open that they don't practice sexual exclusivity.
Side note: is anyone else troubled by the big giant marriage penalty in the $200K single/$250K tax rate? Bet there'll be some upper middle class gay-married people who will be pretty happy to file their federal taxes as singletons.
While language does change over time, the relationship two people of the same sex may form, it's not marriage. Marriage is the relationship between two people of the opposite sex.
In this argument, many conservatives aren't saying that homosexuals can't have protection and benefits bestowed on heterosexuals, though some of the benefits were established to encourage procreation, the term marriage has already been taken.
A big problem is based on the homosexual communities own surveys that reveal marriage means different to gays, specifically monogamy. While straight couples often violate that moral principle, there is the expectation in marriage of fidelity. And there is still a general societal disapproval of adultery.
Lyssa, Andrew Sullivan wrote a cover story for The New Republic in 1989, subtitled A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.
Here is an early interview on Charlie Rose from 1995. It's not playing on the computer I'm using right now, so I can't preview it.
Sullivan has written about the hate mail he received (from the left) about his advocacy of marriage rights. And for a while in the mid 2000s -- perhaps as recently as 2009 -- Sullivan was in a feud with the leadership of the Human Rights Campaign over their unwillingness to advocate for marriage.
In 2001, in preparation for a discussion forum at my church, I met with an activist who was working on changing our denomination's stance on ordination. I mentioned that I thought that marriage rights were a more important issue than ordination rights, and she seemed genuinely shocked by that.
The push for marriage rights, it was thought, was sure to fail, and would doom efforts to secure more basic rights, like ENDA, hate speech legislation, etc.
If you're not aware of it, Sullivan has a record of being against hate speech legislation.
In my denomination, the push for marriage came from young men and women who grew up in the church, most of whom were children of pastors.
I've never been against it.
machine said...
Yep...keep moving left GOP.
No, RINOs being RINOs is all.
MadisonMan said...
What a shame that conservatives didn't see the good in all this at the time!
Given that, at the time, a not insignificant portion of the Conservative Movement had very recently been calling AIDS Divine Retribution
Which portion, dare we ask?
Given that, at the time, a not insignificant portion of the Conservative Movement had very recently been calling AIDS Divine Retribution.
The biblical injunctions against anal sex are clearly a form of folk wisdom about public health based on experience.
Gay male bowel syndrome has clearly been understood to exist, even in ancient times, although nobody had a name for it.
And, I neglected to mention...
Note again the attempt to dump the blame for the AIDS epidemic on everything but the behavior of gay men.
That's been the propaganda offensive.
Ahhhh, I see that this game has now started.
"We weren't on the wrong side of freedom and history. It was the liberals and Democrats!"
It reminds me of how conservatives like to say that the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. Never mind that most of the pro-segregation Democrats-like Strom Thurmond-quite the Democrats and became Republicans (heck the whole white south quite the Dems to become Republicans) and the Democratic Party provided the leadership and the majority of the votes to end it.
In the case of gay equality it has been even more one sided. The Democrats have been the party that has fought for equality while the Republicans overwhelmingly opposed and used it as an election issue against Dems.
Now that there has been a generational/cultural shift conservatives want to disown their past. And Ann Althouse is more than happy to help them while giving no credit to the Democrats for being on the right side of freedom and, yes, history.
It is telling that Ann's Althouse Hillbillies devolve in to ranting about gay men and AIDS when confronted with the topic of equality for gays and lesbians. How embarrassing for Ann.
Jay, there are no "sides" in history.
You're a moron.
So, Jay, are you suggesting that the AIDS epidemic never happened?
I was in the middle of that holocaust.
You are really a complete moron.
Shouting Thomas,
Go obsess about "gay male bowel syndrome."
You're a goof.
You are a gloriously stupid fuck, Jay.
You have to work at it to be that stupid.
You just have to believe in individual autonomy.
That argument works for you, not so much for Mary Matalin, who is ranting about single moms. I see her as wanting to restrain human sexuality. She's not thinking like a libertarian.
So, what's your game, Jay?
Flush it all down the memory hole so that everybody forgets and it happens all over again?
Seems to me that it might be kinda important to remember how one thing led to another.
Might even save tens of thousands of gay men's lives in the future.
As I said, you are a monstrously stupid fuck.
P.s., I rare read this blog anymore because of Ann's weird obsessive need to cultivate the goofiest of right wing commenters. Where have the more rational conservative ones gone? They have all left. But Ann throws even more red meat to her Hillbillies because of her weird need for adoration from these simpletons.
Yes, it's true if you want to get the left to leave something decent alone, you need to destroy it first. It's like burning down your own city as the Mongol hordes approach. They search out, rape and destroy every thing of beauty or substance.
Shouting Thomas,
The "AIDS Epidemic" happened twenty five years ago. The people who were in the middle of it-including hetros like Magic Johnson- are now in their 60s.
Your and other Althouse Hillbillies need to constantly change the topic to it should tell anyone what they need to know about your motives.
Jay Retread said...
Ahhhh, I see that this game has now started.
"We weren't on the wrong side of freedom and history. It was the liberals and Democrats!"
It reminds me of how conservatives like to say that the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. Never mind that most of the pro-segregation Democrats-like Strom Thurmond-quite the Democrats and became Republicans (heck the whole white south quite the Dems to become Republicans) and the Democratic Party provided the leadership and the majority of the votes to end it.
Only after a Civil War and a century of Democrat oppression.
And only because there were more Demos than Republicans in Congress at the time.
Proportions, dear, it's the proportions that matter.
In the case of gay equality it has been even more one sided. The Democrats have been the party that has fought for equality while the Republicans overwhelmingly opposed and used it as an election issue against Dems.
Really?
Care to give a few examples?
It's always been the other way.
Gay marriage is a cultural appendix to the AIDS epidemic. Gay got very worried about the role of promiscuity in the spread of the epidemic. Since promiscuity is a major part of the "gay life style," this was a problem. Closing the bathhouses wasn't enough.
That's when the advocates of gay marriage appeared. Lesbian marriage is a different phenomenon since that is part of the female instinct of nest building. Lesbians are promiscuous but not like men.
When gay marriage is legal everywhere and when the gays have done their victory dance on the grave of the Christian religion Islam is too scary), the interest will start to wane. Part of that is the discovery of the drugs that hold the virus in check.
Fifty years from now, gay marriage,except for lesbians, will be a quaint memory of the fin de siecle.
Denial of the AIDS epidemic is particularly important to morons like Jay because the AIDS epidemic was caused by the behavior of gay men.
Which means that the purported "stereotype" of gay men was not so far off base.
In other words, Jay, is not only a moron, he's a deliberate and vicious liar.
It didn't work for Republicans in Massachusetts.
The nation is heading for a one party state, like Massachusetts.
I vote for the conservative Democrat over a liberal Republican, because they will fund fatherhood programs.
The type of marriage policy I support, just will come through the backdoor under a different name. I guess.
There is nothing libertarian about the state deciding if your relationship is valid or not. If they can give it, they can take it away.
> Never mind that most of the pro-segregation Democrats-like Strom Thurmond-quite the Democrats and became Republicans
Not at all. A few changed parties, but the vast majority were Dems in good standing until they retired.
> heck the whole white south quite the Dems to become Republicans
Not at all. The Repubs didn't start to make significant inroads in the South until the mid-70s, which was more than a decade later. That movement didn't take off until the 80s.
By then, the Dems had moved onto another form of Jim Crow.
Progressives can't help themselves - eugenics is in their DNA.
If we don't fight back, they win.
> Democratic Party provided ... the majority of the votes to end it.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Yes, but the Republicans went 80%, the Demos went only about 2/3.
More Republican support than Democrat. And we all know, except for 52 - 54, the Demos ran Congress, 32 - 80.
Just shows that "conservative pundits" aren't really that conservative.
As I said, the Democrats provided the majority of the votes to break segregation.
The Democrats who voted against it were conservative Democrats, mostly from the south. The Republicans who voted for it were liberal Republicans mostly from the Rockefeller wing of the party. The conservative Goldwater wing of the the party voted against.
Which portion, dare we ask?
Those who enjoy taking money from Conservative religious folks. For example, Revs Falwell & Buchanan.
Do religious conservatives have money?
Many loyal Democrat voters aren't that liberal either.
Lyssa: I wish that conservatives had gotten behind this earlier. As AA implies, marriage is great for social conservativism. A society with a high marriage rate is a society of stability, low crime, higher health, higher wealth and lower dependancy; it is a society we want to build.
Where is the push for gay marriage correlated with any trend toward reinstitution of "conservative family values"? Overall higher marriage rates? Declining illegitimacy or divorce rates?
So it's "conservative" to be on board with polygamy now? Many highly "socially conservative" societies are polygamous, after all. Is Althouse now going to advise conservatives that it would be "a shame" if they don't see the good in supporting polygamy, while the lefties are still arguing amongst themselves about it?
The benefits of "stability", wealth accumulation, etc. may accrue to some individual members of a very small subgroup of the population, but in society as a whole the orchestrated pushing of gay marriage as the Most Important Civilizational Issue of Our Time and All Times is inversely correlated with any societal restoration of conservative mores. On the contrary, the only societal side-effect I see flowing from this righteous crusade is the efflorescence of ever-crazier and more marginal "issues" (Cis privilege! LGBTXYZABCQWERTY!), that signify nothing but a trivialized and infantilized society that no longer has any culture to "conserve". Sorry, but no matter what you think of "gay marriage" as an abstract right, it's delusional to imagine that it is in any way a concomitant of some sort of "conservative" revival.
Andrew Sullivan's advocating marriage for gays in the eighties isn't interesting in retrospect because it demonstrates something about how the conservatives lost an opportunity to "own" an issue. It's interesting because it demonstrates how dishonest the "we just want to be accepted as the perfectly normal conventional people that we really are" arguments were in the first place. As soon as Andy got what he wanted, he started demanding that the tradition, which he so sincerely wanted to participate in, be re-defined to suit gays - who were all of a sudden no longer "virtually normal", but different (and better, too).
(Nothing unusual about lefties moving the goalposts like that. Nothing unusual, either, about American "conservatives" just being liberals with delayed memo-receipt capacity.)
Do religious conservatives have money?
Not after giving it all to Falwell.
(It took me 3 minutes to remember Jim Bakker's name. Did he take more money than Falwell did?)
Althouse again, foolishly trying to revise documented history much like her lover boy Willard during the campaign. And it's working out well for both lol.
In her never ending quest to appease her con flock ...
"Why is it that the same people who like gay marriage also like abortion?"
Both are against Biblical teaching. Birds of a feather you know.
Trey
Gays don't know what they are getting into: overnight in there will be a lot of Obama millionaires, a couple earning $250,000, paying Obama's millionaire taxes. They should just settle for civil unions with perks not taxes.
Shouting Thomas, my aunt had a wonderful saying that I often recall, and you should at present: Don't wrestle with a pig; you will just get dirty and the pig actually enjoys it.
Trey
MadisonMan,
True I give my money to Catholic Charities and other local non-profits, instead to a begging politician.
Senator-Elect Warren (D-Mass) is 400k in campaign debt.
Except, Althouse, that this not just a private matter between two individuals. If all we were arguing about was what two private individuals want to do with each other, there would be no arguing. If they wanted to "be married," they'd find someone to rent them a hall, have a big ceremony and reception, and call themselves married. Fine.
But you are certainly aware that however much the left (and libertarians) likes to frame this as a personal autonomy issue, that isn't all it is. It's a social issue (marriage may well be a conservative institution, but further decoupling marriage from procreation is not conservative and not likely to have positive effects. That ship has probably already sailed a long time ago, and it's impossible to say how much gay marriage might affect that, but so far, it hasn't been good).
Anyway. I know you're for gay marriage, and I'm basically indifferent to it, but it's extremely disingenuous to pretend that this is just about private autonomy. This is about getting recognition from the state for what you want to do, through force if necessary, and that is about the furthest thing from private autonomy that I can think of.
Oh, I did want to add, that I remember the same history you do about gay marriage. Gay leftists were strongly opposed to it pretty much the whole time I was in college (1993-2000). The standard line was something about how queers were totally going to overthrow the boring and repressive heterosexual norms, like monogamy and "breeding". Queerness was transgressive and radical. Dorothy Allison, among others, wrote quite a bit about this at the time.
Now, of course, gays are just boring and normal, too, and anyone who still thinks that they are transgressive is a homophobic bigot and a totally disgusting human being. Except for the monogamy thing--at least, last time I could stomach a Dan Savage column, he was still advocating for the overthrow of that boring and repressive heterosexual norm. Is he still?
Shouting Thomas, my aunt had a wonderful saying that I often recall, and you should at present: Don't wrestle with a pig; you will just get dirty and the pig actually enjoys it.
A common saying in my home town, too.
A good reminder.
Homosexuality is an abomination. That hasn't changed just because homosexuality is presently hip. It takes a constant non-stop 24/7 full court press of misrepresentation propaganda to quell the queasiness that all normal people feel when exposed to actual homosexual practice. But go ahead, yuk it up until the utterly depraved United States of Homosexuality utterly collapses. Then the rebuilding by normals will commence.
I remember reading Sullivan a while ago about this, and then reading Martha Nussbaum's arguments for turning away from disgust and shame and the body.
I don't see how gays become included in civil society without trying to either abolish, or push aside religious belief, and its influence in the laws as Nussbaum suggests and growing something else in its place. The goal for thoughtful gays and lesbians is to win by logic and argument. Others aim to win pieces of the public mind and square, and influence the culture, often where logic fails. Beneath them are a lot of people not behaving very well at all and strange political bedfellows.
The progressives of course, have a box for gays just like they do for black folks, and their solutions cut both ways (which should cause every gay person to think about that power and who wields it) and penalize everyone else's liberty in the process.
I don't see a Nussbaumian solution without a kind of secular sainthood with some Aristotle thrown in, and this can generally lead to a growth of the liberal State, the technocrats, the bureaucracy, and rounding up the extreme liberals and illiberals of free society under positive definitions of justice and more of the same.
As a social middle-of-the-road type, and a fiscal conservative, I don't see how this pans out that well in preserving economic and political liberty at the moment.
More change, change, change.
And a reasonable Burkean conservative would say: I do have a stake in what everyone else is doing, to an extent.
I'm skeptical of what this inclusion means for the importance of marriage, of the moral import of religious thinking upon the public square.
Andrew Sullivan's behavior alone on most matters is enough call this project into question.
A society with a high marriage rate is a society of stability, low crime, higher health, higher wealth and lower dependancy; it is a society we want to build. Let liberals be the anti-social stabilty party, the party of non-families and death by abortion and the crimes that come from instability.
What makes one think these qualities will translate to homosexual "marriages?" A piece of paper is going to do that? Or a set of laws anyone can set up is going to do that?
I don't buy it. Marriage is the stable social construct for procreation, nothing more. As others have noted, it's not perfectly defined. But I do not understand the compelling state interest here, other than that abstract concept "Fairness." And gay marriage isn't fair, as others have noted, since it doesn't allow for incestual marriages. Oh, those items don't get "strict scrutiny," or some such made up legal term.
To me, it's ridiculous, and merely another way for the state to dole out goodies.
Fifty years from now, gay marriage,except for lesbians, will be a quaint memory of the fin de siecle.
Twenty years from now sixty somethings AIDs patients will be marrying twenty somethings gay prostitutes, and giving them survivor rights for the next forty years.
Well Althouse, I'll see Madison's large dog loop, disc-golf course, and 'effigy' mounds, and raise you Seattle's:
-17 off-leash dog parks
-Dozens of disc-golf courses and local 'chainbangerz' disc-golf club
-The Burke Museum's collection of Totem Poles
What say you?
Gay people wanting in on it upgraded its image. You social conservatives ought to thank them. Women backed off the critique, in the interest of gay rights.
Now that's a scary thought. We need to mold our constitution because of thuggery, and be thankful for the thugs. Support the gang that supports your position.
I would expect better for our constitution than an ends justifies the means argument.
I'm thinking of an analogy, like gay marriage is a merchandise movie doll that with time gets more valuable... if left unwrapped.
People get in line and it starts selling out...
But when many people rush in to get it, buy into it, unwrapped it, play with it... it has been the experience that they get tired of it... it starts to loose appeal... diminishes in value... until some other toy replaces it... reigniting the cycle all over again.
nttiawwt.
The point of this post seems to me that the people the mainstream media promotes as "conservative pundits" have nothing to do with actual conservatives.
It is just like the professor blogging about religion. It is meaningless because they do not believe.
Dante said
What makes one think these qualities will translate to homosexual "marriages?" A piece of paper is going to do that? Or a set of laws anyone can set up is going to do that?
There's a psychological change to it. I can't explain it, but I can certainly say that it is different being married to my husband than it was just living with him, even though we did not even really think about procreation for quite a while (over 10 years in). It's well known that married people are associated with better citizens across the board.
Now, you're right, I can't prove that this translates to gays. There's been some minor research that suggests that it probably does, but of course it is limited. But I can't think of any likely reason that it would. Think about the married people that you know, even those without kids - are they not more stable and better citizens (in general - of course there are exceptions)?
Now, maybe it's not cause and effect - maybe better citizens are just more likely to get married intead of the other way around. That's almost certainly true to some degree. But my observations and experiences suggest that there's more to it, that marriage is more than just a peice of paper.
Senator-Elect Warren (D-Mass) is 400k in campaign debt.
That's a lotta wampum.
Freedom means freedom for everyone. Now it's time for conservatives to start getting cracking on economic liberties.
Gay marriage is compatible with integration... assimilation...
Not the foundational prescriptions of the gay lifestyle as we once knew them.
Its like the black swan saying he wants the choice to be a white swan if he wants to... prompting me to ask how much of a black swan is one really, who harbors white swan notions?
Authenticity issues. (not sure on the spelling)
I found that Andrew Sullivan debate, which actually was in 2002, much more recently than I thought.
The left-wing ideologue who despises him is Richard Goldstein of the Village Voice, who wrote an article, described in"Richard Goldstein’s Heresy Hunt":
... Goldstein decried the so-called "gay right" because he says that they bring the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military to the forefront, making them more prominent, while they should be arguing for an end to workplace, housing and public accommodation discrimination. "They believe in civil equality, not equal opportunity," he said....
... Goldstein said we should revile the gay right because they are "a masculinist group of gay writers." They are men and women who worship and aspire to traditional masculinity and "cannot see beyond their privilege." He then equated masculinism with marriage-and-military advocates: "In times of war, masculinist values come to the forefront and feminist values recede."...
"If these people prevail," he continued, "the masculinist version of homosexuality will come to dominate the movement. ... It is the most dangerous thing we face today, I believe."
The "most dangerous thing"? Think about that. Our country was attacked by fundamentalists, our movement is regularly stormed by the Christian right, yet Goldstein believes that the most dangerous thing our movement faces is Andrew Sullivan?
I found that Andrew Sullivan debate, which actually was in 2002, much more recently than I thought.
The speed with which Gay Marriage is going mainstream is surprising.
Here's a Socialist Review review of Goldstein's book "The Attack Queers":
"The 'attack queers' of the title are various right wing gay journalists in the US, and Goldstein's book is a critique of everything they stand for. He sees in columnists such as Camille Paglia and Andrew Sullivan a fundamental threat to the gay movement.... Sullivan's position stands in a long assimilationist tradition of gay rights which advocates 'normality' as the road to acceptance, but whose agenda goes no further than creating conditions for a gay elite to thrive, and never mind anyone else.
"Goldstein argues that the fight for gay rights doesn't just relate to who we have sex with, but to the way that gay sexuality transgresses established gender roles, and that it is this which accounts for gay oppression. The 'attack queers' bolster rather than attack these gender roles. He also points out that the gay movement stands in a left tradition, what he calls a 'queer humanism', from German socialist Magnus Hirschfeld to founder of the pre-Stonewall gay rights group the Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, who was a member of the US Communist Party. It is this tradition which he hopes to re-establish among gays and lesbians.
"The assimilationist tendency was fundamentally challenged by the rise of the gay liberation movement after the Stonewall riot in 1969. Although spontaneous, this militant fightback against police brutality was a product of the rising tide of struggle among the oppressed across the US and the world, and the movement it spawned began to see capitalism as the enemy. The radicalism of the times pushed groups like Mattachine to the sidelines."
Retread: Never mind that most of the pro-segregation Democrats-like Strom Thurmond-quite the Democrats and became Republicans...
"most of" = "one name" -- really? Benjamin Laney, Fielding Wright, Geo. Wallace, Orville Faubus, Lester Maddox and Ross Barnett (Jim Crow governors all) each became Republicans? Really?
Marla Singer,
Your memory accords with mine and Ann's. I was at UC/Berkeley, undergrad and then grad, from the mid-80s through the late 90s, and gay marriage was a very unpopular cause then in the "queer community." It smacked of "heteronormativity," of making gay folks into imitation straight folks. Queerness was to be radical, anti-bourgeois, explosively transformative.
Those were also, of course, the worst years of the AIDS epidemic, and there was a concomitant ongoing war about male gay promiscuity, anonymous sex, safe(r) sex, and the "bathhouse culture." Some who were appalled at the spectacle of everyone they knew dropping like flies tried to push back against the culture, and eventually did succeed to a large extent. But the resistance was absolutely furious.
Meanwhile, I knew a number of gay couples (male and female both, many of them older people who'd been together for a long time) that wanted no part of, e.g., the Steamworks scene and were for the most part strikingly monogamous. They weren't advocates for gay marriage, either; they just wanted to live like traditional married straight couples.
Andrew Sullivan has never in his life known what "conservative" means, so saying his support for SSM made it a "conservative" idea is doubly laughable. If Richard Goldstein thought it a right-wing idea it only proves he was no smarter than Sully.
Jay Retread said
..."
It reminds me of how conservatives like to say that the Democratic Party was the party of segregation. Never mind that most of the pro-segregation Democrats-like Strom Thurmond-quite the Democrats and became Republicans (heck the whole white south quite the Dems to become Republicans)"...
Ah, the so-called Southern Strategy, where Democrats to this day complain that Republicans stole their bigots.
To any of the Democratic bigots inadvertently stolen by the Republican Party, please, bigots, the Republican party does not really want you. Jay, on the other hand, really wants you back in the Democratic party where you belong.
But I can't think of any likely reason that it would. Think about the married people that you know, even those without kids - are they not more stable and better citizens (in general - of course there are exceptions)?
Maybe the social mores built up around thousands of years of marriages have developed a subtle influence on people. Or maybe not so subtle.
Maybe the reasons for those social mores is a kind of social evolutionary response to what's good for kids and society.
Maybe it doesn't apply to gays at all, because they don't have kids. (again, leaving lesbians out of it).
The reason for marriage seems pretty straight-forward to me: to build the environment in which child-rearing can occur. I don't see how this applies to gays.
They also, in the majority, opposed human and civil rights, until they were forced to exploit differentials and gradients to maintain democratic leverage.
What this confirms is that their appreciation of evolutionary principles is restricted to exploiting an article of faith as a prop to bludgeon their competing interests. It confirms they selectively defer acknowledgement of an objective order when it threatens to harsh their mellow (i.e. political, economic, social, hedonistic interests).
So, the Left, once again, reveals itself it to follow a reactive (i.e. unprincipled) ideology. Using reverse psychology to motivate changing their course may just be effective to counter their obsession with normalizing dysfunctional behaviors. Perhaps we should do the same with the elective abortion of innocent human life and normalize a selective due process without representation.
On the other hand, it has not delayed their progress in violent regime change, delegated torture, and weapons running (e.g. Benghazi). So, this tactic may or may not have the desired effect. It may only serve to exacerbate the problem and accelerate the corruption of individuals and society.
The reason for marriage seems pretty straight-forward to me: to build the environment in which child-rearing can occur. I don't see how this applies to gays.
We've both presented a lot of maybes which are unprovable until more time has passed.
However, you are definitely incorrect that the reason for marriage is to build an environment for child-rearing. That is one reason, and certainly an important one. It is not, however, in any way the only reason. People who have no intention or even ability to reproduce still have plenty of reason to get married (the social stability, the joining of financial and lifestyles, the ability to function as a team in life decisions such as medical care, etc.) Like I said, my husband and I waited over 10 years to plan for children (our 11th aniversary was last June, and our first will be born next week), but marriage was still extremely important to both of us for many other reasons.
No, the Republicans can keep their bigots. They remade the party, giving it a southern face. It also has made it into a regional, hence nationally losing party.
Dante:
Exactly. The issue under consideration is two-fold. Preserving the rights of individuals and promoting functional (i.e. positive contribution to evolutionary fitness) behaviors. The challenge is to reconcile the desires and dictates of each.
The reason to distinguish between marriage of couples and unions of couplets or others, is the same reason to distinguish between contributory and non-contributory or net-negative contributory (i.e. welfare) entitlements. It is to clearly identify stakeholders and hold them accountable accordingly. It is to control progressive corruption, and in the case of dysfunctional behaviors, to limit the progress of evolutionary dysfunction.
what limited and inaccurate notions so many people still have of who gay folks are ! it wasn't so long ago that gay people were derided as merely sex-crazed hedonists living outside of decent society. now, when couples who have been together for 20,30 years and longer want legal protections for their relationships, we're told that they are still, secretly, sex-crazed hedonists (as opposed to hetero couples where the percentage of those who 'cheat' is somewhere in the 60-70 percent range) who are only pretending to want legal recognition so that they can "shove their lifestyle down our throats" (always a fave metaphor of mine..so sexual!) so, once again, gay couples just can't win for trying.
maybe it will take another generation or two before more folks come to realize that there are just as many different kinds of gay people as there are different kinds of straight people. some engage in certain sexual practices, some don't. some raise children, some don't. some choose to couple, some don't. some are monogamous, some aren't. some are wealthy, some are poor. some are intelligent, some are as dumb as a brick. some people want to stick their noses into other people's business and some just want to live and let live without condemning others for who they are or constantly questioning their motives.
p.s...forget sully, the early homophile organizations in the u.s. were very conservative and there were discussions of marriage equality even back in those regrettably forgotten days...long before the majority of american citizens considered any notion of the civil rights of gay people. everything old is new again.
and in the case of dysfunctional behaviors, to limit the progress of evolutionary dysfunction.
I recently read that there is a belief that any gene that exhibits in > 5% of the population has evolutionary advantage.
If one were to assume that being gay includes a genetic predisposition, I wonder whether those genes have an evolutionary advantage? The argument I've heard is that when times are tough, it's good to have more worker types than reproducer types. The gay worker types help reproduce their genes by providing to the survival of their nieces and nephews. Of course, that's probably moot with the new social order of Big Government, but still interesting to consider.
I've also heard theories that gayness may start in the womb, of women with high levels of testosterone. Which might be a signal gays need to be born. Also, families with large numbers of boys tend to have a slightly higher percentage of gay kids too. All these fit with the idea that gays help the immediate generation to survive. At the cost of their own reproduction.
it's stupid liberal economics based on scarcity (more people means more unemployment and food shortages)
-- Saint Croix
... and energy shortages. They don't offer any viable solutions to anything, really. Promising to fulfill dreams of instant gratification irrespective of natural constraints only serves to sponsor corruption and expand deprivation.
Salad for Ethiopia: How Climate Policy Keeps Poor People Poor
Professor Pielke self-describes as "progressive", but he is often in contention with others that carry that label. He seems to be more of the classical variety, and less of the generational kind.
Then there's this:
Food Stamp Nation Marches Onward
Assuming the GDP report is true, then based on our current account deficit, approximately 8% of our economic development is fraudulent and unsustainable.
Chinese buyers lead foreign investment in US housing market
This is how the Palestinians "lost" their land. At least until they conspired with sympathetic Muslim allies to forcefully "void" the contracts. Fortunately, for Americans, our land is vast. While our creditors have a keen interest in collecting tangible collateral, it should have marginal impact on displacement.
It seems that 'redefining common-sense' is exactly what progressives have been doing for a long long time.
Same-sex marriage?
Dunno.
Same-sex divorce?
Good idea.
Same-sex marriage?
Dunno.
Same-sex divorce?
Good idea.
Same-sex marriage?
Dunno.
Same-sex divorce?
Good idea.
Same-sex marriage?
Dunno.
Same-sex divorce?
Good idea.
Same-sex marriage?
Dunno.
Same-sex divorce?
Good idea.
Dante:
The social contribution you describe is not exclusive to individuals who are barren by choice or circumstance. There may be a correlation, but there is no causal relation. Also, the social contribution is made by the individual, not the couplet. Their dysfunctional behavior can and should be classified separate from their individual behavior.
As for the cause, it is immaterial whether the behavior is an exhibition of intrinsic or conscious qualities. It is in either case a voluntary behavior. The individual is expected to be capable of self-moderating behavior. The same expectation exists for men and women in heterosexual relationships.
In any case, I suggest tolerance of a minority behavior which causes limited disruption in society. I suggest distinguishing between marriage and unions for the same reason we distinguish between voluntary and involuntary exploitation, because some behaviors increase the likelihood of a functional outcome.
The problem with althouse's argument is ascribing it as a conservative position because it was uttered by Sullivan. I think conservatives drank the kool aid because e professed to be for Margaret thatcher. And it wasn't as if the default leftist position was anti gay marriage.
This is like the battle between Stalin and Trotsky. Still at their core, two lefties fighting over schisms in their own group and what priorities to push.
That Sullivan was the more conservative of the bunch doesn't mean that right wingers have to adopt gay marriage now. Especially since I consider Sullivan to be an ultimate sell out. He sold his conservative principles all to get marriage to be redefined his way. So even if I were to agree to his stance on principled grounds, I might root for its failure simply because I consider him an enemy.
I suppose next well have to believe in keynsian econocs because Sullivan argued for it
And he's the "conservative".
In other words, althouse is playing fast and loose with what is the conservative position, and why conservatives must now support HER position on faux conservative grounds.
Imcisentslly, it is true that many gays found marriage to be a burgeoise institution and rejected havin to conform their lives to some antiquated notion set up
By breeders. I'll accept
For the sake of argument that they were not
Homophobes and further suggest that
It isn't inherently homophobic to reject gay marriage. Gays do it all the time, as pointed out by the discussion from 2001. I gays can make that argument then mom gays can agree with the point.
Sullivan's original book on the subject "Virtually Normal" was hated by gay rights people who thought that gay people belonged to the left.
What a shame that conservatives didn't see the good in all this at the time!
When Stalin and Trotsky were battling over where to take communism where should conservatives have fallen. Should they count Trotsky as "conservative" because they hated communism and found Trotsky to be less evil than Stalin. He was still a communist.
And the funny thing about this argument is
That we are calling Sullivan a conservative and his position the conservative one. Yet when it
Comes to economics it sounds like he in fact bought the lefts argument. So, should conservatives change their position to the lefts because Sullivan is the conservative and he now believed in big govt?
Maybe keynesiAn economics belongs to the right!
Poppycock.
Redefining marriage the way Sullivan tried to do is no conservative position. It was as reactionary as swedes trying to make all toys gender neutral.
Re:
" It seems to me that once the HIV/AIDS monster was somewhat tamed, suddenly energy could be put towards something else, and that was getting marriage rights. "
My memory (supplemented by the NY Times archives) is that the push for gay marriage, or a legal equivalent, was sparked by the AIDS crisis and an urgent desire to be eligible for a partner's health insurance or rent-controlled lease. Also hospital visitation rights.
However, you are definitely incorrect that the reason for marriage is to build an environment for child-rearing. That is one reason, and certainly an important one. It is not, however, in any way the only reason.
There is a difference between:
"The reason for marriage"
And
"Why people get married."
Marriage is the grand compromise between the sexes. Guys get gals that don't cheat on them, and Gals get guys that hang around and support the offspring.
It's popped up independently all over the world, and has its roots in China around 3,000 years ago, India about the same, etc.
So yes, in the sense no one can "know" anything, I agree with you. However, what is increasingly clear is growing up in single female households increases the chance kids will engage in what is now termed "risky" behavior. As opposed to what it used to be, which was being delinquents. But I agree, it's not "known" yet why.
However, there is an arrogance on leftists to push "alternate" families, encouraging, them in a wholesale manner on the entire population. It makes zero sense to me to experiment with everyone's future for some liberal idea of "Fairness," or whatever problem leftists think they are solving. That goes for middle of the roaders, too. And please, let us not define deviancy down to suit the leftists either.
Lyssa,
Our children do not care how long we waited for them, whether we had them sooner or later. What matters is our children benefit from their mother having healthy stable relationships with their father, no matter the point within their marriage.
If not for children, then why should the government care?
If marriage in our society is so far removed from childbearing, shouldn't our husbands take a paternity test like other non-married men to prove fatherhood?
My memory (supplemented by the NY Times archives) is that the push for gay marriage, or a legal equivalent, was sparked by the AIDS crisis and an urgent desire to be eligible for a partner's health insurance or rent-controlled lease.
Right, it's not about "equal rights" at all. It's about getting the perks that are there for people who are raising the next generation of tax payers.
It's OK, in Obama's world, there's lots of money to go around. Just not enough people to take it from.
'D’ is for Divorce: Sesame Street Tackles Another Touchy Topic
Seem to be 20 years too late, a good number of children watching the show come from parents who were never married to begin with.
If marriage has nothing to do with children, then why does divorce can have such a detrimental effect on children?
You don't have to "like" it. You just have to believe in individual autonomy over the personal, intimate part of life.
oh bullshit. So tell me, what stance should we take on NAMBLA? Isn't that all about the personal and intimate parts of one life. Do you believe the state can step in and tell the man boy lovers that they'll go to jail if they get all personal and intimat wirth their literal boyfriends? . Because then you don't necessarily believe that to be true at all only when it happens to be something you want to happen. Unless you want to support Man boy love on libertarian grounds. Do you?
They see the commercial sphere as different from private life. For example, it's okay to discriminate racially in who you date or invite to your dinner parties, but not in deciding who to hire to work in your business or who can sit in your restaurant.
Can you post a sign in your restaurant that if you don't wear a shirt that you'll get no service? Can there be black colleges and women's colleges? Businesses and institutions can and do discriminate all the time. And since when does not discriminating along racial lines equate to you can't discriminate along ANY lines?
Gay marriage is not a racial discrimination argument (and its disingenuous to argue on those grounds). One could argue that you can't discriminate against Interracial couples because at the end o the day a black man is still a man and a white woman is still a woman. Therefore if they are going to marry they still would meet all the requirements for marriage. Ie man woman, husband wife, bride, groom. Gay marriage though is not the same. There, there are two brides or two grooms.
Since they are different institutions requiring different vocabulary you can't make the separate but equal argument. The left, and althouse are certainly doing it but its disingenuous to say the least. And we
Shouldn't be shamed into agreeing to a
Faulty premise because of cries of homophobia.
Actually, gay marriage is like separate but equal in the same way that "no shirt no service" is like separate but equal.
jr565,
The problem with althouse's argument is ascribing it as a conservative position because it was uttered by Sullivan. I think conservatives drank the kool aid because he professed to be for Margaret Thatcher. And it wasn't as if the default leftist position was anti gay marriage.
Depends when you're talking, both about Sullivan and about the Leftist queer position.
Sullivan, at one time, was a reasonable facsimile of a gay conservative. Virtually Normal was a good "traditionalist" argument for gay marriage, which is why so many people lit into it at the time. (Social conservatives did the same from the other side, IIRC, about a line about how gay male marriage might need to be more "open" than straight marriage. Because, I mean, we're talkin' gay men here, yes?
In the early 2000s, when his blog was independent and not affianced (absolutely no puns intended here, I swear) to any other publication, Sullivan could get a bit sappy (cf. the "mash note" he wrote to/about Ronald Reagan), but for two years or so after 9/11 he was a very determined hawk. A little afterwards he did a 180 matched only by Charles Johnson. I never did understand what happened in either case. I wish I could see Sullivan sit down with (say) Bruce Bawer, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or preferably both. It is very difficult to be gay -- or female, for that matter -- in a neighborhood with a large Islamic presence.
Dante,
Maybe trying to seek out the positive, but I knowing of gay individuals in my childhood who were one of the first victims of AIDS, I initially wanted to believe that if we had gay marriage that more gay men could be truly openly gay and have monogamous relationship to stop the spread of diseases.
I live in Massachusetts, and the high risk behavior of multiple sexual partners exist. Gay marriage for almost ten years, and nothing.
The gay community is socio-economically diverse, they spend millions on gay marriage initiatives which should be used for gay homeless youth. Gay marriage does little for gay people who are most at risk in our society.
Maybe trying to seek out the positive, but I knowing of gay individuals in my childhood who were one of the first victims of AIDS, I initially wanted to believe that if we had gay marriage that more gay men could be truly openly gay and have monogamous relationship to stop the spread of diseases.
That's an interesting point. So you were worried about gay men infecting their spouses? I don't see why marriage would stop gays from promiscuity. Nor do I think it's good to water down marriage even more than it has been.
I'm fine with that. Let's bring back fault divorce. Let's bring back the social stigma of sex outside marriage. Let's clean up the taxcode so the perks for marriage and having a stay at home partner for raising children is rewarded.
But I'll be damned if I want to see gay marriage passed so someone can have his nancy maid prance around in his undies with survivor benefits. I equally find it offensive that aged men pass on their pensions to young women, which also happens.
Let's fix these issues, then open up gay marriage. Let us use the social pressure, let us use the courts as they were originally constituted for marriage, and get rid of all this experimentation.
It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, and it won't work to make a better society. If, and I hope it is, what we need and deserve. Just say no to more parasites.
They see the commercial sphere as different from private life. For example, it's okay to discriminate racially in who you date or invite to your dinner parties, but not in deciding who to hire to work in your business or who can sit in your restaurant.
govt can tell restaurants how many people can be in their restaurants at one time, and that no one can smoke in a restaurant. Something tells me most would agree with the first principle and most leftist a are on board with the smoking and. Again, you CAN decide who can sit in your restaurant so long as you agree with the reason why you would restrict inclusion. It's not an absolutist position. So why then would you expect it tobe so for marriage? This AGAIN goes back to the questions of bigamy, and incestual marriages, and Underage marriages, and harems.
Every single time a pro gay marriage proponent argues for gay marriage they use the absolutist position and compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement nd suggest that society can't discriminate because its not ok to discriminate in the public sphere. Its not ok EVER?
So, if two guys and three people come to city hall and ask to be married, its not ok for society to not give them a license? If a dad comes down with his daughter and ask for a marriage, its not OK for society to say no?
If you can't answer that then please stop with the libertarian arguments that are only valid for say gay marriage but not for any other redefinition of marriage that someone else may want.
One way or the other we should address the issue of men having multiple sexual partners with other men (or women), it's not healthy no matter how someone wants to be liberal on the subject. Once we find a vaccine for AIDS, there will be there something new. That is how viruses work, being passed along via multiple sexual relationships.
Gay marriage is not marriage. It can't be. It has the word gay in front of it. Marriages require a husband and a wife. Gay marriage doesn't meet the requirement it would be like arguing 2+2 is the same as 2+3. (I'm arguing definitionally).
So saying that something that is different should be treated the same is different than arguing that the same shouldn't be treated as the same. That argument works for interracial marriage, but not for gay marriage. Nor would it for interracial gay marriage or interracial polygamy.because that construct is not a marriage.
Now, the separate question is, should society provide gays the ability to codify their relationship and get benefits from it. That's a totally different question, and I'm willing to bet a lot of people who are against gay marriage might be more akin to agreeing.
But it's not a separate but equal argument. Therefore, unless you are saying that society can't discriminate IN ANY WAY when it comes to marriage (and this would include gay marriage, polygamy, bigamy, incestual marriages, marriages between adults and kids) then the libertarian argument althouse used is complete bullshit.
And if we're going to say that marriage means everything, then it really means nothing.
Michell Dulak wrote:
In the early 2000s, when his blog was independent and not affianced (absolutely no puns intended here, I swear) to any other publication, Sullivan could get a bit sappy (cf. the "mash note" he wrote to/about Ronald Reagan), but for two years or so after 9/11 he was a very determined hawk. A little afterwards he did a 180 matched only by Charles Johnson. I never did understand what happened in either case. I wish I could see Sullivan sit down with (say) Bruce Bawer, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or preferably both. It is very difficult to be gay -- or female, for that matter -- in a neighborhood with a large Islamic presence.
I remember Sully way back around 2001. The sully of 2001 is a completely different person than the sully of 2011. He himself defined his conservativism as a conservativism of doubt. Which sounds like gobbledygook to me. I take it to mean that both he and I doubt his conservatism.
The question is was he ever one. Jonah Goldbergs mom said to beware Sullivan as he wasn't a conservative, and perhaps she was right all along. Still, many did buy his arguments at the time and he did speak eloquently ago one point on things conservatives valued. But was he serious, or was he simply trying to push his blog. Or did he change?
His washy was hinges strikes me as extremely liberal, and suggests he never had those core principles to begin with. At the very least though, he shouldn't still get to call himself a conservative nor get trotted out by the media (and althouse) as a conservative voice.
Then again Lincoln Chaffee was once identified as a republican, and that guy is about as lefty as they come.
I disagree with Althouse's advice for conservatives to embrace gay marriage. Seems to me the feminists are still trying to destroy marriage by forcing religions to renounce their role in it.
But I don't doubt her history. Kenji Yoshino said the same thing in his 2006 book "Covering".
In France, there is now a push by the Left and the gay community to degender parenting. That is, to eliminate the terms "mother" and "father" from both laws and everyday useage.
The activist gay community is also pursuing a similar path in this country- start with a couple of law review articles, and then, once the battlespace has been prepared, move on to litigation.
While I am a skeptical agnostic about homosexual marriage generally, I am appalled at the thought that the next step is going to be degendering parenting. So much for the claim that recognizing homosexual marriage doesn't affect straight marriages or the institution of marriage.
AA: Were you an adult in the 1980s? Are you aware of the early career of Andrew Sullivan, when gay rights activists excoriated him?
Look it up! This history has gotten stuffed down the memory hole. That's what lefties do with the things that embarrass them. Which is a lot.
And all of this utterly fucking irrelevant to the issue and the facts on the ground now.
And lefties aren't embarrassed by anything. One would get the impression from reading your pointless exercises in nostalgia that Andrew Sullivan still gave a crap about this alleged salutary "conservative" force of marriage.
You're missing the point of their maneuvers and their entirely opportunistic arguments.
Two Harvard-trained gay men wrote a book giving a blueprint for using the mass
media to normalize homosexual
"lifestyle (After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter
Madsen; Doubleday, 1989). The book also acknowledges that "the cheating ratio of
'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to
the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground
rules as there are couples" (p330)."
http://www.jackmorin.com/userfiles/673622/file/GayMonogamyMiller.pdf
Someone posted that you can't make generalizations concerning fidelity, since there are monogamous gay relationships.
But they are the minority. Is a relationship where fidelity is not considered an important aspect of the relationship really marriage?
As a society, we abandon these traditional concepts of marriage-- life-long commitment and fidelity at our peril. And that is just as true in heterosexual relationships. As our society rejects these values, the social problems mount.
Abandoning yet another hallmark of marriage will not strengthen society.
Conservatives claim to believe in the primacy of self-determination and to keep the heavy hand of government out of their lives.
They don't. They simply disagree with liberals about what to control in other people's lives.
it's okay to discriminate racially in who you date or invite to your dinner parties, but not in deciding who to hire to work in your business or who can sit in your restaurant.
Since this discussion is about homosexual marriage not interracial marriage, the circumstances in which it's okay [sic, though one suspects you meant "legal"] to discriminate racially are irrelevant. What's important are the circumstances in which it's okay to discriminate sexually, even in the public sphere, and if your answer is "never" then a lot of public accommodations are wasting money on that second rest room.
Yawn.
This relativism really is tiresome.
But it seems to me that if we adopt the Kennedy line, that we all have the right to define our own existence and meaning of life, that that would preclude anyone from dictating that others recognize that a man is married to another man, even if such a thing were logically, existentially, or ontologically possible (which it isn't, as natural observation and right reason conclusively indicate).
Some proponents of gay marriage are already clear about the long-term goal of destroying traditional marriage. From psychology professor Lisa Diamond: “The only way to win the legitimacy of same-sex marriage is for gays to follow the traditional, nonthreatening couples,” Diamond said. “This strategy has been hugely effective.”
Diamond opposed the idea that traditional, patriarchal Judeo-Christian marriage is the best option, and said winning same-sex marriage rights won’t do much to further equality.
“We should challenge marriage … I do want to slowly poison and destroy the marriage institution, . . ”
I don't see this as being in the best interests of society. For one thing, the most dangerous person in the life of an at-risk child, statistically, is Mom's new boyfriend (I don't know that reliable equivalent statistics are available for the children of gays and lesbians). A marriage model which encourages biological parents to raise their children together whenever possible protects children.
Diamond quote: http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/?p=2575943
Joe wrote:
Conservatives claim to believe in the primacy of self-determination and to keep the heavy hand of government out of their lives.
They don't. They simply disagree with liberals about what to control in other people's lives.
well that is true across the board for all issues for both sides, no?. Libs seem to want to tell you what kind of soda you can't drink NS tell businesses they can't allow smokers.
But leave aside gay marriage for a sec? if you go to city hall to get a marriage license you are literally asking govt to put its heavy hand it your lives. No?
You could be married in spirit to your lover for your whole life, and never set foot in city hall. And yet those demanding marriage equality are demanding that. So then, why would you find it to be a problem that govt would have to come up with some rules as to when or when not to provide that marriage license.
And joe, are you suggesting that govt SHOULDN'T tell a father and a daughter that they can't get married? If a father daughter were to go to city hall to get a marriage license and were refused, it would be because govt got involved in people's personal lives (but only insofar as telling people who are petitioning govt when they can or can't marry) and set rules against prescribing that behavior. Would that be somehow wrong to you? in the interst of equality we must allow fathers to marry daughters otherwise we are a bigoted society? how far should we extend that absolutism, and how much do you want to defend marriage equality as a civil right? kids marrying adults? you want to stand on principle for that.
If so, please speak up for the pedophiles right to marry?
Otherwise, you too are all for having the govt getting its heavy hand into people's private lives.
Redefining marriage to include gays is no different than redefining it to include harems or fathers and sons, or whatever other combination you'd like to include. Are you suggesting we should redefine marriage to include gays, but not include, say harems? Wouldn't that mean that those who wanted harems to be legal would be restricted from marrying those they loved, and thus denied benefits and "rights"? And you'd be ok with hat?
Ultimately, the question boils down to marriage can be defined a certain way or it can't. If it can't then you could have anyone "marry" anyone or anything or any number of things, lest govt gets involved restricting behavior.
Anecdotally speaking, a large % of the gays I know and work with basically want to share a relationship with someone (like marriage), adopt children, work, and be left alone.
Anecdotally speaking, a large % of the gays I know and work with basically want to share a relationship with someone (like marriage), adopt children, work, and be left alone.
Yes.
The argument in favor of gay marriage seems to say that having and raising children is no longer the primary reason for marriage. Apparently, marriage is a civil right, based on shared assets and access to the benefits society has chosen to give to married people.
So, I have a question: What's love got to do with it? Why can't two siblings, or parent and child, or any two otherwise unrelated friends avail themselves of the social and tax benefits of marriage? Why should we insist that the two people involved must have sex with each other?
Post a Comment