June 29, 2013

"I wish that gay people would get the right to marry, and then not a-one of them would do it."

"I wish they'd say, 'Fuck you! We don't need your stupid marriage!' You need to listen to me: Nobody wants to go to your wedding. Nobody does. People will give you double gifts if you elope, I guarantee it! Your wedding is not going to be fun. It's just going to be another wedding, and nobody wants to go."

ADDED: I remember, back when the gay marriage issue first emerged, a former student of mine — a gay man —  confessed to indecision over the issue. Antagonism to the conventional institution of marriage might be the better alternative. I compared it to a golf club that discriminates against women. I don't need to want to play golf to oppose the discrimination. The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

121 comments:

Expat(ish) said...

I have some gay friends who are married (Canada) and some others that are in long term relationships. None of the long termers seem to have any plans to get married.

There is an anecdote to add to the pile of fake data.

-XC

David Hampton said...

Their pursuit of the holy grail of marriage is what drives the dream turning it into banality. They will never be satisfied once the thrill of the chase is over. The transition to normalcy is eclipsed by the siren song of flamboyancy.

Michael said...

I ask again, how will the courts decide the recipient of alimony (not child support, alimony) in same sex marriages?
Which claimed role is deserving and how will it be established and when.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Gay marriage is about money in the form of government largess and employer benefits, acceptance of homosexual behavior as normal and suppression of anti homosexual speech.

David Hampton said...

Diogenes; they should be very careful what they ask for. They might just get it. Marriage is about commitment and responsibility. Government goodies and recognition should be last on the list of reasons to get married.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

What Diogenes said.

acm said...

Michael, same way they do in straight marriages---men are currently awarded alimony in straight marriages, too.

Hagar said...

Black is black and white is white, and that is so regardless of Anthony Kennedy's opinions that the one is the other and vice versa.

Michael said...

ACM. Uncommon for men to receive allimony. If it falls to the high earner I guess that will make sense.

Meade said...

Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages. Do opposite-sex couples really deserve the right to marry? Their divorces clog up the courts - something we all pay for.

acm said...

When you get right down to it, alimony is fairly uncommon for women anymore, isn't it? Maybe just my state is weird, but I didn't think it was automatic, I thought one partner had to petition for it, and show that he/she had sacrificed earning potential and career opportunities for the other spouse (like leaving a job because the spouse had a better job in another part of the country, leaving work because the other spouse wanted a homemaker/SAHM). It's usually in straight marriages women who sacrifice in this way because women have the babies in straight marriages.

But yeah. It's supposed to only go to whichever spouse actually needs support after the divorce, regardless of gender, so gay marriage doesn't really change anything.

Fernandinande said...

"I'd never join a club that would allow a person like me to become a member."

paul a'barge said...

The gay marriage jihad has never been about what is intrinsically good for anyone.

It has always been about finding ways to corrupt the American culture.

cubanbob said...

ACM I don't know about your state but in mine ten years of marriage gets you alimony. Since in most instances few spouses have roughly equal incomes ( unless they are poor) alimony comes down to maintaining the lifestyle of the spouse with the lesser income as it was while married.

Chuck said...

U.S. District Judge David Lawson has just issued a ruling in a case in Michigan, addressing a state statute which barred the state from paying benefits to the domestic partners of state employees, including unmarried opposite-sex partners.

If Justice Anthony Kennedy is true to his word, Judge Lawson's 14th Amendment basis for striking down a duly enacted state law which applied equally to same-sex and opposite sex couples (as if that sort of 'equality' was a necessary predicate at all) goes beyond the terms of the Scotus decision in U.S. v Kennedy.

The factual basis for Judge Lawson's opinion and order appears to be his view that:

"It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose — indeed, perhaps the sole purpose — of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose..."
...
..."First, gays and lesbians have suffered, and continue to suffer, widespread discrimination, not only in the private sector, but also by all levels of government. The State of Michigan has constitutionalized discrimination against gays and lesbians in its marriage amendment. In addition, the State of Michigan provides no protection against harassment or employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130628/POLITICS02/306280093#ixzz2Xbrtn800

Judge Lawson, like Justice Kennedy, managed to write his opinion and order without using the word "bigotry" in his scolding of the legislative proponents of traditional marriage laws. Too bad, for the sake of clarity in writing. At least Justices Scalia and Alito know how to call a spade a spade.

Levi Starks said...

Imagine if in light of the ruling, heterosexuals walked away from "marriage" They could still demand benefits based on "we love each other", And really, why should what happens in someones bedroom be a determining factor in how people pair up to milk their employers, and state and local government for benefits? And why is 2 the magic number? It's no longer about the creation of children. Because lets face it, while there are ways for gay couples of either sex to acquire children, sex between gays will never produce children.

Of course eventually the Supreme Court would catch wind of it, and realizing the only reason heterosexuals had stopped marrying was to spite the gay community, and well of course we cant have that. Can we?

Deirdre Mundy said...

So, now live-in boyfriends and girlfriends will also be eligible for domestic partnership benefits?

Or, will Michigan pass gay marriage and eliminate domestic partnership benefits.

The Federal Govt. should eliminate all domestic partnership benefits immediately since it now recognizes gay marriages performed in Canada.

If you want the benefits, get married. There's no reason to have them any more. (I wonder how many gays recognize that the ultimate end of gay marriage will be to require them to marry to get any benefits?)

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

Just above, I wrote "U.S. v Kennedy." I apologize for that error, however Freudian it may have been.

The correct case title is "U.S. v Windsor."

Rialby said...

Meade - methinks you've got a sample size problem there my friend.

Also, why do you think they're so stable? Could it be, as Dan Savage suggests, that because they're openly "monogamish"?

Leland said...

I compared it to a golf club that discriminates against women. I don't need to want to play golf to oppose the discrimination.

How dare people have the freedom to associate without you! #hateishate

Deirdre Mundy said...

When same-sex marriages were hard to obtain, you may have had a selection bias issue--only the most committed made the trip and married. We'll see what happens now that they've won.....

I do think it's clear that the Christian idea of a marriage as a lifelong bond between a man and a woman with the intent to raise any kids God throws at them by procreation or adoption is dead in the US.

Griswold started the death spiral, Windsor has completed it. "Traditional Marriage" with no premarital sex and an openness to life was already becoming a fringe phenomenon, even in Catholic and conservative protestant circles. In fact, when my husband and I were engaged, the parents of our Catholic school students found it scandalous that we WEREN'T living together.

So... this just codifies the idea that 'traditional marriage' is for religious fanatics and weirdos.

I wonder what society will look like in 20 years? Will the Catholic/conservative protestant subculture completely split off? I bet there will be more homeschooling... more bartering skills with each other... and perhaps more geographic isolation.....

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

"Eppur si muove!"

Jay said...

I don't need to want to play golf to oppose the discrimination. The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

Yes, and let's just wantonly change the way we define marriage and family because our moral betters - certainly represented by smug (but rightly so 'cause you 're a professor! people like you - have decided you don't want to see this "hurt"

That's a great approach to the Constitution and public policy.

Chip S. said...

The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

Boo hoo.

Stop whining. It makes you seem like a loser.

ricpic said...

Exclusion is a TERRIBLE thing. Ergo no more freedom of association.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I'm excluded from practicing law because I haven't gone to law school or passed the bar! Haters!

creeley23 said...

The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

Althouse: Good grief. I continue to be amazed at the shallowness your thinking on this subject.

Of course there are people who are hurt by the lack to gay marriage. There are people who are hurt by capitalism. Do we tearfully clutch our pearls and vote in communism, or better yet, let Those In Robes decree it?

Certainly, many forward-thinking academics backed the great Soviet experiment in the twenties, thirties, and forties. Some still do.

After all, it's a matter of rights. We should look, Justice Ginsburg has recommended, to other constitution that guarantee utopian rights for all. That will fix everything.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

I don't need to want to play golf to oppose the discrimination. The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

More Althouse female imperative.

Women. Ruin. Everything.

You got a club on your own? They want in. They don't even want in because they like the club. It's just their female instinct to control everything around them, ESPECIALLY the things they can't control.

Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages.

We're more stable because we aren't monogamous. (No fault Divorce is what destroyed marriage, too.) Get a clue!


edutcher said...

Interesting thought.

Certainly makes one think this is all about making a point or gesture rather than something more.

Meade said...

Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages. Do opposite-sex couples really deserve the right to marry? Their divorces clog up the courts - something we all pay for.
Supposedly, homosexual relationships are a lot more tenuous.

Could be too early. And I agree with Rialby on the issue of sample size.

Deirdre Mundy said...

So, now live-in boyfriends and girlfriends will also be eligible for domestic partnership benefits?

No, homosexual partners have been getting live-in benefits for a while now.

This is about a protected class.

jr565 said...

Deirdre Mundy wrote:
So, now live-in boyfriends and girlfriends will also be eligible for domestic partnership benefits?

actually some companies offered domestic partners benefits (which wasnt offered to boyfriend and girlfriends who weren't married). On the premise that the domestic partnership was the equivalent of gays being married. But now, I guess they'll actually have to marry (in states where gay marriage is legal). Which will suck for the gays who wanted the benefits to go to their boyfriend but didn't really want to commit to a life long partnership, known as marriage.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

I wonder if Althouse's crocodile tears will change down the road as things normalize and she realizes:

A) A lot of gay males HATE women. You're emotional, impossible to reason with (See this post) and we're sick of society bending over to female imperative at every turn.

Sick of it.

B) Gay males aren't going to respect marriage. We're going to have open marriages where we openly flaunt the principles of marriage in front of your faces, while insisting that people be asked "Are you going to marry a boy or a girl?" We're going to destroy marriage while insisting you help us do it.

And yes, I am against gay marriage because I see exactly what other gay males are going to do to an important cultural institution.

Gahrie said...

Antagonism to the conventional institution of marriage might be the better alternative.

It would be more honest.

I compared it to a golf club that discriminates against women. I don't need to want to play golf to oppose the discrimination.

If you don't play golf why would it matter?

The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

Really? Unless of course those be excluded are White or male, or best yet White males.

Deirdre Mundy said...

If gay marriages aren't monogamous, it seems like we're just being exclusionary and mean if we don't immediately allow them to certify their polygamous relationships as well.

I mean, the anti-polygamy laws are just about singling out groups we dislike like Radical Mormons, Muslims, and Polygamists. I mean, if you look at the original laws covering Utah, it was clearly a case of striking out against a group out of pure malice.

And it's hurtful to exclude these people, who truly believe themselves to be married, from marriage.

Wow.... if we use 'feeling hurt' instead of cold hard reason to determine constitutionality, EVERYTHING is permitted.

My town has a law against letting you grass get too high. This is clearly an attempt to exclude those who like tall grass and want to return their yards to native prairie. (Ignore the fact that this was never prairie for a moment...) I feel hurt that my fellow citizens are targeting me with fines and penalties for my aesthetic judgements. Therefore, the law must change to protect my feelings!

Bender said...

More FOS justification and attempt at argument from the same crowd which for decades has been trashing marriage as "nothing but a piece of paper," seeking to undermine and ultimately destroy it by easy divorce laws, pervasive pre-marital sex and cohabitation, repeal of adultery and fornication laws, adoption to single people, and on and on. None of this had anything to do with gays.

For them, marriage was to be torn down period. And, for them, marriage is still to be torn down even as they deceitfully pretend to applaud marriage and want to extend it as something good that gays should have. For decades they have been fiercely anti-marriage and now they are suddenly pro-marriage. BS.

It is all of a piece. It is all part of the overall strategy to obtain the main objective -- the destruction of all traditional institutions, most especially marriage and the family. It has nothing to do with protecting the precious feelings of oh-so-sensitive gays, it has everything to do with destroying marriage.

When these people start advocating for strict laws against adultery and fornication and cohabitation, for gays as well as straight people, then it might be reasonably believable that they are truly sincere about being pro-marriage.

jr565 said...

Creeley wrote:
Of course there are people who are hurt by the lack to gay marriage

there are people hurt by the lack of underage marriage, or incestual ones or bigamist ones or polygamous ones. That's what happens with a restriction on marriage.
Yet althouse and company seem to use that as the reason why it must be allowed. Because someone is hurt by the restriction.because the restriction itself is discriminatory and therefore we can't discriminate.
Then, can we have ANY restrictions on marriage?

Deirdre Mundy said...

Althouse doesn't usually argue so emotionally. I think she and Meade are toying with us to see if they can trigger more interesting discussions and to see if the comment boxes produce anything that's useful for her classes....

Bender said...

In that Michigan decision we see this for what it really is, a drive to destroy marriage, with court apparently taking the cause of "equality in marriage" as justification for treating unmarried cohabitation the same as marriage.

When the argument has advanced, as it has, to equality demands that single people who live together in an inherently temporary relationship be treated the same as if they were married, then "marriage" has absolutely no meaning.

There is no "win" here for advocates of so-called "same-sex marriage." You have not raised up marriage to a higher level. All you have accomplished is making it so that marriage really is "nothing but a piece of paper," and a cheap piece of paper at that.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

When the argument has advanced, as it has, to equality demands that single people who live together in an inherently temporary relationship be treated the same as if they were married, then "marriage" has absolutely no meaning.

I believe that the end goal has always been this for the power elites. The gays have been conned, and it wasn't hard because they hate religious people anyway.

Marriage is probably going to be changed from something voluntary into something more along the lines of social control.

Thanks, Althouse! Now I won't even have a choice anymore!

jr565 said...

This is also why Ritmo kept dancing around the question a few days ago when I asked him if we can restrict marriage in any way. And its also why gays get so mad when you bring in things like polygamy or incestual marriage and ask about them in the context of the marriage debate. Because they know the argument they're peddling is in fact a flimsy one.

Unless they are of the libertarian sort and think marriage should mean anything. Then at least have the decency to argue that point.its not that hard. Libertarians do it all the time.


creeley23 said...

Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages.

Meade: Download, read and digest the wiki reference on which you are no doubt basing this factoid. Then come back and explain it to the class.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Know what's funny?

When I talk to other gay males, I really don't find it hard to convince them that gay marriage is really a bad idea.

I just lay out the facts and the situation, they say "Hmm...you may have a point", and that's that.

Meanwhile, look at Althouse. She's not gay. But she takes on the cause and wraps herself in it.

Female. Imperative. Hilarious that gays are more open to conversation on the subject than her, isn't it?

edutcher said...

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

We're more stable because we aren't monogamous. (No fault Divorce is what destroyed marriage, too.) Get a clue!

No, it just gave people an easy out. Too many people took it after their first couple of fights, rather than working things out.

B) Gay males aren't going to respect marriage.

Dan Savage has already told us that.

I believe that the end goal has always been this for the power elites. The gays have been conned, and it wasn't hard because they hate religious people anyway

We knew that when Willie made his speech in LA 20 years ago.

Marriage is probably going to be changed from something voluntary into something more along the lines of social control.

Until the last few generations, that's what it was.

Thanks, Althouse! Now I won't even have a choice anymore!

????

Deirdre Mundy said...

I wouldn't mind moving to a hyper-libertarian marriage regime at this point - I think it would serve to protect religious freedom.

Meanwhile, the current system, combined with the Kennedy opinion is going to be used as another hammer against religious groups who don't adhere to liberal cultural norms.

Kind of like how Obamacare is being used to hammer religious organizations.

Kind of like how the IRS, DHS and the Department of Justice are hammering religious organizations....

It's almost like the end goal is to eliminate all religions except state sanctioned ones (like the cult of environmentalism.) But that couldn't be it. We WON the cold war. Communism is dead, right?

creeley23 said...

jr565: ...its also why gays get so mad when you bring in things like polygamy or incestual marriage and ask about them in the context of the marriage debate. Because they know the argument they're peddling is in fact a flimsy one.

Althouse doesn't answer that one either. She just says that we can restrict those other forms of marriage somehow.

But restricting gay marriage, that's different, because ... well, it is.

Althouse says gay marriage a matter of rights. In doing so, she presuppposes that gay marriage is a right, and once that is ceded, it's all over. Opposing gay marriage is the same as opposing civil rights in the sixties.

No. The discussion is, or should be, about whether we are going to declare gay marriage as a right. Maybe we should. I'm open to that discussion.

But instead gay marriage proponents steamroller past that discussion and go for the emotional arguments -- people are getting hurt, everyone smart and forward-looking is on our side, we're winning!, and anyone who disagrees is a loser.

Althosue isn't as smart as she thinks she is. But she is smarter than this. It's hard not to conclude intellectual dishonesty.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Maybe exclusion is only injust if it excludes people you love? And if it excludes people you find creepy, then it's justified?

The problem is, there's no way to make such a principle work unless you're in a homogenous group where everyone agrees on the definitions of 'lovely' and 'creepy.'

I'm not sure how you could successfully use such a standard outside a very small tribe where anyone who disagrees is immediately executed or ostracized.

It certainly can't work in the modern US in the age or the internet. If you want to justify gay marriage or co-ed gulf clubs, you have to use something better than 'exclusion is icky.'

Heck, back to golfing, many women who don't golf may PREFER male-only country clubs, so that they know their husbands aren't engaging in flirtation and hanky-panky on the golf course. Why should Althouse's feeling that women should be included override another woman's feeling that they should be EXCLUDED?

Feelings make bad law.

edutcher said...

Deirdre Mundy said...

I wouldn't mind moving to a hyper-libertarian marriage regime at this point - I think it would serve to protect religious freedom.

Meanwhile, the current system, combined with the Kennedy opinion is going to be used as another hammer against religious groups who don't adhere to liberal cultural norms.

Kind of like how Obamacare is being used to hammer religious organizations.

Kind of like how the IRS, DHS and the Department of Justice are hammering religious organizations....

It's almost like the end goal is to eliminate all religions except state sanctioned ones (like the cult of environmentalism.) But that couldn't be it. We WON the cold war. Communism is dead, right?


Choom is the latest in a long line of culted personalities -

(Godwin Alert), Uncle Joe, Chairman Mao...

It's the only way a Lefty dictatorship can work.

Bender said...

Back to country clubs, clearly it is exclusionary and unfair that only those who hit a small white ball and try to get it in a small hole hundreds of yards away should get the benefit of playing "golf."

What about those who hit a larger yellow ball back-and-forth over a net? They too should get the benefit of calling their activity "golf."

If we deny them that equal right, after all, their feelings might be hurt.

Paul Zrimsek said...

We're going to have open marriages where we openly flaunt the principles of marriage in front of your faces

Hey, if you've got it, flout it!

Phil 3:14 said...

Question asked of Sedaris:

How is being LGBT different for kids today?

How would he know what it's like to grow up L,B, or T?

creeley23 said...

I was busy the past few days and didn't get to the long comment threads in the wake of the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions.

Still, I can't help but notice that in this thread, the "losers" have the better arguments and the "winners" don't seem to have arguments at all beyond emotional appeals and hand-waving.

Inga said...

You know what's really funny? That the random number and letter commenter thinks others will actually believe for one minute that he is gay.

creeley23 said...

So, Inga, do you have any substantive arguments for gay marriage or defenses to the arguments against?

Inga said...

Yes, I do. As Americans gay couples are afforded the same rights to marry under the constitution as straight people. Full stop. End of story. Dont be a sore loser.

Inga said...

Now I'm off to enjoy my family. Have a good day arguing what has already been settled.

David R. Graham said...

"The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter."

Oh pish. Every choice is an exclusion, every decision cuts one thing off from others.

The quoted statement is beneath your intellect.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Many women have excluded me from entering their pussy.

They have hurt me and made me cry as I was alone and discriminated against.

I demand satisfaction.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I'm sorry-- I seem to have missed the part of the constitution where it says you have a constitutional right to marry anyone you want. Can you please direct me to it?

Petunia said...

There is no right to marry in the Constitution. For anyone.

With almost 3/4 of the states still banning SSM, the issue is far from settled. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how it all plays out. Especially since the (maybe) 2% of the population who are gay men are not known for their interest in long-term mono-androus relationships.

David R. Graham said...

"Marriage is probably going to be changed from something voluntary into something more along the lines of social control."

Concur.

elkh1 said...

Welcome to messy divorces!

Blogger Meade said...
Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages.

Because only the really committed would care to go thru the wringers to get marry. Once it's routine...

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I like David Sedaris and this American Life. It is especially worthwhile to hear Part I of Episode 27: The Cruelty of Children. It certainly sounds as though Sedaris went from praying he wasn't gay to deciding he was gay right after some sort of sodomy experience while wrestling with a guy named Pete at a summer camp in Greece. And presumably, judging from Pete's behavior to Sedaris, Pete was not nice, so it does not seem likely that some wonderful characteristic of Pete was responsible for making Sedaris decide his tendency was to (romantically) love males. Not that I'm denying the ordinary bullying Sedaris received from others might have made it more likely for him to view himself as gay: if people tell you something over and over, you might come to believe it or wish to check, but yeah.

I think that if I had a male child I was worried might have decided he was gay in the sense of wanting to be sodomized, rather than tell him not to be gay or that he isn't gay, I'd instead probably tell him to be absolutely sure he didn't basically first feel that way after some sort of sodomy experience he didn't want beforehand. The latter advice would be sufficient and would still have the force of being advice that would overwhelmingly be agreed upon by the standard current opinion a parent has to compete with.

The second part of this episode, the story about the man in the well, is the only thing I've heard on this American Life I have found repulsive--some sort of misleading anti-children sadistic porn, basically, is what it seems to me.

elkh1 said...

NotquiteunBuckley said...
I demand satisfaction.

Sandra Fluke would be willing if she was given free condoms.

Inga said...

5th Amendment, equal protection clauses Dierdre.

David R. Graham said...

"It's almost like the end goal is to eliminate all religions except state sanctioned ones (like the cult of environmentalism.) But that couldn't be it. We WON the cold war. Communism is dead, right?"

Not all religions, just Christian, Jew and Hindu. And yes, communism is defeated and dead and stays dead, but the other collectivism - fascism - is alive and rampant. Communism was relatively easy to defeat. Fascism requires world-wide wars to defeat, and still it rises from its death-bed. Communism is state-owned everything. Fascism is state-directed everything. The latter rules Europe and the USA now. The "60s radicals" (communists in their minds) converted to fascism. That conversion aligned them with mohammedan fascism. So it's not all religions. And its not communism. It's fascism, which, in all forms, essays deifications of natural processes. You're right, ultimately all of this is about religion.

Inga said...

Also violates due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Didn't you read the decision?

Inga said...

NOW, I'm off, tata, sore losers.

Deirdre Mundy said...

But the marriage laws don't say "you have the right to marry someone you're attracted to." When you go for a marriage license, there's no question about that.

It's "are you a man? are you a woman? are you related? are you currently married to someone else? Are you immune to rubella? (only for the woman.)"

It's all about fitness to reproduce with the marriage license.

Any man can marry any woman who is unmarried, unrelated, and not susceptible to rubella.

That's equal protection. There's nothing in there about "marrying who yo love." The state doesn't give a darn about love.

Baron Zemo said...

Deidre Mundy said....
I wonder what society will look like in 20 years? Will the Catholic/conservative protestant subculture completely split off? I bet there will be more homeschooling... more bartering skills with each other... and perhaps more geographic isolation.....


I think that is exactly right. Especially the home schooling.

Inga said...

Not anymore Dierdre.

Inga said...

NOW, BYE.

X said...

I've extrapolated this whole thing out and the human race will evolve into gay computers around the year 2104.

David R. Graham said...

"5th Amendment, equal protection clauses Dierdre."

You said you were going, to enjoy your family.

David R. Graham said...

"NOW, BYE."

Third sign-off. Afraid the losers might be coming to?

Baron Zemo said...

"It's almost like the end goal is to eliminate all religions except state sanctioned ones (like the cult of environmentalism.)

They don't want to end religion. They want to control it. They don't want it to be a competing set of values or authority.

Remember what Obama said about "old white people clinging to their guns and religion." They want to put controls on both.

So there are basically three choices.

Acquiescence and surrender.
Isolationism and segregation.
Radicalization.

David R. Graham said...

"It's almost like the end goal is to eliminate all religions except state sanctioned ones (like the cult of environmentalism.)"

"It's fascism, which, in all forms, essays deifications of natural processes."

Combining: the state religion in question is penis worship, a very ancient, well-attested deification of a natural process. An idolatry. Shared by 60s radicals and what they made and mohammedans and what they made. Breast and vagina idolatry is less prevalent over the millennia, although it could be argued that it can be a precursor of penis idolatry. Long is it rumored that Hefner is queer.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
As Americans gay couples are afforded the same rights to marry under the constitution as straight people. Full stop. End of story. Dont be a sore loser.


And they have that now even without gay marriage. They can't marry a dude, and I can't marry a dude. Same rights.
Also, a polygamist cant' marry two dudes and I can't marry two dudes. Again, same rights.
A sister can't marry their brother and I can't marry my sister. Same rights.
Someone who want to marry an underage kid cant, and neither can I. Same fucking right.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I think part of the problem that Inga and her ilk have is that they misunderstand what the right to civilly marry is about.

It has nothing to do with being in love or being attracted to each other. It's true that people who are in love sometimes choose to get married, but love is not a prerequisite for marriage.

So, if you allow gay marriage, then any two adults can get married if they decide it's more convenient than not being married.

I can see how two confirmed bachelors might find this a good financial arrangement. By being 'married,' they can pool their resources and get an awesome house, but by having an 'open marriage,' they can still hit the bars and bring women home to said awesome house. As long as neither wants to marry anyone else, this is a great arrangement! And they get tax breaks, too.

What's not to like?

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Yes, I do. As Americans gay couples are afforded the same rights to marry under the constitution as straight people.

Does banning incestual marriage violate the 5th amendment (assuming we're talking about heterosexual incest as opposed to gay incest so as not to confuse the issue). Because there its two people, who meet all the criteria for marriage (assuming they do in fact meet that criterion). AND YET THEY CAN"T DO IT. Please explain how this is so.

jr565 said...

Deirde Mundy wrote:
It has nothing to do with being in love or being attracted to each other. It's true that people who are in love sometimes choose to get married, but love is not a prerequisite for marriage.

Love has to be the stupidest argument for why we should allow a marriage. First off, how do you prove that? If someone marries for love but then, it turns out they're really only marrying for money do we somehow not allow them to marry.
But more importantly, which marriage wouldn't meet that criteria? I'm sure brothers and sisters who want to marry really love each other. As do polygamists. as do bigamists. As do any other person who wants to get married but currently can't.
If the argument is you must allow "marriage" if people love each other, then you can't have any restriction on marriage at all.

ken in sc said...

This subject is boring.

jr565 said...

Deirdre wrote:
I can see how two confirmed bachelors might find this a good financial arrangement. By being 'married,' they can pool their resources and get an awesome house, but by having an 'open marriage,' they can still hit the bars and bring women home to said awesome house. As long as neither wants to marry anyone else, this is a great arrangement! And they get tax breaks, too.

And if we're going down that road, wouldn't being able to marry three people be even better? More sexual opportunities, beter household income potential, better distribution of household chores. What's not to like?
And if three people is good, why not four people?

jr565 said...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

that could be interpreted two ways when it comes to marriage. One, all people are bound by the same restrictions to marriage, as set by the state as all other citizens of that state. So if incest is illegal to one person then it's also illegal for another.
OR, the state can't pass any laws regulating marriage.If marriage is a right, then the state can't pass a law on any marriage that will infringe that right.
So in the second circumstance, (and this is what gays are arguing) what is "marriage"? Under this second interpretation you couldn't ban incest. Because to do so would be denying citizens wishing to marry in that way equal protection under the laws.So to with polygamists.
Under the first interpretation they couldn't marry because there is a restriction in the law that says only a man and a woman can marry. (and they can't be brother and sister). But if all those criteria are met, then the state can't prevent that marriage.
Under the second interpretation, any restriction would be a denial of equal protection.

creeley23 said...

As Americans gay couples are afforded the same rights to marry under the constitution as straight people.

Inga: Only if we choose to declare the possibility of gay marriage, which has never existed in thousands of years of human history until now.

We could do that, and maybe we should. But it's dishonest to skip that step and just say there is a right to gay marriage and anyone who says different is denying gay couples their rights.

No, there is no right to gay marriage unless we say there is.

It also does nothing to answer the objection that polywhatever people should have the same rights to marry if gays do.

creeley23 said...

The gay marriage position seems to boil down to:

* Gays feel bad.
* Gays are being denied their rights.
* No discussion of whether there is such a right.
* No discussion of social ramifications.
* Anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
* LOSER!

Great stuff.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

Only if we choose to declare the possibility of gay marriage, which has never existed in thousands of years of human history until now.
We could do that, and maybe we should.


OK, for the sake of the argument, let's do that. Let's all agree to create "gay marriage."

Even if we were to do that, the fact would remain that the relationship of a man and a woman, who pledge to stay together for life and who by the nature of that union are capable of having children, is a unique relationship that is worthy of special protection under the law. The natural ability to procreate within that union, so as to produce a natural family, the first unit of society, is what allows for (1) the human race to continue to exist and (2) humanity to exist in civilization.

As such, this relationship of "husband/father, wife/mother, and child" is worthy of special protections that all other relationships neither need nor deserve because they are, in and of themselves, not essential to the continuation of the species or civil society.

So, given that this particular relationship is worthy of special protections, sure, we can jettison the term "marriage" that used to be applied to it, but then we would simply need to find some other unique term for it and that term, by the very nature of the relationship involved, could not and would not ever be applicable to a same-sex relationship.

sunsong said...

It's a new world people and you have no idea:

14yo defends himself and gays

Deirdre Mundy said...

Bender, I think we may be in a political environment where that arrangement is NOT acknowledged as worthy of protection. For instance, the sainted 'single mother,' welfare policies that encourage out of wedlock childbearing, and the push to have kids in daycare or school for all their waking hours.

Society has been enacting policies to deliberately undermine the family relationship since at least the Lyndon Johnson era....

creeley23 said...

I'm close to a couple who found each other in a Catholic Church. They left the Church because they couldn't be married in it. They married immediately when their state allowed it. They're still together and I'm happy for them.

Mark in Spokane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
creeley23 said...

Bender: I'm close to a gay couple who found each other in a Catholic Church. They left the Church because they couldn't be married in it. They married immediately when their state allowed it. They're still together and I'm happy for them.

So I see the appeal of gay marriage and to that extent I am sympathetic.

However, I also agree with your analysis that the man-woman marriage is the biological and social basis of the family and therefore civilization. That's what makes marriage to be marriage, not whatever love the partners share or whatever life they make together.

That's why I question gay marriage and why, unless I were convinced that gay couples would perform the same functions for society, i.e. give birth to children and raise them, I oppose gay marriage.

I am willing to watch the gay marriage experiments in other places. If social consequences weren't too bad or had unexpected benefits, I might change my mind.

I also oppose gay marriage because I don't like the often vicious, dishonest campaign its proponents have used in pursuit of their goal.

Mark in Spokane said...

I deleted my previous comment because it was full of typos. Here it is, suitably edited:

Interesting parallel to Prof. Althouse's use of the golf club analogy. If the pain of exclusion from a golf club is like excluding homosexuals from the institution of marriage by not allowing same-sex marriage, then doesn't that argue for forcing private organizations (like, say, churches) to perform same-sex marriages? Just as the free association rights of gender- and race-exclusive golf clubs didn't save them from having to comply with efforts to open up their membership, I don't see how either the Est. Clause or the Free Exercise Clause will save the churches once (if?) same-sex marriage becomes a normative institution under the law.

Baron Zemo said...

You are exactly right Mark.

With the added benefit of being used as a tool to destroy the Catholic church, the Mormon Temple and anyone else who tries to not follow the politically correct cause of the moment.

Which is of course one of their goals.

bgates said...

What about those who hit a larger yellow ball back-and-forth over a net? They too should get the benefit of calling their activity "golf."

That's not just a good idea, it's constitutionally mandatory.

And I should know - I'm a law professor. Have been ever since I decided the old use of the term was exclusionary, so I expanded it to mean "anyone who sometimes talks or writes (ie professes) about the law".

creeley23 said...

Gay marriage is going to be another smash hit for Unintended Consequences.

But as long as people like Althouse mean well and care about the hurts of others (BTW how does that square with "cruel neutrality"?) it doesn't matter.

Meade said...

"In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually"
- from creely's source: "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States" p.1

Bender said...

Were marriage a utilitarian construct the dissolution rates of same-sex and opposite-sex couple might be relevant.

But since marriage is not a utilitarian construct, it is beside the point.

Same-sex attracted people could make the most absolute best (adopted) parents in the universe and the most perfectly faithful in permanent partnership with the other and they still would be utterly incapable of being "married" to each other.

AlanKH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deirdre Mundy said...

Why don't the feds just replace 'marriage' with 'household?' Suddenly, there's no discrimination against anyone. A household can be any number of adults and children sharing a space for any reason. Sharing space reduces carbon footprints and so deserves a tax break@!

AlanKH said...

Their pursuit of the holy grail of marriage is what drives the dream turning it into banality.

Remember that the (gay and straight) people behind the principle driving forc3e supporting gay "marriage" are the same folks who for decades trivialized marriage as "just a piece of paper."

The cultural Left never gave up on the Sexual Revolution. Remember that.

Gahrie said...


But as long as people like Althouse mean well and care about the hurts of family (BTW how does that square with "cruel neutrality"?) it doesn't matter.

jr565 said...


Remember that the (gay and straight) people behind the principle driving forc3e supporting gay "marriage" are the same folks who for decades trivialized marriage as "just a piece of paper."



"We don't need a piece of paper from the city hall, keeping us tried and true." as Joni Mitchell said back in the 60's.

jr565 said...

Gahrie:
But as long as people like Althouse mean well and care about the hurts of family (BTW how does that square with "cruel neutrality"?) it doesn't matter.

Like it or not, if you restrict marriage in any way you are going to hurt "family". So, I guess the only remedy is to not restrict marriage.
Marriage means whatever.

AlanKH said...

Joni sang that before the statistics on cohabitation came out.

jr565 said...

sunsong wrote:
t's a new world people and you have no idea:

14yo defends himself and gays

With all respect, who cares who you love? He doesn't need to defend himself from me because I have no problem if he has sex with one dude or 100 dudes. It's no skin off of my nose.Who's telling gay people they can't have a monogamous relationship or have random sex. It's their life.

What does that have to do with marriage though?

ALP said...

Oh David Sedaris - I just love that guy. He has a point I am too lazy to see if it has been raised already.

Many gay/lesbian couples that will now marry are middle aged. There is something so much more appealing to me when two YOUNG people get married: it is not only about the promises they are making to one another, but the wedding is also about the passage to adulthood. The older people in the community have a chance to help a young couple set up their first "real" adult household with gifts of cash and household items. That gives the wedding-goer a real purpose in being there: to help young people become adults.

There is something very unseemly, to me, about two middle aged people, who have been togther for years and years - making a big to-do about now tying the knot. I think the Meadhouse Wedding is my absolute perfect idea of the middle-aged or older wedding: it concerns the two of us, and the state we live in - and little else.

So David is right when it comes to those gay/lesbian weddings where the couple has been, for all practical purposes, living as married. Nobody wants to go to your celebration of paperwork - your friends already treat you as married. What role does one play at weddings like that - cheerleader? The only role I feel I have at a wedding like that is to add another pair of eyes to the adoring crowd. Sorry - got better things to do than spend an afteroon gazing at you with romantic doe eyes or whatever you need to be the center of attention today - because you filled out some paperwork.

jr565 said...

ALP wrote;
So David is right when it comes to those gay/lesbian weddings where the couple has been, for all practical purposes, living as married. Nobody wants to go to your celebration of paperwork - your friends already treat you as married. What role does one play at weddings like that - cheerleader? The only role I feel I have at a wedding like that is to add another pair of eyes to the adoring crowd. Sorry - got better things to do than spend an afteroon gazing at you with romantic doe eyes or whatever you need to be the center of attention today - because you filled out some paperwork.


When you put it that way, I realize that I can barely stand hetero weddings.

eric said...

Meade wrote:

"Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages. Do opposite-sex couples really deserve the right to marry? Their divorces clog up the courts - something we all pay for."

Wouldn't the better question be, "Do opposite-sex couples really deserve the right to divorce?"

It's not marriage that clogs up the courts, it's the divorce.

Which, thanks to Hollywood liberals, feminists and lawyers, has skyrocketed in the United States.

Let's deny Straights and Gays the right to divorce and then see who gets married.

AlanKH said...

Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages.

People who make that statement forget that people critical of homosexuality are critical of homosexuality. One who deems psychological orientation X to be messed up in the head has no rationale to value relationships rooted in X.

AlanKH said...

On another note...SSM is so rare and so new how can anybody make any statistical claims about it?

Cohabitation has been around a lot longer, so a comparison between straight- and gay-couple cohabitation should yield useful data. So should comparisons between straight and gay promiscuity.

Deirdre Mundy said...

There's the social pressure issue too:

Unmarried straight people face constant nagging from family and friends "When are you going to get married?" "I want to live to see my grandchildren!" etc. etc.

Until now, "Ma, I'm GAY" has been a reason not to get married. Now it's not, so you'll see more gays getting married.

I mean, if we lived in a world where only people who attended religious services at least once a week, did not engage in premarital sex, and did not contracept got married, we'd see a negligible heterosexual divorce rate too...

But there's still a sense that, after X years of a relationship there's an OBLIGATION to marry.

Gays are only starting to go down that road....

creeley23 said...

The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually"

Meade: I said "Download, read and digest." Well, two out of three ain't bad. Truth to tell, I didn't expect you to actually do any thinking. You don't seem to be the type.

So let's look at the numbers you quoted: "0% to 1.8%" Hmm ... 0% divorces or civil union endings annually ... for an entire state? How does that happen?

Extremely, extremely small samples.

There are few gays (contrary to what one might assume from watching TV), legalized gay couple relationships have not been available for long, and few gays are even in couple relationships (there are only 640,000 gay couples according to the numbers a few paragraphs earlier.)

You were warned earlier in the thread about small samples. Statistically they are unreliable for extrapolation. The smaller the sample, the less reliable.

There are 218 million adults in the US, an estimated half are married, so that's roughly 55 million conventional marriages compared to 140,000 gay unions in the past ten or so years, depending on new laws.

Does this seem like a fair comparison or reliable numbers to extrapolate upon? Of course not.

Furthermore, those gay couples who legalized their unions as soon as it became would arguably be more motivated to stay together at least for ten years. There are studies that show gay relationships are less stable than straight ones.

How the gay divorce rate might be shake out over time and with bigger numbers to be is unknowable right now.

Mark Trade said...

One could say that the institution of monogamous marriage hurts people who want to marry more than one person, or who people who only want to marry for 20 years, and more.

Dante said...

The message of exclusion hurts even those who, given the choice, would not enter.

Is there something wrong with a place guys can hang out with each other away form the ladies? I understand lots of gossip happens in the "ladies" bathroom. Should I demand inclusion?

Seriously, if guys want their own thing, sorry, but tough shit. God, I'm so tired of the victim hood.

And for the record, I was asked multiple times "Do you want to cut the umbilical chord?" My answer "No way. That's what you are paid to do." See, I'm not a female. I have no desire to participate in that part of the life bearing process, nor can I. I accept that.

Dante said...

Same-sex marriages seem to be about twice as stable as opposite-sex marriages. Do opposite-sex couples really deserve the right to marry? Their divorces clog up the courts - something we all pay for.

What's the sample size compared to the population, Meade?

This is weak, Meade. You can do better in defending your Sugar Momma's bias.

Marg said...

Gay marriage. Why do people who are not gay think they have the right to make decisions for homosexuals? It's none of your business. Let people who believe in marriage get married. That should be anyone's choice. Let's stop judging.

Dante said...

Gay marriage. Why do people who are not gay think they have the right to make decisions for homosexuals? It's none of your business. Let people who believe in marriage get married. That should be anyone's choice. Let's stop judging.

Why do able bodied individuals demand better tax treatment because they are gay. Why don't they accept they are not raising the next generation, and pay their taxes like everyone else who isn't.

I don't care about "Marriage," I don't like the tax treatment. The litigant in DOMA is an excellent example. She wanted $300K, because she felt she deserved it, but she didn't make the next generation.

Kirk Parker said...

Deirdre,

"Society has been enacting policies to deliberately undermine the family relationship since at least the Lyndon Johnson era.... "

And it's had people advocating for that since at least Rousseau.

AlanKH said...

I knew there was something schmucky about Rousseau.