Anyway, I'm interested in these poll results, showing likely voters split 53-39 in favor of the ban:
Those labeling themselves liberal were strongly against the amendment, while those calling themselves conservatives were strongly in favor. Regular church-goers and those calling themselves "born again'' also were strongly in favor, polling data suggests. Black likely voters also appeared strongly in favor.That last point poses a dilemma for liberals working on getting out the vote, doesn't it?
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
Schweber argued against the ban. He went first and also got rebuttal. Throughout the night, he emphasized his belief that there is no rational basis for the amendment. He was preaching to the choir, so he moved quickly through all kinds of material, and he squeezed in a little humor (nothing memorable - just well timed observations).
Jordan Lorence got off to a bad start with the audience by explaining his role in Southworth v. Bd. of Regents, and by remarking that the University was not complying with its holding. He acknowledged that he did not expect to change anybody's mind during the debate. He began by talking about polygamy in the mid-1800s (and its parallel to the present situation with homosexual marriage), and cited a case that stated one of his big themes: the government can and should regulate marriage. He was heckled a bit when he talked about "inevitable male sexual urges and the domination of women without the protection of marriage" or something to that effect, but the audience was otherwise respectful.
While the moderator did his best to keep the debate moving, there was too little time for questions. Students lined up to talk to both speakers at the end, but Prof. Kidwell pretty much kept Lorence all to himself. (During the debate, Kidwell got Lorence to acknowledge that the language of the proposed amendment is broader than necessary to "protect" marriage.)
The "dilemma for liberals" here is created by the Republican's cynical use of social issues to divide and distract the voting population. So: a black voter who might tend to vote "Democratic" could be swayed to vote otherwise by this issue.
The first comment here is almost incoherently emotional, if not offensive.
Those numbers make perfect sense if one considers that a lot of people are going to vote for this amendment who don't think of themselves as the kind of people who'd vote for the ban, who will not admit in public that they're going to vote for it, but that nevertheless have decided to vote for it.
Jim C, Edward,
I think you ought to reread Cedarford's comment.
He was making a factual point -- that Democratic supporters are Hollywood types, lawyers, Jewish businessmen and financiers. That may or may not be true. It may or may not be an unfounded stereotype. But it's not necesarily bigoted. And it wasn't presented as a reason to reject the proposed amendment.
I don't know enough about Cedarford to know if this statement fits into larger pattern that suggests bigotry. But this comment on its own doesn't seem to make Cedarford a bigot.
You seem to be doing exactly what supporters of the amendment are doing -- assuming that anyone who opposes it must be bigoted, and then must be bigoted against other groups, too. Neat trick, that.
Can we please tone down such accusations?
...the Republican's cynical use of social issues to divide and distract the voting population.
Mark -- you might want to go up a few posts and read Doyle's comments. It's hardly a uniquely Republican phenomenon.
Re: "Foley's aberrant behavior"
According to Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families and Relationships, "Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others."
and issues a demand for
"Recognition and respect for our chosen relationships, in their many forms."
So in light of that, I ask: Aberrant how and why? What norm or standard are you referencing that is violated, when the document above clearly espouses rejecting such a narrow, bigoted view of 'correct' relationships.
Pastor: oh, I agree with you--I used the same words as the post you've indicated (divide and distract)to make the point.
Edward said...
"The Democrats are smart enough to be able to support equality for gay people and, at the same time, denounce Foley and the Republican establishment that facilitated his misbehavior."
According to this loony, it's all Joe Lieberman's fault: Foley's behavior and the ensuing scandal "[i]s the Direct, Downstream Result of Liebermanism." It's so refreshing that after six years blaming Bush for everything, they're finding a new scapegoat: now it's all Lieberman's fault.
Re: "I really don’t want to waste my time today having a long discussion with you about why sexual relationships between adults and adolescents or children are wrong"
I can see why not. I just don't understand how you can defend picking and choosing amongst behavioral and cultural norms ad libitum.
I don't think you can defend it in light of the demand for "Recognition and respect for our chosen relationships, in their many forms."
You want to limit the debate to your comfortable talking points, and pretend that the Pandora's Box of relarionships sanctioned by the leftist authors "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" necessarliy includes what Foley has done. But you cannot.
So I ask: How can you criticize Foley? What normative stanard can you be alluding to, when you ask us to reject similar norms?
Re: "I also think a time comes when it may be pointless to debate someone whose mind is so obviously closed."
Closed mind? Mine or yours?
I'm not asking you to rediscuss what you're tired of. I'm asking you to define why you find Foley's behavior "aberrant". I think you are being hypocritical, defending norms that you simultaneously ask me to violate.
I don't believe we've discussed Foley before yesterday, so don't say 'we've discussed all that before'. You don't wish to discuss, I suggest, because their is no logical way for you to denounce Foley by the mechanism of a cultural norm that also denounces gay marriage. You can't pick and choose.
So by what standard do you reject Foley plying a 17-year-old for a gay encounter, but defend gay marriage between Foley and the same 17-year-old?
"For 5000+ years in western civilization marriage has meant one thing, and one thing only: the union of a man and a woman."
Have you looked at the Bible lately? The Hebrew patriarchs were hardly so restrictive. Plural wives, concubines ... no problem.
Actually, tjl, even then, where men often had multiple wives, a marriage was still the union of one man and one woman.
Such a man had multiple marriages, and each marriage was the union of him with one wife. If one marriage was dissolved for some reason, the others were unaffected.
This is not the same thing as polyamory in which one so-called "marriage" includes more than two people.
Pedantic, that, but true.
I object to the creation of the legal fiction that is called "same-sex marriage," on the grounds that it's an oxymoron, and it looks to me like people are trying to get courts to amend the English language. Scratch me if you like.
Edward,
Fair enough. As I said, I haven't read other comments by Cedarford. I think one can reasonably read his comment about "the big moneymen" as having been made only to contrast other Democratic supporters who are turned off by gay marriage.
Of course, as Freder points out with typical hyteria, illogic, and irrelevance, there's a long and sad history of seeing secret Jewish powers at work behind the scenes.
I just hope that we can state facts (Jews disproportionately support Democrats; other Democratic constituencies don't share support of gay marriage) without assigning bad motives and assuming the worst.
So by what standard do you reject Foley plying a 17-year-old for a gay encounter, but defend gay marriage between Foley and the same 17-year-old?
Surely it's possible to separate these two issues and use two different standards.
I still maintain that the real issue with regard to Foley isn't, one, homosexuality, or even consent, pedophilia, ephebophilia (which does get into gray area) etc. etc. etc. (At least so far as we know, right now.)
It's about unequal power relationships, exploitation of a subordinate, etc. etc. etc. In other words: the norms appropriate to work places (and, though not applicable here, school settings etc. etc.).
Shorter: The issues related to the concept of sexual harassment.
I don't see how that relates to gay marriage at all. Or any discussion of any sort of marriage.
Re; "Shorter: The issues related to the concept of sexual harassment. I don't see how that relates to gay marriage at all. Or any discussion of any sort of marriage."
So the only aberrancy of Foley is simple sexual harrassment?
Will he be forgiven if it is found that he was seeking out former pages no longer working for the Congress?
And if it's sexual harrassment that burns you, why does Bill Clinton remain in the fold?
The tie-in between Foley's behavior and gay marriage is this: one cannot claim standards for behavior violated by Foley trying to date a 17 year old gay page and simultaneously argue that those same cultural norms permit Foley to marry a 17 year old gay page.
Re; "Surely it's possible to separate these two issues and use two different standards."
I agree. And I was trying to divine exactly what standard Edward was using, and on what basis he finds that one norm needs to be affirmed, but the other rejected.
Why?
ReaderIam:
"[The Foley situation is] about unequal power relationships, exploitation of a subordinate, etc. etc. etc. In other words: the norms appropriate to work place"
Well, if that's your opinion, then surely you join in full Ann's evaluation of Bill Clinton's conduct. You will denounce Clinton's behavior, which was also solicitation between two consenting persons. That, too, was about "about unequal power relationships [and] exploitation of a subordinate." This is about conduct which is morally unacceptable, for several reasons, including the one quoted above. The side-circus is about liberal hypocrisy in attacking Foley for engaging in conduct they have no moral objection to, and in fact defended when Clinton did it.
Simon: Not only would I and DO I join in that assessment of Bill Clinton's behavior, but I have said so, a number of times. And in comment threads here, I daresay even repeatedly and explicitly.
I believe the last time was on one of the threads about Feminism and Bill Clinton ... .
Anyone want to dispute that?
LOL.
I do believe you're implying I'm a lib, Simon! Not the first one to think/say/imply that, and it doesn't bother me, by the way.
Well, I'd say I'm a mix. But I've been characterized by an array of sources--the Daou Report and Blogometer, jump to mind immediately, but they're not the only ones--as a righty, for posts I've written.
To which my typical response is: "I'm pretty sure true, down-the-line believers of either side wouldn't have me."
Still LOL.
I can assume by the lack of response that there would have been little Democratic outcry had Foley simply divorced, and gone to Massachusetts and married the 17 year old, instead of merely trying to date him.
reader_iam's portrayal of herself is correct, by my recall.
"As I recall, the almost universal reaction among liberals was that the behavior was indefensible."
Which is why Clinton is, these days, a complete pariah among democrats; you'd never get liberal bloggers posing for photographs with him, glowing with pride at being in the man's presence - still less, feminist liberals, who naturally, are especially incensed by Clinton's behavior. Clinton is regarded as persona non grata among liberals, just as Foley is now persona non grata among Republicans. Is that what you're telling us?
"Our objection was that it, or that lying about it under oath in an investigation that was obstensibly about land deals in Arkansas, did not rise to an impeachable offense."
Lying under oath to the grand jury is perjury. 18 U.S.C. §1623(a). Perjury is a high crime, "high crime" being in contradistinction to "petty crime."
"Although what Foley did was reprehensible, I am not sure that it deserves criminal prosecution or even his expulsion from Congress (he did after all resign). Now the cover-up is a whole different matter."
Right. The cover up is worse than the crime. It's so obvious to me now: if the story is just about what Foley did, then his resignation essentially ends the utility of the whole sordid mess to Democrats, but if you can tie some kind of conspiracy to it, if you can make it about what the House leadership did and didn't know or do, rather than about what Foley did, then you can turn this into a weapon against the GOP as a whole. The transparent desparation to find some kind of mud that will stick, to leverage anything you can into an electoral weapon is contemptible.
"Black likely voters also appeared strongly in favor.
That last point poses a dilemma for liberals working on getting out the vote, doesn't it?"
The last point poses a problem for gay marriage as well. The social conservatives have always pointed out (as is the case) that marriage is considered a foundational social institution. (Like private property is to economics)
Wide spread liberal (& Democratic) opposition to gay marriage can be traced to genuine concern for the breakdown in the family, especially the black family. Seventy percent illegitimacy rates among the underclass & one third of children overall being born into single parent households tends to lessen ones radical instincts.
African –Americans themselves understand this intuitively. Strained attempts to assert that “marriage doesn’t have anything to do with marriage” or “you can change the definition of something without changing that very something” collapses in the face of 40 years of family breakdown predicated on cultural leftist assumptions about human nature. (or the lack thereof)
So Freder finds Foley's behavior "creepy".
Yet some people find gay behavior creepy. Do you support that conclusion, simply because they feel it, just as you do about something else?
Again my question: what standard are you supposedly invoking to condemn Foley that gay marriage does not also violate?
"Creepiness"?
What sort of standard is that?
Where does it originate?
What is the philosphical basis against "creepy" behavior?
Jim C
FWIW, I don't see the point or value in noting whether Democratic financial support comes from any particular faith.
Certainly, Jewish families have trended left, and Evangelicals right. So what? Why bring it up? If it's a general concern about media bias, it adds little useful information, and begs the appearance of bigotry even if not intended as such. At a minimum, it's gratuitous.
The Althouse comment threads used to be a bit more enlightening.
"And those statements ["Clinton's sex life is none of your business"; "He had an affair, its between him and his wife"; "Its just about sex, MoveOn.org"] defend Clinton's behavior how? Saying that something is not a matter of public interest (after all Lewinsky was an adult, unlike the teenagers in this case), is not the same as "defending" the behavior."
So you're saying that when Clinton undertook morally-repehensible actions in his private life, those actions should not be used as political ammunition against him, which Foley's morally-reprehensible actions in his private life should end his political career? It's staggering that you fail to see that these positions are hopelessly in tension. Moreover, your attempt to distinguish the Lewinsky sitution fails, because the page was over the age of consent. Either you must concede that the age of consent should be raised, because a sixteen year old is not enough of an "adult" to engage in sexual behavior, or you must concede that there is no difference between Lewinsky being sexually harassed by an older man and this page being sexually harassed by an older man. You cannot defend Clinton's conduct while persecuting Foley's. As Pogo pointed out, the party of sexual promiscuity, gay marriage and Bill Clinton is in no position to criticize.
Moreover, it seems readily apparent that Democrats are no more genuinely interested in what happened to this page than they were in Valerie Plame's employment status; this is yet more patently disingenuous faux-outrage from the party that places no moral opprobrium on such behavior other than when it suits their immediate political need, and which seeks to weaponize anything it thinks might lead it back into power.
Then why would one say that A are C&D rather than just saying some C are D? There must be something about being an A that makes it noteworthy.
Maybe because it's typically assumed that businessmen and financiers are Republicans? Maybe it's because evangelical businessmen aren't Democratic supporters?
Or maybe because the commenter was drawing a distinction between one group of traditionally Democratic constituents and another, and pointing out their disagreement over gay marriage?
This is getting rather stupid. The first commenter did not say or suggest that "Jewish financiers" was a reason to oppose gay marriage. The whole point of the post was divisions in the Democratic Party, not some Jewish power cabal.
Simply mentioning that Jewish people have tended to 1) succeed in business, law, and entertainment, 2) vote Democratic; and 3) support gay marriage is not per se a bigoted statement. It may reflect bigotry, but it does not necessarily do so.
Stating that propserous Jews financially support the Democratic Party and favor gay marriage does not mean one believes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That some people here believe so is evidence of the bigotry I mentioned earlier.
(Sorry for the length, but getting a comment thread back on track often requires a good heave-ho.)
I'll leave the "fall of western civilization will result" argument aside.
There is something preeminent/unique about the pairing of 1 man + 1 woman. It's vital that society recognize this uniqueness + encourage such pairings. (Yes, a society with the power to tax, jail, and force conscription is probably not out of line to encourage social relationships that benefit society as a whole.)
We know that children can only result from a man and a woman. I'll go out on a limb and say that it is good for society that people alive now have children. Yes, future "parasites" created by "breeders" will pay FICA, work in the hospitality industry and start 401k's. Everyone, regardless of orientation, is benefited when heterosexuals pair and conceive/raise children. (And it is a pairing of heterosexuals that creates children, contrary to what certain celebrity couples may think. When heterosexuals pair, children often result. When gay or lesbian partners pair up, no amount of willpower, effort, or desire will produce a child.)
However, we know that gay or lesbian couples can obtain children thru or via the help of a 3rd party, whether by intercourse, adoption, or insemination. Adoption can cost $1000's or require overseas trips. Intercourse, of course, requires finding a person and doing the deed. For a gay/lesbian couple to obtain a child requires planning, action with intent, and/or biological material from a third person.
For a heterosexual couple to conceive a child, it requires little more than a few wine coolers and a Peabo Bryson CD.
Because heterosexual pairings can so readily conceive children without planning or forethought, society has a special interest in seeing that children are conceived/raised in stable pairings. Society recognizes (or, in the case of African-Americans families, society ignores the importance or has given up, to all our detriment) the importance of encouraging stable units to raise unexpected children. The societal interest is in creating and maintaining the stable unit as early as possible, and not to be ambivalent as to allow/encourage assorted repairings or lack of pairings.
Because heterosexual couples are the only pairing capable of conceiving life, society has a unique interest in promoting that type of marriage. The ramification of children and the special interest in minimizing the impact of unexpected children are unique concerns because (attn: heresy ahead) heterosexual pairings are not the same. Traditional marriage is the outgrowth of the societal interest in seeing that pregnant women are protected and provided for, children are raised in a stable pairing, and that men do their fatherly duty. These are unique concerns to heterosexual pairings, and as such are worthy of special societal protection.
(Later on we can discuss the gender implications of gay/lesbian marriage and why women would ultimately bear a disproportionate burden if traditional marriage was abandoned.)
Joe Baby
Thanks for getting things back on track.
(I hope we can now dispense with discussion of Jewish Identity politics)
“Because heterosexual pairings can so readily conceive children without planning or forethought, society has a special interest in seeing that children are conceived/raised in stable pairings.”
Your reasoning is congruent with the New York Supreme Court. Its also important to point out that the overwhelming number of people are heterosexual, and only those pairs can produce children. Other pairings may be stable, but it is in societies interest children raised NOT only in a stable household, but rather in a household made up of each child’s natural Mother & Father. In this way the introduction of same-sex “marriage” standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.
Freder Frederson
“And this is an argument against gay marriage how? Considering that the breakdown of the black family came during an era when gay marriage was not even an issue, how can it even be a factor?”
Back in the 1960’s when the cultural left was arguing for no-fault divorce laws; one common refrain often heard was: “What do two people getting divorced have to do with your marriage?”
Another variant is “If the couple down the street gets divorced how does that effect your marriage?”
The divorce rate at the time was around 8%
The slant of the question is meant to put the questioner on the defensive. To put the burden of proof that SS”M” will effect the overall marriage culture on the social conservatives.
“And how can giving a group of people who want to get married the right to get married further damage the prospects of a group of people who apparently don't want to get married”
To answer your question
So called gay “marriage” does two things necessarily. (that is it follows axiomatically from the very definitional change)
#1. It androgynies the institution.
#2. It separates it from any necessary connection to procreation.
You can have this type of yuppie coupling as our ideal, but it fails to promote (and indeed undermines) the integration of the two sexes as a essential part of marriage. Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can conceive children.
Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.
It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not.
there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”-- We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.
It’s almost never innocent to bring up the fact that a large number of people who work in Hollywood are Jewish.
Are you serious? It couldn't be done out of admiration or even just as a simple observation? That's pretty paranoid -- and it's amazing that you have the ability to know and judge people's intent.
If you had read mine you would have seen that I said that "there may be many fine, unbigoted reasons for the Wisconsin marriage amendment."
You assert bigotry on one person's part, and then want to be congratulated that you're accusing him of less bigotry than someone else? Show me where Cedarford said that Jewish support for gay marriage was a reason to oppose it.
Factual statements are never false.
Really? I cannot make a factually false statement? All right! I hereby declare that I make $100K per year! Of course they can be false.
My point is that Cedarford made a factual statement (Jews support Democrats) which is subject to verfication. You are the one who assigned a negative motive to the factual statement.
facts (even "true" facts) can be used to construct an argument that is bigoted
Of course. So what? They can also be value-neutral, can't they? Why are you so quick to assume bigotry?
I can't see a non-bigoted explanation for the argument that Jewish businessmen and financiers are opposed to the amendment.
Maybe that says more about you than Cedarford.
How about this: Jews tend to be more socially liberal and support the political party that reflects their views. How is that bigoted?
Cedarford's comment was not about Jewish power, but the tension created by the Democratic party's support for gay marriage -- tension that exists because of constitutencies with different values.
It's either factually true or not that Jewish businessmen and financiers are "the big moneymen" of the Democratic party. I don't care one way or the other. It makes no difference to me whether gays, unions, or one-armed pachinko players support the Democrats. Those are facts which can be verified.
Cedarford may be a bigot. The comment may come from anti-semitism. I don't know. But you can't prove it from what he(?) wrote. You're the one assuming a value judgment and finding bigotry that on the face of it just isn't there.
Should Gay-Jewish-Financers, who are ultra-leftists be allowed to get “married”.
Or should Mel Gibson produce a film that inspires pogroms against Gay-Jewish-Financers for their role in crucifying Mel Brooks.
There is something seedy and vaguely sinister about saying "Jewish businessmen and financiers" because, whether the writer intended it or not, it makes everyone instantly think of anti-Jewish propaganda.
Seven, I'll take your words at face value. All I can say is it doesn't do that to me.
I know that many people would spit out the word "Jew" with venom, fear, hatred, or envy. But is it not possible to talk about "Jewish people" or "Jewish businessmen" without rancor or bigotry?
Fenrisulven, no I'm pretty sure I haven't gotten smarter. I'm seeing more partisanship, gamesmanship, whatever you want to call it in these comment threads. This is moving from feeling like a bull session among friends to some sort of Crossfire shouting match.
"And this is an argument against gay marriage how? Considering that the breakdown of the black family came during an era when gay marriage was not even an issue, how can it even be a factor?"
Because liberals are not interested in gay marriage qua gay marriage, they are interested in it as part of their wider program of destablizing traditional societal institutions. I think Fitz is right to draw a parallel to the quickie divorce movement, but the simple reality is that while you can pick out specific examples like abortion, the death penalty and homosexuality, liberals are at bottom hostile to any traditional values to place a restriction on their choices, while simultaneously demanding the substitution of a whole new constellation of restraints (speech codes, for example). Having torn up the social opprobrium on divorce, their next target is the underlying definition of marriage as consisting of a man and a woman, and beyo0nd all doubt, the next target after that will be the definition of marriage as involving two people. The endgame of this project is the abolition of all traditional restraints on personal conduct.
Incidentally, in terms of the big picture, I'd add that I see quickie divorce as far more destructive to the sanctity of marriage than two persons of the same gender being married for life. I would personally far rather we spent our time re-writing divorce laws to make it rather less easy to get a divorce absent situations of domestic violence (specifically, I would abolish no fault divorce), but I realize that the vast majority is against me on that point, and it's likely that that ship has sailed. I'm not especially bothered by same-sex marriage, what I'm bothered by is where its logic and its proponents are inexorably leading us.
Simon
Well said.
peter hoh
Then for God's sake, do some illuminatin' and leavenin' and bring some beer.
Really, I am trying to raise a typical bull session point: what are the standards by which the left operates and why?
And why is that seen as me being partisan?
Or, more likely, does anyone really give a shit what I say?
Pardon my french.
"I didn't say Foley should have been expelled ... I may think that the law has no business criminally prosecuting two high school seniors for getting a little too frisky but yet may find it morally reprehensible if one of the same senior's teachers, pastors, friend's parents, or employers is using that position of power to try and get in his or her pants."
Oh, so presumably you find it morally reprehensible for a high school senior's "teacher[], pastor[], friend's parent[], or employer" is sexually harassing them, but you would argue against that person being fired? It's morally reprehensible, but that's not something people who hold positions of public trust should lose their jobs over...Right?
You also seem to be having a problem grasping what Clinton was impeached for. Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself. For purposes of impeachment, it doesn't matter what he perjured himself over, only that he did. And if you disagree with that assesment, then stand ready to explain why Scooter Libby should stand trial for perjuring himself before a grand jury called to investigate a completely different crime.
At least MadisonMan has the decency to admit that he's inconsistent. You just want to have it both ways and hope no one notices.
"I am [not trying to sever marriage from its historical and biological heritage]. Marriage has been for many things and purposes and things throughout history including solidifying alliances, ensuring property transfers, uniting tribes, and just for plain old fashioned love."
Marriage has indeed been used for many purposes, and not always for love - but throughout history, whatever purpose it has been entered into for, it has been entered into by one man and one woman. You are not trying to change its purpose, you are trying to change the definition of what it is.
Boiling water has been for many things and purposes and things throughout history, including the preparation of tea, the sterilization of medical instruments, the cooking of good lobster, and the making of rahmen noodles. What you propose is not the equivalent of a new use for boiling water, but to arbitrarily declare that the new boiling point of water will henceforth be seventy degrees.
The "dilemma for liberals" here is created by the Republican's cynical use of social issues to divide and distract the voting population. So: a black voter who might tend to vote "Democratic" could be swayed to vote otherwise by this issue.
One might just as well condemn the Democrats' cynical use of economic issues to trick black voters -- who tend to agree with pretty much all of the Republicans' social-conservative agenda -- into voting for them. :)
Just remember that it was the icon of the cultural left, Ronald Reagan, who helped usher in the era of no-fault divorce.
Simon, there's an interesting op-ed in the NYT Oct. 1 about no-fault. I found it on the family scholars blog www.familyscholars.org which is a good source for marriage-related issues. For the first time in years, a state has passed a significant revision to no-fault rules, and the effort to "reform" the "fault-based" system in New York has stalled again. Perhaps the pendulum is swinging, however slowly, back again.
The problem with reforming no-fault isn't a simple one. It's probably more a cultural problem than a political one.
Yeah, that works.
Marriage is merely a kind of contract, no more meaningful than buying a car, and having no more impact on society than creating or dissolving a fruit stand.
It's your choice. well, except smoking. No, you can't smoke. And trans fats? Out. Racist speech? Forbidden. Religion anywhere on the schoolgrounds? Out, out, out. Compulsory Medicare.? Of course! Alcohol? Oh my word! Not above 0.8!
But marriage? Whatever. Do your own thing, you know. Whatever floats your boat. Man-man, man-boy, man-man-girl-girl. Why not?
As long as they aren't smoking, who cares?
Our objection was that it, or that lying about it under oath in an investigation that was obstensibly about land deals in Arkansas, did not rise to an impeachable offense.
You seem to have your history misremembered. Clinton didn't lie about the relationship under oath in an investigation into land deals in Arkansas. He lied about it under oath in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, where the plaintiff was entitled to ask about his sexual history by a law (the Violence Against Women Act) Bill Clinton himself signed into effect.
The perjury was accordingly a declaration that Presidents are not bound to respect laws that they themselves sign into effect, if it would cause them embarssment and posible personal financial loss to follow them. The refusal to remove him from office was, it follows, an affirmation that committiing felonies to those ends is not a srious offense.
Amazingly, people who have conceded this are now complaining about Bush violating laws that he didn't even sign, with intent not to save himself from embarassment but to defend the country!
Jim,
I think the difference is that Pogo and Seven Machos pointed out that Cedarford's words could sound bigoted, whereas your first comment assumed bad motives ("it is bigoted"). I appreciate that in your last comment, you've at least said his statement "might be bigoted." That's a crucial difference.
The reason I asked you to reread Cedarford's comments is that you chose to focus on one wording and misconstrue his point -- which wasn't about a Jewish cabal at all, but divisions in the Democratic party among different constituencies -- one of which happens to be affluent Jewish donors.
I still don't see how their Jewishness was intended to be a slur or a threat, as opposed to a description, but I understand the unease with the formulation.
And I'm sorry my first comment was unclear. I was responding to both you and Edward (who clearly implied that there is no unbigoted opposition).
Simon is exactly on target about contempory liberalism. Its adherrents worship at the alter of what they call "the Self". One of their dogmas is that the "self" must remain absolutely free to make unconstrained choices about whatever life role it wants to play and whatever rules of personal conduct it wants to follow. This means that the primary purpose of government is to protect and foster this notion of freedom. And so its laws must insure that neither tradition, religion nor any other authority be allowed to interfere with this creative freedom.
Why they think a nation full of such selves will be able to survive past 2 or 3 generations is never explained.
Freder Frederson
“You volutarily enter into a marriage contract and it is a personal commitment between two people for which the state grants you certain rights and privleges. If you wish to dissolve that relationship, it should be up to you, just like any other private contract enforced by the power of the state.”
The advent of no-fault divorce began a period were the marriage contract became the ONLY contract were unilateral breach by one party constituted no penalty. The law effects culture (as it did with no-fault introduction), new proposals for waiting periods, and the reintroduction of fault based distinctions may help us as a society view marriage as more than a convenient expression of temporary amore, but rather the foundational institution it is.
“You may not like it, he may not like it, but gay people get married all the time. Their marriages may not be recognized by the State”
But they don’t get “married” you can co-opt this word through constant repetition, but that in itself has consequences. We are talking about a historically rooted widespread social institution made up of a man & a woman. People need (and will continue to need) a word to describe that particular institution. Its sad that your need for feelings of social inclusion trump your ability to see the importance of maintaining the standard of children being raised by their Mother & Father.
“I'll agree blacks tend to be homophobic but what about the rest of the social-conservative agenda do they agree with?”
Who said anything about bigotry? (except you) Perhaps African-Americans are particularly aware of the harm done when the institution of marriage breaks down. Perhaps they understand the reasoning in privileging the natural family & encouraging people to strive to provide children with their own Mother & Father in a stable marriage. Is it possible that you are self-obsorbed rather than blacks being bigots?
And what would that be exactly? I'll agree blacks tend to be homophobic but what about the rest of the social-conservative agenda do they agree with?
Abortion, school prayer, the role of religion in public life, and child discipline.
Also school vouchers, if you count that as a social issue (I wouldn't).
As for your list of issues, I have to wonder what drug you were high on when you decided that tax cuts, health care and social security weren't economic issues. The only social issue you listed is affirmative action, which you are correct in thinking blacks favor -- although, ironically enough, polls tend to show that white Democrats support affirmative action more than nonwhite Americans in general do.
OT, but I have never understood the word 'homophobic' as used here.
Are people really 'afraid' of gays, as in actually fearing them?
If I am unafraid of my lesbian neighbor, but I don't agree that marriage needs to be defined to met the current cultural winds, is there a less demonizing term for my view?
Or was that the whole point?
RE: “homophobic”
“Are people really 'afraid' of gays, as in actually fearing them?
If I am unafraid of my lesbian neighbor, but I don't agree that marriage needs to be defined to met the current cultural winds, is there a less demonizing term for my view? Or was that the whole point?”
Yes it seems to be a strategy to pathologies the opposition as being the social deviants.
In the Original Greek it would mean “fear of sameness” or “fear of oneness”
Medically speaking its possible to develop a “phobia” over almost anything (snakes, spiders, closed spaces, open spaces) But the idea that whole swaths of the population suffer under an “irrational fear of homosexuals” is more politically convenient than intellectually enlightening.
It seems that they pine for a term as powerful as “racist” in dealing with those who appose their agenda. The rest of their vocabulary (such as heterosexist, and heteronormative ) has such subversive connotations that it is left in academia and off the front pages of the NYT.
Edward
“Opinions similar to those you express here today about gay people and their civil rights were expressed repeatedly decades ago about women and racial minorities, especially African-Americans.”
Race is not sex, and neither is whom one has sex with. The problem with the argument from analogy, is it is merely that; an analogy. It’s strength rises and falls on the power of the analogy.
Gay people were not brought here in chains, forced into chattel slavery and then lived under apartied for 200 years.
We fought a civil war with a countless death toll to end slavery and insure equal rights for blacks. We also (and this is crucial in your spurious analogy) have three different constitutional amendments that attempted to address this historic inequality. One of them is the 14th on which you so slavishly and narrowly rely. Each amendment was ratified by the people. This was done democratically through a vote. We also have the various civil rights acts ratified through legislative action. Indeed the most important right fought for was the right to vote. Human suffrage goes to the heart of our law. The right to be counted and heard. That’s what this country is, an experiment in popular sovereignty. This applies equally to the 19th amendment as well.
Every “fundamental right” in our constitution has been voted upon and ratified by the people. It is equel justice UNDER THE LAW, that is written above the supreme court. We the people decide what those laws aught be. They don’t simply proceed from spurious and weak analogies. Indeed the co-opting of the moral authority of civil rights language not only insults my intelligence, but insults African Americans generally.
All of this is for naught however. It is a mere procedural argument. It pales in comparison to the deeper truth about what we exalt as a family. What we hope our Sons & Daughters will aspire to, and how we best organize and raise our families.
Edward,
You attribute opposition to gay marriage to intolerance, ignorance, fear, hatred, and bigotry. That's quite a list, but I don't think that position will cost you any political points. It's quite a commonly expressed belief.
I don't know if you've read the comments here and elsewhere on Althouse about opposition to gay marriage, but I think you'd see reasons other than the ones you've mentioned. Such a study might be quite informative -- but you do seem to have already decided for yourself why people oppose gay marriage, what it says about their upbringing, how they are ignorant of history, and how they feel about gays and their own sexuality.
I think one would have to be omniscient to make perfect moral judgments, but it looks like you've covered both those bases. Thanks at least for being honest.
Opinions similar to those you express here today about gay people and their civil rights were expressed repeatedly decades ago about women and racial minorities, especially African-Americans.
We need a separate pronoun in English for 2nd person plural. I hope you don't mean me personally, because I haven't made any comments here today about gay people or civil rights. All I've talked about is not assuming the worst about people based on scant information.
Or are you putting me in a group with others because you're willing to assume my beliefs based on externals? You're not bigoted against pastors, are you?
I hear that's often the result of fear, misinformation, and poor upbringing.
Edward,
I didn't see a question mark anywhere in your comment, so you can forgive my not answering a question you didn't ask. All I saw were declarations, assumptions, accusations, and judgments.
What was the question?
If you really want to know what I was taught, how it influences me, and what I believe, you could start by not making assumptions and accusations. You've already told me you think I'm ignorant, bigoted and homophobic (and my parents were, too). That doesn't make me want to open up my life to you.
Edward
“This rash of state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage is only a backlash against the tremendous progress that the cause of gay equality has already made in the past thirty years.”
Couldn’t it have something to do with the institution of marriage? I mean maybe, just maybe (1 in a 1000 shot) have something to do with this important, indeed foundational social institution?
Of coarse I’m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands. 40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall one third of all children are born out of wedlock, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.
For gays to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.
We can and must rebuild the social institution of marriage. Its important that all children are born into married households with their own natural parents. This standard should be advanced not undermined. The institution of marriage is infinitely more important than a vehicle for homosexual inclusion.
Dej
“Tears fill my eyes after reading some of the comments posted here.”
Tears fill my eyes when I think of all the young people who grow up in households never knowing their own Mother & Father.
“Why should my partner and I be denied these same benefits? We are in a long-term, committed relationship. It's no more complicated than that.”
Because those benefits a reserved for married men & women. Society privileges their relationships above all others in order to promote the natural family.
It wouldn't take a dive into the penumbras of the constitution in order to set up benefit schemes whereby an employee could name any one adult as beneficiary.
We need not create marriage-like status to accomplish this.
But I think we all know that the agenda is much larger than health insurance (or right to visit someone in a hospital, which has an easy remedy).
I'm only a casual reader of the site and even more casual commenter, and I've seen several anti-semitic postings from cedarford. I've called him on one and others have called him on others. I'm a little surprised that other seemingly civilized commenters have been oblivious to this.
Edward: What about if I would willingly accept a democratic decision to allow gay marriage but absolutely reject the courts forcing that decision. Am I a bigot, too?
yetanotherjohn asked about the recent Massachusetts trial court decision holding that two Rhode Island women can get married in Massachusetts because the court couldn't find any constitutional clause, statute or decision that said that Rhode Island wouldn't allow same-sex marriages. My guess is that the case, or at least this holding, will be overturned on appeal. Goodridge, the case that allowed gay marriage, considered the argument that no where was same-sex marriage explicitly prohibited. The Court held that that argument was wrong, because the word "marriage" means a man and a woman, that's what the legislature clearly intended, so that's what the statute means. The Court then held that that meaning was unconstitutional. If the Court wouldn't use that argument for its own state's law, I doubt it will do so for Rhode Island.
My guess is that the entire opinion, and not just that holding, will be reversed.
Dej
“Huh? All of the children of gay and lesbian parents that I know have close relationships with their biological mothers and fathers!”
Does this mean you think society has an interest in insuring that children are attached/stay attached to their own Mothers & Fathers?
“Huh? What makes a heterosexual couple more "natural"? Eyeglasses are not natural, but we haven't voted against those! Moreover, there's a massive difference between what's natural and what's moral.”
If you can brush back the tears and stop saying Huh? (by the way- I believe you when you infer you don’t “get it”)
Perhaps this section New York Supreme Court Ruling will clarify the reasoning.
“First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.”
”The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.”
Dej,
Your right is equal to that of your neighbors. The right is not absolute, however, nor is any right. I cannot marry someone under a certain age; nor someone who is already married; nor someone of close relation.
Society has seen fit to limit marriage to certain conditions. Are these conditions discriminatory? Are any conditions permissible?
It brings us back to the central question, addressed earlier -- what is the purpose of marriage?
And if you dont get a discount - you should make a Federal case out of it! (although not quite yet...it seems)
Do you agree that my partner and I should be denied the same benefits that this state extends to heterosexual couples?
Depends on what rights you're talking about -- The right to vote? The right to life? Or are we talking about the "right" to have the state favor your relationship?
My employer -- a state institution -- does not offer health and dental benefits to domestic partners, but it does so to married partners.
I'd suggest you take that up with your employer, or ask when you're considering employment. Lots of jobs offer no health benefits, and some offer benefits to any domestic partners.
Why would you possibly care what I think about your health care benefits? And why is this a state issue? Are health care benefits now an inalienable right?
Steve next door marries Cheryl. As a result, Cheryl and Steve share health, retirement, and legal benefits extended by this state to married couples.
Why should my partner and I be denied these same benefits?
For the same reason I'm denied those benefits as a single man. Because society doesn't want us to have them.
This isn't about equal rights. This is about joining married heteros in having *more* rights than the rest of us. As a single person is there any particular reason I should be enthusiastic about that? Why shouldn't I be allowed to, for example, share my state health benefits with my friend and tennant, who doesn't have any of his own?
Oh. Because you don't think that's important. But your marriage is.
Jim C, Edward,
I see your point.
Let's just pretend my earlier comments regarding bigotry were about an unnamed, theoretical commenter, shall we? In that case, I still stand by them.
Edward,
Have to be honest -- standard for homophobia seems to have slipped. No slurs, no stereotypes -- just discussion over society and marriage.
Policy differences now qualify? And if so, and a gay man disagreed w/ gay marriage, does he also deserve a pejorative term?
Seems that the definition is now equated to those who disagree.
BTW, if we can't argue policy, what can we argue? You've gone down the road of psychoanalyzing the motivations and upbringings of your opponents. I'll give you the respect of not following you down that road.
For goodness sake, gay sex itself was criminalized in many states until just a few years ago.
13 out of 50 is not what I'd call "many states". It is also worth nothing that nine of those thirteen didn't ban "gay sex", but sodomy in general (definited not simply as anal sex, but as a wide variety of nonreproductive sex acts, oral sex included) and applied those laws to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
Do any of you realize how barbaric such laws are and what extreme levels of animosity toward gay people these laws reflect?
Calling them "barbaric" is a bit silly -- they're no more barbaric than laws against prostitution, consentual incest, or any other form of sexuality that is harmless but widely viewed as deviant and wrong. But in any case the animosity was in most cases towards nonreproductive sexuality in general, not to gays in particular. Only Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri singled out gays for special condemnation.
I just think those of you against same-sex marriage should reflect more on this long-term historical perspective before you make such categorical statements in opposition to marriage rights for gay people.
I happen to be for recognition of gay marriage. I just think the notion that a *right* to such recognition exists is stupid. Blacks were entitled to equal treatment under the law because it's right there in the Constitution. Women are entitled to equal treatment with men due to a wide variety of Constitutional amendments and federal and state laws. But there's nothing out there that so much as implies a right for a man to have the government grant him recognition of his marriage to another man.
The advent of no-fault divorce began a period were the marriage contract became the ONLY contract were unilateral breach by one party constituted no penalty.
Putting aside the whole topic of gay marriage, that's a very interesting observation indeed.
A couple can't get a no-fault divorce (or any divorce for that matter) in this country until both parties agree to the terms
Meanwhile, back in reality (a place Freder seldom visits and is therefore unfamiliar with), most states require nothing of the kind in order for a no-fault divorce to be granted. And a good thing, too, since no-fault divorce is the only kind of divorce that *exists* in fifteen out of fifty states -- if no-fault divorce required mutual agreement by both parties, it would be impossible for any woman in California to leave a husband who didn't want to give her up.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा