These quotes are from a joint letter from Barack Obama's African American Religious and LGBT Leadership Teams, in response to criticism of him for sharing the stage with Donnie McClurkin — a pastor and a popular gospel singer who presents himself as saved from what he believes is the sin of homosexuality.
From the letter:
[A] great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs. This... cannot be ignored.This sounds like to me like a specific example of the general idea that Obama has been purveying all along. Were you excited about the abstraction, but put off by the concrete manifestation?
[W]e believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together.
Not at arms length. Not in a war of words with press and pundits. Only together.
It is clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate who has made bringing these two often disparate groups together a goal. In gatherings of LGBT Americans and African Americans of faith, Obama has stated that all individuals should be afforded full civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homophobia must be eradicated in every corner of our nation. If we are to end homophobia and secure full civil rights for gay Americans, then we need an advocate within the Black community like Barack Obama....
We also ask Senator Obama’s critics to consider the alternatives. Would we prefer a candidate who ignores the realities in the African American community and cuts off millions of Blacks who believe things offensive to many Americans? Or a panderer who tells African Americans what they want to hear, at the expense of our gay brothers and sisters? Or would we rather stand with Barack Obama, who speaks truth in love to both sides, pulling no punches but foreclosing no opportunities to engage?
John Aravosis hates it:
Keep digging, Senator....Obama made his name as a brilliant, inspiring speaker. So why am I reading a verbose letter by his supporters and a rambling rebuttal by an angry blogger?
I'm aware that some people claim that there's a lot of homophobia in the black community - frankly, I wouldn't know - but Obama is now saying that a great many African-Americans agree with McClurkin? Meaning, they agree that gays are trying to kill our children, that America is at war with the gays, and that homosexuality is a "curse"? I'm willing to believe that we may have to do some educating of a lot of Americans of all races and creeds, but I'm having a hard time believing that a "great many" of them believe the kind of wacky stuff that McClurkin does....
[Are we] to believe Obama would not exclude anti-Semites or racists from his campaign either?...
I simply don't believe that Obama would have the same reaction, be just as welcoming, if we were talking about racists or anti-Semites. He wouldn't say that we're all one big tent. He would kick the racist or the anti-Semite to the curb....
I mean, we're to believe that the fact that Obama, alone among Democratic candidates, is willing to openly welcome bigots into his campaign, and that fact makes him the best candidate for voters concerned about civil rights. And the corollary, the worst candidate for someone who cares about civil rights is the candidate who actually stands up against the bigots. So the best way to promote tolerance is to tolerate and embrace intolerance. And I suppose the best way to tackle the issue of domestic violence is to not exclude wife beaters from your campaign either? That's just wacked.
I want to see Obama, on easily accessible video, putting in words exactly why he's doing the right thing, and I want to hear it and be able to say, yes, that's great.
If that doesn't happen, then the whole premise of Obama's campaign is delusional.
***
And I had a hard time even finding the letter I was looking for on Obama's website. Why don't they have a search function? After wasting time searching for a search function, I decided my only hope was trial and error hitting the buttons along the top of the page to get pull-down menus. The "Issues" button looked like a good bet, but no. I finally found it under "People."
People? "LGBT" appears on that menu. So does "Women." Just as I had to go to "People" to find out about gay rights, I would have to go to "People" to find out about abortion.
When is an issue not an "issue"? When it's associated with a particular interest group? But "Honoring our veterans" gets to be an "issue," as does "Fulfilling our covenant with seniors."
This is not great communication.
Posts
228 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 228 of 228AGAIN:
Genitalia,
I'll bet you have a close relative or good friend who is gay...and you don't even know it.
What do you think...?
Licky...
How do you know that I'm not gay?
FACT: The Bush administration spies and monitors on gay rights groups and their participants, including LGBT organizations at ordinary universities.
Geez...you're a paranoid fanatic.
I'm off this thread now that the two clowns have made their dreary appearance.
Sodomy was DECRIMINALIZED in China in 1997. It wasn't decriminalized in the United States until 2003 - as a result of Lawrence V. Texas.
Even in 2007 - gay people are still being imprisoned in the United States just for having sex. You seem horrified that some people were "detained" in China (wrongly by the way - since sodomy is legal there), but you don't give a crap that this country is imprisoning gay people.
Gedaliya is PARANOID to do a simple Google search that would prove that the United States Government is monitoring gay rights organizations.
This has been reported in the associated press.
As I said - she has her head in the sand.
And of course as soon as I provide a link to that - Gedaliya will change her story and say that it is justified.
Gedaliya said..."Licky...How do you know that I'm not gay?"
Well, if you are, you're one of the most homophobic I've ever encountered.
But we both know you're too hateful to be gay.
AGAIN:
Genitalia,
I'll bet you have a close relative or good friend who is gay...and you don't even know it.
What do you think...?
"The Department of Defence has now confirmed the existence of a surveillance program monitoring LGBT groups," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of SLDN. "Pentagon leaders have also acknowledged inappropriately collecting some of the information in the TALON database. That information should be destroyed and no similar surveillance should be authorised in the future. Free expression is not a threat to our national security."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/view.php?id=1163
Who's "parnaoid" of the truth? Gedaliya.
Darkbloom said...
"Yes, Gedaliya, but the pertinent fact is that the vote to put the amendment on the ballot once the citizen petitions were gathered only required 25% of the vote, and that failed. When more than three-fourths of the legislature votes in favor of gay marriage, the argument about the court subverting the will of the people no longer has any currency."
How does that follow? Even if Gedaliya made a minor mistake about the timeline (of all people, I'm for getting the details right, but here it seems beside the point), it seems to me, his/her basic point stands: gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts by judicial fiat, the legislature prevented the peple voting for it, and it's neither coherent nor credible to attempt to maintain the people support gay marriage while refusing to let said people vote on it. If the Massachusetts legislature really believed that the people approved of it -- really approved of it, that is, not just were willing to tell opinion polls that they approved of it and then express their real feelings at the ballot box, as happened in Wisconsin -- what other motivation could they have for opposing the door being nailed firmly open by referendum? It seems to me that the most likely reason to oppose letting the people decide an issue is because you're afraid of what they'll decide.
Simon, the mistake about the timeline wasn't my point. My point was the mistake about the extent of legislative support. Three-fourths of the legislature supports legal same-sex marriage.
Surely there are reasons why a legislator might vote against putting a referendum on a ballot other than being afraid that it might pass. Here, off the top of my head, are a couple:
1. You oppose the amendment. The constitutional process in MA deliberately involves either obtaining a bare minimum of legislative approval or a "super-minority of approval" (25%) before the amendment can appear on the ballot, unlike, say, the one in CA. The legislature's role is to substantively weigh in on the ballot question, not just decide whether or not to put in on the ballot. Otherwise, this step is unnecessary.
2. You believe that questions of civil rights should not be decided by the voters, and that this is a question of civil rights. One purpose of constitutions is to protect the basic rights of minorities from being trampled on by majorities.
The vast majority of public policy questions are decided by legislatures, not by direct vote of the people. The legislature has voted here, and you can't continue to argue this is against the will of the people unless you are willing to argue any law passed by the legislature is against the will of the people, if in some hypothetical referendum there is a chance the vote would go the other way.
If you want to argue that this started by the court "against the will of the people," that's one thing, but you can't argue the current state of legal gay marriage in MA is in opposition to the people's will. Over 75% of the legislature voted against the amendment to ban gay marriage. 75%! It wasn't even close.
"Gentalia, continue to post of gay marriage."
Deliberatly misspelling and putting sexual inuendo into his/her name is nothing more than reinforcing the point that Gadaylia has been tying to make (and doing it quite well, I might add).
"An issue you find boring."
Have you ever been so bored with something that it starts getting on your nerves, even to the point of being like being chalk on a freakin blackboard? I too am annoyed with how certain members of the gay community feel the need to throw their sexual habbits and preferences into my face. But then again, I get just as (if not more) annoyed when a straight and "manly man" feels the need to give me a detailed history of all the women he has boinked. Very boring :-(.
I think maybe this whole debate is mostly about how different people have different sexual values. For some, gay or straight, the sex act is very emotional, intimate and even loving. For others, well...not so much.
Sodomy was DECRIMINALIZED in China in 1997. It wasn't decriminalized in the United States until 2003 - as a result of Lawrence V. Texas.
First of all you're confusing legalization with decriminalization. Decriminalization is when the government stops prosecuting violators of a law but leaves the law on the books in case it wants to prosecute some of them later. Sodomy was already completely legal in most of the United States, and was "decriminalized" in the rest of it (even Texas) prior to Lawrence v. Texas. What Lawrence v. Texas did was *legalize* sodomy, and forbid the state and federal legislators from making it illegal again. China still hasn't done that
Secondly, referring to "the United States" when discussing sodomy law is disingenuous, because there wasn't a nation-wide law against sodomy. Sodomy was legalized (or illegalized) on a state by state basis. So saying that sodomy was criminalized in the United States prior to Lawrence v. Texas is no more honest than saying "owning a handgun was illegal in the United States until 2006" (because it was -- in D.C).
Rev sure seems to now a lot about sodomy.
Still have that pet goat?
Gedaliya,
"the main reason most of the opponents of gay marriage oppose it is simple: they're homophobic."
I don't agree.
Let me run some statistics by you hear real quick:
As of 2003, 35% of Americans felt that homosexuality should be illegal. It is a safe bet that 100% of those people oppose gay marriage, and undeniable that 100% of those people are homophobic.
An additional 8% (for 43% in total) think that while homosexuality should not be illegal, it should never be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Again, it is safe to assume that virtually all of those people oppose gay marriage, and they're certainly homophobic.
The thing is, only 53% of Americans oppose gay marriage. 43/53 = 81%. Call it 80% to account for the handful of weirdos who think homosexuals are criminal deviants with no place in society but still deserving of marriage benefits. So we've got a minimum baseline of around 80% homophobes in the anti-gay-marriage camp.
On the flip side we have 57% of Americans who don't express overt homophobia. That group accounts for the 38% who support gay marriage, the 9% who don't have an opinion, and the remaining 10% of opposition to it. So among non-homophobic Americans, two-thirds support gay marriage, 18% oppose it, and the remainder don't care.
So homophobes are around five times as likely to oppose gay marriage as non-homophobes are, and among non-homophobic Americans support for gay marriage is the supermajority position.
And that, Gedaliya, is why I say that homophobia is the reason most gay marriage opponents oppose it.
And I say that there are very good reasons for homophobia being preserved in the gene pool of the human race. And I also say that gays, lesbians... are digging their own graves... and that they're very likely to occupy them very soon if they keep up all this garbage and nonsense.
Tom
ah, the slippery slope
its so confusing to morons.
all this talk about the constitution, and no talk at all about how restrictive state action survives or fails under constitutional analysis.
Constitutional analysis be damned -
and the Constitution, too, for that matter. If we're all dead because of the gross immorality and amorality of the legal profession, the feminists, the gays, the lesbians ( that you, Ann ? ).... what goods a constitution or anything else. And none of you abstracting fools will be alive to blog on Ann's blog either. What a shame.
Tom
ah, the slippery slope. its so confusing to morons.
Hm, so far my request for an explanation as to why consentual incest shouldn't be accepted by the government has received three or four ad hominem attacks and one refusal to answer (from Darkbloom). Not looking good, guys. And I'm a gay marriage *supporter*! What are your odds of convincing a skeptic if you can't even explain why a "right" to gay marriage won't lead to further "rights" to marriage?
all this talk about the constitution, and no talk at all about how restrictive state action survives or fails under constitutional analysis.
That's an easy one:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So yep -- the states get to decide what counts as marriage, except in cases where the Constitution prohibits making certain distinctions (such as racial discrimination, prohibited by the 14th amendment).
I think we can both agree that the states *shouldn't* do that kind of thing, but they're entirely within their Constitutional rights to do so.
Okay, Revenant, I'll answer. I wasn't going to do it here just because this thread had devolved into recess among the cranky children, but then the thread kept going, and you deserve a reply, so here it is.
Before I start, though, keep in mind, this is a blog comment, not a legal argument. So this cannot contemplate every possible objection. (I'm afraid it's going to be very long enough as it is. Well, we're at the end of the thread; most people have moved on and won't be bothered) If you really want to hear the full argument, plenty of people have written books on the topic, or submitted lengthy legal briefs about it.
I will start with an assumption. There is such a thing as gay people, by which I mean: people oriented to form sexual, romantic and affectional relationships with members of the same sex. This is an unchosen orientation, as integral to their being as heterosexuality is to straights. Note that I'm not weighing in on the nature/nurture question here. I'm only saying that being straight is not a choice. The precise combination of biological or mental factors involved in setting one's sexual orientation is not implicated. (As an interesting aside, to the doubters of the biological basis of homosexuality, read about the scientists who adjusted the brains of female earthworms to produce homosexuality here.)
If you (generic you) reject this premise, then don't bother to read any further, because you can easily reject the argument. However, I'd argue (not here) that the rejection of this premise is completely contrary to the evidence, and you have no good reason for disbelieving the millions of people in this country when they explain their lives and loves. And do you also believe that being left-handed is a choice? If you don't, you are being irrational and inconsistent. Both are conditions exhibited by a minority for which we have equal amounts of evidence about their biological basis. You have no reason to believe it about sexual orientation but not handedness.
Anyway, back to the argument. If you accept that premise, you can solidly establish gay people's right to marry. People who argue that gay people already have the right to marry, they just have to marry members of the opposite sex are technically correct but making a completely specious argument. To argue that means to deny the commonly accepted attributes of modern marriage, that it is a relationship between two people who share a sexual and romantic devotion, and who wish to create a lifelong bond built on that commitment. A gay person cannot in any meaningful sense establish that type of bond with a member of the opposite sex, any more so than a straight person can with a member of the same sex.
So thus because gay people can theoretically marry members of the opposite sex, that is not truly an option, and we should therefore consider the denial of same-sex marriage rights to be, in essence, the denial of the right to marry. Long-standing practice in this country has been that the right to marry cannot be denied without a compelling reason for the government to do so. The best reasons anyone can come up with are either (1) homosexuals are icky, and our public policy is to treat them as inferior, or (2) procreation and child-rearing are integral to marriage, and letting gays marry weakens the institution, which the government can't let happen. (I'm excluding the third reason, that it will completely destroy the family and lead to the extinction of the species, because responding to lunatics is a waste of time.)
On point 1, that's not a compelling reason for government. (Glib, but I'm trying to address serious concerns here.) On point 2, the government currently lets heterosexual nonprocreative couples marry, and also lets gay people raise children (either adopted or the biological child of one partner). So there's two ways in which the government is undermining its own alleged compelling interest. When it undermines its supposed interest to benefit the straight folks but not the gay folks, it's treating its citizens unequally with no good reason. Also, if you accept the premise at the start, then letting gays marry will have no effect on a straight person (whose sexual orientation is also unchosen) because it's not as if they're gonna be tempted into a gay marriage instead of a straight one. Maybe, maybe, there are some bisexuals who will, but that is a very minor subset of people.
I agree that there is a compelling reason for government to support institutions which strengthen families, because the family is an important organizing principle in society. Gay people are forming families, sometimes with children. When those children and families are denied all of the protections marriages afford, that is weakening society.
On to the slippery slope arguments. You specifically mentioned consensual incest and polygamy. I'll take them one at a time.
On the incest question, the government bans marriage between these couples because of the likelihood that the offspring will be biologically damaged. I think it's reasonable to say that the government has an interest in creating a disincentive here. I suppose one can argue, hey, what about two brothers? They're not going to have a biological child with genetic defects. True. The same logic above can mostly be applied to a same-sex, consensual, incestuous couple. But here's a difference: a gay man cannot, in any meaningful sense of the word, marry a woman. He has no choice. Once he has the right to marry someone of the same sex, then he has choices: all the other gay men around. You could then restrict that choice and say, you can't marry within your own family, and you are not denying him the right to marry any longer. The argument for gay marriage isn't an argument to let anyone marry absolutely anyone they want -- it's to address the fact that right now gay people can't get married AT ALL. I suppose that you can say, but what's the government's compelling interest in preventing a same-sex incestuous couple from marrying, and I concede that there isn't one, other than incest is icky. But I also point out that there are millions of gay people in this country, living actual lives, right now, constrained by their inequal treatment. Are there any same-sex incestuous couples clamoring for the right to marry? Even one? I know hundreds of gay people, and I've never met a single one who has had a sexual relationship with a brother/sister. (Obviously we are not talking about intergenerational abuse here.) It's such an extreme outlier as to be comfortably ignored.
As for the polygamists, that can be batted away again by reference to my starting premise and a similar argument. Polygamy is a choice, and sexual orientation is not. There are not people out there saying that they are incapable of forming sexual, affectational, and romantic bonds with only one other person. So this really is in a category unrelated to the same-sex marriage question. Some would argue they feel a strong biological compulsion to have lots of sex with lots of different people. I don't doubt that. But that's not saying they want to marry all those sex partners, or have marriage-like relationships with them. So it's not a parallel situation. The polygamist needs to establish that a marriage with one other person deprives him (it's never "her," interestingly) of something fundamental that the government shouldn't be able to deprive him of. And part of the burden of proof is the establishment of that fundamental quality. What is it? Their strong religious convictions? That's their argument to make, and maybe they can make it. I haven't heard a good one yet. Regardless, there's no necessary connection to the same-sex argument I've advanced here. My argument hinges on my original premise, which does not have an equivalent for the polygamists (or, at least, they aren't articulating one.) So there is no slippery slope here; it's more like a rocky plain.
Sorry for the long post, but there it is. Has this convinced you at all, Rev?
P.S. to Professor Althouse:
Obama gave an interview here in which he addresses the original issue of this post. It's not on video, but you can read it and see if he's persuasive on why he's doing the right thing.
I posted a prediction 200 comments ago that he would fail, but I do think he does a good job of balancing competing imperatives in this interview.
Darkbloom -- one person cannot fulfill all the social, physical, and emotional needs of another. Moreover, if two women are really, truly, and deeply in love with me, why should I hurt and disappoint one by limiting my affections to the other? Further, unlike gay marriage, polygamy has existed for millenia, and continues to exist, even where it is against the law. But many jurisdictions have no problem with polygamy; last time I was in Singapore I read the obituary of a wealthy Chinese man mourned by two wives and two sets of children.
Polygamy is banned in the US only because it offends our sense of what is fit and proper.
darkbllom: On the incest question, the government bans marriage between these couples because of the likelihood that the offspring will be biologically damaged. I think it's reasonable to say that the government has an interest in creating a disincentive here.
Thats not a valid argument. Such couples could adopt, as do gay couples. So why else would the government have an interest in disallowing such unions?
and I concede that there isn't one, other than incest is icky
...exactly what I said a few months ago about homosexual unions.
Not trying to be snarky with you, just looking for a reasoning that supports homosexual marriage without including consensual incestuous marriages or polygamy...
Darkbloom,
Before we start, I would like to point out that your basic premise -- that gay men can only marry other gay men -- is flawed on two points. Firstly, gay men can and do marry women (a few Republican politicians spring to mind). Secondly, gay men can already marry other gay men; they just can't get the government benefits. So this has absolutely nothing to do with gay men being unable to marry. They can. We're discussing whether they should be entitled to benefits, and if so why incestuous and polygamous marriages shouldn't be.
Anyway, as to the rest of your points:
On the incest question, the government bans marriage between these couples because of the likelihood that the offspring will be biologically damaged.
That objection is easily dealt with if one of both of the couple is surgically sterilized, though. That puts them in exactly the same position as a gay couple, who can also not have children without outside aid.
But here's a difference: a gay man cannot, in any meaningful sense of the word, marry a woman. He has no choice. Once he has the right to marry someone of the same sex, then he has choices: all the other gay men around.
I have two objections to that point. The first is that is doesn't matter if you can marry millions of people if you're forbidden from marrying the one person you WANT to marry. Women aren't indistinguishable from each other; neither are men. To a man in love, telling him "you may not marry" and telling him "you may not marry that woman you love" are indistinguishable. Sure, he might eventually find someone else -- but he might not, and in any case love isn't something you can turn off when the laws don't suit it.
The second objection is that you're basing your argument on the claim that the government can't forbid a marriage unless it has a pressing reason to. So even if I accepted your argument that "they have other options", that still doesn't explain what the strong government interest is in preventing two brothers (or a sterile brother and sister) from marrying.
Are there any same-sex incestuous couples clamoring for the right to marry? Even one?
If you want to appeal to numbers, I feel compelled to point out that people who believe that homosexuality should be illegal outnumber actual gay people by about ten to one. Making gay marriage legal will, at this point, make more people UNhappy than it will make happy.
But your argument is based on fundamental needs and rights, and on the government's need to have a compelling reason to prevent a group from doing something; it isn't based popular need. Why would it matter whether the oppressed group consists of two people or of two million? In fact, if the group really does consist of only two people doesn't that make it even more ridiculous to have laws banning their behavior?
It's such an extreme outlier as to be comfortably ignored.
It seems like your argument is boiling down to "well there aren't that many of those people and they're icky". I don't see that as a valid argument, especially since gays themselves are a small minority widely viewed as "icky". Trust me, there are well over a hundred million Americans who couldn't possibly care less if gays feel oppressed and unable to fully express their love. Gay people, to them, are "outliers" that may be "comfortably ignored".
The polygamist needs to establish that a marriage with one other person deprives him (it's never "her," interestingly) of something fundamental that the government shouldn't be able to deprive him of.
That's a reversal of your earlier argument that the burden of proof lay on the government, which had to show a powerful reason why it had to ban the marriage in question.
Right now it is perfectly legal for a man to engage in a polyamorous relationship with three women at the same time, having kids with all of them while living under one roof, sharing expenses and chores, etc. In other words, it is entirely legal to act like you're in a polygamous marriage. On top of that, there are several religions (such as the FLDS) where polygamy is a religious *requirement*. Any law banning a religious practice is subject to strict scrutiny, as I understand it.
So what is the compelling government case for denying marriage benefits to a polygamous marriage, that doesn't also apply to gay marriages?
Has this convinced you at all, Rev?
Not at all, I'm afraid.
What this really comes down to is this: (a) are you allowed to participate in the kind of marriage that would make you happy, and (b) do you get government recognition? If you love someone and want to marry them, being forbidden to do so is a bad thing, and being told "oh, you can go ahead and marry someone else from a government-approved group" is a cold comfort.
First to Fen: my concession regarding incest being "icky" was my way of saying that you can't totally build a solid argument opposing marriage rights for a same-sex related couple. "Ickiness" isn't a reason to deprive people or rights. So I hope you feel the same way about gay couples.
Now to Rev:
gay men can and do marry women
This is of course true, but my point was that gay men cannot marry women in any meaningful sense of the word, with the understanding of what a modern marriage is--a devotion built upon affectional and sexual union. Being technically able to marry someone of the opposite sex is a meaningless option. Say you have a place where women are legally barred from walking in public unaccompanied (as in, oh, I don't know, Saudi Arabia). I imagine there may be some women there who cut their hair short, and bind their breasts, and try to pass as men in order to participate in the proscribed behavior. That is not, at all, a mitigation of the ban for all the rest of them, especially considering the extreme compromise they have to make to get around it. It's the same with gay people only able to marry someone of the opposite sex.
gay men can already marry other gay men; they just can't get the government benefits.
Everywhere I used the word "marry" I meant "legally marry."
...that is doesn't matter if you can marry millions of people if you're forbidden from marrying the one person you WANT to marry.
Well, that's a different argument you, or anyone else, can make. That's an argument that says anyone should be absolutely able to marry anyone else. And if you make the argument that way, then, yes, it will be impossible for you to later exclude incest and polygamy. But that's not MY argument. You asked me to show how you can justify extending marriage rights to gay couples without automatically then having to extend them to incestuous and polygamous couples, and that's what I did. That you can make a different argument that does have a slippery slope isn't a counterexample to my argument.
that still doesn't explain what the strong government interest is in preventing two brothers (or a sterile brother and sister) from marrying.
Yes, I conceded this. The one place where the slope is slippery is the incestuous couple who cannot procreate. Which brings us to:
If you want to appeal to numbers, I feel compelled to point out that people who believe that homosexuality should be illegal outnumber actual gay people by about ten to one. Making gay marriage legal will, at this point, make more people UNhappy than it will make happy.
I'm not appealing to numbers as a justification, as in: there are more of x than y and therefore x's wants should be accommodated. (That is indeed irrelevant in questions of fundamental rights under a constitutional system such as ours.) My point was to say that the number of same-sex incestuous couples who want to marry is either 0 or very close to 0. It is a theoretical objection, which may not have ANY relevance to the real world. That's what I meant when I described it as such an outlier.
But again, this is the one, narrow case in which the same argument I am making about same-sex marriage applies to incestuous couples. Here the slope is somewhat slippery. But how something plays out in practice is an important consideration in rendering a judgement. To feel that A shouldn't be done because the hypothetical B would then occur, when A involves improving the lives of millions of people but B involves possibly zero people is, in my estimation, to exercise poor judgement. Courts do this all the time--factor in the likelihood of potentially unwelcome or unforseen consequences; it's a reasonable approach in a complex world.
That's a reversal of your earlier argument that the burden of proof lay on the government
So what is the compelling government case for denying marriage benefits to a polygamous marriage, that doesn't also apply to gay marriages?
Well, I felt that I addressed that in my argument about the difference between polygamy being a choice and sexual orientation not. That is a distinction that results in gay people unable to marry AT ALL (where, again, I mean legally marry a person with whom they can meaningfully share an intimate marital relationship). So the government has to show what is its compelling reason for denying gay people the right to marry, period. The straight polygamist currently has the right to marry. He is asking for something different--the fundamental right he claims he is being deprived of is not the right to marry itself, but something else.
Your point about religions and polygamy is a valid one, and if the government forbids a religious practice they have a burden to justify it. But that is NOT a slippery slope argument from gay marriage. Again, the polygamist is free to make his own argument, and if he makes it by saying the government is interfering with his religious observance, well, good luck to him. But, like I said above, you asked for an argument for legal gay marriage that doesn't then automatically extend to polygamous marriages. Your counterargument introduces points I didn't, and wouldn't, make about same-sex marriage. So that is not a case of the slippery slope.
I have granted that the connection between gay couples and related non-procreative couples is not nonexistent, though it's also not ironclad. And also it's really only a theoretical objection, not necessarily one we will see in practice. I will not grant that about the polygamists -- you can argue for gay couples without easing the way for polygamists, at all. Whether or not the polygamist has a good argument on his own is not my concern here.
If you love someone and want to marry them, being forbidden to do so is a bad thing, and being told "oh, you can go ahead and marry someone else from a government-approved group" is a cold comfort.
Indeed it is.
Well, that's a different argument you, or anyone else, can make. That's an argument that says anyone should be absolutely able to marry anyone else. And if you make the argument that way, then, yes, it will be impossible for you to later exclude incest and polygamy. But that's not MY argument.
But your argument doesn't actually make any sense. What is the point of saying "you can marry any of that whole bunch of people over there" if the person you WANT to marry isn't in that group? Joe goes down to get a marriage license, bringing his intended spouse along with him. The person behind the desk says to Joe "you want to marry THAT person? No, that's not allowed. Go find someone else." The reason for the denial doesn't matter. Maybe the would-be spouse is Joe's sister; maybe it is another man. Either way, the marriage to the person Joe wants to marry is being denied. The typical person, gay, straight or otherwise, has at any given time a maximum of ONE person they want to marry. Saying "oh its ok to forbid THAT marriage because there are plenty of other fish in the sea" is not a valid argument, because for all you know that person will NEVER find another prospective spouse.
Your response, that the person can simply find someone else to marry, applies to gay men too. Gay men have managed to have happy, loving marriages with women. Your attempt to entirely rule out the possibility is without basis. He is much, much less likely to achieve a happy marriage if his options are limited to women, but it is not impossible -- so you're reduced to arguing over how much inconvenience is acceptable. I submit to you that the consensus on that question is that quite a lot of inconvenience to homosexuals is acceptable.
Yes, I conceded this. The one place where the slope is slippery is the incestuous couple who cannot procreate.
So we're agreed, then, that the people who claim that legal recognition of gay marriage will lead to legal recognition of incestuous relationships have a legitimate concern?
My point was to say that the number of same-sex incestuous couples who want to marry is either 0 or very close to 0. It is a theoretical objection, which may not have ANY relevance to the real world. That's what I meant when I described it as such an outlier.
I don't see what the basis is for claiming that the number is "0 or very close to 0". Incest is an incredibly strong taboo in our society, and completely illegal to boot. Obviously anyone in such a relationship is going to conceal it. But at the same time, there's a lot of porn out there with a consensual-incest theme, which makes me suspect that (at least on the male side) there's a not-insignificant interest in the idea. Remember, as uncommon as homosexuality is (around 3% of the population or so), people USED to think it was far more uncommon than that -- simply because homosexuals didn't dare reveal themselves in public.
But in any case, like I pointed out before, the rarity of a (harmless) practice is an argument AGAINST the government banning it. It makes no sense to say "yes the government bans that harmless practice but since hardly anybody does it anyway who cares".
To feel that A shouldn't be done because the hypothetical B would then occur, when A involves improving the lives of millions of people but B involves possibly zero people is, in my estimation, to exercise poor judgement.
Now you're playing the numbers game again. Like I noted earlier, "A" *worsens* the lives of many more people people (by making them unhappier) than it improves the lives of -- with the additional problem of likely making several hundred million people less happy if "B" comes to pass. You can't frame this in utilitarian terms, because by that standard gays lose (in our current culture). You have to frame it in terms of fundamental rights, and framing it in those terms leads to the inescapable conclusion that incestuous marriages have a right to be recognized too.
Courts do this all the time--factor in the likelihood of potentially unwelcome or unforseen consequences; it's a reasonable approach in a complex world.
But that's an excellent argument against recognizing gay marriages. Why mess with a core societal institution, and risk who knows what consequences, just to benefit whatever fraction of that 3% of the population that (a) is gay and (b) wants to get married? Furthermore, like I noted above, the rarity of a practice undermines that argument. If, indeed, incestuous relationships are ultra-rare to the point of virtual nonexistence then a judge can't credibly argue "I forbid this, because allowing it would harm society".
Well, I felt that I addressed that in my argument about the difference between polygamy being a choice and sexual orientation not.
You're comparing sexual attraction to plural marriage. Polygamy is a choice, and so is gay marriage. Sexual attraction to men is not a choice -- and neither is sexual attraction to multiple women. Put more romantically, we do not choose who we fall in love with, and we don't choose who we want to marry.
But anyway, your argument was simply "polygamists have other options". Even if I accepted that argument, which I don't, that still doesn't let you out of the fact that you'd argued that the government needed a compelling reason to forbid gays from marrying. Well, what's the compelling reason for forbidding polygamy -- given that all of the practical aspects of it are already legal (as with gay marriage), and given that most of those who wish to practice it have strong religious reasons for wanting to do so?
The straight polygamist currently has the right to marry.
The person whose right to marry is being denied is the prospective second wife. She -- like a gay man -- can go through the ceremony to marry her beloved, but she'll be denied government recognition and benefits.
I'm sorry, but your argument is all over them place -- sometimes gays have a right to marry because there's no compelling case against it, but when the polygamists show up then suddenly the burden of proof shifts. Then its a matter of numbers, except when the numbers favor the homophobes. The only consistent bit is that "gays don't have a marriage option at all". As I noted earlier that's not technically true, but even if it was it ignores the way marriages actually work.
I think this discussion may be nearing its natural end, so I will just offer a couple of observations at this point.
Several of your points boil down to the argument anyone should be able to marry whoever they want. It's as if you're asking me to dispute that argument, and I'm not going to dispute it. What I was trying to do was offer a different argument from that one. You keep coming back to that as if that disproves my argument, and I don't think it does.
Look, I find that line of reasoning appealing. But I am not viewing this as purely an abstract exercise, where the best theoretical argument is all that matters. I'm also trying to put forth a practical argument that might persuade those who worry about incest and polygamy necessarily following, even if that argument isn't necessarily the strongest one to make. So long as I can make a valid argument that might assuage the fears of those who worry about incest and polygamy, that's the one I favor, because my goal would be to actually convince people to come around to support gay marriage, preferably before I am dead.
To that end, I think you have misunderstood my point about the relative numbers of incestuous couples and gay couples. I don't, AT ALL, reference that to buttress the fundamental rights of one group over another. Your point that maybe there are some incestuous couples out there, just in the closet, is totally plausible. And if they want to start coming out of the closet and advocating for their rights, and try to persuade people to abandon long-standing beliefs about them, then let them go ahead and try. Gay people have been doing that for decades, and are reaching a tipping point in some societies. But until that starts happening, I'm not willing to sacrifice the benefits to actual people fighting for themselves now on the altar of theoretical constructs that may not have actual beneficiaries. Is there a logically purer argument that encompasses both gay couples and incestuous couples? Yes. But it is not the ONLY argument available.
It makes no sense to say "yes the government bans that harmless practice but since hardly anybody does it anyway who cares".
I agree, and I didn't say that. What I said was that, from a practical standpoint, I'm not interested in arguing against the prohibition of that harmless practice. I offered enough of an argument to differentiate gay marriages from incestuous ones (the gay people can't get married at all but incest-lovers can) and so I've met the slippery slope burden you posed. You say that's not a valid argument, because everybody wants to marry whoever they want to marry. Those are two distinct arguments. That one is more expansive than the other does not, on its own, mean the first is invalid.
Regarding this:
Gay men have managed to have happy, loving marriages with women. Your attempt to entirely rule out the possibility is without basis. He is much, much less likely to achieve a happy marriage if his options are limited to women, but it is not impossible -- so you're reduced to arguing over how much inconvenience is acceptable. I submit to you that the consensus on that question is that quite a lot of inconvenience to homosexuals is acceptable.
I reject this out of hand. People will differing sexual orientations cannot meaningfully marry. That a few people are able to eke out an existence that is not miserable is not a successful counterexample. Would any one of those gay people chosen to marry someone of the opposite sex if society didn't essentially force them into it, and they had the freedom to marry someone with whom they could enjoy a genuine union? The answer is no. It is impossible, and so I am not arguing how much inconvenience is acceptable. You're free to disagree, of course, but you haven't persuaded me at all why your view of this condition is correct.
"A" *worsens* the lives of many more people people (by making them unhappier)
No, it doesn't. Not liking something doesn't actually make your life worse, at least not in the context of the government evaluating competing rights and liberties. The government has lots of rules that I don't like, but that doesn't constitute an actual negative effect on my life unless I can demonstrate some real harm. Disapproval is not harm. A person needs standing to legally question a law, and "I don't like it" is not standing.
Finally, on the polygamy question:
The person whose right to marry is being denied is the prospective second wife.
Again, I disagree. She still has the right to marry, just not the specific man she wants to marry. I'm not shifting the burden of proof for the polygamists. It's the fundamental right that is different. The gay person currently has no right to marry, period, because the gay person cannot meaningfully marry someone of the opposite sex. The straight polygamist currently has a right to marry, because they can marry any other person of the opposite sex they want. They are advocating for a fundamental right to something more than just marriage itself. (You disagree, because you reject my premise about the impossibility of gay-straight marriage, but that's not me changing the criteria for the polygamists.)
Regardless of the fact that I haven't persuaded you at all, I've still enjoyed the exchange. It's useful to have one's argument picked apart, and interesting to hear others' perspectives.
Post a Comment