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:
1 – 200 of 228 Newer› Newest»"If that doesn't happen, then the whole premise of Obama's campaign is delusional."
As I've said in posts and comments passim, the whole premise of his campaign has been delusional from the start - and that's at best, having given it enough credit to avoid concluding it's a shell game. Most of the issues that are divisive are divisive because people care deeply about them and groups disagree passionately with one another over them. You can't sidestep these issues or pronounce them irrelevant.
There may have been a brief moment when some yearning few actually believed Obama was a viable candidate. That has passed for most, and he is now just filling an "other" slot - thus analysis and debate of his views are irrelevant. Real Democratic Party power isn't interested, and he won't be on the ticket as Veep.
"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."
Prepare to be disappointed. Because however gifted a speaker he may be, there is no way he will be able to advance an argument that he is doing the right thing. Because he isn't.
Inclusion is wonderful, but it's not a limitless concept. Some ideas do need to be rejected. And the kind of brainless anti-gay bigotry espoused by McClurkin falls squarely into that category.
So how mean is McClurkin? Aravois is hardly a credible source.
It would be odd if the first viable black candidate managed to break the black voting bloc, while trying to be a uniter.
Caring deeply always gets the right of way at intersections.
I'm gonna steal that one, rhhardin.
Why don't they have a search function?
Who needs a search function when you have the evil Google on your side. Using site:barackobama.com lgbt as my search on Google brought 296,000 hits...
It's a battle.
Once group is anti-gay and the other group is anti-anti-gay. The anti-gay group says being gay is wrong. The anti-anti-gay group says being anti-gay is wrong. Both groups claim that their positions are not choices made from free will. One groups says its biology, the other says its spiritual.
I think the solution is for both groups to tolerate one another.
Obama's critics would prefer that he simply roll over and make way for the coronation of Hillary!, after which time the differences between the GLBT community and religious African-Americans can be ignored again.
It's also prejudice to assume that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals all share the same goals. Why lump us all together? That would be like saying a Kenyan and a Haitian are the same because they're black. Just because I'm an invert doesn't mean that I'm your kind of invert.
The LGBT Americans meet the Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs at the intersection of life, and both groups see amber and try to beat the red signal to stop.
Andrew Sullivan is strangely silent about this matter. LOL!
On the one hand, this is very noble. On the other, this nobleness is making me think a bit of Jimmy Carter, who was decidedly a very good man while president, but also probably the worst president of the second half of the 20th Century. And many forget that Carter was also extremely smart.
I do find the contrast between Hillary! and Obama enlightening. She doesn't seriously try to run as a good person, but rather, as effective and that she can beat the Republicans and win. Her only real philosophical consistency is winning.
The Democrats do seem to have this dichotomy in presidential candidates - those who fight the good fight and those nominated because they will do what it takes to win. The Republicans have it some (this time, in Ron Paul), but most often, the true believer doesn't come close to the nomination. But sometimes they do in the Democratic party.
Jimmy Carter was very smart? At what point does a person's very wrongness quotient put his very smartness quotient in doubt?
"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."
No, it isn't, but it is part and parcel of the modern Democrat party in which voters are parceled out and appealed to on the basis of group identity, rather than as simply individual Americans with freedom of consciousness and self determination. Palladian had it right - just because you seem to outwardly "fit" within one group doesn't mean you view the world the same way as that group presumably does.
I really wish I didn't know what "LGBT" meant.
Obama clearly has no gay person in an important position on his staff. And even more clearly, no black, gay person with any status on his staff. He stepped into this and all that blather about beliefs is his trying to get out of the mire without tearing all connection with one of the two groups (anti-gay and anti-anti-gay -- that's so well-put!).
McClure's public statements aren't hard to find. That none of Obama's staff did any research points to a disorganized campaign.
"I really wish I didn't know what "LGBT" meant."
Sorry for polluting your mind with all of our pernicious terminology!
Sorry for polluting your mind with all of our pernicious terminology!
I'm always worried that another letter will be added. Happens every five years or so, in my experience.
Oh, the term isn't pernicious...it's just tedious. Everytime I hear or read a news story wheren in term is used it is accompanied by some supposedly grave grievance that is the result of the intolerance of our "oppressive" society. Of course, "LGBT" people enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety in almost all parts of the United States, but alas, there is always something to complain about.
It is such a crushing bore.
Yeah, I actually despise the whole concept of a "gay community", especially those acronyms, but I couldn't resist.
Gedaliya: "Of course, "LGBT" people enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety in almost all parts of the United States ...."
So, what are the parts of the United States where "LGBT people" don't "enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety"? Just curious.
Of course, "LGBT" people enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety in almost all parts of the United States, but alas, there is always something to complain about.
It is such a crushing bore.
Yeah, we should really just shut up about our boring, tedious problems. Since things are better than they used to be, it follows axiomatically that things are good enough. How stupid of us not to realize.
Richard Dolan--
Deerborn, MI.
I'm always worried that another letter will be added. Happens every five years or so, in my experience.
This is truly hilarious. Bravo for the quip of the month.
So, what are the parts of the United States where "LGBT people" don't "enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety"? Just curious.
Oh, I don't know. I don't personally know of any such place...do you?
Re LGBT confusion: surely the acronym would be easier to remember if it were GBLT: every one knows what a BLT is, and you would just have to preface it with G.
Re the ideological purity of one's service providers: The dread McClurkin has performed at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, without having gays shoved in concentration camps as a consequence.
But this reminds me why Republican campaign funds always go further than Democrats': To show Solidarity with Labor, Democratic printed materials must be printed by union presses, lithographers, etc., because their base will look for the union bugs. But Republicans can go to the scab press, which by virtue of using illegal alien help can deliver materials at a considerable savings.
Yeah, we should really just shut up about our boring, tedious problems.
This would be a development truly marvelous and wonderful if you were to actually adopt it.
I don't tell you about my problems, and I don't get on TV whining about them, and I don't try and garner sympathy by identifying myself as part of some subgroup known by a four-letter acronym. Why should you?
You apparently are not aware on how utterly boring it is to hear rich homosexuals and/or crossdressers droning on about some grievance (what is it this time?). As some wag said, homosexuality changed from "the love that dare not speak its name" to "the love that won't shut up about it."
Feh.
"Why lump us all together?"
Because it's easier to gather money and votes from people that way.
This is another instance of When Liberal Worlds Collide. Tolerance is indeed the answer, but activists usually mean their version of tolerance.
So, what are the parts of the United States where "LGBT people" don't "enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety"?
Big city public housing?
Oh, I don't know. I don't personally know of any such place...do you?
Are you saying you've never heard of any trannie being assaulted? You don't know any gay people, male or female, who've been attacked? I don't believe you.
It's not about place, it's about people. Gay people and trannies may have more of a problem living in a small town, but they are the targets of violence in big cities, too.
Gedaliya, you are apparently unable to differentiate between people simply talking about their generic problems, and an effort to achieve equality for one group of citizens currently denied it. That is a rather significant shortcoming.
I tend to ignore things that bore me. You should try it. Since you obviously are not going to be ally in the effort to achieve equal rights for gays, I think we both would be better served by you just tuning out on the subject and keeping quiet yourself.
Are you saying you've never heard of any trannie being assaulted?
Beth...please recall what I said: "LGBT" people enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety in almost all parts of the United States..."
I did not say they enjoyed "absolute" freedom and safety in the United States...but who does? Yes, some are attacked because they are who they are...but so are homeless people (set on fire), women (raped and assaulted),etc., etc. Even so, these are individual acts of violence,, and the perpetrators are almost always caught and severely punished. Our nation protects "LTBG" (or whatever the acronym is) people to the full extent of the law, and I see no reason to pander to their inane whining about their supposed grievances any longer.
Funny, Beth, I can't think of a single place on earth where one isn't at risk of being assaulted.
Since you obviously are not going to be ally in the effort to achieve equal rights for gays...
I'm for "gays" voting, holding public office, having the right to assemble, worship as they please, buy and own property, move about the nation unmolested and without the fear of violence, and I am in favor of "gays" having equal protection of the laws.
What you're talking about is whether I favor same-sex couples marrying, aren't you? In your mind, if I don't favor that, I am not in favor of "equal rights for gays." Well, I reject your notion of what "equal rights" entails, because I don't believe gays should marry, sisters should marry, or two men should marry the same woman.
Since I assume you don't agree with the proposition that two sisters should marry, am I to assume you aren't in favor of equal rights for sisters?
AllenS: It's spelled "Dearborn." Do you know something about Dearborn that leads you to say that it's a place where LGBT folks don't enjoy the same "unprecedented freedom and safety" that they do elsewhere in the US? Or are you just channeling your bias against some element of the Dearborn population? Never having been there, I don't know much about it, other than that it apparently has a large Muslim/Arab population.
Ralph: You suggested "Big city public housing," albeit with a question mark. So, same question to you. Do you know something about "big city public housing" that leads you to say that it's a place where LGBT folks don't enjoy the same "unprecedented freedom and safety" that they do elsewhere in the US? Or are you just channeling your bias against the poorer people who typically live in big city public housing?
I am in favor of "gays" having equal protection of the laws.
I don't believe gays should marry
As long as the government is in the marriage-sanctioning business, and grants rights and privileges to the married, and prohibits gays from marrying, then gays don't have equal protection under the law.
As long as the government is in the marriage-sanctioning business, and grants rights and privileges to the married, and prohibits gays from marrying, then gays don't have equal protection under the law.
Nonsense. Sisters can't marry, polygamy and polyandry are outlawed, and so are marriages between 10 year old children. It is silly and nonsensical for you to claim that the individuals who comprise those groups don't enjoy equal protection of the laws.
Are you seriously suggesting that two ten year old children who are denied the right to marry do not enjoy equal protection of the laws?
Are you seriously suggesting that two ten year old children who are denied the right to marry do not enjoy equal protection of the laws?
Talk about nonsense. Put aside for the moment the obvious point that differences between how the law treats adults and children do not give rise to equal protection claims.
Your argument appears to be that since there are some couples that are legitimately prevented from legally marrying, then any couple legally prevented from marrying is not an equal protection violation. Simply follow that argument to its logical conclusion, and you're forced to conclude the same about a mixed-race heterosexual couple. Which is clearly incorrect.
You know this just helps Obama with independents in certain states, right?
Your argument appears to be that since there are some couples that are legitimately prevented from legally marrying, then any couple legally prevented from marrying is not an equal protection violation.
No. I'm saying that the state has made a determination that the only legitimate form or marraige is that between a man and a woman who are not related by blood, and who have reached a certain minimum age. Any other combination of persons cannot legally marry, period. Two men who want to marry fall into that category, just as two sisters do and two 10 year olds do. A mixed race couple who have reached the minimum age do not.
Big city public housing isn't safe for anyone, and I imagine LBGTs are frequent targets of "youth" gangs and thugs of all races, if the PC folks are to be believed.
Well, we've got to change those laws then, don't we? The state shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning religious ceremonies.
Any other combination of persons cannot legally marry, period.
The restatement of the issue, even with a decisive "period" at the end, isn't an argument.
A mixed race couple who have reached the minimum age do not (fall into the category of persons who cannot legally marry).
Today, sure. But 50 years ago, in many states, they did fall into that category. Consider this argument then: the state has made a determination that the only legitimate form or marraige is that between a man and a woman who are not related by blood, and who have reached a certain minimum age and are not of the same race.
The state defined which couples were eligible to marry, and, sorry, mixed-race couple, you're not in that group. But don't consider it as a violation of your rights to be treated equally under the law, because we don't let 10 year olds or sisters marry either.
Then, as now, that's completely unconvincing.
Use more precise terms, please. The government never stopped gays from marrying; gays got married all the time. The government simply refrained from recognizing same-sex couples as married.
I'm saying that the state has made a determination that the only legitimate form or marraige is that between a man and a woman who are not related by blood, and who have reached a certain minimum age. Any other combination of persons cannot legally marry, period.
Leaving out the question of children marrying -- which no one supports and is the strawiest of straw men -- why should the state be in the position of making this "determination?"
I want my government to do a much better job enforcing many fewer laws. Deciding who can marry whom is not a job I recall assigning to my government. It's none of their business and they would fuck it up anyway.
The state didn't "invent" marriage as a solution to some social problem. It evolved on its own, long before the US government or any of the states' existed, and it continues to evolve. At some point the government decided there was some justification for butting in, probably initially to prevent fraud, regulate what happens when divorce is sought, etc. That's a minimal role, a record-keeping, contract-enforcing role. The social views of the government leaders were not supposed to be a factor.
Social norms evolve. They don't evolve uniformly in every place. In some areas of this country, the social norms around marriage have changed significantly. Gay marriage is one aspect of this evolution. How is it the state's business to decide the shape of an institution it had nothing to do with creating? To me, it is far more radical to think the government should have a say in marriage than to suggest gay marriage will become part of the norm.
I've been divorced, widowed and am now married for a third time. My first marriage was to someone from a different faith. I wouldn't want the state to tell me that I couldn't marry a Jewish woman, or that I couldn't divorce her, or that I couldn't marry a divorced woman (my second marriage), or that after she died I couldn't remarry. In some parts of the world, any and all of these decisions might have challenged the social norms of my community, but thankfully not anymore. But you're saying we've achieved the final, ultimate form of marriage, and the state is now in the business of making sure it doesn't change. How can you justify that, except as your own preference?
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....
The majority of blacks believe that homosexuality is "always wrong".
Now, that doesn't necessarily imply a belief that gays are killing Americans or any of the rest of that nonsense -- but when you consider that around a third of blacks believe that AIDS was invented to kill black people and crack was introduced by the government to destroy the inner cities, the idea that a sizable minority of black people might believe wacky conspiracy theories about gays doesn't sound so unbelievable anymore.
I had no idea what LGBT stood for until I looked it up on Wikipedia. I'm still unclear in this instance, whether there is an actual group calling themselves this. If the latter, do they represent all LGBTs or a small group of activists?
I had no idea who Donnie McClurkin was either and am still not sure who he is (The Wikipedia article is pretty sparse and his web site is annoying.) From what I gather, he preaches that homosexuality is a sin. So what?
I think Obama is an empty suit and rather politically tone deaf, but this makes the LGBT folks look thin skinned and petty.
Palladian said...
"Well, we've got to change those laws then, don't we? The state shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning religious ceremonies."
As a general rule governing the adoption of new practices, I agree, but where we're not talking about adopting a new practice, where we're talking about making changes in a role that the state has had for hundreds of years in Anglo-American society, I don't think we should be in the business of making massive and arbitrary changes without absolutely compelling reason. No lesser personage than Burke warned against acquiescence to the programs of those who regard with "total contempt ... all ancient institutions when set in opposition to a present sense of convenience or to the bent of a present inclination...."
The state defined which couples were eligible to marry, and, sorry, mixed-race couple, you're not in that group. But don't consider it as a violation of your rights to be treated equally under the law, because we don't let 10 year olds or sisters marry either.
The obvious point you're missing is that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of race. The Constitution does NOT forbid discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. That is why laws denying recognition to interracial marriages are unconstitutional and laws denying recognition to gay marriages are not.
I guess if the Constitution doesn't forbid discrimination we can all feel good about discriminating.
All those gays should just be happy that their Constitutional Rights aren't being violated.
"Of course, "LGBT" people enjoy unprecedented freedom and safety in almost all parts of the United States, but alas, there is always something to complain about."
Oh I know, totally! Don't you wish everyone would just relax? People that complain about being oppressed are soooo circa 1964. If people would just shut up, their problems would go away. That's how it's always worked in the past! Some people will NEVER understand, right Gedaliya?!
And as far as marriage is concerned, two sisters getting married or four guys who want to marry nine women and a dolphin is totally the exact same thing as two unrelated monogamous gay dudes...I mean hello? They do it in the butt! It's not normal!
MadisonMan said...
"All those gays should just be happy that their Constitutional Rights aren't being violated."
Nothing stops a state constitution from offering greater protection than the federal constitution, and nothing stops you from participating in the political process to advance goals through legislation that aren't settled by the Constitution. That the constitution doesn't settle a given question just means that - like any other interest group - you have to make your case in the ordinary democratic process and take your chances therein.
"four guys who want to marry nine women and a dolphin"
Cool! When do they debut the reality TV series?
Didn't they do that and opened a pizza place?
Previously, black men couldn't marry the same people white men could marry, and vice-versa. Clearly an equal protection violation, given that it is discrimination on the basis of race.
Currently, gay men can marry anybody a straight man can marry. While they might not want to marry them, there is no restriction on marriage on basis of orientation. The cases aren't parallel.
A more parallel case would be, oh, tobacco and marijuana. All men are allowed to smoke tobacco, while all men are not allowed to smoke marijuana. That there is one class of "people who like to smoke tobacco but don't like marijuana" and another class of "people who like to smoke marijuana but don't like tobacco" doesn't make the universal prohibition on smoking marijuana an equal-protection issue.
Now, it is true that a man may not marry the same people that a woman may, and vice-versa. But that is not discrimination on the basis of orientation, that is discrimination on the basis of sex. The sexes are being treated differently, not gay people.
Now, you can argue that men and women should not be treated differently in the matter of whom they should be allowed to marry, but you'll have to make a much tougher case, because there is plenty of standing legal precedent for treating men and women differently on matters related, even indirectly, to sexual intercourse.
The obvious point you're missing is that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the government from discriminating on the basis of race. The Constitution does NOT forbid discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.
To be clear, I wasn't attempting in my posts to advance the argument as to why prohibiting gay couples from marrying is treating them unequally. I was just pointing out the flaws in Gedaliya's reasoning. When you consult characteristics that differentiate certain couples from others (such as their race or sex or whether or not they are related), then you can evaluate to what degree the right to deny them marriage is legitimate. My example with a mixed-race couple was to show that Gedaliya wasn't making those important distinctions.
"As a general rule governing the adoption of new practices, I agree, but where we're not talking about adopting a new practice, where we're talking about making changes in a role that the state has had for hundreds of years in Anglo-American society, I don't think we should be in the business of making massive and arbitrary changes without absolutely compelling reason."
Well, what about slavery? Or segregation? Those were hoary old "Anglo-American" traditions that had the sanction of the State for hundreds of years. Yet those damned "Living Constitution" people went and messed it all up! Yes, I know that "slavery" is not mentioned by name in the US Constitution, but it is referred to several times euphemistically. And what, either euphemistically or explicitly, does the US Constitution have to say about Marriage? Nothing! Nothing at all. Not a matter worth considering from the Federal standpoint by the Framers.
Smart chaps.
Not that I'm gun-ho about gay marriage, but I see no federal or Constitutional reason that the State should be involved in any marriage at all.
There is no marriage, as we know it, on Gor, but there is the institution of the Free Companionship, which is its nearest correspondent. Surprisingly enough, a woman who is bought from her parents, for tarns or gold, is regarded as a Free Companion, even though she may not have been consulted in the transaction. More commendably, a free woman may herself, of her own free will, agree to be such a companion. And it is not unusual for a master to free one of his slave girls in order that she may share the full privileges of a Free Companionship. One may have, at a given time, an indefinite number of slaves, but only one Free Companion. Such relationships are not entered into lightly, and they are normally sundered only by death. Occasionally the Gorean, like his brothers in our world, perhaps even more frequently, learns the meaning of love.
(Outlaw of Gor, John Norman)
I guess if the Constitution doesn't forbid discrimination we can all feel good about discriminating. All those gays should just be happy that their Constitutional Rights aren't being violated.
I wish we had a flat income tax instead of a progressive one.
But I'm not going to try claiming that the Constitution forbids progressive income tax. Neither am I going to claim that progressive income tax is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause -- although it certainly does so just as much as the denial of recognition to gay marriage does.
No, the simple fact of the matter is that a lot of stuff I'd like to see -- like legalized prostitution, government-recognized gay marriage, and a flat tax -- are neither required by the Constitution nor supported by a majority of the population, and since I live in a republic that means I don't get to have them. My three options are (a) to try convincing others to support them so that they may one day be enacted into law democratically, (b) to shrug and go about my life, or (c) to whine incessantly about it and bore people with tales of how Constitutional rights I've imagined I have are being "violated", thereby ensuring that all the people who were on the fence about supporting me become completely sick and tired of hearing about my side of the story.
I opt for (a) or (b), depending on my mood.
Is marriage in the Constitution in any form?
I don't think the issue should be framed as whether gays have a Constitutional right to marry. That's a nonstarter.
The issue has more to do with whether a state can decide to stop prohibiting it. Is Congress' attempt to ban gay marriage everywhere in the US by statute Constitutional? I suspect that while individual gay men or women don't have a federal case here, a state might.
"I don't think we should be in the business of making massive and arbitrary changes without absolutely compelling reason."
Well, what about slavery? Or segregation?
Er, doesn't everyone here think we had "absolutely compelling reasons" why slavery and segregation were wrong? If there's a similarly compelling reason for getting the government out of the marriage business, I've never heard it.
Is Congress' attempt to ban gay marriage everywhere in the US by statute Constitutional?
In the written Constitution? No.
In the Constitution as interpreted these days? Absolutely.
But in either case, Congress is free to withhold federal money from states that don't pass the laws it likes. There isn't a state in the nation that cares enough about gay marriage rights to give up billions of dollars a year in federal benefits.
Palladian said...
"Well, what about slavery? Or segregation? Those were hoary old "Anglo-American" traditions that had the sanction of the State for hundreds of years. "
Even if they can be dignified with the term "traditions" (we ought to refer to them as practices that were legally and socially acceptable in some colonies/states and not so in others), I didn't say that longstanding practices (or even traditions) ought never be abolished, but that the abolition of them ought to be approached cautiously and not generally undertaken without compelling reason. Since I know you're not suggesting that there weren't compelling reasons to destroy slavery and segregation, I don't know what your point is.
"Yet those damned 'Living Constitution' people went and messed it all up!"
No they didn't. Lysander Spooner, of course, argued that slavery violated the antebellum constitution, but the argument didn't go anywhere, and in the end, slavery and segregation were abolished using precisely the sort of means that living constitutionalists have tried to go around: by Constitutional amendment. Slavery was ended by the Thirteenth Amendment, not by a living constitutionalist judge, and Fourteenth amendment did in fact ban segregation, even if no one paid attention and even if it took the Supreme Court almost a century to discharge its duty to say what the law was, a plate it finally stepped up to in Brown.
"And what, either euphemistically or explicitly, does the US Constitution have to say about Marriage? Nothing! Nothing at all. Not a matter worth considering from the Federal standpoint by the Framers."
You're right, but you've just made my case for me. If you concede that the federal Constitution says nothing at all about marriage, you concede that nothing in the federal Constitution prohibits the states from choosing to ban gay marriage. That's the point of the Tenth Amendment. Of course, this doesn't mean that the states have a free hand in doing so, insofar as they still have to comply with equal protection (you can't ban interracial marriage, for example, but that's not because the Constitution says anything about marriage, it's because it says something about racial discrimination, and there's an overlap).
FWIW, I'm opposed to the FMA and similar problems, but for reasons of federalism and, yes, longstanding tradition, viz. that such matters are the proper domain of the states, not the federal government.
John Stodder said...
"Is Congress' attempt to ban gay marriage everywhere in the US by statute Constitutional?"
When has Congress ever attempted to ban gay marriage by statute? I don't remember that happening, unless you're referring to either DOMA (which doesn't "attempt to ban gay marriage," it merely clarifies that no one state can impose a change in the definition of marriage on every other state) or the FMA (and it's tautological to say that a Constitutional Amendment can't be unconstitutional).
There isn't a state in the nation that cares enough about gay marriage rights to give up billions of dollars a year in federal benefits.
How have we let ourselves get to such a point?
When did anyone ever agree that the feds should be able to use our own tax dollars to blackmail our states over something like marriage policy? (or drugs, or speeding, or other such policy preferences that might vary from state to state?)
And yes Simon I was referring to DOMA. So you're telling me that under DOMA, it would be perfectly okay for Hawaii to legalize and recognize gay marriage? So long as said married couple didn't show up in Kansas and expect their marriage to be treated legally as if they were still in Hawaii? And there's no foot-on-the-throat disincentive such as described above?
If that's true, then we've reached a happy resolution to the issue and I won't talk about it anymore.
So, back to Obama.
He's lately reminding me of the Great Pumpkin. There are a lot of Sallys out there who spent the whole night in a pumpkin patch who are now waking up on November 1 realizing they missed tricks or treats and Linus is a dope. Obama's political gifts turn out to be as mythical as the Great Pumpkin.
Simon and John: Of course DOMA "bans gay marriage," at least in the context of the federal government. In addition to stating that one state need not recognize a same-sex marriage in another state, it says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages. Same-sex couples who are legally married in Massachusetts are treated as single by the federal government, meaning they are not entitled to social security survivorship benefits, tax advantages, or any of the other hundreds of preferences granted to married couples by the federal government.
John Stodder said...
"And yes Simon I was referring to DOMA. So you're telling me that under DOMA, it would be perfectly okay for Hawaii to legalize and recognize gay marriage? So long as said married couple didn't show up in Kansas and expect their marriage to be treated legally as if they were still in Hawaii? And there's no foot-on-the-throat disincentive such as described above?"
Right. DOMA doesn't say anything about what state A's definition of marriage must be, it just says that neither state B nor the federal government are required to recognize state A's definition. That's why you've not read about New Jersey, Vermont and Massachusetts losing out on federal funding because they've adopted alternative definitions of marriage.
Darkbloom, you're arguing in circles. You say that DOMA bans gay marriage because "same-sex couples who are legally married in Massachusetts are treated as single by the federal government...." If DOMA banned same-sex marriage, there wouldn't be any "same-sex couples who are legally married in Massachusetts" to deny benefits to. Yes, DOMA precludes federal benefits accruing to same-sex marriages, but no, it doesn't prevent such marriages from taking place, and it neither prevents states from permitting same-sex marriage nor from according benefits to such couples.
Oh, and an addenda to Darkbloom - even if I believed it were absolutely terrible that DOMA prevented federal benefits accruing to same-sex couples, given that I don't think the federal government ought to be providing many of those benefits to anyone, same sex or otherwise, I still wouldn't be especially worked up about DOMA since if I had my way on the policies it implicates, most of the supposed inequities of DOMA would vanish and the question would become either moot or at least de minimis.
Gedaliya,
Any man or woman who'd marry you, needs to have their head examined. I would outlaw that union to save that person from herself and a life of drudgery and suffering. She'd have to be completely deranged to marry you. And I honestly think it is in society's best interest not allow two deranged people to marry.
You know what , Ann,
I am disgusted by gay, lesbian... rhetoric. It is so selfish and insensitive that I could puke. What is wrong with them -and you.
See below.
Tom
jewsyonkersislam # 428 Ann Althouse: Closet lesbian ? Poor thing... and its all the fault of feminist nonsense.
Below is a series of postings by me on Ann's blog. Anybody who doesn't know Ann should check her blog. She is a Profesor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and is living in Brooklen Heights ( the lesbian mecca of NYC ) as she tries to write a book. It is my contention that she has fallen in love with me ( see my "rigorous" analysis of such... the proof lies mainly in her words to and about me). In additition to her words, there are comments by some of her readers about what I have written and done that are instructive and enlightening.
However, I am here replying to the comments of James.
He awards me points for my jyi # 427, but asks something to the effect that my life must be "miserable" if all I can do is post things that I know will be removed as soon as Ann sees them. So let me enlighten him a bit as I ask him what more he wants me to do.
For I have been permanantly and totally disabled frtom 13 years old when I was hit by a car, fractured my neck, lay in a coma for 40 days and awoke to find I was completely paralysed... For I have seen the face of "God" and lived (indeed, that "face of ' God ' " is with me always ). In addition, I managed to become a lawyer, I practiced law for nearly 20 years in the (south) Bronx and Westchester Counties... as a general practitioner with a concentration in Family and Criminal defense work, I am a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army, Defense Intelligence Agency, I
have traveled the world -the Far East ( I spent a lot of time in China, Japan, Korea, the Phillipines...), the Mid East, Europe, South America ( Chile, Peru,
Bolivia...), North America... been to the Tropics and the Arctic... and, if you'd read my blog ( jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com ), you'd see what else I'm doing now.
As far as Ann, herself, she was a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Leonard B. Sand, probably around the time when Judge Sand was playing bully in Yonkers, forcing his social engineering ideas on Yonkers in the desegration suit. ( See jewsyonkersislam-legal/actions.blogspot.com )
1) Postings by me (tc) on :
Althouse "The divine Ms. Althouse." � Terry Teachout " "Formidable law blogger Ann Althouse." � Slate "
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
a) Back in New York, back in the work week
tc (me) said... Hey Ann, What work do you do -other than ruining the whole
world ? See below. Tom ( and I posted jyi # 426; for the rest,see my blog: jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com )
jewsyonkersislam # 426 " The Problem With No Name" by Betty Frieden:
Women
b) ( see below, for just as always before, my postings are removed shortly after I post them - but not before a few comments were made - including from the blogger herself, Prof. Ann Althouse from the Univ. of Wisconsin Law School who has inexplicably (femininely) fallen in love with me:)
tc said... (as noted above) This post has been removed by a blog administrator
( Ann Althouse herself, see below) 5:20 PM
Ann Althouse said...
What a dilemma! I have a policy of deleting everything tc writes, but that question: "What work do you do -other than ruining the whole world ?"
I'm trying to write a book, and I have writer's block, but that ... I want to write a book with that as a title!
( tc says... " What did I tell you...all women are crazy (cyclical). All you have to do is attack them often enough and they wind up loving you ". ) 5:37 PM
rhhardin said... What work do you do -other than ruining the whole world
I was always partial to ``Somebody Stole My Underwear,'' the cry of little brothers. 6:01 PM
Trooper York said... I would buy the tome: "The Girth in the Balance", Diet Tips from Albert Gore Jr. 6:11 PM
Ron said...
Whenever the Flying CooCoo Birds attack that should be our coded catchphrase: "sigh...oh Ann. You're ruining the whole world."
6:31 PM
c ) tc said... ( in a further posting relevant to the above)
To Ann - and any others who may read this before Ann removes it,
I posted my jewsyonkersislam # 426 ( " The Problem With No Name" by Betty Frieden:Women, etc.) and Ann has fallen in love with me (see below) and I dont think I've ever seen her. Of course, I'm on TV a couple of times a month before the Westchester County Board of Legislators and the Yonkers City Council so maybe she has seen me... And maybe that is why she has moved from Wisconsin to New York ?
Tom
Ann. You're ruining the whole world." 6:31 PM
Ralph said...
tc, don't feel like you have to empty your mind at us. Keep a little for yourself.
Most people like a conversation, not a monologue.
9:00 PM
Meade said...
..... Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One! Einstein, 1939, after Nazis & Commies united, proposed spacebombs that destroy all, unless we finally teach the Moral ABC's the real Rabbi Hillel taught Jesus to unite all in All-One-God-Faith. As teach astronomers Abraham - Israel - Moses - Buddha - Hillel - Jesus - Spinoza - Paine - Sagan & Mohammed, inspired every 76 years, 6000 years by the Messenger of God's Law, the sign of the Messiah, Halley's Comet: "WE'RE ALL ONE OR NONE!" "THERE IS NO GOD BUT GOD!" "TEACH LOVE THY ENEMY!" "LISTEN CHILDREN ETERNAL FATHER ETERNALLY ONE!" Israel-Moses-Buddha-Jesus-Mohammed: ONE! ALL ONE! 9:55 PM
2) Posting on/at:
Althouse"The divine Ms. Althouse." Wednesday, October 24, 2007
For the Common Good.
a) tc said... Ah Ann, Lets see how long this piece of work survives (jyi #427). According to your last posting about me (see your own posting), I can see that you've fallen in love with me ( dont deny it, for no woman would believe it ).
As to the Clintons, I find it hard not to like Bill. But Hillary -as President- I detest. Tom
jewsyonkersislam # 427 silly, selfish and childish women; West. B.O.L,10-22-07, Hezi Arris Radio Show on WVOX FM,New Rochelle,etc.
(see jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com for the rest )
b) The above noted (#427) was posted and Ann removed it. So I posted it again and some comments about it follow:
James said...
Points to tc, .....
Something tells me this guy is probably supporting a republican candidate other than Wacko Ron ( if he means me [tc], I back no one but myself ) . Man, do you really have such a miserable life that you have to go around posting your bullshit on blogs, knowing it will be deleted immediately upon the administrator's return ( to tell you the truth, James, if you'd read my blog [jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com], you'd realize that everything I do has a purpose; and I do a lot, including reading, writing, singing, writing poetry, public speaking/singing, acting...) ?
I think I have the flu. I bet you it's the fault of those gay-loving feminists, eh tc ( I think its the other way around: women like gays because gays can talk to them like a woman does while still seeing the male point of view because they are confused by feminism -fucked up, down..., using the back door rather than the front, as they should ) ? 7:12 PM
As noted, I posted my # 427 once again and Ann removed it within 1/2 hour. But it is very funny. It is as James (above) opined, "Man, do you really have such a miserable life that you have to go around posting your bullshit on blogs, knowing it will be deleted immediately upon the administrator's return".
For my stuff IS "deleted immediately upon the administrator's ( Ann Althouse) return". But my purposes are so far beyond what James could conceive that... Besides, Ann Althouse has fallen in love with me...and that is worth the aggravation.
c) tc said...Ann, tsk, tsk, For your own good, you might as well admit that you love me. This is the third (fourth ?) time I'm posting my jyi # 427...and, very shortly, I'm sure, you will be removing it. You see, I've gotten under your skin and you cant get me out of your head. Tom
Dr. Spivey: I don't see any evidence of mental illness at all. And I think that you've been trying to put us on all this time.
[McMurphy demonstrates some stereotypical "crazy" behaviors]
McMurphy: Is that crazy enough for you? You want me to take a shit on the floor?
(One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest,
Ken Kesey)
You see, I've gotten under your skin and you cant get me out of your head.
I can't speak for Ann, but personally I disliked you long before I actually read one of your posts and realized you were a nut. You're a link whore; you post here to drive up your search engine hits. That's reason enough to dislike anyone, even if they didn't have their wits removed by blunt trauma to the head.
Aravosis - 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....
Mighty noble of him. The in your face gay agenda will now have it's zealots attempt to "educate" stupid blacks to embrace homosexuality in the same manner as they launched their drive to "educate" ignorant, intolerant Americans in Flyover States how wonderful gay marriage was, and how "hateful" Americans would be if they did not do as the gay zealots demanded.
Hint - Aravosis seems to be unaware of the attitude towards gays that holds in much of Americans of most ethnicities...and the rest of the world.
Butt hump each other to your heart's content as long as you don't spread disease outside your community. Keep your pederast molesters away from our kids. Civil unions? Yeah, that's fair. Court-mandated Gay Marriage - no, that is an attempt to coerce moral acceptance of others. Shut up already. You gay activists are getting excessively preachy, self-righteous, tedious, and obnoxious to the average American. Be discrete.
******************
Gay activists and their agenda are one of the Democrat variants of the Religious Right with Republicans. They don't care about other groups comprising the Party, want 100% of their agenda agreed to, and wherever some group has conflicts with what gays want...that group of Democrats is automatically wrong, bigoted, and evil.
The Religious Right - like the vodoo believers of the Club for Growth can and have been cancers on the appeal of Republicans when they get all they want.
The Democrats battle gays, trial lawyers, anti-gun fanatics, anti-military, and Nanny State Nazis groups in the same way. Left unchecked, they harm the Democrats.
Simon, I said DOMA "bans gay marriage," at least in the context of the federal government.
In the context of the federal government, DOMA prohibits same-sex marriages. Whereas in other cases the federal government otherwise defers to the state for establishing marriage qualifications, in this case they do not. And consequently will not permit the recognition of marriage at the federal level. I suppose you could quibble with the use of the word "bans" there, but I was just echoing what you and John Stodder were saying.
I see now that in his earlier post John had said ban marriage "everywhere in the US" which I missed earlier. And that of course DOMA does not do. So I misapplied that terminology to this case (which, by the way, is hardly "arguing in circles.")
Darkbloom,
Out of curiousity, what exactly IS the reason why two gay men should have the right to get married and, say, a brother and sister shouldn't? Or a man and two women?
Now I personally think that all of the above should be legally valid social contracts. But I'm aware that that is an extreme minority position. I've never heard an argument for why gays are entitled to marriage benefits and (for example) incestuous couples aren't. Usually gay marriage supporters just skip right to taking immense offense at the idea that the situations are similar (without stopping to notice that that is exactly what the people who become enraged at the thought of gay marriage being considered real marriage are doing).
To Revenant, you poor deluded fool,
Revenant said... You see, I've gotten under your skin and you cant get me out of your head
(YOU SEE, POOR ANN ALTHOUSE, CONFUSED LESBIAN THOUGH SHE THINKS SHE IS, is really just confused by feminism. She would just love a roll in the hay with a real man). I can't speak for Ann, b (tc,me) long before I actually read one of your posts and realized you were a nut ( you see, Revenant is a woman -or a faggot- and cant stand the truth of and about life; my goal is to put ALL women back in their homes -with their children- where they belong AND where they'd be much happier and contented).
You're a link whore ( you idiot REVENANT, read my blog and weep -for you are a consumate ass/ a fool [ see jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com ] ); you post here to drive up your search engine hits. That's reason enough to dislike anyone, even if they didn't have their wits removed by blunt trauma ( it can work both/all ways, REVENANT, you fool .... I know and have experienced more than you'll ever believe...so grow up and stop trying to be a real man -for you are an abject
failure, at anything and every- thing )
Tom
What is that haunt -ing re -frain that you hear in the air?
Here and there, ev -'ry where,
It's just a beau -ti -ful strain that keeps taunt -ing my brain con -stant -ly,
It's my mel -o -dy it's my sy -pho -ny.
Ink -A Dink -Doo, A dink -a dee, A dink -a doo.
Oh, what a tune for croon -ing
Ink -A Dink -Doo, A dink a dee, A dink -a doo,
It's got the whole world spoon -ing.
Es -ki -mo bells up in Ice -land, Are ring -ing,
They've made their own Par -a -dise Land, Sing -ing
Ink -A Dink -Doo, A dink -a dee, A dink -a doo,
Simp -ly means Ink -A dink -A dee A dink -a doo.
(Inka-A-Dinka-Doo, Jimmy Durante)
Ann,
Sorry for replying to tc. I know it goes against your "don't feed the trolls" policy.
Troll: Ow-ur qu-een is callin... g us...
(Troll 2 1990)
I've never heard an argument for why gays are entitled to marriage benefits and (for example) incestuous couples aren't.
You haven't heard an argument because there isn't one to be heard. I'm still waiting for Darkbloom to answer the question as to whether or not two sisters who want to get married enjoy equal protection of the laws.
Ann should configure blogger to block that guy's ip address. It is easy enough to do...even Fred could do it if he tried.
"Out of curiousity, what exactly IS the reason why two gay men should have the right to get married and, say, a brother and sister shouldn't? Or a man and two women?"
Because incest marriage will never be a socially or morally acceptable norm. Neither will beastiality, polygamy, or pedophilia. The slippery slope crowd loves to trot out these wild "comparisons", but the fact is, homosexuality will eventually become completely mainstream and tolerable- sorry boys, get used to it.
Every poll that comes out every 5 or 10 years shows that homosexuality is increasingly viewed as acceptable by a majority of Americans. I guess all gay people have to do is wait for all the old bigots to die off! Fair enough.
Also, homosexual marriage (something between two consenting adults!) is not in any way associated with health problems or emotional trauma, unlike beastiality or incest. I can't believe people still have to defend gay marriage against all the insane comparisons that so many idiots come up with, but there it is, I just did.
ZPS said...
"[I]ncest marriage will never be a socially or morally acceptable norm. Neither will beastiality, polygamy, or pedophilia."
It wasn't nearly as long ago as you think that people would have said that homosexuality "will never be a socially or morally acceptable norm" or that divorce "will never be a socially or morally acceptable norm," yet both are now thought commonplace. The slippery slope can be a logical fallacy, but it isn't always.
Darkbloom said...
"I suppose you could quibble with the use of the word 'bans' there, but I was just echoing what you and John Stodder were saying. "
Right, and I would quibble it - if I tell my son that I'm not buying him a soda, I've not banned him from buying a soda, I've just told him that if he wants to do it, he'll need to do so without my financial support. He can still have a soda, he just has to choose to spend his own money on it. Likewise, if the federal government refuses to fund abortion, it doesn't ban abortion, and likewise, if the federal government doesn't recognize and accord certain benefits to a marriage doesn't been it's banned those marriages from taking place.
Neither will beastiality, polygamy, or pedophilia.
Nonsense. All three practices are rampant in Afghanistan, for instance, and many other parts of the world.
The "gay rights" movement has reached its high water mark. People are sick and tired of the incessant whining and grievance-mongering. You've won your struggle: Homosexuals are now free to publicly organize themselves into interest groups like the abortionists and race-hustlers do and vie for their share of the public trough. Whoop-de-do. Go for it...put please, keep the whining to a minimum...like I said before, it's a crushing bore.
Rev: "Out of curiousity, what exactly IS the reason why two gay men should have the right to get married and, say, a brother and sister shouldn't? Or a man and two women?"
"Now I personally think that all of the above should be legally valid social contracts. But I'm aware that that is an extreme minority position."
I've said before that legal domestic partnerships should be possible for any two adults. (I think limit two.) I don't think that a sexual relationship should be assumed. So, sure, two sisters, or someone and his or her mother... combining domestic efforts financially might make sense. For example, a single parent might chose to include a family member or someone else as part of the nuclear family unit to share in child care or even to contribute income, buy a house, get medical insurance, whatever.
It's good for the community to encourage domestic cooperation. The family unit is the most basic unit of social welfare. We take care of each other when we're sick, combine forces to pay mortgages or raise children, and we manage care when someone needs that care full or part time.
People who are romantically involved are motivated to make a partnership out of life but it doesn't have to be the only motivation to join forces economically or to provide mutual support.
No, Simple Simon, I won't let you get away the logical fallacy of Begging the Question, in your last post. To say that homosexual marriage is on a slippery slope is to imply that it is wrong, because it will lead to something most people consider abhorrent like bestiality, polygamy, or pedophilia. But you haven't even proved that gay marriage is wrong, now have you? And that is possible only in your deluded mind. Interracial marriage was illegal in some backward States until recently because some haters said it was unnatural, disgusting, and what have you. But, I really don't expect great logical arguments out of you, more likely flawed or foolish ones.
Btw, what is with you? Ann paid you a compliment and now it appears you are on a holy crusade, commenting relentlessly, and painfully for me, I might add. I expect your obsessiveness with Ann and this blog will lead to your fall from grace here, just as it has with another nutcase "tc."
Because incest marriage will never be a socially or morally acceptable norm. Neither will beastiality, polygamy, or pedophilia.
First of all, that's known as "the argument from incredulity fallacy" (in case you were wondering).
Secondly, I'd love to see some evidence for the claim that those things will never be socially or morally acceptable, especially considering that polygamy already IS considered socially and morally acceptable in much of the world (and in some US subcultures). A single generation ago the notion that gay marriage would ever be morally or socially acceptable was seen as every bit as ridiculous.
Finally, your argument amounts to nothing more than "banning things society doesn't want is ok". Fair enough. Society doesn't currently want gay marriage either, so I guess that answers the question of whether *that* should be legally recognized, too -- under your logic, it absolutely should not be until society is ready to accept it. That happens to be the conservative position too, by the way.
the fact is, homosexuality will eventually become completely mainstream and tolerable- sorry boys, get used to it.
If you'd used your brain while responding, you'd have noticed the fact that I repeatedly mentioned I support recognition of gay marriage. So why would I be "sorry" that homosexuality is trending towards mainstream acceptance?
Also, homosexual marriage (something between two consenting adults!) is not in any way associated with health problems or emotional trauma, unlike beastiality or incest.
Ah, but are they really? Or is that just a reflection of societal prejudice? There was, after all, an embarrassingly large body of "proof" showing that homosexual activity was a form of mental illness that did immense harm to mind and body -- until a generation ago, when it suddenly turned out that there was nothing wrong with it at all. How many of the scientists researching things like bestiality or consensual sibling incest do you think started out already thinking "people who do this stuff are SICK"? Approximately all of them, would be my guess -- but in any case, the percentage is certainly higher than the percentage of homophobes among those doing all that "homosexuality is sick and bad for you" research during the first 75 years of the 20th century.
"All three practices are rampant in Afghanistan, for instance, and many other parts of the world."
Ah, yes. Afghanistan. Now there's a place that just screams "modern."
It's clear this isn't really a debate anymore, but a crazy playdate with someone who has now compared gay people to abortionists. That's all for me folks. Have a great night!
I've said before that legal domestic partnerships should be possible for any two adults. (I think limit two.)
Why only two?
So, sure, two sisters, or someone and his or her mother... combining domestic efforts financially might make sense.
This is an everyday occurrence today. The question isn't whether two or more individuals can or can not combine their "domestic efforts," but whether the state considers this combination a "marriage" and confers upon it all of the legal rights inherent in that social contract.
10-26-07
For all you LGBT... famatics - and my dear Ann who is apparently quite confused about her own sexuality,
You are all fools. Animals do what gays, lesbians...do -and we are not supposed to be animals. And, yes, I do agree it happens...for whatever reason. And I further state that it is wrong, amoral... and should be fought against, always and forever.
And yet, I am not "God"...and I love to sing Cole Porter's songs -in public ( Westchester County Board of Legislators... )- and he was bisexual, from his days at Harvard/Yale (?).
But I also like -and sing- Elvis Pressley songs - and I dont think he was a god-damed faggot.
Tom
Gedaliya,
No, it's not called marriage. Rev had said "social contracts" and I was talking about "legal domestic partnerships."
And yes, people do cooperate domestically in a variety of ways as it is. I'm suggesting having the option to make those arrangements just a little bit more formal and promote interdependance by making it easier to claim a domestic partner as a dependant or family member.
Yes, that would put more people on more people's insurance and benefits packages but all told it seems a good thing to me to encourage people to rely on each other... rather than the state.
Yes, that would put more people on more people's insurance and benefits packages but all told it seems a good thing to me to encourage people to rely on each other... rather than the state.
I'm not against private companies extending benefits to "domestic partners." I am also not against states making it easier for non-relatives to make medical decisions by proxy, or to be allowed visitation rights and other such humane considerations.
What I am against is unelected judges changing by fiat an institution that has existed as the very bedrock of nearly all societies for thousands of years. It is astonishing to me that so many here and elsewhere are so blithe to assume that the institution of marriage is a mere "social contract" that can be tampered without grave and even catastrophic consequences for our society and culture.
Luckily, at least for now, the very notion of "gay marriage" is anathema in our political culture except in the most socially liberal of our states, and even there no legislature has ever given it legal sanction. I doubt any legislature ever will do so, even in places like Massachusetts, where I predict, despite enormous logistical difficulties, the state constitution will someday be revised to reverse this dangerous experiment in social engineering.
What I am against is unelected judges changing by fiat an institution that has existed as the very bedrock of nearly all societies for thousands of years.
I'm with you on the judges thing, but what has existed as "the very bedrock" of society is *marriage*, not government benefits. Gays can already marry without being thrown into jail. They can, in most parts of America, adopt; in all parts of America they can conceive via artificial insemination and raise the resulting children. So that horse has left the barn already. Gays already have the societally important parts of marriage -- the ritual, the cohabitation, and the kids.
All that we're fighting over here is who gets government bennies -- inheritance of social security benefits, tax-free inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc. Those benefits are not bedrocks of our society. Many of them didn't even exist at all a century ago.
I guess you could argue that there's some residual value in being able to shake your fist at the gay couple raising their kids in the suburbs and say "that's not real marriage! The government says it isn't!". But... eh. I just don't see what the big deal is. Its marriage in all but name already, so why not let it be official and give the couple (and their kids) a more stable environment?
Your concerns are valid. Unfortunately I think the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, on heterosexual marriage. The things pulling it apart aren't even being addressed.
Being a libertarian sort I tend to think that marriage within the church can only be helped, ultimately, by separating it from the civil sort and making it clear that we're called to stand apart, not to conform to the world. There's far too much conforming going on and far too much whining when other people won't create a situation where we can all "go with the flow".
ANYWHO...
The Democrats, LGBT and African Americans...
It's because the Democrats have been attempting to represent groups and that simply doesn't *work*. They *don't* represent black Americans. They *don't* represent gays or transexuals. They don't represent women, or hispanics, or any other of the many groups they cater to without actually doing anything but saying stuff that sounds good to each group.
Ethnicity does not determine social attitudes or beliefs about the economy or foreign policy any more than ethnicity determines a favorite color.
Orientation doesn't make a person prefer a welfare state or require someone to be internationally interventionist (or isolationist).
By focusing on identity politics the Democrats attempt to serve too many masters.
LOL.
Horses and barns.
I think the horse is out of the barn
Hey, that's MY metaphor! :)
Its all this talk of bestiality that's doing it.
Here's what we do:
With respect to social security, pensions, insurance, the different treatment of taxes and hell let's throw in spousal privilege: Everybody gets to designate somebody as their spouse for purposes of the law. Married people can designate each other, gay married people can designate each other, brothers and sisters, business partners, two confirmed bachelorettes, roommates, Internet buddies -- whatever. You file your taxes together, if you want to. You get only one at a time, it's legal, recognized in all 50 states. Set up some other rules if you want: Minimum term of one year, can't be coerced, I'm sure we'll think of others.
There is nothing sexual or romantic implied about the relationship so the church doesn't have to frown on it. You don't have to prove you're living together or even like each other. You are my designated beneficiary - period. People can draw their own conclusions. Maybe some states will want to insist that a spouse is the implied designated beneficiary, just 'cuz they think that's more moral, but unmarried people can choose whoever they want. Everybody gets to have one, as soon as they turn 18. If you "divorce" your designated beneficiary, that's a legal process, so you don't just choose someone for the hell of it.
Anyway, this solution resolves everything. Everyone has equal protection and equal access to the "benefits of marriage" as defined by government. So what we'll have done is completely separate the notion of who's entitled to my Social Security benefits from the idea of what kind of relationship I want to establish with another person, and whether I want it blessed by a church and involve bodily fluid exchanges.
States can ban or approve gay marriage if they want, but they can't ban this designated beneficiary thing.
Good idea?
Rev: "Out of curiousity, what exactly IS the reason why two gay men should have the right to get married and, say, a brother and sister shouldn't?
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, and once again...the incest argument rears it's ugly and thoroughly ignorant head.
Rev, you know quite a few siblings itching to get hitched...opposed to gays who are loving partners?
HELLO!!!!!
John Stodder,
Medicare - Medicaid...for everybody.
Period.
The idea of marriage has always presupposed a couple that could reproduce without outside aid. Interracial marriage was banned to prevent miscegenation. Incest was banned to prevent the genetically defective. As a result, first cousins are forbidden to marry in about half the states, with some exceptions for those beyond reproductive age. Gay marriages are banned not because the couple could reproduce without a third party, but because they never could. Marriages that require third parties for reproduction promote infidelity, and tie up people of reproductive age just as polygamy does.
If a gay man marries a gay woman, that is perfectly legal everywhere, I imagine. Yet that is "gay marriage." If a gay man marries a straight man, for whatever reason, you bigots continue to call that a gay marriage? It's not; it's a gay-straight marriage. Same for a marriage of convenience (Rock Hudson type) between a gay man & hetero woman, or vice versa. The discrimination on the basis of gender (not sexual orientation, which you argue) is so apparent, as to require no further debate. You bigots lose the argument any way you slice or dice it. Rightfully, bigotry & hate should not carry the day. But I can't stomach you, Gedalia. That name sounds a lot like Dalia or Dalila. I wonder about a man with a woman's name. Could you be gay?
I apologize to bisexuals and others who can't be so easily pigeonholed, who also get married. Screw the prejudicial boobs who frequent this blog.
Current Moron says: "Marriages that require third parties for reproduction promote infidelity, and tie up people of reproductive age just as polygamy does."
Yes...fidelity. High fidelity.
Seen the latest divorce rates in America?
Now...multiply that by about 100-1,000...and you get the "infidelity" rate.
As for polygamy...in relation to America's population...extreme few...which you would know...if you had an ounce of brains.
Trumpit said..."I apologize to bisexuals and others who can't be so easily pigeonholed, who also get married. Screw the prejudicial boobs who frequent this blog."
Ditto.
Our nation protects "LTBG" (or whatever the acronym is) people to the full extent of the law, and I see no reason to pander to their inane whining about their supposed grievances any longer.
I pray for the day when that asshole Gedaliya is mistaken for a gay person and bashed to death.
Because marriage is sooooo the same thing as not bashing someone's head in.
And there goes any possible conversation... OR conversion.
Opposing gay marriage is *exactly* the same as wanting gay people bashed to death. Got it.
The only reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because they hate gay people and want them bashed to death. Really, we've heard this before.
It's so stupid on the face of it that it's no wonder so many people decide that the LGBT community is made up of a bunch of irrational whiners.
The appearance of dtl always signals the end of any conversation.
Who here likes pancakes?
Genitalia says: "I predict, despite enormous logistical difficulties, the state constitution will someday be revised to reverse this dangerous experiment in social engineering."
"DANGEROUS"...."EXPERIMENT"...."SOCIAL ENGINEERING."
Come on...out of the cave...and please...BE CAREFUL!!!
Don't scrape those knuckles.
John Stodder,
"Good idea?"
Something like that, yeah.
Palladian,
You're such a pussy.
Rightfully, bigotry & hate should not carry the day.
Blah blah blah. Some people don't like you. Too bad, chum. I don't give a damn whether someone likes homosexuals or doesn't like them, the issue is whether or not you are in danger of life and limb for being who you are. In this day and age, based on news stories and the like, a homeless person is more likely to get assaulted than a "gay" person for being who they are. So grow up and quit whining.
Moreover, your "GLTB" pressure groups are now, along with the race hustlers, abortionists, and peaceniks, firmly in the back pocket of your Democratic Party patrons, and like those other groups, the Democrats will pander to you until the election takes place, and then do what they do to all the others...ignore you completely.
Could you be gay?
Sure I could. We're all anonymous here. So could you. I have no idea whether you are or not, and frankly I don't care. It is amazing to me that so many "gays" are obsessed with letting everyone around them know they are homosexuals, as if anyone gives a damn. It seems infantilism and narcissism run rampant among homosexuals, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. It's really, really boring.
synova says: "The only reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because they hate gay people and want them bashed to death. Really, we've heard this before.
I think not allowing fellow human beings to enjoy the very same rights and privileges that all human beings have the right to enjoy...is based in a form of hate.
If your daughter or son told you they were gay...and wanted to get married to another gay...would you tell them..."
It's so stupid on the face of it that it's no wonder so many people decide that the LGBT community is made up of a bunch of irrational whiners."
Would you?
I wonder about a man with a woman's name.
What ever gave you the impression that Gedaliya is a woman's name? Have you ever read the Bible? If you had, you'd know who Gedaliya was. However, I took the name because it is the main character of one of my favorite books by IB Singer...Satan in Goray. Anyone who has read that great book will know that my adoption of his name imparts considerable irony to this and other discussions I engage in given the persona I affect on this blog.
Gedaliya said..."Blah blah blah. Some people don't like you."
And once again you reveal yourself to be a complete fucking bigoted moron.
Absolutely one of the dumbest of the dumb on this blog.
Who here likes pancakes?
As long as they're not Jonny Cakes....
Damn. Sixteen hours of relatively reasonable discussion and then Lucky and DTL show up within half an hour of each other. We're lucky Cedarford didn't choose that time to stop by and blame the whole thing on "Jewish elites". The resulting Perfect Storm of Asshatry could have destroyed the entire blog.
Genitalia says:"...the race hustlers, abortionists, and peaceniks, firmly in the back pocket of your Democratic Party patrons,..."
Is this a real person???
Revenant,
You're such a pussy.
Well, after a delightful evening with some friends, I return to find this thread in a sorry state. Revenant asked me a million years ago to offer an argument why a gay couple should be allowed to marry and how that differs from polygamy or incest. Perhaps another day, in a discussion not so woefully past its prime. (Obviously I think you can make a very compelling argument for that, and many have done so.)
My only other observation is this: Gedaliya, considering how you find this topic "utterly boring," you sure do spend a lot of time on it.
LOS: Every gay couple, no matter how young and healthy, will automatically be infertile. This turns the expectation for marriage on its head. Most people get married when they want to settle down and spit out some kids. I assume gay couples will want the same thing -- otherwise why call it marriage? Where will the gays' kids come from? What will the relation among the parents be? Who gets custody -- default will be the birth mother, I predict.
And spare me the argument about menopausal women -- if my car doesn't start one morning it's still a car.
Former law student, are you living in a cave somewhere? A well off & successful bridge playing acquaintance of mine now has two little girls. He and his lover of 10 years decided they wanted kids. Instead of adopting, they paid a surrogate mother to carry their child through artificial insemination. She gave birth to twins who are genetic half-sisters (one sperm from each dad). This cost them a small fortune in doctors' bills, etc. But it was well worth it because they are thrilled with their new family.
Please stop talking nonsense regarding subject matter you know nothing about.
Cars that don't start are completely worthless. They're not modes of transport. The only way they're worth something is if you can get them to start again. Otherwise, it's the junkyard. Is this how you view menopausal women? Or infertile men?
This argument is tiresome. You're going to lose it, eventually. Time passes. People change. Times change. It's interesting that you can't find a way to argue your position without conveying disgust or contempt for the humanity of the people who want nothing more than equal treatment in the issuance of a contract by the State. It's all absurd since the State should not be in the business of issuing romantic, metaphysical, religious and personal contracts.
And I will remember, the next time I share a table with you, Gedaliya, how much of my life a priori bores you. This boredom will certainly be reciprocal.
"Luckily, at least for now, the very notion of "gay marriage" is anathema in our political culture except in the most socially liberal of our states, and even there no legislature has ever given it legal sanction. I doubt any legislature ever will do so, even in places like Massachusetts, where I predict, despite enormous logistical difficulties, the state constitution will someday be revised to reverse this dangerous experiment in social engineering."
Actually, this is false. The Massachusetts leglislature voted and gay marriage is here to stay sorry Genitalia. An oh yea, these leglislatures were voted in by the people. Gay marriage is Mass is final. Sorry to diminish your hopes of it changing but it is a done deal. Alabama can have their laws and we will have our laws and no gay from Mass is going to move to Alabama, we promise.
FYI-The Mass legislators votes was a separate support for gay marriage in Mass from the Supreme Court. This vote was seperate from the Mass State Supreme Court decision. These Mass leglislators were elected by the citizens of Mass. If they disagree they can try and vote them out but will be unsuccessful.
It is finished in Mass. Gay can married and nothing now is going to turn the clock back.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. But for those of you that have a vested interested in Mass gay marriages this is the way it is going to be in Mass. forever. Bummer, I know.
Romney did try and get a boatload of republicans elected here but unfortunately failed. His initiative of gaining republicans actually lost republicans seats in Mass.
They don't call this place the peoples republic for nothing.
But....our economy is humming along. Go figure??????????? Must be all the educated idiots who call this expensive place home. Including Romney who lives in Belmont.
Guess there's no point, at this point. Yeah, I know: You pussy! Whatever. No doubt: You must be right.
Yeah, OK, whatever.
Genatila is really bored about anything gay but want to post about it again and again and again.....interesting and somewhat disturbing.
If it is sooo boring why all the interest.
Go read a book.
In other words, to cite a "quote":
This is not great communication.
"But for those of you that have a vested interested in Mass gay marriages this is the way it is going to be in Mass. forever. Bummer, I know"
My apologies, Massgay, but this is the way fascists think. This is the way of division, not of unity. It might give you some fuzzy, liberaler-than-thou feeling of cultural superiority but it doesn't really help anyone any more than the "public overwhelmingly rejects gay marriage haha" attitude. It's an emotional topic, and it's easy to get overwhelmed by emotion (as I certainly have) and by the trolls that prey on the emotions of thoughtful commenters. But if we're ever going to survive this weird, terrible time period, we've got to find some sort common way forward.
There's a poem by the 13th century poet, judge and theologian Rumi that (in translation by Coleman Barks) that begins:
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
And I will remember, the next time I share a table with you, Gedaliya, how much of my life a priori bores you.
Palladian...
If I recall, neither of us were bored that night, and if I also recall correctly, "LGBT" rights never came up. You didn't seem compelled to inform me of your sexual habits, and I didn't feel the need to inform you of mine. We had a relaxed evening where everyone had a good time.
What bores me, as I've repeated here a number of times, are those activists and infants who find it necessary to tell us at every opportunity about their sexual habits and practices, and then attempt to use these things as props to bludgeon through a particularly radical political agenda.
I don't recall you ever advancing a "gay rights" agenda in this forum, and I also don't recall you making it a point to advertise your sexual preferences in order to get attention, a la DTL or Trumpit. Furthermore, you've never, not once, bored me in this forum or in person and I hope I've never done the same to you.
FYI-The Mass legislators votes was a separate support for gay marriage in Mass from the Supreme Court.
This is not true. The Mass legislature refused to sanction a statewide vote to amend the Massachusetts constitution to outlaw gay marraige.
As I am sure you know, the Massachusetts constitution requires a super-majority of two successive legislatures to approve a referendum for a constitutional amendment. In the case of the gay marraige amendment, supporters were able to get one legislature to approve the measure. It failed to get the second vote by the required super-majority, even though a majority of legislators voted to allow the referendum to proceed.
As such, the Massachusetts legislature has never voted to approve gay marriage, but only to prevent a referendum on a constitutional amendment prohibiting it.
Your statements to the contrary are disengenuous at best, and outright lies at worst.
Moreover, my prediction still stands. Within the next few years the people will force a referendum on this issue, amend the state constitution, and turn back the Mass Supreme Court decision to declare gay marriage legal.
Thankfully, in less than fifty years all these middle aged white straight guys, blathering on about the problems with gay marriage (because their opinions are so relevant!), will be dead. And all their comments on an internet blog will have been worth nothing. Gay guys and gay girls will be married and making out and having kids...deal with it!
The fact is Gentalia that the Mass Leglislature voted to basically approve same sex marrirage overwhelmingly.
It is over in Mass. The vote is never going to come back again unless Mass votes in a Mass leglislature that will overturn this vote and Mass won't.
Gentalia, it is over in Mass. There is not timeframe for this to come up for a vote ever again.
Sorry, you have lost in Mass. It is done, complete, over. Unless, the newly born (which approve of gays overwhelmingly) takeover and revearse this decision Mass gay marriages is finis.
I know as an individual who does not approve gay marriage this must come as a shock and repellant but it is finished.
Unless...... you move here, run for Governor and use this as a platform.
Good luck. The fact is Mass is oke with gay marriage. If not, we will vote out leglislatures who voted not to leave it to the voters.
I am sure it gives you comfort to think that the state of Mass will vote against gay marriage but the longer the clock ticks the more difficult it is to support your view.
Also, believe it or not, Mass has the lowest divorce rates in the country.
Why don't you support an amendment supporting no divorces.
Don't worry Gentalia the gays won't look at you, touch you, or desire you.
Gentalia is obviously a homophobe who thinks he knows what the residents of Mass wants.
Check out the polls...Mass residents support gay marriage. I know this is difficult to digest but unfortunately it is the truth.
Again, as someone who is bored by this topic you invest quite a bit of energy and interest in it.
Now, move along. Focus on some other right wing area. Typical right winger. Focused on a topic that is not nearly as important to most Americans as it it to the wingnut.
Everyone understands. You despise gay marriage. OK. Good. Mass is going to overturn it in sometime in the near future. Sure. And the younger generation who is the future doesn't support it also and as a result with overturn this injustice in mass....keep believing.
Gentalia has an unhealthy obsession with the gay marriage issue. I wonder why. And he will keep on posting again and again and again and again about it but really.......he is bored with it.
Bored????
Do you know the residents of Mass and what they are thinking???? The only ones against it are the diehard catholics and most of them are dieing off. By the time anything like this comes to another vote the old school (marriage is between one man and woman) will be dead.
Also, for some reason marriage is still very strong in Mass.
Admit it Gentalia the thought of gay marriage is sickening to you. Not that there is anything wrong with that but come here and state your case and let's see if it flys with the public. Perhaps you can overturn what is happening here. While you are at it do something about the biotech industry and their stem cell industry here. It is taken over the economy.
The bad news of this industry is the destruction of the sanctity of life the good news is the overwhelmingly increase of 100,000 incomes here.
I know what a shithole and taxachusetts etc. But Massachusetts taxes are lower than states like Wisconsin and Montana. I know the wingnuts like yourself like to say that it is Taxachusetts but that is just incorrect. We rank 23 in state taxes in the U.S.
Gentalia, continue to post of gay marriage. An issue you find boring.
Keep posting again and again and again and again. More post more.
Yea, it is boring we know. It is so boring. Some more. Post another one. Give us another one. Speak out again. But really it is boring. I am totally bored but post again. Gentalia is bored with gay marriage but how about this point and that point. And oh yea, this point.
Exactly the Gentalia's of this world will be dead in 50 years and it will be a mute point.
The younger generation will look at this issue and say what was the big deal. Difficult to comprehend Gentalia but that is the future.
Genitalia says:"...the race hustlers, abortionists, and peaceniks, firmly in the back pocket of your Democratic Party patrons,..."
Is this a real person???
Yes, Lucky, a rotten & twisted person who deserves no further interaction from any of us, at least I'll have nothing further to say to that piece of crap, except to point out that he's a piece of crap when he says something offensive and outrageous. People who are so grossly intolerant and hatefully distorted in their attitudes must be ostracized from normal, decent folks. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as the saying goes.
ZPS,
Three points:
(1): After you've declared an argument to be beneath your notice and gone flouncing off, coming back again a few hours later looks a little silly.
(2): "Middle aged white straight guys"? What's race got to do with it? Oooh, scary white people!
(3): I'm glad you're happy that the United States will eventually fully accept homosexuals for what they are. But could you explain how being smug about the fact that gays will probably be able to marry fifty years from now actually helps gay people today one little bit? Acceptance of gay marriage will arrive sooner or later -- but it'll be sooner if its supports quit acting like jackasses.
And clearly focused outrage is effective in silencing the intolerant haters. Imus got the boot on account of public outrage and Dr. James Watson was forced, just yesterday, to submit his resignation. I'll never coddle those vicious creeps!
The vote is never going to come back again unless Mass votes in a Mass leglislature that will overturn this vote and Mass won't.
You say they won't, I say they will. Time will tell. And btw, are you still claiming that the Massachusetts legislature voted in favor of "gay" marriage?
The fact is Mass is oke with gay marriage.
Then why didn't the state legislature allow a vote on a constitutional amendment barring it? Do you favor such a vote? If not, why?
Do you know the residents of Mass and what they are thinking????
I know enough Massachusetts voters signed petitions to put the quesiton to a ballot test. That is a pretty good indication of how a great many state residents are thinking. What's your source for how state residents are thinking?
Admit it Gentalia the thought of gay marriage is sickening to you.
No, "gay" marriage isn't "sickening" to me...your puerile imagination is a little too febrile, I'm afraid. This is purely a political question and one that will be on the national agenda in 2008.
Keep posting again and again and again and again. More post more.
I'll post as long as there is something to be said regarding the politics of the issue. I expect infants like yourself will continue to bluster, snort and stamp your feet in an attempt to avoid the very real issues at stake, but I've got enough online experience to easily deal with childish fellows like you.
Imus got the boot on account of public outrage...
Imus will be back on stage within a few short weeks, making more money than ever.
And clearly focused outrage is effective in silencing the intolerant haters.
Only when the "haters" are in the minority and those expressing outrage are in the majority. That's obviously not the case here.
Acceptance of gay marriage will arrive sooner or later...
Revenant...
I don't see it ever happening. Like I said earlier, I think the "gay rights" movement has reached its high water mark. Many states have passed constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage, and more will do so next fall. I suspect that all but 10 or so states will constitutionally ban gay marriage over the next two election cycles.
Homosexuals have achieved a remarkable level of acceptance over the last 40 or so years. Far fewer decide to keep their homosexual urges secret than at any other time in American history. Unfortunately, along the way, a classic left-wing hustle operation has developed akin to the Al Sharpton race-hustling brigade, and that contingent is braying for more more more. I'm of the view that most Americans are sick and tired of the infantile need these clowns have to brag about their sex lives any chance they get, and then to make demands on the rest of us to accomodate their narcissistic agenda.
I would also add that listing James Watson as a "hater" is extremely silly.
I don't see it ever happening. Like I said earlier, I think the "gay rights" movement has reached its high water mark.
Well, you're mistaken. Opposition to gay marriage is the minority position among Americans under the age of 50 and the trend is towards greater acceptance of homosexuality. The people saying that it is just a matter of waiting for their opponents to die are quite correct.
I suspect that all but 10 or so states will constitutionally ban gay marriage over the next two election cycles.
Sure. And in another few decades they'll amend their constitutions again to un-ban it. The boom in gay marriage bans isn't a sign that momentum is shifting against gay marriage. It's just a last dying "eff you" from a majority that is rapidly becoming a minority, like the white supremacist stunt of officially putting the Confederate flag onto state flags in the 50s and 60s.
Sure. And in another few decades they'll amend their constitutions again to un-ban it.
Well, I guess we (or our kids) will find out. With any luck I'll be around for another 30 years or so and perhaps then discover whether my prognostications were better or worse than your own.
But this does bring up an interesting side issue. Many on the left believe (as a matter of principle) that "progress" necesarily means the adoption of their entire political agenda...gay marriage, the unlimited abortion license, unlimited immigration, drug legalization, socialized medicine, etc., etc. Many see these items as inevitable, driven by some sort of historical motive force. Much of the frustration on the left, I believe, comes from this faith in the historical inevitability of their agenda, and the fact that a majority of Americans stubbornly refuses to see things their way.
I don't think the leftist agenda is inevitable, and I also believe that many of its past successes, such as the unlimited abortion license, are poised to reverse course. This is mainly why I am very skeptical that gay marriage will ever be legal in this country, and why I think the "gay rights" movement has achieved all that it is capable of achieving politically.
Gedaliya, while there are various arguments against gay marriage, the simple reality is that the main reason most of the opponents of gay marriage oppose it is simple: they're homophobic. There are SOME people who have no problem with homosexuality but still oppose gay marriage, but they're relatively rare and generally not very strong in their opposition.
Homophobia is dying out, and there's no reason to expect that trend to reverse itself. As homophobia dies out, opposition to gay marriage does too. It's got nothing to do with any "left-wing agenda". Its just simple demographics -- the people who grew up in a world where everyone agreed gays were criminal deviants are rapidly dying out and being replaced by new generations that know better.
Gedaliya, while there are various arguments against gay marriage, the simple reality is that the main reason most of the opponents of gay marriage oppose it is simple: they're homophobic.
I don't agree. Unfortunately, I will not be home for another 24 hours, so I do not have access to my library...but therein I have a very fine article by Sam Schulman in the November 2003 issue of Commentary magazine that I long to quote from for this discussion. If we are still discussing this in a couple of days (quite doubtful), I'd like to draw from his article to illustrate my views.
Most Americans these days, are very tolerant toward homosexuals. Those who oppose gay marriage most vociferously, I think, are motivated primarily by religious and political passions, not by hatred. I believe most everyone has a homosexual family member, or colleague or neighbor...and for the most part most people do not hate or fear their loved ones or acquaintences. But that does not mean that they accept the agenda of the "GTBL" grievance-mongers and left-wing activists. There wasn't a time not too long ago, you may recall, when the women's rights movement was headed by those who thought marriage itself was obsolete. Those passions are long since dead. That is another reason why I believe that the current obsession among some homosexuals to institute a regime of "gay marriage" will inevitably lose steam and die.
As homophobia dies out, opposition to gay marriage does too.
I can't disagree more. Your assumption rests on the idea that marriage itself is nothing more than a license to collect government benefits and perks, while I believe it is an institution fundamental to our entire society and culture. When it degrades as an institution grave social consequences inevitably occur. If marriage is deconstructed, which is what the homosexual "rights" fanatics ardently desire, one of the consequences will certainly be what has happened in the black community since around 1960, when out-of-wedlock births stood at about 25% (they are now over 70%)...an explosion of poverty, violence and ruined lives. And that is just the beginning of the troubles.
As the saying goes...be careful what you wish for, Revenant...you just may get it.
Gedaliya, you are wrong about what has happened in Massachusetts. After the legislature failed to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot when the second super majority vote failed, a petition movement started. They got the required number of signatures, and then needed the legislature to vote on it. That vote failed. Oh, and all they needed was for 25% of the legislature to vote for it. 151 legislators voted against the amendment, and 45 voted for it. So more than three-fourths of the legislature voted not to put a constitutional amendment question on the ballot, and to preserve same-sex marriage in MA. This happened for several reasons: some of the people opposed to gay marriage had lost to people in favor of it (with gay marriage often a big issue in the election), and some changed their minds after seeing how important and helpful a change getting married had been to their constituents. So in the span of just a couple of years, the vote turned dramatically in favor of gay marriage, because once it was there, people realized that it wasn't, in fact, some horrible development that threatened the future of civilization and all of the other nonsense.
You can see the timeline here.
There is no reason to think that MA will reverse itself. The legislature in CA has twice passed a bill to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples (without any court ordering them to), and so CA is just one gubernatorial election away from passing gay marriage. The governor of NY introduced a gay marriage bill, which easily passed the state assembly but the leader of the state senate refused to bring it up for a vote. He's in his seventies, and won't be able to thwart the people's will forever. Take a look at polls showing a big disparity in attitudes toward gay people among different age groups.
Of course, there were many anti-gay constitutional amendments passed in 2004, and a few in 2006. But there's some reason to think that effort is losing steam already; Arizona voted theirs down in 2006. And Arizona is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism.
You may continue to believe that the movement to treat gay people equally is going to die out. But the evidence pretty clearly supports the opposite view.
I would encourage you, especially given how bored you are by the whole thing, to just accept this one as a loss and move on.
"If marriage is deconstructed, which is what the homosexual "rights" fanatics ardently desire"
Gedaliya, what ever gave you this bizarre notion? Gay people want to marry for mostly the same reasons that straight people do -- to acknowledge a relationship as a formal public commitment with mutual rights and obligations. The intent is not to deconstruct marriage as an institution but to secure for gay partnerships the dignity and recognition that hetero couples take for granted.
Was any one else weirdly relieved to find out Gedaliya was a man?
Gedayila-hello? What happened?
The legislature in CA has twice passed a bill to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples (without any court ordering them to), and so CA is just one gubernatorial election away from passing gay marriage.
If true, that one gubernatorial election will precipitate a constitutional crisis. The citizens of California have voted in 2001 against same-sex marriage by citizen initiative, which cannot be overturned by the legislature according to the Cal constitution. At the time, liberals like Feinstein and Villaraigosa insisted that the initiative was wholly unnecessary, because same-sex marriage was illegal in California. However, the electorate wanted to nail the door shut to same-sex marriage. The pro-gay marriage forces have not attempted to bring the issue back before the people, so obviously they're afraid that the voters are still "homophobic".
And trumpit -- note that your gay friends got their kids via a private -- and ridiculously expensive -- contractual arrangement. Gay marriage will not just be for the rich, I presume, so the problem of infertility will not go away.
The state has no interest in regulating same-sex relationships. The state's interest in regulating man-woman relationships arises from the possibility of offspring. I'm sorry if a simple recitation of facts sounds contemptuous to anyone. If gays need to bind themselves to each other, they can do so via private contractual relationships, same as how trumpit's friends rented out that woman's womb.
I was wrong about the fact that the votes in two successive legislative sessions required a super-majority to put a referendum on the ballot in Massachusetts. As Darkbloom points out, there is a requirement that votes in two successive legislative sessions must occur, but a supermajority is not required in this case. As his timeline proves, 50 votes were required and only 45 were obtained.
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.
"LGBT" always sounds to me like a sandwich.
The other letter they're going to add soon could be "I" for "Intersexed." (Which box do you check if you are? N/A? None of the above?)
This is a particularly witty and enjoyable comment thread, for some reason.
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.
I think the more interesting question is why the supporters of the court decision did not want the question on the ballot.
If you add the I, you should switch the order to GIBLT, to be pronounced "giblet."
ay people want to marry for mostly the same reasons that straight people do -- to acknowledge a relationship as a formal public commitment with mutual rights and obligations.
Some do, sure. But tampering with the institution of marriage in order to achieve this "acknowledgment" is playing with fire, and many people, myself including, aren't willing to take the risk.
I gave a small example earlier in this thread of what happens when the family structure breaks down. In other societies where (what we call the) nuclear family is weak, we see rampant pederasty and the oppression of women on an unbelievable scale (Afghanistan and other such places). The West has had centuries of political, economic and social progress largely because the institution of marriage has been the primary organization unit of society, and those who want to deconstruct this arrangement are risking all for their narcissistic and infantile desire for "acknowledgment" and social recognition.
Many millions of Americans will never accede to this drastic social re-engineering project, and we are protecting ourselves using the rule of law...primarily passing state constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage. I expect this trend to continue and I also expect, as I've said before in this thread, for some recent setbacks (Massachusetts) to be later reversed.
Trumpit said..."Former law student,
Please stop talking nonsense regarding subject matter you know nothing about.
Ditto.
But lucky, if you "stop talking nonsense regarding subject matter you know nothing about," you won't be able to post at all. Please, think of your fan base, not yourself.
reader_iam said..."Whatever. No doubt: You must be right. Yeah, OK, whatever."
Valley girl?
Gedaliya I've tried hard to maintain civility toward you throughout this thread, but when you post apocalyptic warnings about "rampant pederasty" that might ensue if gay people are given the right to marry, and characterize our deep-seated desire for equal rights as "narcissistic and infantile" it becomes next to impossible not to conclude that, in the end, you're just a jerk.
Gedaliya said..."...tampering with the institution of marriage..."
And what an "institution" it is!!
50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce...and how many people do you know who are on their 2nd or 3rd "institution?"
Come out of the cave...
"Institution" statistics:
Median age at first marriage: Males: 26.9
Females: 25.3
Median age at first divorce: Males: 30.5
Females: 29
Median age at second marriage: Males: 34
Females: 32
Median age at second divorce: Males: 39.3
Females: 37
Median duration of first marriages that end in divorce: Males: 7.8 years
Females: 7.9 years
Median duration of second marriages that end in divorce: Males: 7.3 years
Females: 6.8 years
Median number of years people wait to remarry after their first divorce: Males: 3.3 years
Females: 3.1 years
Percentage of married people who reach their 5th, 10th, and 15th anniversaries: 5th: 82%
10th: 65%
15th: 52%
On Obama: his considerable potential political gifts have been squandered on the vapidity of standard Democratic positions.
Every time I think about Huckabee, Obama comes to mind, and vice versa. Odd? Both are politicians of potentially very broad appeal who are narrowing that appeal by obligatory playing-to-the-base.
Luckyoldson: I'm flattered.
former law student said..."Please, think of your fan base, not yourself."
Oh, I do.
Gedaliya I've tried hard to maintain civility toward you throughout this thread....
Well, let's be honest and say you tried for one comment, and for one comment you succeeded.
Baby steps, darkbloom...baby steps.
Let's deal with the facts.
Gedaliya is a self-admitted anti-gay bigoted. In fact - she's proud of it.
Gedaliya says that gays face almost no threats of violence in society and that we've never been face. Perhaps she'd like to tell that to Michael Sandy, a New Yorker who was murdered last year for being gay. Gay hate crimes have skyrocketed since Bush became President - not surprising since Bush gay bashes whenever he can.
Gays have less freedom now than they did when Bush entered office.
1) Gays are no second class citizens in over 20 states, as a result of constitutional amendments that deny their rights.
2) Gays are not free to serve their country.
3) The military is still imprisoning gay people for having sex - up to three months in jail under this administration - DESPITE the fact that Lawrence V. Texas made this illegal.
4) If you are a mass-murderer or a child molester, you are not forbidden from adopting children in Florida. But if you are gay, your freedom to adopt is removed.
5) If you are a divorced parent, judges can now forbid you from seeing your children - just because you are gay. That judge was appointed to the 5th circuit court of appeals this week.
And we haven't even gotten to the fact that we don't have the freedom to marry, and the thousand rights that come with that.
Really - Gedaliya is a foul, disgusting, bigoted individual. The world would be much better off without scum like her.
hey lucky: what relevance do divorce statistics have to gay marriage? I expect gay couples to divorce at the same rate as straight couples.
Also, if 50% of marriages end in divorce, that means the other 50% end in death. Frankly I'd rather be divorced and checking out chicks than dead and in the ground.
Plus, everywhere I've ever lived, less than 10% of the people were divorced, some 60% were married, and the rest were single, including kids.
Also, gays are now forbidden from entering into contracts with each other in Virginia, any type of contract whatsoever - despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees to the right to enter into contracts.
But the U.S. Constitution no longer applies to gay people in Virginia.
Freedom my ass.
Also, gays are now forbidden from entering into contracts with each other in Virginia, any type of contract whatsoever - despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees to the right to enter into contracts.
OK, this sucks. This clearly violates the Constitution's prohibition against impairment of contracts as well as violating the sphere of sexual privacy. It's nobody's business in VA what two adults voluntarily do.
Former Law Student - Do you really think that the Roberts Court would ever rule that the right to enter into contracts actually applies to gay people?
Get real.
Here's the law by the way.
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited.
former law student said..."hey lucky: what relevance do divorce statistics have to gay marriage?"
Well, if you'd bothered to read Genitalia's inane comment about how sacred the "institution" of marriage is...
But gays are smart and are now leaving bigot states like Virginia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600797.html?nav=rss_metro
Now we just need to drive the bigots like Gedaliya out of New York. Maybe we can get her to stay in India all year. Gedliya is not welcome in New York. Go away. We don't want scum like here here.
former says: "Plus, everywhere I've ever lived, less than 10% of the people were divorced..."
The divorce rate refers to EVER being divorced...NOT currently.
Also, gays are now forbidden from entering into contracts with each other in Virginia, any type of contract whatsoever...
Oh come on. You mean a homosexual can't sell another homosexual a business...or provide a service...or sell a house?
You must be delusional if you believe this.
What you're talking about is whether I favor same-sex couples marrying, aren't you? - Gedaliya.
Closed-minded Geliya is at it again. We are not just talking about marriage. We are talking about the freedom to have sex with consenting adults, the right to enter into contracts, the right to see our biological kids, the right to adopt, the right to serve our country, the right to not be fired by the government just for being gay, not living in fear of our partners being deported if they are not citizens (straights don't face that fear since they can always marry them).
Gays represent 16% of all hate-crime attacks, but Gedaliya thinks that is minor. I've been threatened with violence just because I was gay. Has Gedailya ever been singled-out because she's straight?
Actually - when it comes to selling a house, gay people can only be exempt from $250,000 in profits. Married people are allowed to be exempt from $500,000 in profits.
And no - gay people cannot make a contract selling homes to each other in Virginia, if somebody thinks it is mimikcing the benefits of marriage. So if you own a home, and try to give your gay partner half of it - it is illegal in Virginia and you can be imprisoned because of that.
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited.
How does the above law apply in regard to a homosexual entering a contractual agreement with another homosexual to sell a business or provide a service?
Please explain.
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...?
If it is mimicking the benefits of marriage, it is forbidden. So if you're trying to create a contract that establishes a home or a joint business, mimicking that of a husband and wife (maybe 50/50 ownership), someone can just say you're mimicking marriage - and poof - that contract is now invalid.
And no - gay people cannot make a contract selling homes to each other in Virginia, if somebody thinks it is mimikcing the benefits of marriage.
Oh please. I bet you any money that there has never been a single case, not one, of a homosexual being prevented from selling a house to another homosexual in the state of Virginia.
Your lies are so egregious and absurd as to be laughable. Grow up and quit whining.
If it is mimicking the benefits of marriage...
This means absolutely nothing. You need therapy.
How do you know? The law was placed there because of bigots like you. And nothing is preventing them from enforcing that law.
It's pretty amazing that you can support all of these bigoted laws - and then tell gay people to shut about them when they point them out.
The fact is that gay people enjoy more rights in a quasi-dictatorship like China than they do in the United States.
We are talking about the freedom to have sex with consenting adults...
Oh please. That's all you talk about is your "freedom to have sex." You're so obsessed with your penis that you remind me of one of those three-year-olds who walk around constantly pulling on his pud.
Grow up.
Gedaliya - Why don't you just remain celibate the rest of your life.
There are gay people who are sitting in jail as we speak, just because they had gay sex.
Really - move out of my city. You're not welcome here. Go to Virginia where you belong.
The fact is that gay people enjoy more rights in a quasi-dictatorship like China than they do in the United States.
I really think you're a certifiable nutcase.
Methinks that Gaygenitalia was perhaps married to a man who ended up being gay? Did she walk in on him with another man? Oh no!
P.S. I went out last night for the first time in 2 months (since quitting smoking) to Nowhere bar in the East Village, and I made out with two guys!
The kid goes off the deep end:
Many cases show that gay people still have to endure prejudice from the justice system and harassment from police, including detention and arrest. In October 1999, a Beijing court ruled that homosexuality was "abnormal and unacceptable to the Chinese public" [Washington Post 24 January 2000], which was the first time this official attitude was stated openly. Another notable case happened in July 2001, when at least 37 gay men were detained in Guangdong Province. Recently, in late April, the State Administration of Radio Film and Television (国家广æ’电影电视总局) has initiated a campaign to clear violence and sexual content from the media. Programmes related to homosexual topic, scene or language are considered to be "going against the healthy way of life in China", and are banned.
Homosexuality in China
I'm not a nutcase. You have your head burried in the ground.
FACT: The Bush administration spies and monitors on gay rights groups and their participants, including LGBT organizations at ordinary universities.
That is no different than what might happen in China, except China doesn't single out gay rights groups.
Gays have had sexual liberty for twice as long in China as they have had in the United States. And sexual freedom for gay people is still banned in 11 states in this country, and that freedom is only there by one vote on the Supreme Court. Gays do still not have sexual liberty if they happen to work for the military.
Post a Comment