But it was not to be:
The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator....
... State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.
পোস্টগুলি
১৫৬টি মন্তব্য:
For better or worse the public is not ready to accept gay marriage. (I happen to think its for the worse)
I wish "the gay community" would aim towards domestic partnerships. I think that's doable and would fix a lot of problems that I would rather not wait to fix over a word.
What a strange construction. "...the democrats did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support..."
In other words, a sizable chunk of the Democratic party wasn't interested in passing it either, but we need to blame it Republican obstructionism.
"we need to blame it Republican obstructionism"
Ya betcha.
How do you get a one seat majority when there were 62 votes cast?
Either they have two more seats than the other party (32-30), there's a 3rd party Senator, or someone didn't vote. The article doesn't say which of those were the case.
Great News at least from viewpoint. I am also thinkin g the Maine Marriage vote raised some eyebrows and perhaps contributed to this
Boy, someone sure can't "count votes"!
Nice to hear from a N.Y. state legislator that Catholics, evangelicals, Muslims and Jews aren't people.
Undaunted, battle-weary troops regroup to their redoubt on Christopher Street, from whence to launch the next assault on accursed breeders. All things are as they were then, except, YOU ARE THERE.
Here is our hero Ruben.
Teh geys lose again.
Ah, yes. We doofuses that supported civil unions in the '80's are being called homophobes and worse now because we still support civil unions.
Odd, eh?
Richard Fagin above makes an interesting observation. Our little Albany party guys are always in fine fiddle when it comes to representing "some" of the people.
Ann's pictorials of Albany accurately portray a place walled off and without access (so it seems). Our state senator is so much a party hack that if the leadership told him to vote to restore a flat earth he would do it and cite that when standing on the sea shore it looks flat to him.
For the life of me I can't figure out how any gay couple who wishes the benefits that marriage bestows (legally and emotionally) can't do it. Good Lord, a lot of the hetrosexual relationships that end up in marriage appear to be of different species .....
It is clear to me that while I am a firm supporter of SSM, I am in a distinct minority. Agree with Dark Eden's assessment.
Boy, that's just a sterling, shiny example of anti-GOP bias at the NY Times. Even for them, I think they've outdone themselves. If your party has a 1 vote majority, and your proposition loses by 14 votes, then that necessarily means that some (about 7 out of about 31, or about 22%) of your party members voted against the measure.
I would vote for same sex marriage if I were a New York Senator. But not everyone supports that and the burden is on those proposing this change to change public opinion on gay marriage.
Gay marriage proponents should not claim mere bigotry and bias is blocking this change. Many married couples do not believe same sex couples to be the equivalent of marriage, but would not oppose equality on rights.
I think change will come but many of the proponents of this change would get more traction by working to persuade and educate on the issue.
[blockquote]This has all happened largely under the radar—though Markos "Daily Kos" Moulitsas was apparently in the know, hinting at this "big news" in his Twitter feed on Monday night. Today he writes: "So by the end of the week, gay marriage should be legal in New York. And there are no citizen initiatives in NY to overturn it." [/blockquote] .... from the first link.
[blockquote]The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. [/blockquote]
Sing it, Marcos. Sing it.
Gay rights are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Conservative opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional and evil.
Just get the government out of the marriage contract and the problem is solved. But then again that's the solution to a lot of problems. But apparently, it's an unnatural act.
Dark Eden said...
For better or worse the public is not ready to accept gay marriage. (I happen to think its for the worse)
I wish "the gay community" would aim towards domestic partnerships.
I dispute the "not ready" meme that militant gays and their caring, nurturing female fans always employ.
As if the only impediment is lack of black, hispanic, white religious groups "progress towards a more educated culture" or something.
It's like advocates of other causes saying "the public is not yet ready" to accept communism, or beastiality, or public health care, or women on submarines.
It presumes an inherent correctness to such people's positions on controversial positions - and also presumes it is "just a matter to time" before they justly win.
It's condescending as hell, and along preening gay activist self-righteousness, with Over the Top politics of gay activist confrontation and rage, it deeply alienates even certain backers of gay marriage or the Americans of the middle ground that have no problem with employer benefits and civil unions.
And it becomes deeply gratifying to more and more of the public when petulant gay activists and their caring, nurturing women supporters scream of their shock!, anger! deep hurt! - when they don't get exactly what they demand from dumb, ill-educated and insensitive Americans.
And the whole "victimhood" schtick of strident gays is blown off....so to speak.
BJK: the NYS Senate is currently 32/30, Democrat/Republican. Prior to this year it was 32/30, Republican/Democrat. News reports always report it as a one-vote majority, I think because if one (Democratic now, or Republican in the past) senator defects from the conference, it is a tie.
PatHMV: 8 Democrats voted no.
In other news of ignorant masses not doing as cultural Elites demand -
Australia's Parliament turned down carbon cap n' trade.
To the same sort of screams of outrage and insults and threats from straight and gay Greenie activists.
C4 - just like the public isn't ready to embrace Likudism?
The way Ruben Diaz goes on spanish church tour just b4 election time is appalling.
You would think there would be tax 501c3 problems with that.
howzerdo, thanks for the stats. 8 of 32 votes means that 25% of the Democrats voted against it.
In national healthcare politics, 100% Democrat support + 1 Republican vote = bipartisan. So what does 100% Republican support + 25% Democrat support equal?
It's good that the issue is up for a vote in a state legislature.
Not the supremes.. not in the courts.
I also agree that it should be 'btwg a man and a woman'..
If it's opened up then (its my opinion) they would have to list who and what it would include.. exhaustedly so it wont come up again.
"No Gay Marriage....No Problem"
I bet some of you find that offensive and unnecessary if placed on a billboard.
NYT math: 38-24 = 1.
It's no use to those of us who support gay marriage to pretend that only Evil Republicans won't vote for it.
Lem: going from one adult male and female to two adults is that hard to comprehend?
If you ask me, separate out the legal contract (and allow for standard and custom contracts) and the religious aspect. If it truly is a religious ceremony then the government has no business involved in it, if not then why does the church oppose any marriage/partnership/etc?
When I read these stories I always feel somewhat sorry for the supporters despite my general indifference to the issue.
However that sympathy always disappears when I then go on to read that the supporters of gay marriage accused those opposed to it of being akin to nazis and slave holders.
I had no idea the NY Senate had been overrun with Mormons. Very strange.
bagoh20,
"Just get the government out of the marriage contract and the problem is solved."
Yeah, the very idea that society could have any interest in stable marriages and families is pretty preposterous, isn't it?
wv: paliess - a female member of the Palin species.
We never get any clear criterion for it.
It's either I am good because I am for it, or, I am good because I am against it.
There is no criterion.
I find this to be one of the funniest debates of our time. There's no criterion that everyon can agree on.
Until there is, it's hard to understand how anybody can pull anybody over to their side.
Bible says no. Bible says yes.
Argument from authority.
Nature is for it. Nature is against it.
Argument from nature.
The people are for it. The people are against it.
On what terms?
Usually you're supposed to give valid reasons for being for or against something when you're making an argument.
this issue always skips that stage, and we go right to ad hominem.
Perhaps time to debate eliminating statutory marriage altogether. Fix the income tax code to eliminate family discrimination and whatever other legal distinctions are made.
Of course no Republican would vote for it! Any Republican that did so would be the next Dierdre Scozzafava.
P.S., of the eighteen senators who stood up and said something, seventeen voted in favor of same-sex marriage. At least Ruben Diaz had the courage to explain why he would be voting to deny gay people equal rights.
Ugly capital, ugly legislature.
general indifference to the issue.
You too, Jayne? Three years of being a commenter on Althouse, seeing these posts on the topic during that time, and I STILL can't rouse more than a lifted eyebrow on the topic. I am not for it, nor against it. I'm just indifferent.
Cheers,
Victoria
Victoria, LOL.
Fve years ago or so, I was pretty adamantly for gay marriage. Now it's like, "Eh. Whatever."
Gay marriage zealots have turned an issue that used to engender sympathy into one that provokes weariness. At best.
Gay rights are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Conservative opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional and evil.
Yes, in the same way my right to a hot, 22-year-old girlfriend is guaranteed because the guy in the apartment next to mine has one.
Gay marriage zealots have turned an issue that used to engender sympathy into one that provokes weariness. At best.
I confess, Knox, the only time I was totally turned off about the topic was when I heard that Castro district and other Californian gays went around using racist epithets for blacks and houding Mormons because of their vote. That was disgusting. Imagine how black gays felt hearing that crap.
Perhaps time to debate eliminating statutory marriage altogether. Fix the income tax code to eliminate family discrimination and whatever other legal distinctions are made.
BINGO. Even if NY had voted to legalize Gay Marriage, these tax and other legal discrimination that exist at the Federal level would still exist. They only thing they would have accomplished is to change the name of marriage and not the legal substance.
There should be a complete renaming of marriage to being civil union for everyone. One where the government has some jurisdiction in tax law, inheritance and other such issues and differentiated from marriage as a religious sacrament.
If you want to have a civil/government sanctioned marriage/civil union I have no problem with that at all. Everyone should be treated equally under the law.
However, if you want to FORCE the church, synagogue or other religious institution to hold a religious ceremony against the precepts of their church or religion......now you have a problem. This is where the resistance to same sex marriage is arrising.
I doubt that there are many who would deny a same sex couple the civil rights that married people can have, the right to live together, pass property, share health insurance and social security among other things. But the activists are not content with this....they want to change the religion and very fabric of society and they want it NOW or else.
"Gay rights are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Conservative opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional and evil."
What about all the liberal opposition to gay marriage? Is that unconstitutional and evil too?
Yes, the threats of financial retribution and physical violence by gay activists has had a negative effect for me as well.
Within the past week I was involved in a discussion with a gay marriage supporter who could be termed of the rabid variety. His comment was that people should be free to marry who they want.
I asked if we could assume he supported polygamy and group marriage. He didn't respond to the direct question but, in his response, referred to both practices as "warped".
Mine is not a "slippery slope" argument. If the definition of marriage is no longer "a man and a woman", but instead "adults", why it is suddenly important we legislate "only 2" adults?
For the record, not personally a participant in either practice, but simply trying to be consistent.
Like Cederford, I really do hate the "public is not ready for" argument.
But,
the forcing of this issue really creates a lot of pushback. Something like 30 states (including mine, though I voted against) have passed anti-SSM constitutional amendments in the past few years. The pushback is much stronger than the pro, and it can make large, lasting changes to things that it might be indifferent towards in other contexts. (I think that if SCOTUS were to find a federal right, we'd have a federal constitutional amendment so fast our heads would spin. Then what could be done?)
It's not right, but I think it's necessary for pro-SSM folks to step back a little bit. I get why it's important, it is, but this isn't life or death. Contracts and civil unions will accomplish most of your goals. It's not fair, but it is what it is.
I don't understand why gay marriage is such a 'threat'. Never, in 17 years of ministry, have I seen one traditional marriage crumble b/c a gay couple settled down together.
vbspurs,
Social issues are of little interest for me.
Although I will admit that I am interested in the stories about the aftermath of such votes (such as the anti-mormon stuff after prop 8).
Based purely on what I've seen recently I'd say that it's likely that Catholic Bishops are going to be the scapegoat this time around.
The democratic process has happened, as it should, and the results are what they are.
But... that some of you seem to take pleasure in the results of this vote, as if discrimination pleases you makes me want to say "go fuck yourselves".
Any victory "for marriage", whether it is for "same-sex marriage" or "opposite sex marriage" is a defeat for liberty. The State (and not just the state of New York) has no business and no right to affirm or deny the right of two people to enter into a marriage, whether gay or otherwise. The State needs to get out of the marriage racket altogether. That so many small-government conservatives are happy that the State has given itself power to regulate and tax religious and/or romantic unions is indefensible. And that so many liberals seem to have a burning desire for the State's approval and endorsement of a religious/spiritual ceremony is equally appalling. Churches should be able to marry who they choose to marry. It's none of the State's business.
I just checked out the Metafilter running commentary on the live vote:
THAT'S IT WE'RE ALL MOVIN' TO VERMONT. I HOPE YOU ENJOY YOUR HORRIBLE DECOR NOW BITCHES
LOL!
Haven't been watching but it's never going to pass because everything outside of NYC proper is a barren wasteland of uneducated hillbillies and selfish grating Long Islanders.
And if I were to point to a problem, this would be it. You cannot ask something of society, even if you consider your position totally absolutely completely rational, and then insult the very people who need convincing to make it change. Sorry, but that's life. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Everything in life is about presentation.
wv: ANGST!! WOW.
"You cannot ask something of society, even if you consider your position totally absolutely completely rational, and then insult the very people who need convincing to make it change. Sorry, but that's life. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Everything in life is about presentation."
Emotional maturity was never a strong component of the activist liberal psyche.
Emotional maturity was never a strong component of the activist liberal psyche.
Sadly, Palladian, too true. Gay activists are shrill. And Americans don't like shrill.
Again, I personally am indifferent either way. I am the type of person who accepts whatever is the law, and this is why being anti-abortion as I am, I am not made insane thinking of the killing of babies that happen every day. I accept it, with infinite, heart crushing regret, but accept it I do.
I voted for it when I lived in Ohio. Every time DTL comes in here, or I see the protests out on the west coast, it almost makes me regret my vote. But then I have two gay cousins, one from both sides of the family, and both in very long term relationships with a couple of real good guys. Beyond me why the gay activists crank it up to 11 and try to put outrageous behavior as the face of gay marriage.
Another victory for Obama!
Alex said...
"Gay rights are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Conservative opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional and evil."
The pervasive African American opposition to gay marriage must be unconstitutional and evil too. After all what do African-Americans know about the 14th Amendment?
PS Alex: I'm a conservative. I favor gay marriage. By popular vote.
"I doubt that there are many who would deny a same sex couple the civil rights that married people can have, the right to live together, pass property, share health insurance and social security among other things."
Why stop with romantic couples? How about a couple of single friends who feel they are getting a smaller piece of the pie because they are single?
I want equal pie, dammit!
Palladian:
Any victory "for marriage", whether it is for "same-sex marriage" or "opposite sex marriage" is a defeat for liberty.
Horseshit.
Over and over again, in most parts of the country, solid majorities of people have expressed with their votes their preference for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Repeatedly.
This vote was an exercise in liberty, it just didn't have the result you wanted.
Yeah, the very idea that society could have any interest in stable marriages and families is pretty preposterous, isn't it?
Since they made unilateral divorce so easy in the 70's, I'd say yes, it is preposterous.
Alex said...
Gay rights are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Conservative opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional and evil.
12/2/09 2:57 PM
Because of course, before the civil war, in that alternative history universe, the South kept gay slaves on all the plantations. And following that war and the emancipation of the gay slaves, Congress passed and the States ratified the 14th amendment to the Constitution to give those gay slaves equal rights under the law.
Hmmm, I see an alternative history novel that could get Andrew Sullivan excited. And think of the potential for a Showtime miniseries on it--Queer Eye for the Antebellum Guy! A Gay Gone With the Wind.
The State needs to get out of the marriage racket altogether
Then who will enforce the contract? Or do you want to rename legal "marriage" something else and divorce marriage from any legal responsibilities? That will please neither side, but it might resolve the issue (and bankrupt pensions and SS). You could form civil unions (why not 10?) with your heirs and avoid the estate tax.
I see an alternative history novel
Put the Man back in "Mandingo."
Alex said...
Gay rights are guaranteed under the 14th amendment. Conservative opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional and evil.
They are not, you simple-minded tool. Homosexuals already have the same Constitutional guarantees that heterosexuals do, the same as blacks, asians, and any other American citizen does. This thought is symptomatic of the well of idiocy you drink from. Conservatives oppose homosexual marriage on many levels and basically on it's merits, but nowhere has anyone argued legally or with substance that the 14th Amendment confers any of these 'special' rights that only homosexuals get. Idiot.
Where is DTL to screech and shrill about the evils of conservatives opposed to homosexual marriage? Where is Titus? DTL, you were wrong and still are. I told you that homosexual marriage would be shut down even in the states you thought you would be safe in. The people don't want it and in the states you got it were done by judicial if not legislative activism, not be the vote of the people.
Dark Eden said...
For better or worse the public is not ready to accept gay marriage. (I happen to think its for the worse)
I wish "the gay community" would aim towards domestic partnerships. I think that's doable and would fix a lot of problems that I would rather not wait to fix over a word.
Domestic partnerships, I believe exist in many states. I know they do in California. No one has a problem with those, but then again, they are a potential problem for fraud.
Wow I didn't think that turn of phrase would cause such heat! I didn't really mean it how people seem to be taking it. In my case its not a codeword for anything.
My point was that obviously, gay marriage is not going to happen anytime soon and instead of charging up that hill yet again, how about we go for domestic partnerships.
Domestic Partnership seems much more appealing to people, I don't think many people oppose gay couples getting the same legal rights in a hospital, wills etc.
Personally I'd like to see the government only offer Domestic Partnerships and have absolutely nothing to do with church sanctified marriage. You go the government for legalistic stuff involving partnerships, and a church for marriage.
"Yeah, the very idea that society could have any interest in stable marriages and families is pretty preposterous, isn't it?
Since they made unilateral divorce so easy in the 70's, I'd say yes, it is preposterous."
Exactly. Marriage, as a civil institution, is basically meaningless.
"Or do you want to rename legal "marriage" something else and divorce marriage from any legal responsibilities?"
Civil unions, rendered the same as business partnerships.
"Horseshit.
Over and over again, in most parts of the country, solid majorities of people have expressed with their votes their preference for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Repeatedly.
This vote was an exercise in liberty, it just didn't have the result you wanted."
The result I want is the end of government sanctioning of any kind of religious/romantic/sexual partnership.
Of course I won't ever be on the side of the winners with this attitude because "solid majorities" of people don't actually want true liberty and freedom from the interference of government.
And besides, why should I trust the opinions of this "solid majority" on the subject of the sacred governmental institution of cock/cunt marriage when this same majority also wants easy, no-fault divorce? Either this majority cares about marriage or it doesn't. Seems to me it doesn't. Just an excuse to fuck me over as a single person come tax-time and laugh in my face at your ability to use the power of the State to discriminate against me.
I actually care about the sanctity of marriage and the sovereignty of churches. The government should keep its fucking nose out of God's domain.
It's your "defense of marriage" side and the "gay marriage now!" side that wants to render unto Caesar what is God's.
"Personally I'd like to see the government only offer Domestic Partnerships and have absolutely nothing to do with church sanctified marriage. You go the government for legalistic stuff involving partnerships, and a church for marriage."
Finally a principled conservative with respect for religion and the institution of marriage!
Finally a principled conservative with respect for religion and the institution of marriage!
You don't have to be a conservative or a liberal to believe that's the way it should be. Just German. ;)
wv: indeen. A German pronouncing indeed?
A Gay Gone With the Wind.
Well, Mammy and Belle Watling were said to be amenable to the situation in real life.
Ralph L said...
Yeah, the very idea that society could have any interest in stable marriages and families is pretty preposterous, isn't it?
Since they made unilateral divorce so easy in the 70's, I'd say yes, it is preposterous.
They're working on that as we speak in California.
The result I want is the end of government sanctioning of any kind of religious/romantic/sexual partnership.
But we still have the problem of visitation rights, inheritance, child custody, et cetera.
The legal recognition of marriage addresses many of those problems.
And may I note again: Gay people can marry each other anywhere in the country. There is no law such as the miscegenation laws that forbids a church from marrying a same sex couple.
The question is whether for legal purposes the state will extend the same legal protections for that marriage that they do for an opposite sex couple.
I know it's easy for me to say but I do wish gay couples would just tell the government to go to hell on this. Marry one another, love one another, share your lives with one another and tell the government - and everybody else - to shove it if they don't "recognize" it. As long as you two do, really, who cares?
I know, it's easy for me.
They're working on that as we speak in California.
My God, poor gays! They want to get married, but if they ever get to, they won't be able to divorce. CRUEL.
Me:"I doubt that there are many who would deny a same sex couple the civil rights that married people can have, the right to live together, pass property, share health insurance and social security among other things."
Penny: "Why stop with romantic couples? How about a couple of single friends who feel they are getting a smaller piece of the pie because they are single?"
Good point. The tax code and disparate treatment is one of the problems. Establishing SSM is not going to solve these issues.
Everytime the government tries to get its sticky fingers into the pie it creates more problems.
On the otherhand, a good financial planner (ahem------> :-) can help those single people retain their pie pieces.
wv: misty! Play Misty for me.
"On the otherhand, a good financial planner (ahem------> :-) can help those single people retain their pie pieces."
Can a good financial planner help me get back my pieces of pie that the maw of government has already masticated and digested? :)
They're working on that as we speak in California.
I'd sign the petition and vote for the amendment. Nevada is close-by for those in need.
From the linked article:
Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.
How come nobody is ever honest with that statistic? The number is skewed by serial divorcers. Amongst my friends and family, several have been married and divorced multiple times, while far fewer than half have ever been divorced.
So is SSM more about "equal rights", or about more "pie"?
Can a good financial planner help me get back my pieces of pie that the maw of government has already masticated and digested? :)
Probably not. Not mine either, but going forward I'm all for starving the government maw as much as possible and it can be done.
Of course the more means and pie you have to protect the more ways there are to go.
I'm also for a firm swift kick in the gut of the government, maybe some of the pie can be regurgitated. Ugly, but hey.....better than no pie. Hmmm.
So is SSM more about "equal rights", or about more "pie"?
Ok..to be serious. I don't know what SSM movement is really about because just/merely agitating for "marriage" isn't going to give equal rights because the tax code and other laws that are set on a Federal level will not change. So even if Gays get "marriage" they will not have equal rights.
As to keeping more of your pie....there are advantages and DISadvantages to being married when it comes to taxes and inheritance laws. Sometimes the married people get the short end of the stick and other times not.
I think, and I guess this is where the pushback comes, is that SSM is all about trying to change society to accept a lifestyle and to force religion into the issue.
If it was about equal rights, the activists would attack the laws regarding taxes, health insurance, inheritance, adoption etc. In many States like California.....all of this is a non issue because the State has granted equal rights to civil unions/same sex unions as much as they can. Take the rest up with the Feds.
This issue is about demographics. Once the older voters and legislators die, gay marriage will pass. It's really that simple.
Not very encouraging for people who care deeply about this issue, on either side. One side has to wait, the other will eventually lose.
Look, if we want to change the topic to GOVERNMENT, stay the hell out of my life *on issues like this*! I am in 100 percent.
But I thought we were talking about SSM?
Kirby Olsen made a comment up thread that I thought was insightful. Pardon the paraphrasing, but essentially he was saying that there is more voice, more heft about the Yay or Nay, than there ever is about the WHY you are supportive, or not. I think he is spot on.
SSM conversations are overrun with politeness and gear shifting and dramatic turns into either the stratosphere or that mud pit right in front of you.
Whatever you do, don't get dirty! lol
For whatever it's worth, my own state, NJ, the dems have decided that it's "not the right time".
I LOVE when that happens!
When I hear, "Not the right time to pass legislation", it makes me tingle.
Penny said...
So is SSM more about "equal rights", or about more "pie"?
For me it's neither. It's about the intrusion and injection of a series of values that the American public doesn't want and yet has to be forced to deal with because of the tantrums of a protected class not getting their way on the subject and the policies they want to see enacted due to homosexual marriage. They have manufactured fictions of being denied rights to perpetrate this fraud of matrimonial and legal theory.
The "maw of government" [Palladian] must be "starved" [DBQ].
Hear Hear! Walmart is having a sale on pitchforks and torches. I will see you there!
"As to keeping more of your pie....there are advantages and DISadvantages to being married when it comes to taxes and inheritance laws. Sometimes the married people get the short end of the stick and other times not."
But that grass over there! It's greener! I just KNOW it is. It must be!
You know more than the average bear on this topic, DBQ. Same goes for any discussion about government run healthcare. That's because it's part of your job.
But "out there", we have people saying things like, "Yes, equality for ALL!" or, more personally, "No WAY should I not be able to cover my same sex partner with my employer sponsored healthcare!"
"And I should be able to pass along my Social Security to the person I LOVE, dammit!"
Call me cynical, but I fear that America has become the land of "pie eaters", with cheers lead by the "isn't that nice" crowd.
As an Atheist, I don't understand this whole business of why the state should be involved with homosexual relationships. Marriage has popped up all over the world, and the obvious reason is the state has an interest in the next generation.
The developed law is all about that: not about love, subsidizing able bodied individuals, etc.
Here's the bitch.
Our President said we only have ONE pie. No WONDER everyone is jumping for their little piece of it!
It's Darwinian, for cripes sake!
Is there no one out there who wants to start up a bakery business?
In the future, the last few years will be seen as the high-water mark of the homosexual marriage movement. As the percentage of the population that is Mexican, muslim, and black grows, the chances for homosexual marriage shrink. None of those groups want it. The only ones who ever did were white liberals, and they are doomed demographically through the immigration policies they support and the children they refuse to bear.
It's your "defense of marriage" side and the "gay marriage now!" side that wants to render unto Caesar what is God's.
Word.
I want government to be not just smaller and limited, but also as local as possible--but also, to emphasize, as limited as possible.
This means I want it to be as small and limited as possible both FISCALLY ****and**** SOCIALLY. It also means--obviously, I should think--by extension that I think my fellow citizens should have relatively little to say about my and my family's individual choices. This is true for the naturally inclined controllers on the so-called "left" and the so called "right."
Thus, for me, as time goes on, my tendency is just to lump them together as twin sons of different mothers: in short, "naturally inclined controllers," with the added unattractive quality of insisting on *requiring* validation on as large a scale as possible.
To which I say: Feh.
(Which is not to say I don't fully realize that's now how thing are or how they'll ever be. The battle now, it's as clear as day, is emphatically not about "whether," but rather about "which."
Well, so it goes.)
"Marriage has popped up all over the world, and the obvious reason is the state has an interest in the next generation."
No chit!
Now if only we could talk about THAT instead of getting sidetracked by the equality cheerleaders and the pie eaters.
I would vote for same sex marriage if I were a New York Senator. But not everyone supports that and the burden is on those proposing this change to change public opinion on gay marriage.
Unfortunately you're right as a practical matter. In principle, however, the "burden" should be on those who seek to deny equal rights.
Gay marriage proponents should not claim mere bigotry and bias is blocking this change. Many married couples do not believe same sex couples to be the equivalent of marriage, but would not oppose equality on rights.
Please explain how opposition to same-sex marriage is possible without "bias."
MnMark and John Lynch both come at this from a demographics point of view, and of course you might be right.
Personally, I think that Americans will figure out exactly what "BROKE" means. They are barely beginning to figure it out about their own finances, because of "The PIE"!
"Marriage has popped up all over the world, and the obvious reason is the state has an interest in the next generation."
Out of curiosity: Does anyone (on either side) ever stop to think that this, as stated, is a bit of a distortion, historically, and how and why it is?
Sorry, reader, but could you restate this as you please, so that we can get on with what you wish to discuss?
That was not meant rudely, merely to get to your point which I very much would love to hear.
Marriage certainly popped up all over the world. This does not mean that it's either necessarily or sufficiently obvious that this happened because the state had an interest in it, or even that the definition of "the state" has been a universal, much less a stable, much less a static one.
Penny, that's a very fast, inexact, imprecise, lacking in depth, and cut-short way to put it.
But it was a fair request on your part (and I opened that door), and so I responded in order to, as I think was your intent, to expand, or at least further, the conversation.
Wondering why gay couples don't turn to the common law route. New York, for instance, doesn't allow for the creation of a common law marriage but recognizes couples from other states who meet that state's requirements.
hdhouse: Believe it or not, I've been thinking of--not coming to a conclusion about, or being in possession of enough information about, mind you, but ruminating over--the concept of "common-law marriage" in general and in specific w/r/t to this thread and my comments. Too nascent at present, however.
Also, it's mostly ancillary to the rather quicker points I was trying to bring forth for consideration (whether it ought or ought not be).
Thanks reader.
So countries's leaders and remote villages' big whigs might fall down on the same side of the pro-union coin here. If only, at least in one case, the evidence was merely anecdotal.
That's an interesting way to look at it, Penny.
Though not nearly as interesting, in the immediate moment, for just a moment, as what I just learned--or at least I suspect I've learned--about the commenter Penny.
; )
***
As I say: So it oges.
"the people"?
51% of New Yorkers support same sex marriage.
The number is skewed by serial divorcers. Amongst my friends and family, several have been married and divorced multiple times, while far fewer than half have ever been divorced.
Good point, Chickenlittle! As an aside, no one in either side of my family has been divorced. No one. Of my close American friends growing up, only one girl had divorced parents.
I have a suspicion that people whose family are not overflowing with divorcés "attract" the friends with the same kind of family background, even perhaps subconsciously.
My chum with the divorced parents said she always felt out of place sleeping over at my home, because it pained her to see my parents retire to the same bedroom. I felt so guilty.
Cheers,
Victoria
"That's an interesting way to look at it, Penny."
Well, actually, reader...I was attempting to paraphrase what I thought YOU said.
Was I misunderstanding?
In any case, if you feel you got to know ME better, well perhaps you did. That's a good thing. Right?
I whispered, 'I am too young,'
And then, 'I am old enough';
Wherefore I threw a penny
To find out if I might love.
'Go and love, go and love, young man,
If the lady be young and fair.'
Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
I am looped in the loops of her hair.
O love is the crooked thing,
There is nobody wise enough
To find out all that is in it,
For he would be thinking of love
Till the stars had run away
And the shadows eaten the moon.
Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
One cannot begin it too soon.
***
wv: busnessa
Given the talk of marriage, divorce, and homosexuality, did you guys here that 80s iconic sitcom mom, Meredith Baxter Birney, outted herself on the Today Show as a "late-in-life lesbian"?
After 3 marriages, and I believe 5 kids, she realises she's gay. I wish her all kinds of well, but I must say, I just don't get that. Don't you suspect something is "different" when you're a kid?
Cheers,
Victoria
Hear not here. PIMF. Humph.
wv: gingir! Not Maryann.
Victoria - late middle age conversion to lesbianism is more common then you think. It's just that no men will have them at that age anymore, and well...
Joseph - if that's the case then New Yorkers should vote the scumbags out of office in 2010, since homo-marriage is THE #1 issue.
If only gay people would just be nicer, I wouldn't be too bored to care about them.
Beth - the problem is how much a priority does the average voter make gay issues. Stop projecting your left-wing fantasies on the rest of us.
Please explain how opposition to same-sex marriage is possible without "bias."
I'll give it a shot, John.
Ceremonial marriage is clearly important to every culture in the history of the world, because it has existed in every culture. Almost universally, it is there to tie two human beings together to reproduce and, latterly, to legitimise their offspring. Whilst very many cultures have been accepting of homosexuality, in very few (aboriginals in Papua New Guinea come to mind, perhaps in classical Greece to an extent) is it the preferred union between two humans. Thus, one may consider opposite-sex marriage to have been invented for practical, even pragmatic legal reasons, with romantic reasons almost an afterthought.
Though couples can be barren, until recently, it was impossible to know beforehand if they would produce children or not. But it was always known a priori, that two people of the same gender could not reproduce -- so an union such as marriage seems pointless to many.
Biased it may be, but this thinking has little to do with religious bigotry.
Incidentally, many people point out that slavery was for a long time considered normal historically too, until it was stamped out as a cruel, inhuman practise, which it most certainly was.
This isn't going to seem like sequential thinking, but I have always thought it was odd that gay people (who technically can spend their entire lives free of the bondage of marriage, as some feminists would have it) would want to choose being tethered to another human instead. I grew up admiring the insouciant thumbing of the nose to conventions and institutions that gays automatically seemed to embody in my mind. Today, I find it all very prosaic, tatty and bourgeois that they wish to join the ranks of the boring marrieds.
Is there no one left out there who is metallically sophisticated anymore?
Cheers,
Victoria
Good point, Chickenlittle! As an aside, no one in either side of my family has been divorced. No one. Of my close American friends growing up, only one girl had divorced parents.
To illustrate, consider my father's generation: eight siblings-all married. Seven of them married once and remained so until death. One of them married five times, divorced twice, outlived two more and is on her fifth.
On my mother's side, things look worse: Her parents divorced (uncommon in the 40's). There were six siblings, and all married. Four of the six ended up divorced. My mother outlived my father, but remarried.
I think you're right Victoria. And divorce, if not contagious, appears to run in families, just as strong marriages do.
Oh, I suspect that Bridget had an inkling even way back then that she had a love for Bernice as well as well as for Bernie, but--you know what?--it's not as if that would've been OK, back then. Especially for those who played TV roles, as actors, onto which people out there glommed (and by extension insisted that the actors behind their favorite roles actually BE those characters).
What nonsense, really. How limiting, all the way around. Just for starters.
I think you're right Victoria. And divorce, if not contagious, appears to run in families, just as strong marriages do.
I have a friend whose brother takes it to the extreme though, and it can be classified as just plain snobby. He's a self-made millionaire, who bought a huge house for his wife and their four kids. Most of the kids in the block were exactly from the same kind of family -- recently well-to-do, with married parents. One day, a rental apartment building sprung up in the outskirts of the neighbourhood, and the man's kids started bringing home friends who lived in the rental units, who happened also to be from broken homes.
The guy moved his family out. He didn't want his kids growing up influenced by such broken backgrounds.
Can you beat that? I was stunned when I heard it.
Do you people never say to yourselves, "Give me a f'n break" and then, by extension, "Give them a f'n break, as well"?
It's interesting, VB Spurs' discussion of "ceremonial marriage."
What's not mentioned is that, in various cultures and at various points in time, including rather uncomfortably recent times, such things were reserved for the elite/special/powered whatever, at least w/r/t to recognition by the state (whatever that meant in real time, at the time). That's partly why they were "ceremonial" and special, as opposed to all those liaisons that were formed but not seen as so special (and were dismissed without regard to the families that were formed thereof).
Sorry to be so late to the party.
DBQ wrote: However, if you want to FORCE the church, synagogue or other religious institution to hold a religious ceremony against the precepts of their church or religion......now you have a problem. This is where the resistance to same sex marriage is arrising.
I think this is a red herring.
I don't no of anyone who is talking about forcing churches to perform ceremonies. Catholic churches are free to discriminate against divorced couples right now. I expect that freedom to continue.
Are there any examples of churches in Massachusetts or Vermont being forced to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples?
Today, I find it all very prosaic, tatty and bourgeois that they wish to join the ranks of the boring marrieds.
Victoria, do you not realize how awful, condescending, dismissive, ridiculous and self-oriented that sentence is?
You are a sharp person. Why so dull on this issue?
I'm pretty sure that forcing churches to not discriminate will be next on the gay agenda. After all it's illegal for corporations to discriminate...
Althouse + Meade married each other last summer, just the two of them together and to each other, on a piece of mountain that appealed to them in Colorado. They officiated for themselves. Just before, they went to the specified government office to, essentially, register their intention. Just after, they went back to register their implementation.
Just curious, Victoria: Does that count as "ceremonial marriage," in your mind, given your historical explication? Whether yay or nay, I'd be interested in your explication.
I was discussing this issue with my father-in-law, who is a retired pastor.
I repeated the line I have heard others use, "Marriage is older than the state."
"True," he replied. "But it's also older than the church."
----
Alex, there is no Gay, inc., that can make those decisions. Some people may decide to pursue such a case, insisting that a church perform a ceremony for them against its religious doctrines.
I don't know the likelihood of such a case succeeding. I don't know if public accommodation rules that would apply to a rental hall would apply to churches, but that would be about the use of physical space. I think it would be absurd if a court found that a couple had a right to a religious ceremony, but I'll defer to those with legal training.
If only gay people would just be nicer, I wouldn't be too bored to care about them.
Nice? When gay activists started behaving with hostility and threats toward people who didn't vote with them... my support becomes less enthusiastic.
Meredith Baxter's story is actually a good example. She was forced "out," in part, by Perez Hilton (who regularly outs gay celebrities). Many Activist gays would say that was a good thing. I think it's inexcusably mean, and shitty, and not "Nice," regardless of the political purpose it serves.
The gay movement has become weirdly angry and malicious in the last 5 years or so. I wish more reasonable voices would drown out the nasty radicals at the forefront.
knox - it's their revenge for all the years they had to stay closeted. So they will out any gay who doesn't even want to outed. It's "for their own good" anyways.
Oh - and yes there will be courts in very blue states that WILL force a church to officiate a gay wedding against their beliefs.
The relationship between the church ceremony and legal marriage is worth pursuing.
Most churches will recognize a marriage that takes place without benefit of clergy, whether it was performed by a justice of the peace in Vegas or on a mountainside in Colorado.
Does it work the other way around? If you get married in a church without a license, I don't think the state will recognize that marriage as valid.
Alex, can you give me any examples of a church being required, by a court, to perform a ceremony that went against the beliefs of that church?
peter - no, but it's coming. You can count on it. The gay agenda stops for nothing. They are not going to be content with "live and let live", but forcing it down everyone's throat.
Alex, fuck off
The civil union compromise might be workable, but I don't see leadership emerging for that option. I also am not sure how civil unions would work at the federal level.
Again, I'll defer to the legal scholars, but it seems to me that civil unions would be much more akin to creating a "special right" for gays than would the extension of marriage rights to include same-sex couples.
Meredith Baxter is a dyke.
How depressing.
liberals will not be satisfied with anything less then gay marriage imposed from the federal level like de-segregation in the 1950s-1960s.
Fact is, a civil right should not be subject to a popular vote. Gay marriage is a civil right, a human right.
Is there more than one person posting as "Alex"?
For what it's worth, I am opposed to same-sex marriage being imposed by the courts, but I'm not in a position to prevent someone from trying.
I know that when the Olson-Boies lawsuit was first discussed, there were some gay rights groups that were opposed to that case moving forward. However, it's not like they can stop Olson and Boies from pressing their case.
Likewise, the quiet lesbian couple a few houses away isn't able to control the a-holes who piss people off. Should they have fewer legal rights because some jerks act up? I don't think so, but the reality is that people who think they should be allowed to marry are going to have to wait a while longer.
You are a sharp person. Why so dull on this issue?
It was a straight quote from Noel Coward, Reader.
I'm sick and tired of people being touchy about anything which approaches this topic, especially when there are past personality issues clouding the topic.
Cheers,
Victoria
Just curious, Victoria: Does that count as "ceremonial marriage," in your mind, given your historical explication? Whether yay or nay, I'd be interested in your explication.
It counts. It was a ceremony, wasn't it?
Is there more than one person posting as "Alex"?
Yes. The troll sockpuppet factor on this blog is still the worst part of Althouse.
I think it's inexcusably mean, and shitty, and not "Nice," regardless of the political purpose it serves.
I also detest this attitude. When I started blogging, I wrote a blogpost on Anderson Cooper, whom I had known was Gloria Vanderbilt's son, but I had no inkling he might be gay (my gaydar sometimes fails spectacularly). It's almost certain that he is, after having read of the continued attempts to out him by gay magazines, which leave me saddened for him (and Jodie Foster, e.g.) and his attempts at privacy.
It reminds me of one of my favourite actors, Nigel Hawthorne, being outted on the eve of the Oscars, afterwards appearing on "Parkinson" (he's our Johnny Carson) saying shyly that he didn't understand why the world was so interested about two old boring queens like he and his partner.
You could tell he had a swallow-me-earth expression, not because of the shame of it, which he didn't have, but because he was a private man.
Cheers,
Victoria
John Lynch said...
"This issue is about demographics. Once the older voters and legislators die, gay marriage will pass. It's really that simple."
Sounds good on paper, but we have immigrants entering the country, replacing those older voters that not only are against SSM, but a lot of them want homos dead.
Though couples can be barren, until recently, it was impossible to know beforehand if they would produce children or not.
Why not have an age maximum? Why not make spouses attest that they plan to have children? Why not outlaw marriage for a couple where the man has had a vasectomy or the woman has had a hysterectomy?
But it was always known a priori, that two people of the same gender could not reproduce -- so an union such as marriage seems pointless to many.
So what? Two people of the same gender can still raise children.
Also, there are new methods that allow two women two biologically have children together. Implant the egg of one in the body of the other.
But again, so what? Why is it all about reproduction? The very choice to focus on this is the bias. You're choosing to focus on the one detail that distinguishes opposite-sex from same-sex couples.
The fact is that there are opposite-sex and same-sex couples who don't have children, and there are opposite-sex and same-sex couples who do have children. Emphasizing the importance of "children" is a red herring.
John, I didn't make it clear. I thought you had asked how marriage became cemented in the human mind as being between two opposite sex beings, and therefore, how it evolved historically not having to do with bias (especially as you intimated, religious bias). I gave it my best shot to explain it to you.
The reasons that you gave are a-ok with me. I'm not arguing the possible arguments of today -- just showing you a possible reason of why it's difficult for people to see it the other way.
Cheers,
Victoria
1. In reply to jaltcoh: "You're choosing to focus on the one detail that distinguishes opposite-sex from same-sex couples. ... Emphasizing the importance of "children" is a red herring."
All of human history attests, and empirical statistical evidence confirms, that children are reared best in a household comprising both a man and a woman. Bringing this situation about in the greatest possible percentage of instances is society's primary interest. The phenomenon of fatherless households is known to be an overall detriment to society.
For this reason, there are (well, used to be) societal incentives for the man to stay and raise his offspring, and incentives for the woman to attract and hold a man. Men who repudiated or abandoned their children were pariahs, and so were women who gave birth out of wedlock.
The state's primary interest is in ensuring that children will be provided for, and the natural moral duty falls upon the man and woman who brought them into the world. The state has no interest -- none -- in romantic partnerships. Not only should "gay marriage" be rejected, so should "no-fault" divorce (as it was the wedge that pried apart society's sense of the purpose of marriage and replaced it with the mess we now have).
2. In reply to peter hoh:
I am confident, as is Alex, that the state will eventually force the churches to grant some kind of approval to "gay marriage". It may stop just prior to mandating that they perform same-sex rites.
But I expect it to certainly mandate that they, for example: (a) rent the use of their facilities (including sanctuaries) to persons desiring to hold same-sex rites; (b) not distinguish between marriages and same-sex unions in facilitating adoptions; (c) not distinguish in matters of employment, to the point that the church will be prevented from expecting employees to abide by church doctrines; and, (d) not make public statements of church doctrine opposing homosexual activity or same-sex unions, on the grounds of "hate speech". All of these have already occurred in one form or another in Canada.
JAC wrote:
Why is it all about reproduction? The very choice to focus on this is the bias. You're choosing to focus on the one detail that distinguishes opposite-sex from same-sex couples.
Why not celebrate and keep special the type of unions that do best perpetuate society?
And if you choose not to, another society may simply overrule your objection.
Craig, the US is not Canada. Can you imagine a lawsuit succeeding in forcing the Catholic church to accept a female priest? I can't. And I can't make the leap that the courts would force a church to accept a gay minister when their doctrine tells them that it is not acceptable.
When churches accept public money to perform public services, as in the Massachusetts adoption issue, then yes, there are strings attached. This is not a new development. There's a history of regulations attached to state money that goes to religious groups.
Here's a handy chart.
If you can spare 5 minutes, here's NY State Senator Diane Savino making her case for voting for the bill yesterday.
Here's the part where she addresses the concerns that Craig and Alex raised:
I'm a Roman Catholic. The Catholic church has the right to deny me the sacrament of marriage if they determine the person I choose to marry is unfit or our relationship doesn't meet their standards. City Hall does not have that right. That will not change under this bill. That will never change under this bill. Religious institutions can continue to practice discrimination with respect to the sacrament of marriage.
Peter, you're just not being very creative. A direct mandate may not be plausible, but that is not the primary way goverment regulates anymore anyways. Is it as inconceivable to imagine, for example, a withdrawal of tax exemptions for churches that do not permit female clergy? Always remember that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Yes, Sofa King, I believe that a withdrawal of tax exemptions for churches that do not permit female clergy is extremely unlikely in the United States.
The Bob Jones University case involved the tax status of a school, not a church.
Again, I'd really like to hear the opinion of a constitutional scholar on this issue.
As to civll union (state) and marriage sanctification (church) the answer is fairly easy. The state performs marriages and by convenience the right to perform this ritual is given to clergy. marriage in a church both marries the couple and sanctifies the relationship. marriage in the courthouse is simple marriage without the blessing of the church.
you can look it up.
Peter, I made clear above that I don't expect a direct assault on the sacraments, at least not yet. I won't place any bets about twenty years hence.
You missed my point about all the other likely steps that the state will take to force Catholics to burn their first pinch of incense to Caesar. It will occur in the same exact manner as attempts to coerce Catholic medicine into providing abortion, IVF, sterilization, contraception, and euthanasia. There will be talk of "conscience clauses" to permit the reluctant a way out; these will be modified over time to require the reluctant to provide referrals to others more willing. Eventually the conscience option will be deleted altogether.
They will be taxed or coerced into acting as if their beliefs are merely an irrelevant "lifestyle choice" not rooted in truth. They will be cajoled into accepting the idea that subjective factors like "love" and "commitment" outweigh objective factors like the actual state of the parties involved (man/woman/adult/child/sibling/parent/already-married/etc.). The state senator in the video has already acquiesced to that point of view erroneous to her stated faith.
If successful, the same "sweet-mystery-of-life" broadside against any possible objective definition of family will be used to legalize polygamy for the Moslems and Mormons, and later who-knows-what else.
Craig, according to your logic, it would make sense to ban IVF in order to prevent the possibility that a Catholic hospital or doctor might be coerced into performing such a procedure.
Furthermore, it would make sense to ban IVF because advances in IVF technology put us that much closer to cloning.
Looking at this case that involved IVF, it appears that Catholic church doctrine trumped the discrimination claim.
Check out this summary from a pair of letters describing the settlement outcome:
The Romenesko case is solely about alleged discrimination based upon pregnancy and/or sex. The State has thoroughly investigated the alleged discrimination once and concluded that there was no merit to the allegations.
Yes, Sofa King, I believe that a withdrawal of tax exemptions for churches that do not permit female clergy is extremely unlikely in the United States.
Well, okay, I guess, but WHY exactly do you believe that? It is my observations that all prevailing trends and attitudes are suggesting precisely the opposite:
- Is government consistently increasing or decreasing its regulatory scope?
- Is government consistently increasing or decreasing taxation authority?
- Is government consistently increasing or decreasing social behavior modification programs?
There seems to be a clear trajectory to me.
chickenlittle said...
JAC wrote:
Why is it all about reproduction? The very choice to focus on this is the bias. You're choosing to focus on the one detail that distinguishes opposite-sex from same-sex couples.
Why not celebrate and keep special the type of unions that do best perpetuate society?
And if you choose not to, another society may simply overrule your objection.
How about this as an alternative. Why don't we have all the homosexuals everywhere in this country if not the world, just get up and go somewhere and create their own nation; Queertopia, Homopolis, or whatever else they can think of to distinguish themselves from everyone else. That why they can do their own thing, they can be their own country and they can make their own laws and we won't have to hear them complain about how just awful it is to live in America.
Although I am opposed to it, IVF is not part of this discussion. IVF is not the best analogy because the end result of the process is a human, indistinguishable from a natural-born human in every respect.
Now, if scientists someday are foolish enough to create chimeras that are part-human, part-something else, and some political faction starts lobbying for the definition of "human" (and the legal rights appertaining thereto) to be extended to include chimeras, then we have a more germane analogy.
Craig, you are the one who brought up IVF, and now it's not related to this discussion?
Not directly. I wasn't speaking to the morality or immorality of IVF. I only mentioned it among a group of things which are against Catholic doctrine, but for which the state might mandate support, e.g., coverage as part of an employee health plan. The point being, there are many ways for the state to compel the church to act against its own principles; interfering directly with the sacraments is the most blatant, but not the only way.
Right, and I gave you an example of the state ceding to the church and its doctrine in a discrimination case.
Can you give me any case of a lawsuit, centered on a sacrament, that was decided against the church?
“Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,”
So Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and evangelicals aren't people?
Let's see, homosexuals equated their struggle with bigotry, then they equated it with Constitutionality, then they equated with the civil rights movement, then they equated it with slavery, then they wanted 'special rights' above and beyond what regular citizens get in the form of protected class status, and on and on and on.
A vast majority of the citizenry has said no we don't want this. Homosexuals say but we do, and the majority of the citizenry says, why you can already get married, but the homosexuals say nuh-uh, and the majority of the citizenry says uh-huh, and then the homosexuals say, yeah, but it's only to the opposite sex, and the majority of the citizenry says, duh, yeah and?
Miles White said...
So Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and evangelicals aren't people?
Oh, didn't you get the memo? These aren't people, these are e-vil religious fanatics who are taking thousands of years of common observation on relationships and marriage and are trying to apply it to the betterment of society, while the good homosexuals are trying to make everything as right as rain. Because we all know that being a homosexual who wants the ability to marry is the struggle for all peoples basic human rights.
Peter, no thanks. You're asking for cites that indicate checkmate has already happened; I already explained how the current efforts are merely an opening gambit to establish a legal basis for confining church doctrine to private opinions that may not be acted upon. The sacraments are the endgame.
Craig, you are arguing that current law should be configured so as to prevent some future possibilities that you imagine might take place.
There are already plenty of areas in which church doctrine and public policy come into conflict. We've discussed several of them. I've given you an example of the state ceding to doctrine in an employment case.
In the Catholic church, priesthood is considered a sacrament. I'm aware of no credible effort to use the courts to force the Catholic church to open the priesthood to women.
It seems that you believe that the gay issue is going to play out differently than the other areas of conflict. Why is that?
Do you believe that gay activists are more relentless than feminist activists?
it's so easy for str8 folks who have never had to give a second thought to being denied their right to love and marry whomever they please, as many times as they please, to say that this is no biggie and who cares anyway?
when gay folks who have been rejected by their own families, incessantly condemned by their churches, fired from their jobs, been denied housing, prevented from public association, denied being served alcohol, harassed by police, incarcerated, declared insane, institutionalized, given shock treatment, castrated, beaten, and murdered for displaying affection or just walking down the street are told by the electorate that they can continue paying their taxes but they will never be afforded equality under the law for their families and they should just STFU, stop being so "shrill" stop "shoving their lifestyles down our throats" and just pack up and leave the country if they don't like it...well that's just fine and dandy, isn't it ? what the hell are they complaining about ? it's not like they are persecuted or anything. sheesh.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন